Why America tends to fetishize guys like pic related as some sort of know it all glaxy brain gods...

you have to go back

pic was related, leftist reddit is really fucked

Attached: 742a4ec.png (640x634, 390.14K)

what do you expect it's reddit

yeah, it's a shame because the upvote/downvote really works that's literally the only reason I use reddit.

It's pretty simple. We're cucked scientifically. We're a nation with leaders and policy makers that are nothing more than christian ayatollahs. So, when people that tell imperial truths (for the most part) blow up it attracts everyone else that wants some truth and sanity.

Attached: dvp12.jpg (300x225, 21.25K)

Bill Nye is correct here. There is no God fucktard, and the sooner you accept that the better.

They are publicized endlessly in a way tailor made to make people like them. If people didnt like them, it would mean that there is no way to get people to like things. As in, there are people whose entire jobs are centered around getring consumers to enjoy things, so a failure to achieve this would raise some worries about the human condition. In short, I dont blame people for liking these cunts.
Here is a liberal dissecting Neil for the pos he is.
counterpunch.org/2018/09/14/neil-degrasse-tyson-a-celebrity-salesman-for-the-military-industrial-complex/

So they can keep up the visage of caring about science and looking smart while their government is literally the opposite

Like: "oh look at all these great thinkers that are american, aint our education system so great?"

Something something NASA something something moon landing yadda yadda American exceptionalism.

Well theres a difference between knowing what happens to a decaying body and knowing what basic elements were made of.

You spooky boy

Simple. Science, to liberals, isn’t the process of expanding human knowledge and understanding, but a dogma to be adhered to and praised. It’s a replacement for ideology, or more accurately the liturgy to be invoked to make ideology non-ideological, to make politics non-political. The ebin science men are so popular specifically because they have allowed themselves to sin the priest robes and bless modern ideological causes with the holy aura of science, of non-ideology. If your a part of this “post-ideological” liberalism, someone deathly afraid of believing in anything, but still have these sinful beliefs, these Priests of Science will come forward to ensure that your beliefs aren’t beliefs, it’s “facts” or “science” or whatever (and thus wholly above those ideological people opposing you).

You should have been to the fucking “March for Science” shit. Here you have people engaged in a political act (protesting, marching) in reaction to political events (defunding/suppressing scientific and environmental programs, promotion of shit like climate denialism) with very political speeches decrying this with “this isn’t politics, it’s science!”. Amazing.

Attached: FB044579-88A8-4F52-BEDF-E535163941DB.png (500x431, 345.27K)

Problem with anarchist subreddits, and leftist subreddits in general, is fucking idpol, shwism and tumblr feminism.

An all black union organization would be idpol to you. Shut up.

Both sides have their cooks. The rest are reasonable.

Attached: 1473440286719.jpg (720x698, 86.63K)

Attached: 307c8f853a9c1527d6c7819f91b0029d42be60ada534449db2b2bea0a24e8721.png (3558x3364, 690.24K)

because in the war between them and the christfags the fedoras were the less bad option since they weren't trying to put outright falsehood in science education

you're a fucking retard

hehe

except when it's about gender, sexuality, climate change, race, Autism Level…etc.
And most science studies can't be reproduced by peers, bbc.com/news/science-environment-39054778

It's hilarious that people look up to guys like Harris, Tyson, Nye, for their "science".

Attached: materialsm not even once.png (1191x594 198.51 KB, 1007.03K)

There is nothing wrong with counter-offensive idpol, which is what left wing of the internet does. There is however a problem with offensive idpol which is what the right wing of internet does.

It means that right wing says that women are stupid and left wing says that women are not stupid.

Even Bolsheviks had commissariats of female and minority affairs.

get outta here

also get outta here

So it's okay when pieces of shit make racist and anti female which influences other idiots to vote for scumbags?

Attached: e14e17d379f51025e90460dfb62df1f9baeb5cc2.png (1724x1633, 1.22M)

Marx was not messiah,

Also, that's just theory. Practice is quite different. Like I said even Bolsheviks engaged in good kind of identity politics.
Being radically against idpol is idpol.

