Separate schools for ill-behaved students

[The Free Joy State]

I haven't read the book, but when you think about it a justice system doing this is unironically a good thing.In Northwest Europe, Between 1500 and 1750, court-ordered executions removed 0.5 to 1.0% of all men of each generation, with perhaps just as many dying at the scene of the crime or in prison while awaiting trial. The upper classes also had higher fertility than the lower classes and created a surplus that flooded into the lower class and outcompeted it for land. Preventing somebody whose parents (whose genes they carry) were unable to procure bread for whatever reason from getting bread (removing them from the gene pool), along with harsh penalties for crimes committed by low-trust people (such as stealing) are both things which would ultimately go towards creating a society in Northwestern Europe in which the vast majority of children would no longer be threatened by starvation thanks to industrialisation, and in which a functioning welfare state contributed to by a large majority of the working-age population would protect the downtrodden and needy from starvation. Considering the entire world was like a giant Africa at the time and most people were farmhands sleeping in filthy hovels, from our perspective you cannot say an extremely harsh judicial system in early modern Europe was a bad thing. In my opinion they were not harsh enough. Early modern absolutism was not necessarily a bad thing either, the House of Bourbon were just incompetent degenerates by the end of it and Louis XVI was a simp who got lead around by his wife, plus the first actually long-lasting democracies that weren't the result of violent starvation-fuelled revolutionary chimpouts were very classist at first when choosing who to give suffrage. None of this is a bad thing and you can argue that in the context of developing the western world into what it is today, many of the people who railed against change back then had a point.

The French Revolution would ultimately be spearheaded by the rising star nouveau riche bourgeoisie, who were an upper crust of the third estate that no doubt IQmogged the peasants of France into oblivion for both genetic and environmental reasons.

Why do I get the feeling the people arguing so strenuously for eugenics would never be part of the elite it benefited?

Probably because very few people would benefit from such a system.

And yet people campaign for harsher penalties ("Twenty years for stealing a packet of crisps! The death penalty for jaywalkers!") and cry for eugenic policies (like cutting all welfare and mandating abortion) in the same way people who live paycheque-to-paycheque vote for parties that want to reduce minimum wage and gut workers' rights.

Quite possibly, some people don't believe the things they support will ever bite them.

[Tupolite]

The thought of jerks being punished for their behaviour with menial jobs has become a popular revenge fantasy, yet we are relying on capitalism to do it.

Capitalism, in case you haven't noticed, doesn't have a strong track record on dispensing justice.

However, we already have a good picture even by middle school of what sort of person someone is. Some of them have a track record of repeatedly touching classmates inappropriately. Some have a track record of being as respectful as possible to classmates and teachers alike. Some have a track record of multiple acts of violence. Some of them wouldn't hurt a fly.

Clearly, they are not all equally worthy of others' tax dollars, let alone equally worthy the same jobs.

When an adult breaks the law, they go to prison. Their criminal record pretty much precludes them from working anywhere other than prison. By creating an exception for teenagers (who, historically, were considered adults) we're at worst incentivizing a "now or never" approach to crime, and at best we're flipping off better people by saying they get nothing for being better people.

So why not just segregate people in high school, based on prior behaviour, into schools for those who are morally upstanding citizens and schools for those who are not? Whatever happened to "act like a thug and you'll be treated like one"?

Two words: corporal punishment.

[Bolivarian Amerikwa]

The thought of jerks being punished for their behaviour with menial jobs has become a popular revenge fantasy, yet we are relying on capitalism to do it.

Capitalism, in case you haven't noticed, doesn't have a strong track record on dispensing justice.

However, we already have a good picture even by middle school of what sort of person someone is. Some of them have a track record of repeatedly touching classmates inappropriately. Some have a track record of being as respectful as possible to classmates and teachers alike. Some have a track record of multiple acts of violence. Some of them wouldn't hurt a fly.

Clearly, they are not all equally worthy of others' tax dollars, let alone equally worthy the same jobs.

