How do third world shitholes exist? They have leaders and stuff right?

Boy_vs_Girl
Boy_vs_Girl

How do third world shitholes exist? They have leaders and stuff right?

Why aren't countries making like 8 nuclear power plants and exporting batteries or some shit.

All urls found in this thread:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-4V3HR696k
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6qa_2yhE2k
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Transracial_Adoption_Study
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Twin_Family_Study
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Transracial_Adoption_Study
farquit
farquit

Because people with such skills gtfo out of third world shitholes. It's a self reinforcing problem.

haveahappyday
haveahappyday

Most of the costs of a battery comes from manufacturing them, not charging them up.

5mileys
5mileys

@Boy_vs_Girl
Because of corruption and crime.

Why would some honest-working man in a 3rd world Latin American shithole open up a store when he knows it will probably get robbed/looted and they'll get away with it because they're either in cahoots with police or police don't give a fuck because there's 1000 murders a day?

he wouldn't. He'd simply join them, be poor or try to immigrate to a new, civilized country and start his business there.

Firespawn
Firespawn

This video sums it up pretty nicely https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-4V3HR696k

CouchChiller
CouchChiller

@Firespawn
Why do landlocked countries exist ffs

ZeroReborn
ZeroReborn

@Firespawn
Pretty good vid, did a nice job of explaining shit

New_Cliche
New_Cliche

@Boy_vs_Girl
People in third world countries are lazy and laid back. As a result they wound up being lead by corrupt leaders. None of them like it, but they are too disorganised to do anything about it - and if they do they replace their corrupt leadership with whoever promises them the most gibsmedats - again, because they're lazy and don't want to work.

Nojokur
Nojokur

the problems of africa can be squarely blamed on two races

black, and white

Lunatick
Lunatick

@Boy_vs_Girl
Where are they going to get the money to build this? And if your answer is "lol borrow it like we do XD", who the fuck would loan to third-world shitholes?

Crazy_Nice
Crazy_Nice

If not for corruption and niggotry, you know third world countries could be a very lucrative investment.

StonedTime
StonedTime

@farquit
This, but also corruption and lack of infrastructure. The lack of infrastructure may be directly related to corruption, however.

Need_TLC
Need_TLC

@Boy_vs_Girl
because its everyone for himself in those countries. Once a 3rd world person gets in charge of something he will try to milk the most profit out of it for himself and make off with it.

Nude_Bikergirl
Nude_Bikergirl

@Lunatick
well china loans to the usa, and its a third world shithole

Crazy_Nice
Crazy_Nice

@Nude_Bikergirl
Because it's a safe investment

Harmless_Venom
Harmless_Venom

@Boy_vs_Girl
Some reason that apes don't have civilised societies. The people in those countries simply aren't capable of cooperating on a large scale and caring about anything outside of themselves, or thinking long term. That's why corruption and chaos are inevitable in south american and african countries

Deadlyinx
Deadlyinx

@Firespawn
Nice video. It explains pretty clearly some of the main reasons why poor nations are poor, but doesn't show the whole picture. Precisely it doesn't talk about some of the more "politically incorrect" reasons, and it doesn't go in depth on the "why" of some of these reasons (which give you a completely different, and sometimes even opposite, idea of the issue if you ignore their reasons).

Skullbone
Skullbone

@Firespawn
i have to move out of my country.
i guess simply impossible to unlock my potential here.

whereismyname
whereismyname

@Deadlyinx
Precisely it doesn't talk about some of the more "politically incorrect" reasons
such as?

I think it got into that with tribalism.

viagrandad
viagrandad

because 3rd world countries will be labeled as terrorist nations if they create nucelar power plants

Skullbone
Skullbone

@whereismyname

Its because blacks and spics are lower IQ. It illustrates how you can burn germany and japan to the ground and they can become first world again in five years.

SniperGod
SniperGod

My brothers and Sisters
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6qa_2yhE2k

Para predumat Eradication

BlogWobbles
BlogWobbles

@whereismyname
such as?
I'm talking about the genetic differences.
Each race evolved according to the environment they spent millennia in, and evolved to have stronger advantages in some areas and weaker features in others. Depending on what favored survival and reproduction.

There's this absurd taboo where you can talk about the effects human evolution had on the different races all you want, but as soon you mention it affected the brain as well, you're labled as a bigot, racist, ignorant, etc.

