I like libertarianism because then actions have organic consequences. In a libertarian state, people would have lots of guns and you wouldn't want to commit crime for fear of being shot. (organic prevention of crime).

Can you explain the heatmap chart to me? I see it posted a lot and have never seen the study it is referencing or seen it explained in detail.

>>510299264
It's from an actual study that /pol/niggers and xitter retard rightoids love to misunderstand.

>>510299386
Can you describe it or explain it for me?

>>510299264
we live in a low trust society and naturally most people can only trust their families
making societies high trust requires strong government and that's literally communism or something idk some grifter on twitter told me so

>>510299264
It's about in-group vs out-group preference. Conservatives claim to care about immediate family the most, liberals claim to care about minorities and the planet the most.

>>510299450
They asked a group of people what things they consider to have value. NOT WHAT IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN OTHER THINGS, only that it has value in itself.
Self identifying liberals said that their family has value, their country, other humans, the Earth, life itself.
Self identifying conservatives said they only care for their family or sometimes their country at best, everyone else can fuck off and die, kill the planet, fuck the environment, rape it all
Somehow this means "hurr durr dem libruls love rocks more than white people" because low IQ mongoloids misread the graph.

>>510299499
so the center is the "family" and the outer circle is those outside of your immediate family?

>>510299499
Actually it's more about whether you care about things beyond your family at all, not assigning preference.
>>510299386
>/pol/niggers and xitter retard rightoids love to misunderstand.
This anon called it

>>510299499
>Conservatives claim to care about immediate family the most, liberals claim to care about minorities and the planet the most.
That is not what it said. Conservatives said ANYTHING outside their family DOES NOT MATTER AT ALL, like the low IQ fear driven animals they are without the concept of a higher perspective.

>>510299386
The irony is that it's actually you that wilfully misinterprets it because you can't accept the implications.

One of the authors of the study actually confirmed that you are wrong.

>>510299164 (OP)
The issue is that it would inevitably form a state anyway. I suspect it is a better way

>>510299654
You seem extremely biased and thus your word carries no meaning. Learn to be a normal speaking person and you can get your message across.

>>510299742
Unless they're white and then they care about white people regardless of where they are because they're racist.

>>510299949
.....better way of organising large groups. I also suspect it's essentially organic.

>>510299949
You shouldn't conflate libertarianism with anarchism.

>>510299654
Nope. Incorrect.
Quote:
>The moral allocation task specified that one category does not include the other.
It does not include the categories below it. You just made that up.

>>510299386
>>510299386
>>510299450


Leftists say it means they love space rocks and shit that doesn't matter.

I ask them why they care about space rocks and other shit that doesn't matter

They say it's because they have "empathy".

I proceed to laugh at their face for caring about space rocks.

>>510299164 (OP)
>libertarianism
>organic consequences
>ibertarian state
>organic
Mentally ill jumble of words. Lolberts need a state specifically to protect them against the "organic consequences" of being a degenerate.

>>510299654
YOU CARE ABOUT SPACE ROCKS!

HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAH

>>510300261
Again >>510300053

Libtards LITERALLY care more about space rocks than their own family. LMAO

>>510300320
I didn't conflate anything, you mouth breathing, inbred mongoloid. I am specifically addressing the incoherence of trying to make some points about how a "libertarian state" promotes "organic consequences".

>>510300261
How about a governemnt without a police force but only a military.

That way you get protection from foreign invaders and informal governments can form organically from the inside.

The ideal libertarianism.

>>510300525
>How about a governemnt without a police force but only a military.
Well then who's going to protect you from the lynch mob?

>>510300456
You say stuff like
>Lolberts need a state
and you put "libertarian state" in scare quotes so that indicates to me that you believe it's a contradiction in terms, which would make sense if you're conflating libertarianism with anarchism, otherwise it's just stupid.

>>510300411
see >>510300161
They will claim that they don't necessarily love anything on that chart more than any other thing. You shoudn't strawman because it doesn't help the culture war. Instead, just laugh at them for caring about space rocks and bacteria at all. Who gives a shit about bacteria and space rocks? You would have to be a spoiled sheltered blue-haired brat to care about items so trivial.

>>510300411
That graph is dumb, why show it as a heat map on a circle? What does the polar angle show? You could represent the same data much simpler as a bar chart, that would also make it much easier to interpret.

>>510300594
I'm a decent person with a good reputation. No one wants to lynch me. I think you are projecting the fact that you have a bad reputation and you love police forces because people want to lynch you IRL.

>>510299974
>You seem extremely biased
I am.

>>510300764
All you need to know, no bias from me whatsoever, is that liberals care about bacteria and space rocks. Like, what the fuck? They're empathy is retarded.

>>510299164 (OP)
As long as niggers don’t have guns I’m down. (Doesn’t necessarily require state-imposed law, either. Freestanding militias of whites could form up against them and disarm them, for example.)

>>510300886
Why do you have suicidal empathy towards all matter in the universe? You know you and your liberal peers seem like retards when they claim to love bacteria, right?

There is genuinely something wrong with them. Their brains are defective, namely their amygdalas, which is the region of the brain reponsible for threat perception. This causes them to behave like lemmings with kumbaya ideals like 'one race, the human race', 'no borders', 'black people are the same species' etc.

>>510300693
>You say stuff like
>>Lolberts need a state
Lolberts also say they need a state.

>and you put "libertarian state" in scare quotes so that indicates to me that you believe it's a contradiction in terms
A state that protects freedom is an absurd proposition and libertarianism itself is intrinsically a self-contradiction. "Individual liberty" is incompatible with "freedom".

Brain damage makes you liberal

>>510300842
>I'm a decent person with a good reputation. No one wants to lynch me.
Good for now. What about all the lolberts who think they have a "right" to do a myriad things that everyone hates?

>>510301028
You don't think a state that protects you from being shot by me for being a dumbass is protecting your freedom?

>>510300932
Their empathy is retarded. About as retarded as that graph.

>>510301028
Freedom is contingent on slavery. If everybody is free, nobody is. What is freedom? Self-ownership. In an “egalitarian” society, everyone is ruled by popular opinion.

>>510299499
>>510299979
If they only care about their immediate families, it sounds like they'd sell out the whole rest of the white race then. Hell, enough conservatives already *have* sold out the white race for a quick buck.

>>510301156
In a libertarian state, crime has natural consequences. I think you are downplaying just how good your life could be in libertarian state. You could drive your car without registration, you could form relationships free from the stress of lawsuits.

>>510301195
>You don't think a state that protects you from being shot by me for being a dumbass is protecting your freedom?
No, it's not "protecting my freedom", it's just policing your actions, which happens to be to my benefit in this case. But it's also policing my actions.