That shit you linked appears to be about drug testing.

Racism and sexism are idpol. Idpol breeds idpol.

No such thing.

justify human rights/ethics/duties/justice/egality by appealing to pure materialism. I'll wait.

Consequences of human actions and material conditions.

Yes there is. If person says that women are dumb because they are women if you are leftist it's your duty to explain that they are not dumb because they are women.

Yes there is. If person says that women are dumb because they are women if you are leftist it's your duty to explain that they women are not dumb.

Attached: 5008c8de1f822806acf252f417a8118b6a913206851aa51a2ce01a9f94d55e98.jpg (439x477 64.01 KB, 73.63K)

what about the consequences? what's wrong/evil/unjust about re-arranging matter around?

That's not what idpol is. Identity politics are by definition *centered* around an identity. Marxist feminism as a part of a greater theory of how material conditions shape society is not idpol. SJW Feminism or White Nationalism which focus wholly on a specific identity and aim to protect it using social engineering while ignoring material conditions are idpol.

at least gender and race are materially objective, how do you determine what class someone is without conjuring up your own subjective criteria of what constitutes "private" property vs "public property" vs too much ownership, vs just enough ownership, vs too wealthy, vs paid appropriate to his effort vs paid unfairly…

I disagree with most of what SJWs stand for, but at least they are not racist. Conservative do not realise how many people they might have on their side if they weren't so full of hatred towards all "others". Being a brown person puts me in a weird situation. I support neither and I have some actually reactionary views, but at least I can live amongst SJWs without being hated for no reason.

How do you explain US white nationalists clinging to white nationalism when none of them are white though?

they are just virtue signaling. sjw's are closet racists. i know a lot of white liberals that refuse to live near black people

you don't have to be of any political ideology to accept the reality of race

Class is very objective, because it is not something you don yourself. It is what others view you as. You don't choose to be part of the poor class. Others pigeon hole you in that class.
Class can be based on a number of factors, not necessarily just wealth. For example in the UK, a big part of class is upbringing. Working class people behave in a certain way, do certain activities, think in a certain way, know about certain stuff. The whole of that defines them as working class, even though they might be millionaires.

There is nothing subjective about Marxian class whatsoever. It's actually less subjective than race.

I know. But between the elitism of Liberals and the racism of Conservatives, I'd rather be victim of the former. Let them think of me as poor and stupid, I don't care. But to be thought of as a terrorist rapist muslim just because I have a bit of a brown complexion? That stings. Just completely misdirected senseless hatred.

that's subjective, based on the perception of others, which is not automatically objective just because it's a consensus…

This makes the line even more fuzzy and subjective, since behavior crosses all "class lines" there are people of every sort who are poor, rich, owners of da means, and so forth…

this a statement of faith.

Yes you can be a racist communist. But why do you want to be racist? Racism is not logical.

the context was that someone tried to stump him by posing Descarte's problem of rationality that we can never say for sure that what we experience is real, it's one of the easiest philosophical problems in the world to respond to yet he struggled around and simply dismissed it. It has nothing to do with God.

the entire right side is simply discarding philosophy as anything of value, the point of that picture isn't to show that "le epic meme popular scientist is retarded" it's to show how far science has slipped that it now refuses to even consider the application of philosophy into their field. Heisenberg may of been a crypto-facist but at least his value of philosophy gave him the ability to think objectively and free himself of bias in his work

Attached: e3a00a173bf4499d1664712cdbe78bdf286f72df.jpeg (971x3604, 784.26K)

??????

Attached: 8ch-Islam.png (230x219, 7.09K)

prove it.

It is not our duty or concern. Leftists analyse and assess how economic factors allow reactionaries the power to antoginise others and press the worker through means like sexism and racism.
It is of no interest why people are bigoted. Being on the left has nothing to do with simply being nice and telling others how enlightened you are about social issues.
Idpol is best left to the fascists and liberals. Your either ignorant or /Pol being purposely retarded. Lurk more.