It's undeniable that some races have a higher IQ than others.
This doesn't mean that lower-IQ races have a weaker brain, but rather that their brain works differently and is stronger in other areas that aren't relevant for an IQ test (since it measures specific mental abilities).
For example, a hypothetical race that blows out of the water the other ones in a field that's not measurable by IQ (an artistic one perhaps), will be vastly superior in that field, but won't necessarily have a high IQ because of it.

That said, most of the abilities necessary for running complex societies and for the creation/use of complex systems, are those measured by IQ tests.

Therefore, some races might be genetical geniuses in things not reflected by their IQ, but those thing won't help them build bridges, get ahead in science, or invent the wheel.

One of the weaker areas blacks have is the ability to think to the future (which is reflected directly in their ability to think of the consequences), which is slightly lower than in other races.
Also blacks tend to be genetically more impulsive and violent, and this (summed to the other points) makes them belligerent and reckless, which has caused them to be in constant wars with each other since basically forever.

Think about those characteristics and everything about them will be clearer.

(1/3)

StonedTime
StonedTime

@whereismyname
@BlogWobbles
(Cont.)

Look at what happened to the African countries that were controlled by whites and blacks decided they had to be controlled by blacks, like South Africa and Rhodesia.
They went from being the most promising countries in the continent, to utter shitholes in record time.
Rhodesia was considered "the Switzerland of Africa" and it even exported goods.
They decided to take the fields from whites to give them to blacks which found the fields too complex to cultivate, so the entire agricultural sector (on which the country's economy was based) failed, destroying the country.
Now it has a monthly inflation rate of over 80 Billion percent (2008 data, which I imagine would be dwarfed by the current one).
South Africa had similar problems too (as well as every predominantly-black areas in other countries).

(2/3)

CouchChiller
CouchChiller

@whereismyname
@BlogWobbles
@StonedTime
(Cont.)

Of course the environment they live in has an effect on all this. If you grow up in a poor country/area where crime is the norm, and where there are no opportunities to get an education, of course you're not going to become a valuable member of society.
However, we should ask ourselves, why are all black societies like this? Why do other races and groups face extreme hardships and then get together to build a better place, while blacks around the world are always in the gutter?
Societies are built by the people who live in them. it's not a coincidence or a conspiracy that everywhere blacks live, the place turns into a shithole, and it's not because non-blacks always ruin it for them. It's blacks who always ruin it for themselves.

Other countries and races didn't get better institutions and societies by pure luck. They got them through years of progress.
Where are the millennia of progress of black societies?
Is it because of bad luck that they always ended up this way?

Maybe they're simply less capable of being civilized (for reasons I've partially discussed above).
Or maybe it's just constant bad luck throughout the millennia, while every other race is always lucky and never had any adversity.

Also Islam promotes cousin-to-cousin marriages that make them inbred and, on top of the health issues, makes them literally stupid. This is a well known phenomenon in the Arab world.

I think it got into that with tribalism.
Tribalism is only a small part of that.

(3/3)

Sorry for being too verbose. English isn't my first language and this is how I'm able to communicate.

FastChef
FastChef

@BlogWobbles
@StonedTime
@CouchChiller
And just to specifiy:
Obviously there are many blacks who are civilized and very smart, as well as whites and asians who are utter animals.

It's in fact a matter of ratio. The percentage of uncivilized and low-IQ blacks is far larger than the amount of similar people in other races.
(refer to the bell curve graph here @Skullbone
).

Besides, I think people of any race can be brought up with good values and while they may not reach the level of whites and asians, they can still be upstanding and valuable members of society (see how black Americans in the 50s and 60s were going in the right direction before letting their societies fall to pieces again).

Stupidasole
Stupidasole

Widespread corruption and poor institutions are the biggest reasons. Followed by general laziness in part caused by hot climate and lower iq.

lostmypassword
lostmypassword

@Deadlyinx
Eh, religion is a meme reason. That mattered back in the age of usury and stuff, it doesnt matter now.

hairygrape
hairygrape

@Skullbone
le iq
You dont even know what iq is senpai. If you grew up in an African tribe youd be just as retarded as them.