>>510301299
Liberalism is literally a death cult of the mentally ill and cognitively impaired.

>>510301219
>Dem error bars
I hate the social """"sciences""""" like you don't believe.

>>510300996
>Why do you have suicidal empathy towards all matter in the universe?
But that's not what is shown. It's a parochialism vs. universalism question.

Devil's advocate

>>510301184
Liberals will say that part of the brain is just an unfortunate result of evolution and that they are glad they have a damaged threat detector.

>>510301219
Liberals will say that they have more depression and mental illness because they are smarter and have more emotions toward the world.

>>510301335
>In a libertarian state, crime has natural consequences
A libertarian state is just another unnatural system that generates unnatural crimes and punishes them with unnatural consequences enforced by unnatural men with unnatural mindsets.

>>510301522
>parochialism

The study literally and simply shows that liberals have empathy towards all matter in the universe. Just own up to it. Just say "yes, I have empathy towards all matter in the universe".

You are losing credibility because you are saying something different than what the study conducted says.

>>510301565
Stupid argument. In a multicultural hellscape that is the modern West, every group is looking out for its own interests EXCEPT White liberals. This will lead to their extinction through natural selection. In the future only the Amish and very conservative Whites will persist.

>>510301707
Everything that has ever occurred occurs within the confines of nature. There is nothing “unnatural.” But there is something anti-natural… Namely socialism, which aims at the reduction of all life to menial labor as an expedient organ of the state (or the subjugation and indentured servitude of excellent individuals to the mediocre majority).

>>510301972
>Everything that has ever occurred occurs within the confines of nature. There is nothing “unnatural.”
Some deep thinking right there, Rothbard.

>>510299164 (OP)
>I like libertarianism because then actions have organic consequences.
So what's the natural consequences of certain ethnic groups buying all the assets under the sun then jacking up prices %10000 mister libertardian?

>>510302083
Right, and a degree of thinking that you apparently don’t rise to meet.

>>510302171
>uhh, ack-chually
>everything is happening inside nature
>so ummm... like
>nothing is un-natural, ok??
You're a moronic label-munging automaton.

>>510299450
It's meme from a study asking conservatives and liberals to rank how much they care about certain things like family, the environment, and such. Conservatives cared most about things immediately around them like family, and less about far removed topics and concerns while leftists had the exact opposite response and cared most about far away shit they had no control over and not at all about shit they can personally impact. The leftist cope for this extremely retarded state of affairs is that they actually care about everything equally and that we're evil chuds who didn't understand the study. A /pol/ fag actually went to the trouble of emailing the authors of the paper to confirm that our interpretation was correct, and leftists do in fact care more about space rocks and bugs then their immediate family and neighbors

>>510302291
Nothing is unnatural, but plenty is anti-natural (i.e. opposed to nature’s necessary character/life’s flourishing). Socialism being the exemplar of that (antinatalism, voluntary extinctionism, etc. are all borne out of it, for example).

>>510299654
Sure, a child would think that.
>I love everything, I can love everything and everything loves me. We live in castles in the clouds.
But reality is different. Love is limited, it is not infinitve. You CANNOT love everything and everyone. It does not work.
Conservatives realise this and thus, they love what is dear to them, which is family and kinsmen.
Liberals either don't know this (live, love, laugh. World peace, etc.) or they realise it, but feel the need to virtue signal.
>Look guys, I am such a good person. I love planets and shit.
Reality does not care about virtue. You should grow up and you come to realise that love is a limited good.

>>510299164 (OP)
Better visualization here

>>510302291
You're that faggot from the npc thread yesterday who doesn't believe in race, aren't you?

>>510302941
>Nothing is unnatural
Still waiting for you to show, logically, how this moronic conclusion follows from the premise that everything happens within the confines of nature. You literally can't. Shit out another preprogrammed talking about about Current Enemy.

>>510303110
The arguments leftists use to "prove" that there are no races belong in the same category as his attempt to prove that "nothing is unnatural".

>>510299164 (OP)
>>510299386
>>510299499
http://reichandlowentherapy.org/Content/Character/Oral/oral_communicator.html

Large abstract global causes may be championed, with no real demands on the ego, but smaller specific injustices to specific known people closer to home may be unopposed because the ego strength is not present for an actual fight. They often champion the cause of under-dogs and minorities, idealizing those with little power. This comes from the feeling of having been deprived and cheated, which is repressed and projected onto others. It is sometimes said that orals dislike the people they know, and like the people they don't know

> I like libertarianism because then actions have organic consequences. In a libertarian state, people would have lots of guns and you wouldn't want to commit crime for fear of being shot. (organic prevention of crime).

I disagree with this paragraph.
It’s sort of a semiotical misnomer.
Libertarian - tinted societies create safety thru freedom, independence and education, not fear.


~Emancipate yourselves from mental slavery, none but ourselves can free our minds.~

>>510303176
Hey man I’m just sharing my opinion on a web-based image board. So are you. If you like, we can have a discussion like adults. Otherwise, there’s always reddit.

>>510303028
I think the real take away from the heat map meme isn't that leftists are child like and claim to love everything, it's that they're conniving fucks. They claim to care most about far away causes, peoples, and things, so they can cite their inability to do anything when asked to, but keep up the larp. If they tried to pretend they cared about things close to them they wouldn't be able to skip out on the bill when asked to actually help those things without outing themselves

>>510299164 (OP)
In a libertarian state, nothing would stop you from being flooded by a billion indians.

Then guns become obsolete.

I am not listening to any political philosophy anymore unless the indian question is front and center. All politics needs to be thought again taking in consideration that Bharat is half of humanity and growing.

>>510303290
I’m not attempting to “prove” anything. That’s your own assumption. I’m proffering my own opinion, which may or may not be “correct,” for the sake of facilitating further discussion and advancing my perspective. The object for me is always to refine myself further.

Based on my experiences with multiple Gadsden waving types, libertarianism these days is "I can do what I want no matter how much it fucks with your life, your property, and your freedom, and you need to shut the fuck up because it's MUH FREEDOM FOR ME NONE FOR YOU" and it's a complete shit ideology that will never work because everyone who follows it follows "all for me, none for thee" shit.

>YOU CAN'T TELL ME NOT TO PARK IN YOUR DRIVEWAY I GOT MUH FREEDUMB
>YOU CAN'T TELL ME NOT TO THROW MY TRASH IN YOUR BACKYARD I GOT MUH FREEDUMB
>YOU CAN'T TELL ME TO TURN DOWN MY NIGGER BEATS EVNE THOUGH I'M WHITE TRASH I GOT MUH FREEDUMNB

>>510303502
>we can have a discussion like adults
Yeah, and I'm still waiting for you to show, logically, how this moronic conclusion follows from the premise that everything happens within the confines of nature. No? So much for "discussing like adults".