Yes, exactly. The concept of race itself is racist. There is no such thing as "white people" and there is not such thing as "black people". It's a racist American invention. This is something American SJWs and American Liberals need to understand, because they might be super PC about race but they still try to pigeonhole you into one of the groups and that itself is also racist. Lots of people don't fit in any category. And why should they?

Oh i thought you were a materialist, not some spooked idealist.
So people are what? Abstract entities without genetics, ancestry and historical lineages?

You purposely brought up a lot of shit unrelated or only tangentially related to economic class (wealth, fair/unfair wages), to muddle the issue. In reality class is very simple and objective. Either you work for a wage, or own means of production while extracting surplus value from wage laborers working them. The vast majority of people today work for a wage and a minority owns the memes of production. This is objective fact.

I'm just European. The non-racist more objective way to group people is by ethnicity. The rest of the world has no problem going about their life never thinking about race. It's only you Americans, due to your history that you got stuck with that ugly idea.

so a goat farmer, with 3 kids and a wife to support, who owns a small house, a small plot of land and wagon and a donkey, who makes $10k/year is in the "owns the means of production class" (this would be true under Lenin/Stalinism and they would be called kulaks, and he would be immediately gulaged).

While a financial analyst who works for a company, making a wage of $300,000 per year, and rents a swanky apartment near the beach is in the "working class"

The absolute state of americans

Cute theory, until reality hits you in the face.

The student's mixed Thai-Italian heritage means finding a donor match is very difficult

The family of a mixed-raced student diagnosed with blood cancer have launched an international appeal for a rare donor.

Lara Casalotti, 24, has both Thai and Italian heritage. Since matching donors usually come from someone of the same ethnicity, the chances of finding the right donor for her tissue type are low.

independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/family-of-cancer-patient-launch-global-appeal-for-life-saving-stem-cell-donor-a6803856.html

Attached: Bonemarrow1 mixed race probelms.jpg (968x726, 38.25K)

Does the goat farmer employ and extract surplus value from the field hands that work on his plot?

All he has to do is have a couple bags of grain in his house (thus he was hoarding grain) or if he sold any goat milk to someone (then he was exploiting the market via profit) or if he had enough money to HIRE a worker for a month, in theory, then he would also qualify, and he would be worked to death, along with his wife in the gulags, and his kids…his kids would probably die on the farm alone.

stop
youtube.com/watch?v=4pNn3gOELAg

If he had enough grain to not grow hungry while his fellow villagers were starving, he deserves it though.

This comparison is extremely fallacious since these two strawmen do not exist under the same material conditions. Countries that have financial advisors earning $300,000 do not tend to have a consequential amount of goat farmers living in shacks, and vice versa. Tsarist Russia wasn't just 2018 United States but with funny hats.

There's been a lot of this "race-realism" stuff on here as of late. I question what interest it would have to communists here. It would matter if our demand was equality of outcome, not equality of opportunity.
The basic idea of the concept is that society would work if only the desired traits were to be found in individuals. This is essentially the same as liberal goals. I.e all CEOs white, therefore things will be better, or equal mix of all ethnicities and genders in CEOs therefore things will be better. Neither arguement fundamentally impacts or challenges the way a country organises labour, its economic output or most importantly the class system. It is a utopian and idealistic form of ideology that's easy to grasp and easily manipulated by larger movements (nationalists or neolibs) but just utterly uninteresting to people on the far left.
If an individual has acquired the skills to complete their labour and take part in wider society, who cares beyond this point.

the point was that being a business owner and being a wage earner isn't sufficient to distinguish class, neither is income alone, neither is behavior, neither is family history, and by the sound of it, your definition seems to change with culture and time…

That's not what the other poster meant.
There is no broad category to put blacks and white in. In europe we hate each other there is no pan white stuff like in america. Italians, french and germans are 3 different things

Do you think communism is dynamic and efficient enough to compete with capitalism in a global market? Or do you think capitalism will have to self-implode and kill itself, before communism even has a chance to operate long-term?

Thanks for correcting the record.

Individual strawmen do not make the Marxist explanation insufficient. The existence of petit-bourgeois managers who earn six figures doesn't change the overall logic of capitalism. Not in the least because they are fairly inconsequential compared to laborers whose livelihood depends on their wage, they're an anomaly.

