–“Q: Why do people refer to American whites as Caucasian?”—
Of the four major races: Negroid, Australoid, Mongoloid, and Caucusoid, we tend to use the term ‘Caucasian’ to refer to… https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=289135175016713&id=100017606988153
Source date (UTC): 2018-08-31 23:42:05 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1035674113698930689
My answer to Why do people refer to American whites as Caucasian? https://www.quora.com/Why-do-people-refer-to-American-whites-as-Caucasian/answer/Curt-Doolittle?share=7ca80aa6
Source date (UTC): 2018-08-31 23:37:48 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1035673035473399808
no, the middle class rate of reproduction is being hindered by tax burden justified by postmodern deception
Source date (UTC): 2018-08-31 21:23:40 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1035639283095400450
Reply addressees: @Qbeck01
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1035597008042708992
IN REPLY TO:
Original post on X
Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1035597008042708992
—“Question – why do women hate generalizations more than men? Women far more inclined to say “yes but not all X are like that!”, where as men get the idea that trends exist, even if some individuals are outliers to this trend. Is it to do with the risk or social ostracism or one of these female power plays?”— Herd Instinct: Fear of being ostracized, ‘left behind’, or ‘left out of resource consumption’, or having her children face the same, because despite their children’s empirical value to the tribe,women want their children to have the best opportunities for social, economic, and reproductive success. Men think of the tribe (generalization) women think of themselves (solipsism) and their offspring (individualism). Female Herd “who will be harmed by this truth”, -vs- Male Pack “what opportunity can be seized by this truth” Hence why monogamy was a compromise that succeeded by dividing labor, and while no one had perfection each person had a ‘chance’ of benefiting from the division of labor between the genders. The question is, what behavior will men demonstrate now that women are at least marginally as capable in the workforce within the boundaries of the majority of jobs ‘in the middle’ (easy jobs), we are returning to serial marriage, or single motherhood (maternalism). Without invasion by more primitive groups, we would expect to see the return to maternal households in the majority of the underclasses, and save paternal households in the upper classes – as was the case throughout most of history. With the invasion of more primitive groups we should expect to see extermination of the less competitive single motherhood maternal family by the more competitive division of labor between male producers of income and female producers of the next generation. (which is what we are seeing.) To men, everything is a disribution (bell curve). To women everything is a flat line in the making.
—“Question – why do women hate generalizations more than men? Women far more inclined to say “yes but not all X are like that!”, where as men get the idea that trends exist, even if some individuals are outliers to this trend. Is it to do with the risk or social ostracism or one of these female power plays?”— Herd Instinct: Fear of being ostracized, ‘left behind’, or ‘left out of resource consumption’, or having her children face the same, because despite their children’s empirical value to the tribe,women want their children to have the best opportunities for social, economic, and reproductive success. Men think of the tribe (generalization) women think of themselves (solipsism) and their offspring (individualism). Female Herd “who will be harmed by this truth”, -vs- Male Pack “what opportunity can be seized by this truth” Hence why monogamy was a compromise that succeeded by dividing labor, and while no one had perfection each person had a ‘chance’ of benefiting from the division of labor between the genders. The question is, what behavior will men demonstrate now that women are at least marginally as capable in the workforce within the boundaries of the majority of jobs ‘in the middle’ (easy jobs), we are returning to serial marriage, or single motherhood (maternalism). Without invasion by more primitive groups, we would expect to see the return to maternal households in the majority of the underclasses, and save paternal households in the upper classes – as was the case throughout most of history. With the invasion of more primitive groups we should expect to see extermination of the less competitive single motherhood maternal family by the more competitive division of labor between male producers of income and female producers of the next generation. (which is what we are seeing.) To men, everything is a disribution (bell curve). To women everything is a flat line in the making.
Of course it is, for the simple reason that women’s psychological, social, reproductive, and economic interests are in competition with men’s psychological, social, reproductive, and economic interests; and that men’s interests advance the condition of women and children, while women’s interests undermine the compromise between men and women and destroy civilization (really) by uncontrolled hyper consumption, dysgenic reproduction, and political undermining by competing groups. Without women’s votes we would never have had a left leaning president, nor immigration on a scale that has created the conditions for civil war.
Of course it is, for the simple reason that women’s psychological, social, reproductive, and economic interests are in competition with men’s psychological, social, reproductive, and economic interests; and that men’s interests advance the condition of women and children, while women’s interests undermine the compromise between men and women and destroy civilization (really) by uncontrolled hyper consumption, dysgenic reproduction, and political undermining by competing groups. Without women’s votes we would never have had a left leaning president, nor immigration on a scale that has created the conditions for civil war.
In the sense that they misallocate research funds to pseudosciencies, particularly diet, ‘health’, anthropology, sociology and psychology, then yes. In the sense that they prohibit research into eugenics such as stem cell research and human genome improvement, then yes. In the sense that they deny races, the harm of diversity, and the near universal importance of Intelligence and industriousness, then yes. In the sense that they leave technological investment to the private sector instead of partnering on high capital investment technologies, then yes. In the sense that they underfund NASA, and the high cost of non-mathematical research into the physical universe, then yes. in the sense that they underfund the PRODUCTION of military hardware that works and practice incremental improvement including the supply chain, rather than fund experimental military hardware that is of very limited value, then yes.
In the sense that they misallocate research funds to pseudosciencies, particularly diet, ‘health’, anthropology, sociology and psychology, then yes. In the sense that they prohibit research into eugenics such as stem cell research and human genome improvement, then yes. In the sense that they deny races, the harm of diversity, and the near universal importance of Intelligence and industriousness, then yes. In the sense that they leave technological investment to the private sector instead of partnering on high capital investment technologies, then yes. In the sense that they underfund NASA, and the high cost of non-mathematical research into the physical universe, then yes. in the sense that they underfund the PRODUCTION of military hardware that works and practice incremental improvement including the supply chain, rather than fund experimental military hardware that is of very limited value, then yes.
Unfortunately you might reconsider that such a statement is not an argument. As a matter of agency (man) vs the lack of it (animal) reason science and law does demarcate those of us who are fully human from those of us who are still principally animal. We are not equal.
Source date (UTC): 2018-08-31 16:50:02 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1035570418176933890
Reply addressees: @Roo12883907
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1035569787164917760
IN REPLY TO:
Original post on X
Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1035569787164917760