>>510303591
And even that is a bit disingenuous. I refine myself for the sake of advancing myself over and against other people. Mt aim is to dominate, as it would appear your aim is as well.

>>510303591
>i'm not attempting to justify my retarded claims with actual logic
>i'm just sharing my feelings
OK. ID goes to the filter. Should probably just filter all namefags while I'm at it.

>>510299164 (OP)
what is preventing your friendly local cartel from blocking off a public road and demanding pay or just outright taking your car and executing you in the street??

>>510303704
You’re seem insecure and afraid of being challenged.

>>510299386
Denbts

>>510302777

>>510303704
As if you, yourself, are sharing the “absolute truth” or some “objective fact” and aren’t just offering your own passionate opinion along with a sophistry of your own spinning.

>>510301003
Underedeveloped amygdala also explains cute aggression

>>510303290
From the way you're talking about preprogrammed talking points and your flag, I still think you're the same person. In that thread, you said that race is a synthetic npc concept, but also that white people are the most npc-like group because all of their ideas have the same undercurrent of domestication and subjugation. You also had a problem with the concept of individual rights and freedoms.

If I had to choose I'd be a libertarian but a hoppean variant that exiles commies and commie adjacent, but also I think I'd be OK with a monarchy because at least there is only one guy to take out instead of a hydra or beuracracy

>>510300411
What about çentre right.

I think the graph is more leftism instead of liberalism which isn't exactly exactly the same.

>>510301003
Wonder how this relates to ocd.

>>510299164 (OP)
What spectrum is child porn on?

>>510304235
If he does oppose individual rights and freedoms, it’s on account of his being a small individual relative to other individuals. (Supposing that it’s a “he,” anyways, which judging by the extreme emotional upheavals it very well may not be!)

>>510304019
>authors of the paper ... confirm that our interpretation was correct
/pol/niggers lying again. I actually looked at that paper way back when it was first brought up. It was based on the excruciatingly retarded premise that you have a fixed number of "kindness points" or some such to redistribute among the social layers. American conservatives, being the 80-IQ inbreds that they are, thought they were supposed to rate how important each category is to them, so they ended up redistributing their "kindness points" in a way where they effectively show zero concern for anyone outside their immediate family whereas libtards seemed to be trying to take into account that the number of things in each category grows exponentially as you go outward.

>>510304397
>What spectrum is child porn on?
Imbred and Talmudic

>>510304904
o ok thanks for that.

>>510304904
Still means libs were handing out kindness points to rocks

>>510304235
>race is a synthetic npc concept,
It is a synthetic NPC concept.

>white people are the most npc-like group
They are the most NPC-like demographic.

And where's the contradiction? I like how you're still seething about it from yesterday. You'll be seething about this for weeks, probably.

>>510299164 (OP)
all libertarianism does is atomize the individuals so the total state can stomp on them. you're not in a libertarian society. you won't get a libertarian society. all you do it make the states job easier.

>>510305123
>Still means libs were handing out kindness points to rocks
Clownish levels of virtue signalling but the fact that the /pol/ interpretation implies they care more about rocks than niggers and trannies should have clued you into the fact that nu-/pol/ can't read.

>>510305128
Is there or is there not a biological reality? Are we or are we not natural organisms? Supposing that we are not, what are we then? Abstractions all-throughout? Has it ever occurred to you that abstractions like “race” might be borne out of organisms? And supposing that there are no “races,” what are there? (In my opinion, there are no “races,” only more or less similar individual cases. And there might be a certain value in believing that race is biologically real as opposed to believing that race is purely a social construct…)

>>510299654
source? you're a kike/nigger/jeet/faggot and you made it up

Combine NPC, with these studies and mental illness from left to far left and psychopathy common for activists.

No wonder Hungary shifted to illiberal
Democracy, subconsciously the left had to be stopped.

>>510305437
>inb4 self-contradiction

Race can be both a biological reality (in there really being more or less similar genetic clusters of people) and a human idea (defining of humans by themselves).

>>510305128
Angrily trying to nab the last post on the thread to say you hope I and my kids die for Israel doesn't sound like seething to you?
You never supported your position at all except by claiming that even though whites have the greatest variety of views on basically everything, they gravitate towards the same central themes in all their ideologies. The claim you made was a comparative one, yet you never offered examples of other groups being less prone to group think than whites because your position was very obviously wrong.

>>510299654
If this were true, the leftist chart would have a continuous stripe of heat from the center outwards, rather than a blob of heat far from the center.
The leftists in this study indicated that they on average place a higher value on a random foreigner than their own children or parents.

There is no inquiry in the mind of a socialist, only an assumption that what one sees is what one already has in one’s possession.

>>510305437
>Is there or is there not a biological reality?
The biological reality is that a real human society consists of maybe several hundred members meanwhile you're being programmed into the idea that have natural allegiance not just to hundreds of millions of golems that share a """nation""" with you but now also with hundreds of millions of other golems on other continents, i.e. just another stepping stone towards globalism.

>>510299654
>value has nothing to do with importance
everyoje with this mindset needs to be exterminated for the good of the universe

>>510299164 (OP)
50% of Americans don't even know how to use a gun and would probably shoot themselves or an innocent bystander.

>>510303626
You're being pretty obtuse yourself. Yes, if the state comes from something natural it is also natural -- this doesn't negate that nature can produce things that are in competition or even direct opposition to the prior established direction. Moreover, since this is taking place within supposedly sentient beings, there is the issue of intention to call upon as well. Naturally produced or not, if the intention is to be against nature then it is anti-natural definitively.

>>510305883
Am I? Or is that just your assumption of me? And also, is it the case that a “real human society” consists only of “several hundred members,” or is that just an abstractive delineation of your own? What is the marker to determine where a “race” starts and begins? And if you’re lending credence to the notion of a “real human society” in the sense of “several hundred individuals” being more similar to one another than to any other grouping of individuals, aren’t you effectively giving tacit acceptance to the idea of “race,” if only in a smaller form?

>>510303386
>libshits are bitter cunts who need their asses whooped
fucking absolute brainiac mind blower of new information

>>510305937
then they deserve to be shot. let me ask you, when you stub your toe to you really think you didnt deserve it?

>>510305721
>Angrily trying to nab the last post on the thread to say you hope I and my kids die for Israel doesn't sound like seething to you?
Hey, now... what I actually wrote is that I hope you get a chance to put your money where your mouth. Make the ultimate sacrifice for those super-important abstract ideals that philosophical minds like you ponder. You're not a thoughtless, gullible NPC, are you? NPCs mind their business. Real philosophers die for "freedom" and "democracy". :^)

>>510305721
>>510306348
By the way, that post got godly quints so clearly I was in the right.