It's not a strawman when I pick apart your definition of class and find it to be relative/subjective and very vague and not based on strict, measurable criteria.

...

nazism is associated with unjust violence/oppression against individuals simply for belonging to a group.
if you go around committing violence on individuals because they belong to a certain group (regardless of their individual merit, but simply by association) then you are kinda a nazi
how do you nat see this?

Not really relevent or refuting my point. Also an extremely complex question.
Personally I think lessons need to be learned from the collapse of the Union about how labour was inefficiently orginised under their system and especially about using tax breaks and policies that inadvertantly create a criminal underclass in an attempt to boost productivity. Also the extreme dangers of rapid inflation coupled with years of stagnation for a technical managerial class who are overrepresented in the halls of power.
To compete with capitalisms dynamic nature, which I believe we can say with some certainty stems mainly from its use of a pool of unemployed labour, is definitely a challenge that requires much planning. I do question how a single socialist country can compete with the unified global system of capital, but I would also say we are in the late stages of this system before it degenerates. Signs are already around us from stalled living conditions, massive privatisations of productive state forces and economics based solely on consumption rather than production.
The thing I believe would be useful would be a socialist state taking it's time to create a command economy, nationalising industry and slowly building the tools for industry. The amount of time and management this would take varies on the conditions of the state in question.
I'm a brainlet lurker though so Idn.
I just don't see how race is of any interest. Again equality of outcome is the only area where it's of interest, not opportunity and I've never seen a good arguement for race based politics, it's always been used to suppress wages, incite populations to protracted military campaigns or shore up power of a party. Seems pointless to tack it onto socialism.
I'm at work GTG.

(Me)
Basically what I'm saying is that it changes the aesthetics of a system, not fundimentally alters it.
The idea it would work better if the average is was 5 points higher or menalin levels were higher/lower is idealistic.

race is important for crime prevention/detection and proper immigration policies
also race is important to factor when considering outcomes/expectations; put a bunch of bantu kids in a classroom with a bunch of japanese kids; don't expect the outcomes to be "fair" or just. And when they grow up and end up working for the japanese, don't rationalize this as exploitation or injustice of the higher class

Attached: nigerian gang.png (1799x375, 211.24K)

This literally happens only in America.
Like I'm not joking. It's starting to happen in metropolis in europe too because they are big and balkanized and people come here in masse, but the rest of europe where and the past generation of immigrants is basically from the country where they live. I'm saying this a half asian half european myself. The only place where I was ever classified as asian is america for some reason. They also expected me to be good at math and law abiding for some reason.
I'm not saying that americans have no reason to have this kind of prejudice, but to think that the rest of the world follows your same mentality is a joke.
Trust me, whaterever country your ancestor are from hates you, africans hate black americans and south americans hate your spics too. From the oustide and civilized world you guys are americans. Same scum same shit no matter the colour

even nigerians don't believe this

Attached: WT9Fjqe.gif (500x280, 958.65K)

There's no freakin justification for any of that, but that doesn't imply a bedrock w/r/t how you approach these concepts, because the fact that it don't matter in itself don't matter, an aspect that don't matter. The fact that it don't matter means has no material bearing, and so all that's left is a bunch of nothing that you have to figure out yourself; fictionalize [1], loser.

also:
Why do you believe in rights, ethics, duties, justice, and egality as implicit parts of reality?
Justify your claims that human concerns have any bearing on reality, make sure to include an epistemic framework so I know on what grounds you make these claims. I'll wait.