When an adult breaks the law, they go to prison. Their criminal record pretty much precludes them from working anywhere other than prison. By creating an exception for teenagers (who, historically, were considered adults) we're at worst incentivizing a "now or never" approach to crime, and at best we're flipping off better people by saying they get nothing for being better people.

So why not just segregate people in high school, based on prior behaviour, into schools for those who are morally upstanding citizens and schools for those who are not? Whatever happened to "act like a thug and you'll be treated like one"?

Two words: corporal punishment.

This is the first and hopefully the last time I tell anyone to watch Stefan Molyneux talk about something, but he of all people will probably get through to you on why it's kind of dumb actually.
https://psychohistory.com/books/foundat ... childhood/
One feature of Northwest Europe inside the Hajnal Line as modernity approached was a sharp reduction in infanticides, especially of baby girls (which has always been rather common in societies with intensive agriculture and patriarchal social structures). Smacking your kids is ooga booga savage tier

[The Free Joy State]

The thought of jerks being punished for their behaviour with menial jobs has become a popular revenge fantasy, yet we are relying on capitalism to do it.

Capitalism, in case you haven't noticed, doesn't have a strong track record on dispensing justice.

However, we already have a good picture even by middle school of what sort of person someone is. Some of them have a track record of repeatedly touching classmates inappropriately. Some have a track record of being as respectful as possible to classmates and teachers alike. Some have a track record of multiple acts of violence. Some of them wouldn't hurt a fly.

Clearly, they are not all equally worthy of others' tax dollars, let alone equally worthy the same jobs.

When an adult breaks the law, they go to prison. Their criminal record pretty much precludes them from working anywhere other than prison. By creating an exception for teenagers (who, historically, were considered adults) we're at worst incentivizing a "now or never" approach to crime, and at best we're flipping off better people by saying they get nothing for being better people.

So why not just segregate people in high school, based on prior behaviour, into schools for those who are morally upstanding citizens and schools for those who are not? Whatever happened to "act like a thug and you'll be treated like one"?

Two words: corporal punishment.

Two more words: doesn't work.

[Tupolite]

Two words: corporal punishment.

Two more words: doesn't work.

Balderdash. It's just like any other form of operant conditioning. Use presentation of a negative stimulus to decrease frequency of behavior. I maintain the strongest conviction that men can be disciplined if smacked with a large enough stick.

[Bolivarian Amerikwa]

Two more words: doesn't work.

Balderdash. It's just like any other form of operant conditioning. Use presentation of a negative stimulus to decrease frequency of behavior. I maintain the strongest conviction that men can be disciplined if smacked with a large enough stick.

You also condition them to associate discipline with a large stick, this is like shame-based morality on steroids with physical pain instead of just bullying. Instead of encouraging them to develop whatever innate capacity they might have for affective empathy and recognising that their actions are wrong regardless of whether or not they suffer for them, you teach them that they can't do something BECAUSE they will get hit if they do it. Bro we don't even hit our fucking domestic animals, what makes you think hitting kids will deliver better results? Dogs are about as intelligent as toddlers and hitting them fucks them up. How do you think those people are going to view disciplining others and discipline in general afterwards? Maybe this is a strategy that could be considered in a shithole where the average IQ is lower than the temperature, but not wherever you're posting this from that has a reliable internet connection.

[Kaedijork]

We sort of already do this. Ill-behaved students tend to also be dumber overall and thus struggle academically. Their anti-social behavior tends to keep them out of extracurricular activities, and because of those factors, they tend to find themselves naturally segregated from everyone else. Smart kids might take AP classes and thus never have be in a room with them. Socially-adjusted kids in clubs and sports will also have little in common with them as well.

These kids tend to struggle until they are eventually out of school (whether through flunking out or graduating due to the school basically pushing them along). Some get their act together and turns their lives around, and end up joining the working class. Others degenerate into criminals.

We already do have remedial schools for the kids that keep getting in trouble at normal schools too much and end up posing a threat to other students.