>>510306330
I don't stub my toe

>>510306070
>if the state comes from something natural it is also natural -
Notice how you're forced to just repeat this retarded assertion without any supporting logic. There's simply no argument to get you from A to B.

>>510306151
>is it the case that a “real human society” consists only of “several hundred members,”
Yes. Deal with it.

>>510306632
Ah shit! You’re so right! Why didn’t I think of that? I wish I could be more like you…

>>510306810
>Why didn’t I think of that?
Because you're a golem and you don't think anything that isn't prescribed.

>>510306348
That isn't what you wrote, actually. Nevertheless, I think you missed the point of what was said, just reading the words "individual rights and freedoms" and becoming furious (as you apparently hate people who talk about these things). I didn't mention democracy, and I mentioned individual rights and freedoms in the context of providing you with a counterpoint to your poorly thought out position. I don't read philosophy, either.

>>510299264
From the summary article:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/336076674_Ideological_differences_in_the_expanse_of_the_moral_circle

>>510306894
>That isn't what you wrote
I wrote I hope you and/or your kids soon get to die for freedumbs in some foreign shithole, but you were clearly too dumb to make the connection with the arguing that preceded this so I just explained to you how it directly connects. You're still too fucking dumb to get the point, though.

>>510307264
It didn't connect, because I never told you that I champion those things. You simply assumed it.
I don't believe I misunderstood your point, either. Your argument was that thinking in terms of rights and freedoms is indicative of and promotes domestication and subjugation, as these things are like man-made rule sets that attempt either to find rules for governing behavior (operating on the assumption that they already exist in objective reality and can be uncovered through pondering) or create them.

>>510299164 (OP)
lolbergtardianism is the right pic thoughbeit

>>510308026
I glanced at your post and I don't even need to read properly it to tell that you're a fucking retard and it contains nothing of value.

>>510303591
This is the kind of mindset and approach to conversations that increase our understanding of one another.

>>510308366
>makes retarded statement repeatedly in a belligerent fashion
>challenged to justify it logically
>immediately backpedals
>>This is the kind of mindset and approach to conversations that increase our understanding of one another.
Absolutely worthless board.

>>510308213
You're a rather angry person, aren't you? Maybe this is why you say "seethe" so much.

>>510299164 (OP)
Libertarianism was devised by jews.
Libertarianism lacks strong ingroup preference. "Free markets" with no protectionism loses against colluding protectionists.

>>510308516
You can only go up from here!

>>510299164 (OP)
I like libertarianism because it's the worst way to assure liberty and liberty is gay

>>510308554
You lost yesterday's argument. Get over it. There's no need to start cross-thread reddit-tier drama.

>>510299264
>>510299450
It indicates that leftists extend moral consideration to all life in existence, or even inanimate objects.
It doesn't mean they care more about rocks than their families, but it does mean:
a. they comically overextend their moral consideration well beyond what a human can honestly care about.
b. they care relatively less about their families/community/nation, because they allocate moral capital to more things.

Right wing people have their own problem though, because they don't care about broader society, which is why right wing ideology is so passive and why conservatives allowed problems like mass immigration to occur.

>>510304904
Youre interpretation of the study is incorrect and this is all the more hilarious when you can literally just observe leftists watch their friends get stabbed by a immigrant and then forgive the immigrant and victim blame the friend.

>>510305377
No because they literally do though. You are actually too retarded to read the chart. If liberals cared about their families there would be heat marks on family but there isn't because as far as big city leftists are concerned their parents are old evil racist white people that need to die so they can inherit money.

>>510309808
Still believing the memes? Never believe the memes

>>510309074
You provided no support for your position and your belief just kind-of petered out under scrutiny. I provided an example of a group more prone to group-think and more npc like than whites (asians). You lost handily. You're losing these arguments, too.

It seems like you either just restate your opinion or unthinkingly pivot every time anyone makes a good counterpoint to your arguments, like here >>510306632
You don't appear to be very good at arguing.

>>510309922
Its not a meme. Its objective reality. Plenty of examples, most recently the parents of the kid that nigger just stabbed.

>>510301184
Conservatives have brain damage.

>>510301219
Conservatives lie on these surveys.

>>510300411
>>510301299
>>510301468
>...And that's why I vote against my family's economic interests!

>>510300261
Statism enables degeneracy you spiritual jeetoid. Niggers and jeets externalize their responsibility and sovereignty onto a bunch of kikes and empower them to do all sorts of evil shit.
The reason why libertarianism and anarchism don't work isn't because they're impossible because <insert reason>, it's because the overwhelming majority of "humans" are nigger goy NPC cattle.

>>510309500
>they care relatively less about their families/community/nation, because they allocate moral capital to more things.
Leftists (and probably all normies) are basically sentimental psychopaths who don't actually care about anyone, but this is still a retarded take. Even allowing for the premise that there's some fixed amount of "moral capital" you allocate, by that logic, anyone who fails to invest absolutely everything they have in their own family "cares relatively less" about them, but in reality, there's only so much you can do for someone before before it becomes counter-productive. Nothing in this thought experiment indicates how much "moral capital" you have and how much is needed to satisfy any group's needs so "relatively less" means nothing here.

>>510308516
>26 posts by this ID
>its all seething rage trying to defend leftists
>has retarded leftist ideas on race
>probably more
>i'm not a leftist though guise

Pathetic really.

>>510310299
>Statism enables degeneracy
Concession accepted. Libertarianism is a form of statism.

>>510309671
>>510309808
Nigger.
Captcha: V2G0Y

>>510310662
You didn't need to prove that you're a brownie. You already demonstrated that clearly.
>>510310742
Post the captcha, NPC.

>>510309987
You lost yesterday's argument. Get over it. There's no need to start cross-thread reddit-tier drama. Unless you have something to say about something I argued ITT you can stop (You)ing me like a cockstarved little faggot.

>>510299164 (OP)
>>510299264
>>510299386
>>510299450
>>510300411
>>510303110
>>510304019
>>510310539
The study spells it out: it's not about priority of care, it's about the possible extent of caring about right or wrong done to someone. It's not even about intervening, donating, or action, it's a simple question of do you care at all about right or wrong done to someone. It's not a shocking revelation: the right is more tribal, their care is limited locally and in the familiar while the left is more outwardly considerate. Consideration isn't priority, but it does mean you're less likely to support profiting at the expense of someone else's well being and if someone in your tribe does wrong to someone outside it, you are more likely to seek justice than protect them. The right more often reflexively protects those who do wrong in that.

