If Mort Divine ruled the world

[HamburgerBoy]

Second-wave black metal has always been about busybodies. Imagine getting offended over some shitty left-wing festival when we're talking about a bunch of church-burning gay-murdering fashion-imposing edgelords. I hope this is how black metal dies.

 

[CiG]

Who's offended?

 

[Oblivious Maximus]

Taake should play a competing show at the nearest venue.

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

Dad Caught in Nightmare as Mom Sues Him for Not Forcing 6-Year-Old Son To Act Like Girl

Ugh. What the fuck is this world coming to?

 

[Blurry_Dreams]

Dad Caught in Nightmare as Mom Sues Him for Not Forcing 6-Year-Old Son To Act Like Girl

Ugh. What the fuck is this world coming to?

the part about sex-change operations on children as young as 8-years-old was really creepy-as-hell
i'm all for gender-dysphoria people being able to go get sex-change-operations, but 8-years-old just sounds way to young for this kind of thing

 

[CiG]

It is. No 8 year old should be making life changing decisions about themselves.

 

[Einherjar86]

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/11/16/magazine/tech-design-economics-genes.html

https://aeon.co/ideas/wired-that-way-genes-do-shape-behaviours-but-its-complicated

The effects of genetic variation on other cognitive and behavioural traits are similarly indirect and emergent. They are also, typically, not very specific. The vast majority of the genes that direct the processes of neural development are multitaskers: they are involved in diverse cellular processes in many different brain regions. In addition, because cellular systems are all highly interdependent, any given cellular process will also be affected indirectly by genetic variation affecting many other proteins with diverse functions. The effects of any individual genetic variant are thus rarely restricted to just one part of the brain or one cognitive function or one psychological trait.

What all this means is that we should not expect the discovery of genetic variants affecting a given psychological trait to directly highlight the hypothetical molecular underpinnings of the affected cognitive functions. In fact, it is an error to think of cognitive functions or mental states as having molecular underpinnings – they have neural underpinnings.

Just more food for thought.

 

[Dak]

https://aeon.co/ideas/wired-that-way-genes-do-shape-behaviours-but-its-complicated

The effects of genetic variation on other cognitive and behavioural traits are similarly indirect and emergent. They are also, typically, not very specific. The vast majority of the genes that direct the processes of neural development are multitaskers: they are involved in diverse cellular processes in many different brain regions. In addition, because cellular systems are all highly interdependent, any given cellular process will also be affected indirectly by genetic variation affecting many other proteins with diverse functions. The effects of any individual genetic variant are thus rarely restricted to just one part of the brain or one cognitive function or one psychological trait.

What all this means is that we should not expect the discovery of genetic variants affecting a given psychological trait to directly highlight the hypothetical molecular underpinnings of the affected cognitive functions. In fact, it is an error to think of cognitive functions or mental states as having molecular underpinnings – they have neural underpinnings.

Not sure what the point is here. It's true that cognitions and behaviors have neural underpinnings, and that the brain doesn't have nice neat modularity, and also that as such, likely won't "directly highlight" molecular underpinnings. And?

In other news:

https://www.nationalreview.com/2017...inistration-doj-hillary-clinton-racketeering/

Add this to the emails.

 

[Einherjar86]

Not sure what the point is here. It's true that cognitions and behaviors have neural underpinnings, and that the brain doesn't have nice neat modularity, and also that as such, likely won't "directly highlight" molecular underpinnings. And?

And, it means that genetic/molecular foundations alone aren't predictive of behavior, and therefore are insufficient for making any kind of social judgments on what behaviors particular persons might be genetically predisposed for.

EDIT: I'm sorry, not predisposed for, but rather what behaviors particular persons might exhibit. Predisposition doesn't mean exhibition in the first place, and the neurological layer refracts that association even further.

 

[Oblivious Maximus]

 

[The Ozzman]

It's indoctrination at this point

 

[Oblivious Maximus]

 

[Dak]

And, it means that genetic/molecular foundations alone aren't predictive of behavior, and therefore are insufficient for making any kind of social judgments on what behaviors particular persons might be genetically predisposed for.

EDIT: I'm sorry, not predisposed for, but rather what behaviors particular persons might exhibit. Predisposition doesn't mean exhibition in the first place, and the neurological layer refracts that association even further.

I don't know that it's an accurate characterization to say that the neurological layer "refracts" the association. Rather, it is part of the process of the emergence from basic parts to complex systems. May as well nominate any part of the body as "refractors" of molecular predispositions.

I think the reason for pushback from certain places on this topic is that while there are many possible pitfalls for gene editing etc in unintended mutations, the real concern is that knowledge of associations or even the arguments of associations are going to run afoul of equalist dogma. "New Phrenology!" and all that. I have concerns about gene editing, but that isn't one of them.

 

[Blurry_Dreams]

at first i didn't even notice the years on the dates at the top
if the dates were closer together, it would have just looked like someone who is schizophrenic or Multiple Personality Disorder

 

[Einherjar86]

I don't know that it's an accurate characterization to say that the neurological layer "refracts" the association. Rather, it is part of the process of the emergence from basic parts to complex systems.

...

May as well nominate any part of the body as "refractors" of molecular predispositions.

That's true, we may as well.

I think the reason for pushback from certain places on this topic is that while there are many possible pitfalls for gene editing etc in unintended mutations, the real concern is that knowledge of associations or even the arguments of associations are going to run afoul of equalist dogma. "New Phrenology!" and all that. I have concerns about gene editing, but that isn't one of them.

I think the reason for pushback among scientists is science (although that doesn't necessarily exclude dogma).

 

[Dak]

...

I know why the smiley, but I don't hold emergence as a magic wand that renders the foundations as irrelevant. Garbage in, garbage out still applies.

I think the reason for pushback among scientists is science (although that doesn't necessarily exclude dogma).

Scientists aren't really any less prone to religiousity.

 

[Einherjar86]

I know why the smiley, but I don't hold emergence as a magic wand that renders the foundations as irrelevant.

Irrelevant? I've never said that just because the behaviors of, say, bees give rise to emergent complexity that can't be reduced to a single bee means the bees themselves are irrelevant.

Scientists aren't really any less prone to religiousity.

Hence my parenthetical comment. But if that's the case, then it's true that genetic determinists are victims of their own dogmatic vision. You can't absolve some scientists of dogmatic influence while accusing others. Liberal dogma is neither the only kind out there, nor the overwhelmingly dominant one.

 

[Dak]

Irrelevant? I've never said that just because the behaviors of, say, bees give rise to emergent complexity that can't be reduced to a single bee means the bees themselves are irrelevant.

I don't mean the bees but the bee-ness of bees. And the differences between bee types. Those differences manifest at both individual and hive (emergent) levels.

Hence my parenthetical comment. But if that's the case, then it's true that genetic determinists are victims of their own dogmatic vision. You can't absolve some scientists of dogmatic influence while accusing others. Liberal dogma is neither the only kind out there, nor the overwhelmingly dominant one.

Well hard genetic determinism is a bridge too far. There are various contingent factors, but at the same time there are genetic parameters. Even the the worst of upbringings wasn't going to render the proverbial (or specific) Einstein as intellectually disabled (barring traumatic brain injury), and no amount schooling is going to turn an intellectually disabled person into a proverbial Einstein.

Liberal (or progressive) dogma is indeed not overwhelmingly dominant...outside of the US/Europe. It appears to be an unfortunate cultural mutation, a byproduct of unique environmental selection, which will lead to its own extinction.

 

[rms]

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/articl...-degrasse-tyson-sexual-allegations-four-women

 

[The Ozzman]

Nobody believed the first one because he's black science man