Of course, public schools have been so bad at dealing with these problems that parents who can almost invariably put their kids in private schools or move to a nice suburb that doesn't have these miscreants.

I can tell you that most of the ill-behaved students, in Australia at least, are most definitely heavily involved in extra-cirrucular activities - namely, sport.

[Tupolite]

Balderdash. It's just like any other form of operant conditioning. Use presentation of a negative stimulus to decrease frequency of behavior. I maintain the strongest conviction that men can be disciplined if smacked with a large enough stick.

You also condition them to associate discipline with a large stick, this is like shame-based morality on steroids with physical pain instead of just bullying. Instead of encouraging them to develop whatever innate capacity they might have for affective empathy and recognising that their actions are wrong regardless of whether or not they suffer for them, you teach them that they can't do something BECAUSE they will get hit if they do it. Bro we don't even hit our fucking domestic animals, what makes you think hitting kids will deliver better results? Dogs are about as intelligent as toddlers and hitting them fucks them up. How do you think those people are going to view disciplining others and discipline in general afterwards? Maybe this is a strategy that could be considered in a shithole where the average IQ is lower than the temperature, but not wherever you're posting this from that has a reliable internet connection.

All humanitarian considerations pale before the need that a society should be well-ordered and well-disciplined. If the future of a society starts with the children, then the troublemakers must be put in line until they get the point.

[Telconi]

Balderdash. It's just like any other form of operant conditioning. Use presentation of a negative stimulus to decrease frequency of behavior. I maintain the strongest conviction that men can be disciplined if smacked with a large enough stick.

You also condition them to associate discipline with a large stick, this is like shame-based morality on steroids with physical pain instead of just bullying. Instead of encouraging them to develop whatever innate capacity they might have for affective empathy and recognising that their actions are wrong regardless of whether or not they suffer for them, you teach them that they can't do something BECAUSE they will get hit if they do it. Bro we don't even hit our fucking domestic animals, what makes you think hitting kids will deliver better results? Dogs are about as intelligent as toddlers and hitting them fucks them up. How do you think those people are going to view disciplining others and discipline in general afterwards? Maybe this is a strategy that could be considered in a shithole where the average IQ is lower than the temperature, but not wherever you're posting this from that has a reliable internet connection.

This is the functional basis of our society, might as well teach 'em young.

[Kaedijork]

Two more words: doesn't work.

Balderdash. It's just like any other form of operant conditioning. Use presentation of a negative stimulus to decrease frequency of behavior. I maintain the strongest conviction that men can be disciplined if smacked with a large enough stick.

HAH, funny this, I'm actually just taking a break from revising this topic for my upcoming psychology exam. Operant conditioning has two forms - punishment and reinforcement. Of this, there are two sub-types of each one. Negative punishment is the taking away of a pleasant stimulus when an undesired behaviour is performed, such as 'you don't get your Xbox for a week because you didn't do your homework.' Positive punishment is the addition of a negative stimulus, such as pain through spanking. The same sort of 'positve= adding a stimulus' and 'negative=removing a stimulus' applies for positive and negative punishment.

Now, it is in fact so widely accepted within the psychological community at this point that punishment is much less effective at conditioning an individual into a desired behavioural pattern than reinforcement, that is taught in the curriculum. There are many reasons for this:
- Punishing a behaviour doesn't actually teach the individual the desired behaviour, just not to do that one specific thing. Punish a student for talking in class, doesn't mean that they aren't gonna perform other delinquent behaviours, or talk in someone else's class who doesn't punish them. [/i]Reinforcement[/i] on the other hand rewards them for being well-behaved in general; there isn't one specific thing that they are learning, they have to adapt their entire demeanour to satisfy the requirements for receiving the reward.
- Punishment requires many more contiguous and contingent exposures to form the association between the behaviour and negative emotional response. The uptake for reinforcement is always far quicker (and more specific to the goal of producing the desired behaviour) than punishment.
- Punishment suffers extinction far quicker than reinforcement. Extinction means the loss of the association between the behaviour and emotional response - if that if the behaviour is not contiguously and contingently reinforced/punished each time is performed, the association will die off. If a kid gets away with something a couple of times without punishment, all the learning is pretty much lost. However, if they are not reinforced sometimes for the good behaviour, it can actually increase the likelihood of performing the behaviour again - this is because the 'partial reinforcment' schedule or 'variable ratio' schedule produces an unpredictability - they aren't ever sure when they'll get the reward, but because they want the reward, they'll keep performing the behaviour until they do. It's the same principle with gambling.
I could continue but you get the picture. Punishment, especially corporal punishment, which is a form of positive punishment (the least effective type) is really shit for shaping behaviour. There's a reason that it was dropped besides ethics - it simply objectively didn't work.