>>510305128
>It is a synthetic NPC concept.
Race is a biological reality. If it were a concept, then it wouldn't be observable in infants and the subconscious perceptions of people regardless of their belief in race.
>>510305883
Societies are constructs. Race is the group of people with whom we can construct society. People outside each other's races are socially incompatible.

>>510311011
TL;DR. Words Words Words.
You lost.
Seethe more, tranny.

>>510311011
>It's not even about intervening, donating, or action, it's a simple question of do you care at all about right or wrong done to someone
Hot take, niggercattle, but for most people, intervening for someone else's benefit definitely falls under doing right to them.

>>510311015
>golem regurgitates the most generic talking points possible
ID goes to the filter.

>>510299979
The study wasn't exclusively about "white", it can be narrower down to family, extended family, and self. It's also about right and wrong, not preference. It's like how you can have rightwing monarchies fighting each other.

>>510311183
>question is asked
>answer with source
>anon: that's too many words!
lol okay retard.

>>510311188
It could, but the study explicitly narrows it down to just caring at all. Trying to account for what it could mean conversationally, how it could be taken by any number of people, when it's spelled out, is just being dishonest.

>>510299164 (OP)
The realistic verion of that image would be the city on the left surround by miles of sprawl like the image on the right

KINGS WHEN ABSENT MUST RISE

LIBERTY IS A FALSE GOD

IN A LIBERTARIAN STATE THE NAP WILL BE DISREGARDED AT THE FIRST SIGN OF AN EXCUSE AND POWER WILL BE CONSOLIDATED

THIS HAS HAPPENED EVRY TIME "REAL CAPITALISM" IS TRIED. IT IS EVERY BIT AS BAD AS "REAL COMMUNISM".

HERE IS THE ONLY WAY FORWARD
1: EXPEL JEWS
2: ECONOMICS ARE NOT ETHICAL PRINCIPLES. REGULATE OR DO NOT REGULATE ECONOMIC ACTIVITIES DEPENDING ON THE CURRENT NEEDS OF THE PEOPLE AND THE GOALS OF THE STATE.

THAT IS FUCKING IT.

>>510311691
Kekt hard at your super-desperate attempt to save face after being exposed as a mongoloid and stomped.

>>510310539
You wrongly assume that moral capital must be quantifiable to make observations of its relative partitioning.
Humans necessarily have a limited amount of attention and by extension investment into various things. Someone who allocates all his concern for one relationship is necessarily less invested in other relationships. Someone who allocates his investment broadly will have less to attention for any specific relationship. A leftist invests relatively less in a given relationship because relatively more of himself is invested into other considerations (the species, the climate, the planet, the universe).
>anyone who fails to invest absolutely everything they have in their own family "cares relatively less" about them
Yes. And the leftists in the study cared relatively less about their families compared to conservatives. Ignoring the heat maps that went viral, both groups rated their families as the most important, but leftists were less likely to rate their families as the most important, and on the scales provided in the study their prioritization of their family was weaker than conservatives.
>but in reality, there's only so much you can do for someone before before it becomes counter-productive.
Yes. That's not mutually exclusive with the first point.

>>510312066
>You wrongly assume that moral capital must be quantifiable to make observations of its relative partitioning.
No, I don't, niggercattle. Try again.

>leftists in the study cared relatively less about their families
Leftists in the study distributed "relatively less" "moral capital" to their families, which doesn't actually mean anything wrt. "caring" for a reason I've just explained and which still stands undisputed.

>>510312022
The study says it's a moral circle, it's about extent of caring for right and wrong done, not priority. It's not about intervention. You need to ignore the words on the study and pretend everyone thought it was about something else.

>>510310865
There it is again, a simple restatement. Very npc-like.

Anyway, you talk about supporting logic a lot but rarely offer it for your positions, yourself. You're just deconstructing things; an easy thing to do that most argumentative teenagers engage in, because it's esier to see the flaws in ideas that create parameters for things than it is to create and defend them. You demonstrate this, even. You offer the position that>>510305883

>a real human society consists of maybe several hundred members
It is challenged>>510306151
>is it the case that a “real human society” consists only of “several hundred members,” or is that just an abstractive delineation of your own?
and your rebuttal is>>510306632
>Yes. Deal with it.

No support. The support, to the extent there is any, would be that we evolved in and for smaller tribal units, but your delineation would still be somewhat arbitrary, as you say others are.

>>510299164 (OP)
>In a libertarian state, people would have lots of guns and you wouldn't want to commit crime for fear of being shot. (organic prevention of crime).
i shoot you beforehand and loot your dead body instead of having you willingly give up your wallet. what now
>inb4 other people will shoot me
it's a quiet alley at night. nobody's outside, it's dark and humid. that's where your body will be found. try again

>>510312340
>Leftists in the study distributed "relatively less" "moral capital" to their families, which doesn't actually mean anything wrt.
It isn't a limited supply and the study said the circles include all circles inside it.

>>510312341
You're absolutely fucking retarded. Trust me. You're by far the biggest moron ITT. Nigger-tier reading comprehension level retarded. Didn't-try-to-read-own-screenshot level retarded.

>>510312556
I made it easier for you to read here:
>>510312528

>>510312364
>It is challenged
Casting passive doubt on basic anthropological facts is not a "challenge". Try again.

>>510312675
Did you try reading the rest of the text, though, you dumb inbred? In the screenshot you posted first?

>>510312756
Intervention wasn't mentioned, it's just extent of caring about right or wrong, just not taking action. Go ahead and point out what you're talking about.

>>510311288
>controversial empirical evidence is generic (?) and therefore I will ignore it
>t. anon defending color-blind society (the generic position)
Societies can remain small, but those small societies must take race into consideration. A world of tiny diverse communities would be as harmful as a globalized one.
>>510312340
>No, I don't, niggercattle. Try again.
You do. Your post is about the limitations of quantifying moral capital and allocating units of it, something that is unnecessary to make a relative rather than quantitative observation.
"Relatively less" means exactly what the study indicates, which is that relative to conservatives, leftists placed less weight on their families/immediate communities.
>Leftists in the study distributed "relatively less" "moral capital" to their families, which doesn't actually mean anything
If you're confused by the data, you should ask for help rather than sperging in the thread.

>>510300702
Well... they love nothing; they are psychopathic!

>>510313099
>Societies can remain small, but those small societies must take race into consideration
Natural human societies had no concept of "race" except in the sense equivalent to "tribe" with the normal implications of that word. A tribe is a tiny subset of the synthetic category you call "race". Tribes from the same "race" had no qualms about brutally killing each other off over resource scarcity or sometimes just for kicks.

>You do
I don't. Try again, niggercattle. By the way, I just stop reading your post as soon as I see a blatant lie.