Playboyize
Playboyize

@Skullbone
@BlogWobbles
@StonedTime
@CouchChiller
@FastChef
You're forgetting a few things. For starters, there are plenty of poor Asian countries (the entirety of SEA, Korea until the U.S. dumped a massive amount of money on them), which basically throws out your whole "poors are only poor because they're black" argument. (No, you can't say that they're just lower IQ asains, because you supported @Skullbone
which directly contradicts @BlogWobbles
)
That aside....
It's not that Blacks aren't set up for civilization, it's that they're not set up for agriculture, the requirement to have a civilization, hence why supposedly high IQ Whites and Asians such as the Sami and Mongols never developed one either.
Now, onto your next post about South Africa and Rhodesia. Yes, South Africa and Zimbabwe are shitty because of the blacks, but there's a reason for that besides them being black. In both the blacks were systematically oppressed. I know, >WHITEYS BE KEEPIN US DOWN N SHEIT, but they were. They couldn't get the same education, they weren't allowed to use the infrastructure the colonialists built (which may I remind you were the minority), were subject to different laws, etc. As a result when they inevitably revolted against a system that treated them as third-class citizens in their own countries, they weren't educated and didn't know how to run a country because they weren't given the option to.

I've already countered your third post with the first and second paragraph, but I would like to say that tribalism has a very large role in not just why African countries are poor, but why they operate the way they do which you went over a bit in your own posts, you just called it genetics instead of tribalism.

SniperGod
SniperGod

>>1372657
What year was the study done in and where?

VisualMaster
VisualMaster

@hairygrape

This isn't true.

Check the adoption study. Negroes adopted by rich whites still unperformed.

@SniperGod
America.
Research is timeless.

Also inb4 you dig up some dirt on the research (which i doubt), just google for another one. They are all pretty much the same.

CodeBuns
CodeBuns

@VisualMaster
I know, but which city? And again, what year? There's a reason I'm asking.

that pic
Show me one directly from a study, with a direct link to the source.

Ignoramus
Ignoramus

@VisualMaster
This doesnt say black kids perform worse. Its mixed race.

It says white and asians are better parents, which coukd be tied to geberal socio economic theory.

I know Blacks have slightly smaller beains, but across the bullshit and drama of a normal work enviroment they dont perform any worse.

That being said,I think forced genetics programs should exist. Black people have the ugliest teeth that they put inti their kids, that should be illegle.

BinaryMan
BinaryMan

@Playboyize
You're forgetting a few things. For starters, there are plenty of poor Asian countries (the entirety of SEA, Korea until the U.S. dumped a massive amount of money on them), which basically throws out your whole "poors are only poor because they're black" argument. (No, you can't say that they're just lower IQ asains, because you supported @Skullbone
which directly contradicts @BlogWobbles
)

We're talking about the video here, which is about those poorest countries listed (all but one were African).
I never said non-black countries can't be poor. Plenty of countries are poor for reasons other than "black people fuck it up", such as those asian you listed, Eastern Europe, South America, and others (in different periods).
I was specifically talking about the fact that the video, in talking about those 20 countries, didn't mention one of the key reasons, that is genetics (and the culture stemming from the behavior their genetics make them have).

It's not that Blacks aren't set up for civilization, it's that they're not set up for agriculture, the requirement to have a civilization, hence why supposedly high IQ Whites and Asians such as the Sami and Mongols never developed one either.
Two exceptions don't make the rule.
Also we're both overgeneralizing here, by grouping all asians and all blacks together. Of course there are big differences between peoples of different parts of those continents, but it doesn't change the overall trend, where people from those countries still act civilized and have a regular IQ, and people from most sub-saharian Africa are consistently underperforming in terms of IQ abilities and in civility (whether they are in Africa, or in any other country, they still act the same way).

(1/5)

AwesomeTucker
AwesomeTucker

@Playboyize
(Cont.)

Now, onto your next post about South Africa and Rhodesia. Yes, South Africa and Zimbabwe are shitty because of the blacks, but there's a reason for that besides them being black. In both the blacks were systematically oppressed. I know, >WHITEYS BE KEEPIN US DOWN N SHEIT, but they were. They couldn't get the same education, they weren't allowed to use the infrastructure the colonialists built (which may I remind you were the minority), were subject to different laws, etc. As a result when they inevitably revolted against a system that treated them as third-class citizens in their own countries, they weren't educated and didn't know how to run a country because they weren't given the option to.
Oppression isn't exclusive to blacks. Plenty of peoples have been through even worse hardships and managed just fine (obvious oversemplification, but we're on Veeky Forums so i don't care). Only blacks managed to fuck up this much.
We're talking about absurd levels of crime, not being able to operate the electric grid system causing huge power outtages, not being able to cultivate fields to grow food.
We're not talking about building cold-fusion reactors here user. It's relatively easy to learn how to operate that kind of equipment.
Also the fact that they didn't have education and were left ignorant is false. Africans in those countries, while yes, they were second-class citizens and had less rights, could still go to universities and receive an education.
Maybe not as many blacks were highly skilled, but being the majority, they still had a significant part of the population which was educated.