[Bolivarian Amerikwa]

You also condition them to associate discipline with a large stick, this is like shame-based morality on steroids with physical pain instead of just bullying. Instead of encouraging them to develop whatever innate capacity they might have for affective empathy and recognising that their actions are wrong regardless of whether or not they suffer for them, you teach them that they can't do something BECAUSE they will get hit if they do it. Bro we don't even hit our fucking domestic animals, what makes you think hitting kids will deliver better results? Dogs are about as intelligent as toddlers and hitting them fucks them up. How do you think those people are going to view disciplining others and discipline in general afterwards? Maybe this is a strategy that could be considered in a shithole where the average IQ is lower than the temperature, but not wherever you're posting this from that has a reliable internet connection.

All humanitarian considerations pale before the need that a society should be well-ordered and well-disciplined. If the future of a society starts with the children, then the troublemakers must be put in line until they get the point.

If you discipline your children by hitting them you make them retarded, this is demonstrable.

Furthermore, if you want society to be well-ordered and well-disciplined you need it to be high trust and full of people with a well-developed sense of empathy as well. People who cannot properly consider the viewpoints of others or even what would happen if everybody were to do what they did will make awful decisions, people who are motivated not to do things with a big stick will not be very good at holding promises and keeping deals when you force them to. For the effects of what you are suggesting, look to how people behave in Mainland China (as opposed to Singapore and Taiwan) according to people who visit and do business there from the West. Agreements aren't honoured, the Chinese have a saying that if something is too good to be true, it isn't (there's always a catch to good-sounding agreements). When a child is run over in China, nobody helps them because if they did the government would force them to pay for the child's healthcare.

Those people are insanely collectivist too, just lower trust than people from inside the Hajnal Line from a mix of culture-gene coevolution and being subjected to the CCP (largely the former at the end of the day). Let's look at societies where people are at the level of purely hitting each other with sticks to dish out discipline because of how low-trust and disorganised their countries are, and stuff like so-called jungle justice is unironically defended (Africa).

Rule of law is a suggestion and it's not always followed. Turning up to work on time is an issue and in some African countries they pay people daily, because if they paid them weekly they would just stop turning up to work. Can you imagine national socialism or whatever political programme you support being enacted in Nigeria by Nigerians, in a country where people throw their trash on the sidewalk and necklace people if they catch them running after a theft at a market? They would have to be extremely brutal to get people to collaborate and they would still fucking bungle it because in a low-trust society people will just do as little work as possible and selectively honour agreements because they have no appreciation for or allegiance to those around them. Do you think what was achieved in Europe before 1945 that you fanboy over was achieved with a gun held to the head of the average person? Maybe if you pretend to believe what you claim to out of a desire to be edgy, but in actual fact being high-trust and having a high capacity for affective empathy was what allowed the people in those European countries to get as far as they managed to - Hitler's bureaucracy was in many ways a dogfight, do you think that kind of mess could have been sustained in Africa? Seriously, your mentality is unironically third world (I mean that in the least flamey way possible, this how people in countries far outside the Hajnal line are basically forced to think and behave), if you sincerely thought that the people you belonged to were truly muh mustard race or whatever you believe you might be less inclined to assume that they were all so retarded they need to be beaten to understand basic decency. You seem like you want to see a white Mugabe that kicks the Jews out of your Zimbabwe and then starts acting retardedly tyrannical for no good reason. Have you even interacted with bureaucrats or the police force in any meaningful amount yet?

