If Mort Divine ruled the world

[CiG]

Stop being a wimp and vote however you want to, it's literally your right.

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

Yea I literally don’t want to vote for any of these fucks

 

[CiG]

Abstention is part of the right.

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

Yup I agree. I’m just around people that constantly want me to explain why. My nihilistic point of view isn’t good enough for them. I wont support more corporatists and this corrupt system. It’s just that simple

 

[rms]

Jimmy some times you comment like you're 17 years old

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

Ha that’s probably true. I’ve been smoking too much recently idk.

I really just don’t care about politics to be honest. Maybe that sounds dumb but it’s just the truth

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

Here’s a recent meme my brother sends me. Just baiting me really.

 

[CiG]

Glad my family aren't gay fucking annoying activist types like that.

 

[Oblivious Maximus]

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Here’s a recent meme my brother sends me. Just baiting me really.

That was the logic I used in 2016 voting for Johnson but the years immediately following have convinced me that it's a shitty strategy. I mean, I should have realized that just by seeing the relative success of Ross Perot's platform in 1992 and how both major parties only pivoted harder towards globohomo rather than trying to channel some of Perot's energy.

 

[Einherjar86]

Reading this, I wish more women in the psychological and behavioral sciences took the time to actually comment on the perceived "refusal of biology" among (usually leftist) intellectuals. This article offers a good historical analysis:

Bateman’s research with fruit flies, published in 1948, reported that males did indeed show more variation in reproductive success, and that there was a stronger link between promiscuity and reproductive success in males than in females. Bateman’s principles are the foundation of the familiar idea that, because dispensing sperm is cheap, but harbouring and nurturing an egg is costly, females tend to be sexually choosy and inclined to reserve their favours for the best male on offer. Meanwhile, males – who, unlike females, have much to gain from winning multiple mates – are ardent and competitive by near-universal evolutionary design.

But consider an unexpected observation made in the 1970s by the primatologist Sarah Blaffer Hrdy: female langur monkeys in South Asia tended to have multiple sexual partners. This flew in the face of received wisdom; theoretically, as Hrdy drolly observed, female promiscuity ‘should not have existed’. But by paying attention to females, she produced unexpected data that challenged existing scientific models.

Hrdy’s observations with langurs also resonate with more recent critical scrutiny of Bateman’s work with fruit flies. As the evolutionary biologists Zuleyma Tang-Martinez and Brandt Ryder note, Bateman’s conclusion that only males benefit from promiscuity applied to just two of his six series of experiments. The other four series showed the same beneficial pattern for females, albeit to a weaker extent. Yet Bateman focused on the results that fit the polarised notion of competitive males and choosy females. This selective emphasis was then perpetuated by others, meaning that the unexpected benefits to females of multiple mates gained no traction in the literature. Analysing the last two series separately was a decision, part of the construction of a scientific finding, made for reasons that remain unclear. A subsequent re-analysis of all of Bateman’s data, pooled together, led to a finding of sex similarity in the effects of multiple mates on reproductive success.

https://aeon.co/essays/trumped-up-charges-of-feminist-bias-are-bad-for-science

Put another way, what a lot of critics often describe as a refusal of biology (or science at large) is more often a dispute concerning purported "objective" findings that turn out, under scrutiny, to be artificially engineered (either by selection or some other facet of the experiment). The majority of gender critics and feminist scientists aren't opposed to biology, or some such; they're suspicious of a history of scientific practice that's been done by men. There are good reasons for such suspicion.

 

[CiG]

The very notion of a "feminist scientist" makes me suspicious. I mean it's hilarious even to consider the idea of someone who is ideologically biased in a very specific way calling into question all science carried out by males.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Apparently the whole r-type vs k-type selection thing came a couple decades after the original theories of female reproductive selection, but the implications are obviously open to a spectrum of female sexual selection. Plus, a tiny bit of googlefu is telling me that the established exceptions to the rule tend to involve females with faster reproductive rates anyways. Anyone can find an exception if using the entire world to look for one, just like how in Tibet there is allegedly some traditional isolated tribe that practices a matriarchal society (though I've also heard that the tribe's practice was heavily biased by a tourism industry in search of the fabled woman-dominated culture). Whatever the case of their validity (and I'm someone that believes nearly everything physically possible has, is, or will be true at some point in time), these exceptions are generally more fascinating to social iconoclasts than actual scientific researchers.

 

[Einherjar86]

The very notion of a "feminist scientist" makes me suspicious. I mean it's hilarious even to consider the idea of someone who is ideologically biased in a very specific way calling into question all science carried out by males.

Well before there were feminist scientists there was a largely male body of scientists who selected their findings to support cultural expectations among humans. Donna Haraway's work on the history of primatology has some case studies. I think it makes sense to be suspicious of science done in the 1940s/'50s by men when evidence comes to light that their work wasn't reflective of the full spectrum of results.

At any rate, I simply wish more women in the sciences spoke up about political misrepresentations of their work. I don't think it's about calling all men into question, but staying attuned to the possibilities of gender bias in men's scientific work (particularly from the mid-twentieth century and prior). History has shown egregious examples of it; less so today, but then there are more women in the sciences today.

Apparently the whole r-type vs k-type selection thing came a couple decades after the original theories of female reproductive selection, but the implications are obviously open to a spectrum of female sexual selection. Plus, a tiny bit of googlefu is telling me that the established exceptions to the rule tend to involve females with faster reproductive rates anyways. Anyone can find an exception if using the entire world to look for one, just like how in Tibet there is allegedly some traditional isolated tribe that practices a matriarchal society (though I've also heard that the tribe's practice was heavily biased by a tourism industry in search of the fabled woman-dominated culture). Whatever the case of their validity (and I'm someone that believes nearly everything physically possible has, is, or will be true at some point in time), these exceptions are generally more fascinating to social iconoclasts than actual scientific researchers.

I think the impetus of the piece has less to do with the particulars of the exception and more to do with how the purported "standard" formed part of a cultural prescription on sexual tendencies, i.e. promiscuous males and choosy females. But interesting, I'll have to read more about the findings (I don't know anything beyond this piece).

 

[CiG]

It's amazing that this man consistently out-retards Trump. It shouldn't even be possible yet here we are.

 

[Einherjar86]

I think Trump is out-retarding Trump. Seriously, how has no one posted the Axios interview?

 

[CiG]

Yeah I saw portions of that interview, it was horrendous. But I don't think that was retardation, that was Trump going in thinking he had an iron clad set of data that fit his agenda and having no contingency plan when challenged. Biden on the other hand cannot actually speak the English language at this point. It's not even funny anymore, I think he needs aged care.

This is the clip I saw btw:

 

[Einherjar86]

Yeah I saw portions of that interview, it was horrendous. But I don't think that was retardation, that was Trump going in thinking he had an iron clad set of data that fit his agenda and having no contingency plan when challenged. Biden on the other hand cannot actually speak the English language at this point. It's not even funny anymore, I think he needs aged care.

If we're comparing speaking capacity, Trump's is no worse than Biden's. But America loves its old white men.

 

[CiG]

Eh I completely disagree. Trump is uneducated, Biden is disintegrating biologically.

 

[Oblivious Maximus]

Is that the interview where Biden says Latino's are more free-thinking than blacks?