Leftist Hypocrisy

Author: Theweakeredge

Posts

Total: 38
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 569
Posts: 19,930
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
 similarly inuits and more northern American
Here I meant natives, to be clear.
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,355
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@RationalMadman
What's your working theory on why the Enlightenment happened in Europe?
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 569
Posts: 19,930
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Greyparrot
If you aren't trying to mock my 'theory' then my 'theory' has zero conflict with that.

It fits perfectly with my theory that caucasians were the ones with that level of discourse across those topics because to have discourse and talk-talk-talk-talk over matters is a trait I believe is primarily prevalent amongst those that evolved to select out those that barely talk given their climate. Hence, many generations later, the ethnicities resulting from that end up being the ones most prone to higher degrees of communication and information-collaborating.
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,355
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@RationalMadman
You know I would never mock you.
Kaitlyn
Kaitlyn's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 857
3
3
5
Kaitlyn's avatar
Kaitlyn
3
3
5
-->
@RationalMadman
I have had a larger theory about difference in certain ethnicities' behaviours and the environment they evolved in being linked but specifically relevant to this discussion is caucasians and travelling as well as passivity.

If you evolved in colder (actually straight up icy for a large enough period) environment, you very quickly had to gang up on violent people or push them away to perish alone in the cold (thus die off, not run off and fuck many women or meet a beastly man at random). This means that over time, it is likely that caucasians and similarly inuits and more northern American (as in Canada and very north part of US) had ensured that the most impulsively violent amongst themselves were minimised over time whereas other cultures probably had them spread the furthest and widest because it's not as instinctive or straightforward in the earlier stages of evolution to justify ganging up on a particularly strong and violent individual if it's open-plain and you don't naturally have the weapons (the weapons used to hunt mammoths etc were perfect for handling gang-up sitations vs a beastly violent individual).

Due to the sheer cold, 'sticking together' was forced, not optional, to maintain good body temperature and stay alive as well as defend the young. This is probably also why white people developed the high 'political intelligence' that is prevalent even today, since you just had to force that to be a trait that was important and selected for when living in close quarters.

This isn't just about literal heat though. There is more to it. It's about the way that colder climates make you feel you need to huddle together. In climates where it was easy to roam alone or in pairs for a long while, a very violent individual would likely, when ambushed or 'exiled' just accept it after defeated and walk off and survive and then meet and rape others, passing on genes.

Of course, I can be talking total nonsense, perhaps what I said is true for caucasians in colder climates ended up a common reason humans were sociable and the most capable species of teamwork but I have a feeling it may explain the headstart they had, the climate forced them to not only work better together but led to those that couldn't 'keep the peace' to perish, as in their bloodline dying out not just themselves.
What time period did you think all this occurred?

If you look at what caucasian cultures are so ridiculously strong at that keeps them 'running the world' it is not 'intelligence', the Asians in particular equal them if not surpass them in this. It is collaborative political maneuvring. I am talking about trends, it also does backfire since people like Hitler, Putin, Stalin, Mussolini and other such dictators end up capable of far more severe damage than tyrants of other ethnicities in other cultures due to the fact caucasians are as a society more open to just socialise and get by with a new maniac in charge, rather than instantly jump to fight them out of power from within they sooner go to war for them on scale/extend that is nationwide in the breadth of obedience and fear that is not quite the same for other tyrants.
White people are pretty resistant to tyrants, actually. That's why Christianity evolved along with White people to be quite stringent and strict on human behavior, because White people (in general) liked to rebel. 

It's the Asian cultures that tend to end up with the worst tyrants, because Asians (in general) value face, peace and harmony over open conflict. Even currently, the CCP is impossible to criticize in China, meanwhile in America, people are calling the president 'sleepy Joe' and openly mocking him.
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 569
Posts: 19,930
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Kaitlyn
Time period is any stage where natural selection was still occurring.

Putin is also impossible to criticise and mock in Russia. Asians, as in East Asians, were historically the most truly vicious ethnicity-group of those prevalent today. The extent of pillaging, rape and psychopathic slavery actually outs what happened in US to shame in terms of breadth and duration of the evil. Search how Japanese Shogun or Mongol Empire ruled and conquered.

I will however drop this tyrant angle, it is clear what I am referring to is easily misunderstood as referring to tendency towards tyranny instead of nationwide embracing vs opposing of tyranny when tyranny occurs.

The time period, to be clear, was even happening past ice age. There is, consequently, a reason why Scandinavia has the most left wing liberal hippy dippy populace today, in the whole world. The key is NOT solely cold or eastern Europe would be it too. It is something deeper that my theory has not cracked yet.

I cannot pinpoint why Russia and Eastern Europe seemed to backfire and be very prone to aggression and impulsive brutality. There must be something more to it. It is a working theory, not a complete solved conclusion.
Kaitlyn
Kaitlyn's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 857
3
3
5
Kaitlyn's avatar
Kaitlyn
3
3
5
-->
@RationalMadman
Time period is any stage where natural selection was still occurring.
For humans? That's roughly 100,000 years. I have no clue how you'd find enough data to support that, let alone a textbox to fit it in.

Putin is also impossible to criticise and mock in Russia. Asians, as in East Asians, were historically the most truly vicious ethnicity-group of those prevalent today. The extent of pillaging, rape and psychopathic slavery actually outs what happened in US to shame in terms of breadth and duration of the evil. Search how Japanese Shogun or Mongol Empire ruled and conquered.
I actually agree with all this.

I don't understand why Russia operates differently to other White countries. Russians are White and they have Christianity. Never seen research on this that explained it.

I will however drop this tyrant angle, it is clear what I am referring to is easily misunderstood as referring to tendency towards tyranny instead of nationwide embracing vs opposing of tyranny when tyranny occurs.
Are you purporting that "nationwide embracing" is the opposite of tyranny? I'm not sure of the former paradigm you've constructed (which seems to be the one you think people misunderstood).

The time period, to be clear, was even happening past ice age. There is, consequently, a reason why Scandinavia has the most left wing liberal hippy dippy populace today, in the whole world. The key is NOT solely cold or eastern Europe would be it too. It is something deeper that my theory has not cracked yet.
It may be that Scandinavia is a genetically gifted part of the world (tallest people, blue eyes and with pretty high I.Q.), hence they don't need strict societal controls to compete worldwide. Meanwhile, places like India generally have shorter people, dull eyes and middling I.Q., hence they have to have strict societal controls to prevent their women from ending up in places like Scandinavia. 

That's the only theory I've heard to explain Scandinavia's liberalism and I haven't seen a lot of data for it.

I cannot pinpoint why Russia and Eastern Europe seemed to backfire and be very prone to aggression and impulsive brutality. There must be something more to it. It is a working theory, not a complete solved conclusion.
By what metric and comparison do you conclude Russians and Eastern Europe are very prone to aggression and impulsive brutality? Are you sure the current war isn't influencing your judgment? 
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,916
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@Kaitlyn
For modern humans it’s about 300,000 years. For humans in general, it’s just under 2 million years. Other humans also lived along side us such as neanderthals, in which caucasian predominantly share said DNA.