[1] plato.stanford.edu/entries/fictionalism/

Attached: 7.jpg (720x405, 16.01K)

intelligence is around 70% inheritable, genetically.
newscientist.com/article/dn1520-iq-is-inherited-suggests-twin-study/

iq=/=smart
"Stephen Kosslyn of Harvard University in Boston questions whether “g” should really be called intelligence. “G” picks up on abilities such as being able to abstract rules or figure out how to order things according to rules. “It’s the kind of intelligence you need to do well in school,” he says. “Not what you need to do well in life.”
Read your own article dude
IQ is a useless meme

Attached: Paradox_MS.png (1479x811, 693.84K)

hence groups feel justified committing atrocities because they think they are working towards something desirable, with no concern regarding the actual moral status of their actions. If you subscribe to nihilism or "might makes right" then you can't engage in a dialectic that tries to alleviate injustice, inequality, oppression, appropriation, theft, poverty, and so forth, since all those 'wrongs' belong to the moral dimension; i.e things that "should" or "shouldn't" take place.

Because the universe presents an objective order, it's not complete chaos and randomness. Because humans are situated within that order and are a microcosm of it; we all have a conscience (to some degree) that allows us to perceive right and wrong, justice and injustice, even if some of us mute it out. I can't help but act with the knowledge of right and wrong, because life is sacred and what is sacred deserves dignity, it's axiomatic.

He's a labor aristocrat.

landlords are not working class

He owns the means of production but isn't extracting anyone's surplus value. Not a kulak.

In that case….
If that worker is the only one working on that land then that land owner is a capitalist.
If instead he's working alongside the worker but still takes that worker's surplus value for himself then he would be classified as petty bourgeois

Depends. Does he refuse to have his means of production be collectivized and tries to fight us? Then yeah.

Or…they would be sent to an orphanage and get educated. Once they grow up they will have a guaranteed home and a job.

Your advocating race based selection in order to improve the current system I.e if it we had less people with racial carachteristics featured in X country there would be less crime and the system would work better. I'm not making a moral judgement on it, but I think it's unrealistic to believe actual change will occur with a change in aesthetics. It also has nothing to do with leftism, again, our judgment is that there should be equality of outcome, not opportunity. I don't really follow what your arguement is, but I think you fundimentally do not understand the varied left ideologies on this board. Mostly it's taken for granted that liberal or fascist idpol is irrelevant and incompatible with leftism.

Go study how the definition of kulak changed overtime.
Selling grain on the market was sufficient to be a kulak.
Having some land/tools or horses and enough money to hire a worker for a month was sufficient (even if you didn't hire anyone).
Having too much property compared to your neighbors was sufficient.
Critiquing the government/army/economy in anyway was sufficient.
Some people who were caught picking leftover grain off the ground were also gulaged.

race and crime are definitely related beyond mere 'aesthetics', you're not making any sense. Immigrants of the dark skin variety present the most downward pressure on harmony and order, in any country, it's universal.

Big if true, post some sources lad

I bet that has nothing to do with material conditions, I mean poor Eastern Europeans migrating to the West are known for committing no crime whatsoever

Proofs?
Like were italians and irish migrants any better?

Attached: 911Chad.png (1495x746, 678.4K)

just go research crime statistics in america and europe for a few hours, tell me what patterns emerge

SERIOUSLY, big if true.

EEK OOK boons to society BOONING AMIRITE?!?

D'you the article I posted?
The fact that it don't matter don't matter. Muh point is that nihilism isn't grounds for abandoning any of these ideas
I'm under the impression that from a materialist framework, it's not about what was intended but what was done, because when humans are machines rather than magical 🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧subjects🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧, intent is kinda null
What defines a moral status? How can you deduce the -actual- moral status? How do you know the moral status is indeed -actual-? Be specific.

Also w/r/t ontology, you didn't really answer my question: Why do you believe it and on what grounds do you make this claim? Why do you believe in an objective order? Why do you believe humans are situated in it? On what grounds do you make these claims? How do you know them to be true?

Attached: 1.jpg (400x300, 26.64K)

Idk dude
Crime rates seem to have fallen
And rather than ostracized people that tend to be migrants do more crime
I dont see anything race based…

Because the universe presents an objective order, it's not complete chaos and randomness. Because humans are situated within that order and are a microcosm of it; we all have a conscience (to some degree) that allows us to perceive right and wrong, justice and injustice, even if some of us mute it out. I can't help but act with the knowledge of right and wrong, because life is sacred and what is sacred deserves dignity, it's axiomatic.

nothing was conflated, I said either/or is an untenable starting point.