>>510299164 (OP)
the only historically guaranteed consequence of a lolbertarian society is that the corrupt rise to power and never face consequences of their own.

>>510313092
>Intervention wasn't mentioned
It's implied by concern that right is done with others. Details vary but generally speaking, humans (naturally, I'm not including Amerisharts under this label) consider helping those in need a moral responsibility.

>>510312389
Someone's been shot. This means the safety of the community is in jeopardy. The rest of the community is going to investigate and when they find you, they're going to do whatever it takes to stop you from being a threat again.

A community can't afford apathy, and they can't afford niggers. This is why NPCs can't have anarchy. They're apathetic machines that need to be coddled by kikes.

>>510299164 (OP)
How come "liberal" and "libertarian" mean the exact same thing, yet have practically opposite connotations?

>>510299657
Yes. The further the heat map gets from the center, the more distant the relations are to the person responding. So it's like,
>you
>your family
>your extended family
>your community
>your race
>your species
>mammals
>all other animals
>bugs
>plants
>rocks and non-sapient non-lifeforms
>shit far, far away in outer space not even on Earth

Progs claim to ascribe equal importance to ALL things, because they think they're just that big-hearted. In reality, empathy is a finite resource, so either they're just fucking lying and trying to virtue signal to look better than people who truthfully only care about their own circle of people, or the progs really DO care about everything equally, which would be... barely at all.

>>510314313
In Amurderica, "liberal" means "I'll be taking some liberties with this Constitution of yours". It's supposed to be a counterpart to "conservative".

>>510314038
Another mistake that niggers and jeets make is that they assume that a libertarian or anarchist society would be completely atomistic, but this would only be true if humans were solitary creatures. Humans are social, and as such they organize naturally into groups (but this is not by any means the same thing as authority and society), like families and tribes. The most realistic example for what an anarchy would look like would be numerous small communities (maybe something like townships, but HOAs wouldn't exist because an anarchy would emphasize sovereignty and mutual cooperation).
Human social organization doesn't scale well (which is one of the main reasons why big cities are hives of mentally ill bug people), but because anarchist society would be largely if not completely devoid of NPCs, communities would be composed of real, thinking human beings who could work with other communities to solve a common problem.

>>510313924
That's moot though and doesn't need to be relevant and is an assumption. Like I can care about animal rights and still feed my family factory farmed fast food. Caring about right or wrong done to animals doesn't even need to translate to going vegan, it could just be caring about the well-being of cats and dogs generally. If I'm a rightwinger, my moral circle goes as far as MY pets specifically, generally I don't care about pets.

>>510314469
Thank you, town rapist, very informative!

>>510314500
You sound legit mentally ill. Also, for the 5th time, read your own screenshot.

>>510314620
Just quote it. What am I missing?

>>510314038
>"fuck you i got mine": the ideology
>community
kek

>>510306569
One, I'm not even the same person.
Two, what's your argument now? You expect me to illustrate the casual relationship between instances of the same preemptively established framework? There are limits to anyone's good faith anon.

>>510314765
>What am I missing?
The part where it explains what task your screenshot actually pertains to. Everything you try to argue off of it is a nonstarter, even if you can't wrap your head around the obvious connection between "concerned about right and wrong done towards X" and positive action on behalf of X. Once you're done not reading your own (mostly irrelevant) screenshot, you can also not read this one: >>510307074

>>510313613
>Natural human societies had no concept of "race"
Racial awareness is an observable biological and instinctual reality. Whether primitive societies knew about them is a moot point, especially because until recently practically everyone lived in racially homogenous regions. Most people wouldn't know that other types of human exist.
>Tribes from the same "race" had no qualms about brutally killing each other
The race doesn't need to act like a society, because the race is not a society. That doesn't change that races are a biological reality.

>I don't.
also you:
>allowing for the premise that there's some fixed amount of "moral capital"
>Nothing in this thought experiment indicates how much "moral capital" you have
>and how much is needed to satisfy any group's needs
>fixed amount
>how much moral capital you have
>how much is needed
These are all quantitative statements.
Your post made a quantitative assumption.
I made a relative observation.
You are wrong, and doubly down is petulant.

>>510315045
>I'm not even the same person.
I didn't say you're the same person. I said you repeat the same mistake and literally quoted your post where you explicitly do that.

>You expect me to illustrate the casual relationship between instances of the same preemptively established framework?
This is word salad. I want you to show me how you get from "nature doesn't prevent it from happening" to "it's natural".

>>510315118
You aren't quoting anything because you are trying to weasel in an interpretation when it's straightforward, extent of care. The pic you want me to also read lists actions along with just empathy.

>>510315154
>Racial awareness is an observable biological and instinctual reality.
No, it isn't.

>Your post made a quantitative assumption.
No, I didn't. Inbreds like you legit need to be sterilized by the state.

>>510315574
I like how every single anglo-derived subhuman on this board is showing signs of heavy inbreeding.

>>510315376
I see, you're more interested in your vitriol than making sense. Insofar as there is a concept of naturality then things that result from a natural process are necessarily also natural. That's the only argument I've made and the only counter argument has nothing to do with anything being prevented.

Human interaction with "the natural" imparts bias, and the preference of those biases can be denied by natural processes. The only real contention you should even bother making is in the range of the semantic idiom "of nature".

>>510312680
That's a challenge, bud. And, again, he's partially correct: You put out an abstractive delineation based on an evolutionary argument which is still, to some degree, a "no true Scotsman". You can't handle the abstract nature of concepts and "labels" (words) when others use them to talk about anything from race to freedom to government, despite using them to talk about "real human societies", but these things can't be discussed without words. Someone who wants to be free to do many things but recognizes others won't allow it is going to use "freedom" in the context of coming up with a frame of governance that allows them more ability to do the things they want than the next. That's what libertarianism is about doing.

You nitpick about others use of these sorts of words but thoughtlessly expect yours to be treated with grace. You're like a teenager, angry and railing at the world yet expecting it to listen to his opinions and take them at face value, always refusing to consider the possibility that he may be wrong.

>>510315895
>things that result from a natural process are necessarily also natural.
I like how you're stuck simply repeating the same retarded assertion because you can't actually justify it.

>>510315925
>That's a challenge,
As in, mentally challenged. Not reading the rest of your post, by the way. Come back when you have a grasp of at least the most basic anthropology.

>>510315029
A community filled with people (And I do use that term loosely) like you wouldn't survive. You'd wither away and die without government coddling you.
statists are unironic subhuman golems.

>>510315724
>continues to not quote the study
kek have a nice day, 46 pbti

>>510316119
You're inbred and mentally ill. Try reading your own screenshot (which is from a different task) and then the other one I linked to that actually explains the task.