(2/5)

JunkTop
JunkTop

@Playboyize
(Cont.)

Also it's not just about those countries, but all of those under white colony. They all got way worse after whites left. Each and every one of them. The Chinese government is now buying fields, mines, and various white-built infrastructures that Africans left to rot until the Chinese came and put it to work (using local workers, so it's clear that they can at least work there if they have someone to direct them).

Anyway, we're arguing about countries that merely lost what whites gave them. What about those other african countries? Where are their civilizations?
Those that never had them are barely starting to get them now (with everything that whites and asians gave them, in terms of money, inventions, etc), and those that had them, managed to run them into the ground.
Plenty of nations managed to go from starving to thriving. Look at Scandinavia, or China after the "Great Leap Forward", or Russia, etc.

(3/5)

PurpleCharger
PurpleCharger

@Playboyize
(Cont.)

tribalism has a very large role in not just why African countries are poor, but why they operate the way they do which you went over a bit in your own posts, you just called it genetics instead of tribalism.
Tribalism is only part of the problem, as both tribalism and genetics play a big role into why nothing works. They're not the same thing that we're both calling in two different ways, as they have different effects (and tribalism only affects African governments, and not black populations outside of Africa).
Also it can't be the only (or even the main) reason, since it's a problem that affects many other countries that don't have those levels of poverty. Italy is notorious for this problem and there are many infrastructural and logistical problems because of this, but they still manage to be productive and relatively civilized, and are still light years ahead of Africans, under every point of view.
coincidently, most of these problems are located in the south (and they gradually decrease the more you go north), where people are mixed with the Arabs that invaded them a few centuries ago.

And even if it were the main reason for Africa's demise, then why does Africa have such a destructive tribalism problem in the first place?
Did the whities give it to them?
Why don't other countries have the same problems (even with the same phenomenon, they're still not devastated like in Africa).
Why it's a problem in all their communities (read up on how corrupted Detroit became under black people, they had the exact same problem).

(4/5)

CodeBuns
CodeBuns

@Playboyize
(Cont.)

It's obviously because it's an insignificant issue, because for it to be significant, the people who get to be chosen through this system must be significantly worse than the rest of the population.
Do you seriously believe those people of the tribes in control end up being always the most incompetent while the competent ones are always left jobless?

For example, when the government needs an accountant, they hire one of a specific tribe, chosing him whether he's the best or worst of the candidates.
This way a sub-optimal situation is created because the best aren't hired, but unless the hired one is a complete retard, then the difference must be marginal (not counting those situations where the chosen one is the best anyway).
Also, depending on the country, people belonging to the ruling tribe/ethnicity have more rights than people of other ones (OMG black people oppressing someone? It can't be true!), making them more likely to have access to a better education, and therefore more likely to be the better prepared one.

(5/5)

BunnyJinx
BunnyJinx

@CodeBuns
@Ignoramus
Here are other two (they're connected and I suggest you to read them both to have a clearer picture):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Transracial_Adoption_Study
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Twin_Family_Study

The notion that we're a blank canvas and our imprinting and upbringing makes the entirety of who we are is completely false.
Obviously factors like those have their own weight, but genetics play a much more important role. Especially if we're talking about a general trend of a population (as opposed to the character of a specific individual).

Look up "racial gap sat score" or some variation of that.
Black students underperform white students of the same income level by a significant margin, and even poor white students outperform the rich black ones from the nicer areas.
That's why black people have significantly lower requirements for getting into universities (and in some universities asians are even penalized). They score so low that they would have no chance of getting in without being specifically helped (at the expense of actual deserving students who are left out to make place for dumb blacks who wouldn't be able to get in otherwise).

This is obviously a huge issue because of cases like pic related, where your society is now made of dumb and incompetent people in charge of things they may not comprehend, creating issues that would have been avoided with simple meritocracy.