Given your worldview you probably believe Northwest European white people's greatest flaw is that they are "cucky" or whatever. You realise what this is a negative way of framing, right? We should remove troublemakers from the gene pool so we can continue advancing into social territory where it is possible to not behave like animals towards our own children, that should be the end goal.

[Tupolite]

Balderdash. It's just like any other form of operant conditioning. Use presentation of a negative stimulus to decrease frequency of behavior. I maintain the strongest conviction that men can be disciplined if smacked with a large enough stick.

HAH, funny this, I'm actually just taking a break from revising this topic for my upcoming psychology exam. Operant conditioning has two forms - punishment and reinforcement. Of this, there are two sub-types of each one. Negative punishment is the taking away of a pleasant stimulus when an undesired behaviour is performed, such as 'you don't get your Xbox for a week because you didn't do your homework.' Positive punishment is the addition of a negative stimulus, such as pain through spanking. The same sort of 'positve= adding a stimulus' and 'negative=removing a stimulus' applies for positive and negative punishment.

Now, it is in fact so widely accepted within the psychological community at this point that punishment is much less effective at conditioning an individual into a desired behavioural pattern than reinforcement, that is taught in the curriculum. There are many reasons for this:
- Punishing a behaviour doesn't actually teach the individual the desired behaviour, just not to do that one specific thing. Punish a student for talking in class, doesn't mean that they aren't gonna perform other delinquent behaviours, or talk in someone else's class who doesn't punish them. [/i]Reinforcement[/i] on the other hand rewards them for being well-behaved in general; there isn't one specific thing that they are learning, they have to adapt their entire demeanour to satisfy the requirements for receiving the reward.
- Punishment requires many more contiguous and contingent exposures to form the association between the behaviour and negative emotional response. The uptake for reinforcement is always far quicker (and more specific to the goal of producing the desired behaviour) than punishment.
- Punishment suffers extinction far quicker than reinforcement. Extinction means the loss of the association between the behaviour and emotional response - if that if the behaviour is not contiguously and contingently reinforced/punished each time is performed, the association will die off. If a kid gets away with something a couple of times without punishment, all the learning is pretty much lost. However, if they are not reinforced sometimes for the good behaviour, it can actually increase the likelihood of performing the behaviour again - this is because the 'partial reinforcment' schedule or 'variable ratio' schedule produces an unpredictability - they aren't ever sure when they'll get the reward, but because they want the reward, they'll keep performing the behaviour until they do. It's the same principle with gambling.
I could continue but you get the picture. Punishment, especially corporal punishment, which is a form of positive punishment (the least effective type) is really shit for shaping behaviour. There's a reason that it was dropped besides ethics - it simply objectively didn't work.

The greatest deal of research into psychology over the past 70 years was the work of left-wing elements that desire to erode society through negative social engineering and present apologia for the most worthless people, so I never took these claims seriously.

[Bolivarian Amerikwa]

The greatest deal of research into psychology over the past 70 years was the work of left-wing elements that desire to erode society through negative social engineering and present apologia for the most worthless people, so I never took these claims seriously.

You are like a white version of those black Israelites who insist that everything contradicting their worldview must have been created by white devils who hate them. Academia is not a monolith.
No nuance, no grains of salt to take anything with, ooga booga they jewish me no listen. We have the internet bro, it's easier to look into what numbers have been fudged and which haven't than ever, you have no excuse. Are you gonna believe in world ice theory too big guy?

[Thepeopl]

The words of Isaac Asimov spring to my mind.
Violence is the last resort of the incompetent

If we want to learn kids not to use violence, we the teachers (we) should refrain from using it ourselves.
Most kids easily assimilate behaviour by watching society. (Be it their own family, school or even media)

A lot of ill behaviour is due to boredom. Not fitting in the curriculum because they either don't learn that way or because it is too easy.