>>510315638
>the Putnam study which found that racial diversity harms every measure of community health
Infants show racial awareness as young as 3 months of age
>empathy is unconsciously mediated by race, regardless of belief in race
Perception of harm is unconsciously mediated by race, regardless of belief in race
>the amygdala activates in response to seeing an other-race face, but not a same-race face
You are so ignorant of the fact, but so arrogant too.

>No, I didn't.
If you can't comprehend quotes from your own posts, I'm not sure why you think you're so smart.

It's better than lie-based tyrannical oligarchy with daily violent psyops to keep the goyim enslaved.

>>510316231
>Infants show racial awareness as young as 3 months of age
No, they don't.

>If you can't comprehend quotes
None of your quotes contain any "quantitative assumptions". You are severely mentally ill.

>>510316009
You already said that. Are you trying to decouple the inheritance of conceptual contributions from the iteration you're personally dealing with? Whatever the limitations of the semantic "natural" framework you've settled upon are, they must include that nature cannot produce something unnatural or else it will be internally dissonant. This is just the stretched out way of saying there isn't anything truly unnatural, only in respect to silos of bias.

How would you feel if you didn't have breakfast yesterday?

>>510299386
>love to misunderstand.
I will never understand histrionic dipshits that believe men can become pregnant

>>510316404
>They must include that nature cannot produce something unnatural
Proof? Pretty funny how your crippled biological language model can't progress a single step beyond reformulating the same claim over and over.

>>510316483
A shame, I had hoped you were more intelligent than this. Your diction gave me hope, but the error is ultimately mine.

Enjoy your hollow masturbation anon.

>>510316674
>challenged to logically justify a claim
>repeats it 4 times
>i-i-i thought y-y-you wuz smurt
All. Anglos. Are. Inbred.

>>510316771
I don't mind to continue, I can adjust my expectations.

You want me to explain language? Isn't it curious how language can only come from an entity that already knows the language? There's no clear spawning point for a language, but there's clear evidence that many of them have started all the same.

>>510317121
>devolves into psychotic rambling

>>510316099
lolbert trying to go more than 5 seconds without dehumanizing anyone who doesn't provide him utility

>>510299264
It's a widely misinterpreted chart. It says liberals care about people close to them, but also animals and the environment. Conservatives/rightwing only care about their family and don't care about animal torture or pollution. /pol/ misinterprets it, whether out of stupidity or malice I'm not sure, as liberals care about rocks more than their family.

>>510300411
I shows how spineless are with their "i love everything"
bullshit, they really hate all things in the universe except fent and heroin.

>>510317181
Au contraire. There are many things that are language-like but still miss the mark. Almost all language is communication, but very little communication is language. In order to even analyze these things requires the language itself, thus forbidding the analyst access to the Archimedean point.

>>510317408
Unironically take your meds.

>>510316093
You jump to conclusions very frequently in argument; it's contributing to you being so often wrong. I didn't suggest that tribe size wasn't historically a few hundred members at most, and I was already aware of this.
>>510316347
>severely mentally ill
You post on /pol/ and have posted, as someone else pointed out, quite a few times in this thread (52 and counting). You are almost certainly the most mentally ill person here.

And babies do see something akin to race. At best, you could try to extend the "race isn't real" argument by saying they see some degree of genetic similarity to their own group "but that's not the same as race", but even that will be nitpicky. Of course, you could always just flail around insulting anyone who you disagrees with your retarded takes.

>>510316347
Yes, they literally do, and they show more and stronger racial biases as they age (despite living in a society that constantly pressures them to be race-blind/antiracist).
>Three-month-olds, but not newborns, prefer own-race faces, Kelly, 2008
>Infants show racial bias toward members of own ethnicity, against those of others, University of Toronto, 2017
>meta-analytic review of the development of face discrimination in infancy, Sugden, 2017
>Do infants show social preferences for people of differing race?, Kinzler, Harvard University, 2011
These, in addition to other methods of analysis, prove that race is a biological and behavioral reality.

>None of your quotes contain any "quantitative assumptions".
>fixed amount
>how much more
>how much is needed
These are all quantitative. Your post is a quantitative criticism of a relativistic observation.
I'm unsure whether you're a bot or a troll or severely autistic, but in any case (You) are a waste of time. Goodbye.

>>510317463
From this we are able to say that language came from things that are not language, but can language produce things that are not language? Signs and symbols and gestures all fall under the purview of language.

>>510317338
Even the most generous interpretation of this study states that liberals care about bacteria and space rocks.

Who gives a fuck about bacteria and space rocks? How mentally ill would you have to be to care about that stuff?

>>510317301
Then stop worshiping authority.

But you won't. I could just as easily tell /pol/ to stop dehumanizing jews and niggers and jeets, but I see WHY they do it, and if you had any ounce of self awareness, you'd see why statists are NPCs.

So fuck off with that moralfaggotry.

>>510317531
>concedes that the natural size of a human society is at most several hundred members
Ok, thanks.

>And babies do see something akin to race
>something akin to
Nice pilpul.

>they see some degree of genetic similarity to their own group
And maybe not even that. For all anyone knows, it's based off of familiarity. But this isn't even the point. This retard is unironically trying to frame babies being oblivious about everything besides gross morphology as evidence that his sociopolitical concept is biologically validated. It's nonsense on every level.

Libertarian states would be taken over by feminists and become a longhouse. People wouldn’t want to piss off the feminists for fear of being seen as sexist, organic advancement of feminism.

>>510317723
>they literally do,
They don't.

>These are all quantitative
But they are not "assumptions". Thanks for going out of your way to demonstrate that your parents are siblings.

>>510317723
>>510317723
And since you're leaving the thread, I might as well actually refute your "quantitative assumptions" delusion now, seeing as you won't reply again with more inbred comebacks. Suppose each one of us has 100 cookies to hand out today. I allocate 10% of them to my kid and 90% to his classmates, while you allocate 90% to your kid and 10% to the other kids. I am allocating "relatively less" of this resource to him, yet I care more about my kid than you do about your fat, diabetic retard. But if each one of us only had 10 cookies, the same relative difference now means I'm maybe fucking my kid over.

I didn't make any assumptions. I simply tried to point out to you, the fucking mongoloid, why the actual values of these variables matters when it comes to interpreting whether or not "relatively less" of some abstract resource translates into less actual care.

>>510317999
>concedes
Never disagreed. Your reading comprehension isn't what it needs to be to win the arguments you're waging here.