I wouldn't want to be operated by a black (or any other overadvantaged minority) doctor in America, simply because I wouldn't have the guarantee that this person is in that position because of their competence (as opposed to being there because of affirmative action and similar programs).
If a white or asian is a doctor, I'm sure it's because they worked to be there, so their competence is guaranteed and I can trust them. With blacks there will always be some degree of uncertainty because of this.
I went a bit off-topic here. I apologize.

StrangeWizard
StrangeWizard

@BinaryMan
@AwesomeTucker
@JunkTop
@PurpleCharger
@CodeBuns
@BunnyJinx

I didn't proofread and I'm sure there are tons of mistakes of every kind (I noticed I typed "cultivate" instead of "farming". In my language they're the same word).

I hope it's still clear.

Stupidasole
Stupidasole

@Nojokur
black, and niggers
ftfy

massdebater
massdebater

@BunnyJinx
Why would I look up the racial gap sat score if the general socio economic theory can apply to that too?

Yeah hiring favors women and minorities. Doesn't apply here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Transracial_Adoption_Study

sample size of 130
Poverty stricken area.

Go have 100 blacks adopted by millionaires in new york, then have 100 adopted by tribal families in Africa. They will perform better in terms of IQ, they are even more likely to be alive.

IQ is how quickly a child enters a certain development stage. It means NOTHING more. It's associated with things such as higher income because if a child doesn't feel safe with somebody, they develop slower, and lower income families have more drunks and general child abuse. Places like Africa, the children aren't even safe.

Raving_Cute
Raving_Cute

@Boy_vs_Girl
Read Guns, germs, and steel.

Harmless_Venom
Harmless_Venom

@Raving_Cute
Mate I don't really want to reply with a man riding a zebra but I might have to.

cum2soon
cum2soon

@massdebater
Why would I look up the racial gap sat score if the general socio economic theory can apply to that too?
You wouldn't have said this if you just took the 5 minutes to google it.
It's obviously divided by income levels.
Poor white kids outperform rich black kids by a significant margin.
Are you telling me blacks in America are so disadvantaged that even when they're rich their life is worse than that of poor whites?

Yeah hiring favors women and minorities. Doesn't apply here.
I don't understand what you mean. Can you please rephrase?

@massdebater
sample size of 130
Maybe it's not conclusive, but it's still a valid input that completely matches how things look in real life.
Using Occam's Razor, we can consider the notion that genetics play a significant role in how a person acts and thinks (as well as in their mental ability) the likely hypothesis, since it has less assumptions because it's what we all clearly see and experience. You would need a lot of assumptions to justify the notion that imprinting and upbringing are 100% of the factors that influence a person's mind, which is completely ridiculous to imply that genetics play a role in literally everything but the brain and that everyone is born with equal potential.
This is also reinforced by numerous other studies, one of which is the other one I linked (which you obviously ignored because it has a sample size of over 8000 pairs).

If people are born with different intellectual potential then it's a variable that, like almost everything else in the human body, is affected by race.

(1/3)

takes2long
takes2long

@massdebater
(Cont.)

The same reasoning can be applied to the notion that some races (when it comes to mental skills relevant to IQ tests) aren't as good as some other races.
It's simply self-evident and to refute that you need to come up with assumptions that imply that it has nothing to do with genetics and that every race has somehow the same intelligence when real life shows clear trends that match perfectly their tests, their societies, the crimes they commit, and even the way they speak.
Everything leads to the same obvious conclusion that we all knew was true for centuries until someone decided reality was offensive and that we need to pretend we're all equal to protect inferior people's precious feelings.

We silently accept that some races are stronger than others, some have better resistance to some diseases, etc. but suddenly we need to make tons of excuses to justify intelligence as the product of external factors and god forbid it's even partially because of genetics. Completely laughable.

Poverty stricken area.
The whites that outperformed them lived in the same area.

(2/3)

Bidwell
Bidwell

@massdebater
(Cont.)

Go have 100 blacks adopted by millionaires in new york, then have 100 adopted by tribal families in Africa. They will perform better in terms of IQ
On average black kids adopted by millionaires in NY will outperform genetically identical kids adopted by bushmen in Africa, simply because upbringing certainly has its effect, but if adopted by the same families, the white kids will on average outperform the black ones. This has been proven by all sides of the qustion. If you choose to not believe it, its your choice.