Also we should provide healthy food in school. Especially in poor areas. Fruit in morning and afternoon.
Freshly prepared vegetables as lunch, with vegetarian protein. All that sugar and additives can really mess up a kid. And hungry people can't learn as easily as non hungry people.
https://bonjourparis.com/food-and-drink ... l-lunches/

[Bolivarian Amerikwa]

vegetarian protein.

Legit cringe.
My sons and daughters will be eating liver and animal fat while your limp wristed soy children subsist on soy lectin and cricket-based vitamin sludge because it's "healthier" (it demonstrably isn't). Please never be responsible for the diet of another person.

[Thepeopl]

vegetarian protein.

Legit cringe.
My sons and daughters will be eating liver and animal fat while your limp wristed soy children subsist on soy lectin and cricket-based vitamin sludge because it's "healthier" (it demonstrably isn't). Please never be responsible for the diet of another person.

Nice try,
https://www.healthlinkbc.ca/health-topics/tu6533


https://www.thehealthy.com/food/things- ... much-meat/

https://relay.nationalgeographic.com/pr ... ing-amount

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/322825.php

[Tupolite]

All humanitarian considerations pale before the need that a society should be well-ordered and well-disciplined. If the future of a society starts with the children, then the troublemakers must be put in line until they get the point.

If you discipline your children by hitting them you make them retarded, this is demonstrable.

Furthermore, if you want society to be well-ordered and well-disciplined you need it to be high trust and full of people with a well-developed sense of empathy as well. People who cannot properly consider the viewpoints of others or even what would happen if everybody were to do what they did will make awful decisions, people who are motivated not to do things with a big stick will not be very good at holding promises and keeping deals when you force them to. For the effects of what you are suggesting, look to how people behave in Mainland China (as opposed to Singapore and Taiwan) according to people who visit and do business there from the West. Agreements aren't honoured, the Chinese have a saying that if something is too good to be true, it isn't (there's always a catch to good-sounding agreements). When a child is run over in China, nobody helps them because if they did the government would force them to pay for the child's healthcare.

Those people are insanely collectivist too, just lower trust than people from inside the Hajnal Line from a mix of culture-gene coevolution and being subjected to the CCP (largely the former at the end of the day). Let's look at societies where people are at the level of purely hitting each other with sticks to dish out discipline because of how low-trust and disorganised their countries are, and stuff like so-called jungle justice is unironically defended (Africa).

Rule of law is a suggestion and it's not always followed. Turning up to work on time is an issue and in some African countries they pay people daily, because if they paid them weekly they would just stop turning up to work. Can you imagine national socialism or whatever political programme you support being enacted in Nigeria by Nigerians, in a country where people throw their trash on the sidewalk and necklace people if they catch them running after a theft at a market? They would have to be extremely brutal to get people to collaborate and they would still fucking bungle it because in a low-trust society people will just do as little work as possible and selectively honour agreements because they have no appreciation for or allegiance to those around them. Do you think what was achieved in Europe before 1945 that you fanboy over was achieved with a gun held to the head of the average person? Maybe if you pretend to believe what you claim to out of a desire to be edgy, but in actual fact being high-trust and having a high capacity for affective empathy was what allowed the people in those European countries to get as far as they managed to - Hitler's bureaucracy was in many ways a dogfight, do you think that kind of mess could have been sustained in Africa? Seriously, your mentality is unironically third world (I mean that in the least flamey way possible, this how people in countries far outside the Hajnal line are basically forced to think and behave), if you sincerely thought that the people you belonged to were truly muh mustard race or whatever you believe you might be less inclined to assume that they were all so retarded they need to be beaten to understand basic decency. You seem like you want to see a white Mugabe that kicks the Jews out of your Zimbabwe and then starts acting retardedly tyrannical for no good reason. Have you even interacted with bureaucrats or the police force in any meaningful amount yet?