IQ is how quickly a child enters a certain development stage. It means NOTHING more. It's associated with things such as higher income because if a child doesn't feel safe with somebody, they develop slower, and lower income families have more drunks and general child abuse. Places like Africa, the children aren't even safe.
1- The transracial adoption study features kids from 7 to 17 years old, so not all of them were children.
2- The twin family study features kids from 11 to 17 years old, so not exactly children.
3- But most importantly, the most important data (the SAT racial gap), which is as widespread as it gets, features students of all ages and the focus is more on college-aged students, so definitely no children here. It also considers income levels, so you can't even justify it by saying that they grow up in poverty, since (as it has been clear since the beginning but you seem to pretend to ignore it) the comparison is always made between students of the same income level.
Whether rich or poor, blacks come after latinos, which come after whites, which come after asians. This is universal and not only has been proven by every single fucking thing that measured it, but also by real life (just look at the average person and community, and you'll see it reflects the measured IQs of their race perfectly).

(3/3)

lostmypassword
lostmypassword

@Raving_Cute
Jared Diamond and that book have been thoroughly debunked (and the book is notorious for being full of stuff thet he literally made up) and he's known for pushing his agenda and not being impartial at all.
He's hugely biased because, deliberately or not, he says things that are useful for convincing you of what he wants you to believe.
Literally "Made up Excuses and Liberal Propaganda: The Book".

Hardly a book you should even consider for learning something

But it's a popular book, how can it be full of lies?

Playboyize
Playboyize

@Harmless_Venom
One of the Rothschilds trained them to pull his carriage just for kicks.

Gigastrength
Gigastrength

@massdebater
IQ is how quickly a child enters a certain development stage. It means NOTHING more.

That's retarded man. Where did you learn that and why do you believe it?

Take a monkey (the animal not being racist) that's had some safe perfect upbringing and a human with whatever you imagine would be bad and compare their IQs. Now compare with a well raised dog as well for good measure. Hopefully you will learn something about the importance of genetics.

I mean your theory is dumb in and of itself.
Elon Musk had a tough upbringing - mega successful genius.
Genghis Khan grew up in a very tough inhospitable environment - one of the greatest leaders of all time, obviously smart.

I really hope you reconsider your position, it upsets me for someone to be so wrong.

Sharpcharm
Sharpcharm

3rd world country markets get flooded with charity free shit which makes it impossible for free enterprise to take root and expand in the SMB space.

Snarelure
Snarelure

@Gigastrength
I think he meant that at a young age IQ doesn't represent genetic intellectual capabilities because if a kid enters development quickly it qill be higher regardless of his actual potential, while a genius that develops more slowly will have an IQ (whan measured as a child) way lower than the retard who developed quicker.

He's still wrong overall though.

Firespawn
Firespawn

@lostmypassword
Recommend some other books, and sources that debunked it. I genuinely want to learn more.

ZeroReborn
ZeroReborn

@Firespawn
I don't feel like the right person to make that suggestion. I might suggest you some readings I liked, but I don't know what kind of person are you and with such a theme I don't know of anything "universal" that I can suggest to anybody, and the wrong book will sidetrack you and mess your opinions up more.

I suggest you to start googling for some of the basics (read from reputable sources, not from some neonazi blog) and you'll find what books to read along the road.

You can try opening a thread on /pol/ on this topic and ask for some entry suggestion, but research everything before reading, since there are a lot of retards on /pol/.

I don't have any source for the debunking as I researched it years ago when I read the book, as I do with many others.
This is obviously easy to remember since it's such a famous book that so may people swear on.

BinaryMan
BinaryMan

@AwesomeTucker
Oppression isn't exclusive to blacks. Plenty of peoples have been through even worse hardships and managed just fine
like who?

JunkTop
JunkTop

@ZeroReborn
I don't have any source
what a shocker

Fried_Sushi
Fried_Sushi

@ZeroReborn
I'm fairly ignorant as far as history goes, anything not overly technical should do it. I asked you because of all you were commenting. I assume you've read a lot of legit sources.

Thanks anyway. Once I'm done with this book I'll check some more. I have no plans of getting sources from /pol/ though, as they would simply offer the other side of the coin. Maybe I can try /sci/ or /his/.

Soft_member
Soft_member

@Fried_Sushi
the guy you're responding to is literally a /pol/tard just regurgitating shit he heard there from white supremacists just fyi, there's a reason he couldn't give you any actual sources to back up his claim

SomethingNew
SomethingNew

@Soft_member
I wouldn't be surprised, but I like to ask for sources and learn more.

lostmypassword
lostmypassword

@SomethingNew
and you absolutely should, but when someone comes back at you with an "I uhh can't remember the source" after giving you a very strong opinion that should set off some serious red flags that they're full of shit.

DeathDog
DeathDog

@BinaryMan
like who?
It would take less time to Google "oppressed groups people history" than to ask me and wait for me to spoonfeed you.

Also thanks for being so respectful in your three posts, now I'm certainly going to waste time on you giving you something you could have Googled in 10 seconds.
(actually I wasted even more time writing this, but it doesn't matter).

@JunkTop
Do you keep track of unimportant things you read multiple years ago, just in case you talk about something you learned in them and need to prove it to someone?
Come on, that's an unreasonable expectation.
Also it takes 10 seconds to Google "anthropologist criticism jared diamond" or "anthropologist debunk jared diamond" or any other variation.

@Soft_member
I feel you're just butthurt you disagree with what I said and can't refute my arguments so you bitterly attack me with ad-hominems saying all I say is made up.

I'm not even white and I visit /pol/ very rarely (and all my opinions preceded my first visit there).

I just don't have the sources I personally read. Would you be happier if I googled some and gave them to you?
I chose to be honest and saying I don't have them instead of lying to you and pretending to be someone I'm not.

@Fried_Sushi
I assume you've read a lot of legit sources
I'm not really into this kind of stuff. I just have diferent interests and I'm curious about basically everything, so I end up reading various things and picking up knowledge from here and there. That's why I'm not the right person. I'm simply not an expert on the matter and I'll surely suggest you something wrong.

Anyway, even if I suggested something to you, how would that prove anything? I could have just googled some credible-looking book and told you to start from there. It would have been very easy to pretend to be an expert, but I have no reason to on a fucking anonymous image board.

ZeroReborn
ZeroReborn

Western Imperalism

eGremlin
eGremlin

@lostmypassword
All the above. (@DeathDog
)
I don't care what you think. My arguments are based on facts and not just made up opinions. You can google each and every thing and you will find all the answers you want.

Again, I don't care what you think and I gain literally nothing from being here arguing anonymously with people. inf act, I'm wasting a lot of time I'm supposed to be spending on other things, just because I'm too much of an aspie to not respond.

Also, your entire argument is based on my single post about how Jared Diamond isn't considered a credible person (and his book isn't credible either), which is clearly not my opinion but the general consensus of people educated in the related fields.
Now you invalidate all my arguments and "strong opinions" (which is laughably false, since I clearly stated from the first post where I praised the "politically correct" video, saying it's a mix of many factors and genetic heritage is only one of them. This is literally the opposite of a strong opinions since it's basically saying "it's not one thing or the other, but it's a bit of both the sides". I may have argumented saying "politically incorrect" things, but I needed to in order to argue that genetics is also a significant factor we shouldn't ignore).

JunkTop
JunkTop

@Firespawn
geographic deteminism

Spazyfool
Spazyfool

@Firespawn
That's the trouble with "popular science" books such as GGaS. There's never a "popular science" book to refute it. The answer and debunkings will always lie in dry research papers, written sometimes before the book came out, and hardly ever as responses to them.

As a layman with both little knowledge and access, your only hope is that some historian or other scientist with little to do will use his knowledge do discuss/criticize the work.

I know it's
reddit
but this is a pretty good refutation of one of Jared Diamond's chapters, and you'll learn to see the many mistakes (deliberate or not) he includes in his book.

reddit.com/r/badhistory/comments/2bv2yf/guns_germs_and_steel_chapter_3_collision_at/

Do note that this specific sub is known for intrinsic bias.

haveahappyday
haveahappyday

Many peoples of the world aren't interested in "more".

It's very much a white thing. And also an asian thing.

But when you think about it, are we so right in our thirst for evolution? Are we that much happier with all this stuff? And look at some of the ptoblems progress has caused.

Emberfire
Emberfire

@Spazyfool
Thanks! I get where you're coming from, I'll give it a read.

Inmate
Inmate

@Gigastrength
No what I said was 100% accurate and you are a dumbass for taking iq tests that seriously. You didnt put yours on your resume did you? Rofl.

Go take a childs iq test and tell me how a 5% fluctuation in performance is gonna change how I approach defending my client in court or auditing a company.