Given your worldview you probably believe Northwest European white people's greatest flaw is that they are "cucky" or whatever. You realise what this is a negative way of framing, right? We should remove troublemakers from the gene pool so we can continue advancing into social territory where it is possible to not behave like animals towards our own children, that should be the end goal.

You're a unique one, I'll give you that. Pacifism and eugenics are not positions usually held in common by the same individual. I think I'll respond with a quote:

"Struggle is at the origin of all things, for life is full of contrasts: there is love and hatred, white and black, day and night, good and evil; and until these contrasts achieve balance, struggle fatefully remains at the root of human nature. However, it is good for it to be so. Today we can indulge in wars, economic battles, conflicts of ideas, but if a day came to pass when struggle ceased to exist, that day would be tinged with melancholy; it would be a day of ruin, the day of ending."
- Benito Mussolini, 1920

You seem to believe that the aim of human activity should be to reach some utopian condition of peace among all people through mutual trust. I consider that proposition far more ridiculous than what I propose. In any case, subjecting undisciplined children to physical pain is but a means to teach them to respect the rules set forth by authority and accommodate them ultimately to a military form of existence which would be shared by everyone.

[Tupolite]

The greatest deal of research into psychology over the past 70 years was the work of left-wing elements that desire to erode society through negative social engineering and present apologia for the most worthless people, so I never took these claims seriously.

You are like a white version of those black Israelites who insist that everything contradicting their worldview must have been created by white devils who hate them. Academia is not a monolith.
No nuance, no grains of salt to take anything with, ooga booga they jewish me no listen. We have the internet bro, it's easier to look into what numbers have been fudged and which haven't than ever, you have no excuse. Are you gonna believe in world ice theory too big guy?

And you're a technocratic positivist, I believe. You also seem to feel like you have something to prove by constantly saying, "I'm like a white version of x black nationalist."

[Bolivarian Amerikwa]

Legit cringe.
My sons and daughters will be eating liver and animal fat while your limp wristed soy children subsist on soy lectin and cricket-based vitamin sludge because it's "healthier" (it demonstrably isn't). Please never be responsible for the diet of another person.

Nice try,
https://www.healthlinkbc.ca/health-topics/tu6533


https://www.thehealthy.com/food/things- ... much-meat/

https://relay.nationalgeographic.com/pr ... ing-amount

Mad cow is easy to avoid and not even present in all countries (just don't eat shit like T bone meat that is close to the spine), fresh meat and seafood do provide decent vitamin C (see the Masai and Inuit, for modern westerners this can be found in organ meats and should obviously be supplemented with plant foods anyway) that initial experiments on guinea pigs (who cannot eat much meat) used to popularise the current narrative underestimated, the planet is fucked anyway and making room for 4 billion new Africans to serve as cheap labour in the West is cuckoldry (I hope I make self-righteous rich people who take regular plane trips like Greta Thunberg cry bitter tears when my CO2 contributes to making harvests fail the Sahel, they can suck my nuts), and lastly the kind of LDL that is actually linked to heart attacks is raised by eating high-sugar foods, not high-fat foods. Too much fibre can cause leaky gut. The UN reports telling us to eat less meat disingenuously because it's unhealthy, when in actual fact they want the 50% of plant agriculture that currently feeds animals to feed billions of worthless people, should be taken with even more grains of salt than people who sungaze and eat six eggs a day.

[Tupolite]

The words of Isaac Asimov spring to my mind.
Violence is the last resort of the incompetent

On the contrary. Violence is the power of highly organized masses, unified by an ideal conveyed as myth, remaking the world in the form of that ideal. Organized mass violence is the most sublime power of man as a political entity, by which stagnant models are torn down and new ones constructed.

[Kowani]

The words of Isaac Asimov spring to my mind.
Violence is the last resort of the incompetent

On the contrary. Violence is the power of highly organized masses, unified by an ideal conveyed as myth, remaking the world in the form of that ideal. Organized mass violence is the most sublime power of man as a political entity, by which stagnant models are torn down and new ones constructed.

Today I learned Somalia is a unified country.

[Bolivarian Amerikwa]

You are like a white version of those black Israelites who insist that everything contradicting their worldview must have been created by white devils who hate them. Academia is not a monolith.
No nuance, no grains of salt to take anything with, ooga booga they jewish me no listen. We have the internet bro, it's easier to look into what numbers have been fudged and which haven't than ever, you have no excuse. Are you gonna believe in world ice theory too big guy?

And you're a technocratic positivist, I believe. You also seem to feel like you have something to prove by constantly saying, "I'm like a white version of x black nationalist."

I'm trying really hard not to say the N word on this forum, but you have the same mentality as those people. The mentality that the average European is inclined to have as a result of culture-gene coevolution and that western civilisation (which I'm sure you claim to love dearly) was built upon is not this one. Maybe in the Middle Ages in Northwest Europe, when people north of the Alps had the genetic potential for an average IQ of a bit over 90, but not since the beginning of anything that could be referred to as modernity. Your views on how society should operate would not seem to foreign to people in Africa or Asia, and it's not because the Jews have destroyed white people's brains. If you hate the modern world that much, I'd recommend you read Industrial Society and Its Future and Anti-Tech Revolution: Why and How by Theodore J Kaczynski for a worldview free of cognitive dissonance and wignattery.

[Bolivarian Amerikwa]

The words of Isaac Asimov spring to my mind.
Violence is the last resort of the incompetent

On the contrary. Violence is the power of highly organized masses, unified by an ideal conveyed as myth, remaking the world in the form of that ideal. Organized mass violence is the most sublime power of man as a political entity, by which stagnant models are torn down and new ones constructed.

This is something else I wanted to add - behaving like a melanated gentleman is not the kind of violence that is virtuous. Beating your kids because they drew on the wall with crayons is not sublime like fighting for an ideal in an organised manner. Societies which are violent but in a low-trust and retarded way are terrible at fighting actual wars: see Arabs

[Tupolite]

On the contrary. Violence is the power of highly organized masses, unified by an ideal conveyed as myth, remaking the world in the form of that ideal. Organized mass violence is the most sublime power of man as a political entity, by which stagnant models are torn down and new ones constructed.

Today I learned Somalia is a unified country.

Somalia is a bandit-ridden African basketcase. Don't be stupid. Even in the most civilized nations of the West, there are a great many leeching demographics which could stand to be purged mercilessly.

[Thepeopl]

Why is that a bad thing? If I was of poor genetic quality, maybe less people like me should exist. Maybe if I was honest I would recognise that I suffer for my innate flaws and issues, and not wish those upon people who will come after me. If I was of low genetic quality and my descendants were for sure going to be subhumans, and I was holding back the existence of a better man in the future by polluting the gene pool with my presence in it, why should I personally have any qualms with you removing me from it? If you were to go as far as personally blowing my brains out I might kick and scream and whine just like people who jump off bridges generally regret it after they're flying off the edge because I have the brain of an animal that it programmed to survive for as long as possible and propagate its genes, but morally and rationally I still don't really see the issue with it. If a government that actually (for the first time in the better half of a century since it was discontinued all over Europe and North America) cared about bettering the human condition saw it fit to remove me from the gene pool, I don't see what qualms I could have with it. Why should I? If somebody was to knock on my door and clinically list all my heritable negative attributes which make society a filthier, more violent, lower-trust, stupider, uglier place when a large number of people have them, what argument can I realistically come up with against what they're doing? If a really epic government handed me a piece of paper with "stupid high time preference piece of shit retard" under my name, what am I supposed to say? I didn't know people were entitled to reproduce, and I'm pretty sure that a selling point of abortions is that people in poverty (which has a genetic component) getting them prevent the suffering of their potential progeny.

https://thoughtcatalog.com/roseminda-na ... ed-parent/

https://rootedinrights.org/disabled-peo ... -children/

And note: most children born of handicapped parents are not handicapped themselves.