Sat readings on the other hand, are interesting results.

Deadlyinx
Deadlyinx

@haveahappyday
You are suppossed to be dead, Rousseau.

Spazyfool
Spazyfool

@5mileys

try to immigrate to a new, civilized country and start his business there.

And then his shitty kids turn into crybaby 'muh culture' cunts who end up commiting crime, raping teenage girls, wearing trackies and generally just being scum.

AwesomeTucker
AwesomeTucker

@Firespawn
this video was on point with some topics, but then went full Jared Diamond. smooth nigger apologetics going on

StonedTime
StonedTime

@DeathDog
I made the claim, now you prove it for me
that's not how debates work buddy

Lord_Tryzalot
Lord_Tryzalot

@StonedTime
I didn't say that.
I sayd you could have checked easily and it would have taken way less time than asking me.
I would have provided you with everything, like I did with the other Anons who argued like normal people but you decided to be rude from the start.
Why would I give you what you're asking for after that?
You're still not googling anything (which you should regardless, since everything you read on the Internet is unreliable), which would easily prove everything I said, but you still dismiss my opinions because you literally don't want to inform yourself on the matter, expecting someone you just insulted to do it for you.

Also nice ignoring of everything else. You still feel that moral superiority when you manage to nitpick one thing and give an answer to it, right?

You're clearly just a salty liberal unable to argue properly, so you automatically dismiss everything as false and unproven.

@StonedTime
that's not how debates work buddy
implying I'm doing a serious debate.
We're on Veeky Forums buddy. I posted some opinions and argued them with another guy who didn't think like me (and then commented on how a book is generally considered unreliable. Not by me, but by many anthropologists and historians whose work is based on these particular matters), and argued with him exchanging our opinions and data.
Are you so new here that you see two people disagreeing on Veeky Forums and you consider it a serious debate?

Spamalot
Spamalot

@Boy_vs_Girl
The governments refuse to provide the basic infrastructure that makes prosperity possible.

The governments don't care if the rest of their people are poor ignorant peasants, in fact they are easier to control that way.

BlogWobbles
BlogWobbles

@Inmate
Stop being autistic.
It's an indication test, seeing retards go "it's not 100% accurate 100% of the time so it's useless" gets tiring.
If we took IQ's more seriously there would probably be less failures because people could be advised for careers within their potential.

RumChicken
RumChicken

@BlogWobbles
No they wouldnt rofl. Ive already told you why its correlations to other things are mwaningless into adulthood. You are basically saying that solving puzzles as an 8 year old is a better sign of competance than an adult completing the cfa.

SomethingNew
SomethingNew

@Lord_Tryzalot
lose a debate
I j-just wasn't being serious, w-who cares
Pathetic

StrangeWizard
StrangeWizard

@BlogWobbles
If we took IQs seriously the NAACP and women's groups wouldn't be able to extort billions from corporations because blacks and mestizos and women suck at high brainpower skills

Lunatick
Lunatick

it reduces to IQ, which is an acceptable gauge for educ-ability ie how capable a population is for book-learning and acquiring skills. The more share you have of this population, you're going to be just fine. Do you think it is accidental all the nation renown for engineered goods have populations that are normalized >100?

BunnyJinx
BunnyJinx

@SomethingNew
Lose

You literally just claimed all I said was false and this makes you think I lost.

Also nice ignoring of everything else by nitpicking the only thing you could say a logical fallacy about.

Also me saying it wasn't a serious debate isn't an excuse for losing or saying something wrong (which I clearly never did, and you still have to prove otherwise), but the reason why I'm not following any sort of "rule", which is something that you mentioned, not the other guy I was actually arguing with.
I'm not even having a discussion with you on those topics. With you I'm just arguing about how you think everything I said is false and needlessly insulting me instead of having a proper conversation where everyone can learn something.

You're clearly just trolling me (or are too stupid to have a conversation that doesn't look like someone pretending to be stupid).

You wouldn't argue like that if you could actually respond to my arguments, but since you can't (as they're based on easily verifiable facts), you have to resort to petty insults like that one.
But apparently I'm the one who's pathetic...

Garbage Can Lid
Garbage Can Lid

@Boy_vs_Girl
Nepotism

Spamalot
Spamalot

@BunnyJinx
get called out
write a wall of text that says nothing

Disable AdBlock to view this page

Disable AdBlock to view this page