>is unironically trying to frame babies being oblivious about everything besides gross morphology as evidence that his sociopolitical concept is biologically validated
It is about as close to biologically validated as as sociological concept is going to get: People are evolved to preserve their genetic interests. People with markedly different genetics to them can threaten their genetic interests, and those people doing well does not further their genetic interests as much as people similar to them doing well will. Thus: Tribalism. People can sometimes see differences between their tribe and another's members. Thus: The beginnings of "racism". Some people from somewhat different tribal backgrounds are more genetically similar to ech other than they are to others, hence: A broader coalition is instinctively formed (Yoruba and Igbo both become "black"). People can distinguish between members of one broader group and members of another based on appearance, which is based on their genes.
These concepts don't appear out of nothing. They are downstream from genetics, from biology and evolution. It's like the concept of species; there's ultimately an arbitrary delineation somewhere in there, but it's useful enough to deserve a word and basically real in the same way the concept of a "chair" is, to some extent, real.
Or we could be nitpicky and no one gets to use words and no discussion gets to be had.

>>510303518
That reminds of the time when liberals put Coney posters everywhere KO NI you guys remember that shit it was one of my little tiny town of like 200 people it was pathetic.

>>510319422
>Never disagreed.
Concession accepted. You can't "challenge" reality by parading ignorance.

>It is about as close to biologically validated as as sociological concept is going to get
No, it isn't. Your best attempt so far consists of dumbing your conception of what makes a functioning society to that of a literal infant. The rest of your drivel biologically validates the natural social structure of humanity, not the synthetic globalist fiction about how Frenchmen and Swedes belong in the same society.

>>510318927
The spirit of his point is still correct: Leftist do care less about protecting the interests of those in their more proximal groups (they're in favor of mass immigration, don't care about demograhpic replacement, etc.). They're less interested in protecting the interests of those more genetically similar to them because they're out-group collaborators; that's their niche, a modern extension of their evolutionary strategy. They're higher intelligence, verbally tilted, weaker people who aquire resources and achieve and maintain power more through social manipulation and coalition forming than modern "right wing" people. The two groups are essentially people who would be poor hunter-gatherers and successful hunter gatherers, respectively, in tribal living, and their politics in the current day about resource redistribution and the "weak" and "downtrodden" getting more support while what appear to be society's more dominant groups (white men) see the worthiness of their status and position questioned.

The warmth maps appear to reflect this broader pattern of thinking.

>>510320403
I wasn't making a point about leftists. I was making a point about the implications of the image, which I don't think are that insane when you stop to consider (e.g.) the size of your family vs. the number of other people you'll have to interact with. Assuming you have enough of this "moral resource" to treat people decently on average, allocating it all the way the conservatards did makes no sense. I get being concerned about your kin, but it takes "helicopter mom" to a whole new level.

>>510319817
>your conception of what makes a functioning society
What the fuck are you talking about? Didn't mention this anywhere. Who's talking about functioning society? And the synthesis is born out of a reality where Swedes and Frenchmen both have to compete with others who are leagues more genetically different from them than they are from each other. So, they think of themselves as belonging to a category that the other group isn't in. Race as a concept was an inevitable consequence of atavistic human instincts interacting with all of these genetically unlike but not equivalently unlike people being in a more connected, competitive environment; people will see that some are more different to them than others and will draw lines somewhere. Do you believe racism is so far from natural that we could live in a world where such people mix and coexist without "racism" or some genetic-similarity-based equivalent?
Furthermore, Frenchmen and Swedes are clearly more capable of coexisting in the same society better than either with Nigerians.

>>510320996
>What the fuck are you talking about?
Come back when you know what I'm talking about, you dull ape.

>Frenchmen and Swedes are clearly more capable of coexisting in the same society better than either with Nigerians.
A true statement that has absolutely zero bearing on how the French should relate to the Swedes. If anything, someone being "racially" close to me yet culturally different, is all the more reason to be wary of them, because they have a vastly higher capacity to do harm to me on account of both natural geographical proximity and intellectual/technological capabilities.

>>510320994
No, HE was, and the reason that image is posted is to convey that point, which it heavily suggests. Especially when taken in concert with the various positions people see leftists hold in real life. This tendency in conservatives is an instinctive response that they, but not liberals, tend to have to outgroups being present in large numbers in their society (it causes them to band together more and trust broader society less, though they also just have less empathy). For liberals, outgroups being present is an opportunity to use the outgroups to get more thing from the ingroup members they have to compete with (other white people), who hold resources or power they want.

>>510321432
>HE was
Ok. And? You're a literal dumb nigger. We weren't arguing about leftists. I told him right off the bat that my view on leftists is far less charitable than his and made it clear I take issue with a different aspect of his point which is what we ended up arguing about. Not reading the rest of your dumb post.

>>510321365
It's a non-literal statement, you spiteful gremlin. I pointed out in the very next sentence that I didn't mention this in any previous posts, meaning you brought it up to me out of nowhere as if you were responding to a point.

>A true statement that has absolutely zero bearing on how the French should relate to the Swedes
It has a lot of bearing on how they "should" relate to each other RELATIVE TO OTHER PEOPLES (race: The concept).
>If anything, someone being "racially" close to me yet culturally different, is all the more reason to be wary of them, because they have a vastly higher capacity to do harm to me on account of both natural geographical proximity and intellectual/technological capabilities.
And historically it has been. But right now, when demographic change brought about by modern liberalism threatens the genetic interests of both more than they do each others through mass immigration, race is a rather useful and instinctively appealing concept. It's a coalitionary one with genetic underpinnings as well as a categorical system than biology reflects (genetic clustering of traits so obvious they are literally visable). Make sense?

>>510321823
>you should tolerate me and other inbred anglo trash in your society because we're both """white"""
>b-b-b-because uhh...
>niggers exist on another continent
In my ideal world, you or any member of the unglo subrace would be shot immediately upon trying to set foot in Mainland Europe.

>>510321546
His original post was about what leftists think, where he made some leaps of logic about what the study suggests but was still correct about leftists, and their behavior in the study likely WAS a reflection of these qualities that they do posses, making it a reasonalbe inference. You got nitpicky about nothing, like a fag just looking for something to attack. About race, too.

>>510322071
I don't need you to tolerate anyone; you couldn't if you tried. And it's not another continent. That's the point, fag.

>>510322263
>it's not another continent.
It WAS another continent until "my race" started importing hordes of niggers into Europe, demonstrating once again that the greatest danger to a European is another European.

>>510322263
>>510322480
And no, don't tell me it's the kikes. Almost everyone involved in the infrastructure implementing it is "white" and most of the support for it comes from "whites".

>>510299164 (OP)
if you were a libertarian youd care about the rights of those rocks on the ground, like on the right

>>510322071
Ironically, you would likely instinctively grasp this if you grew up in a genetically mixed environment. This is partly why the Americans you so loathe often understand it: We live around German-descended people, Anglo-descended people, Swede-descended, etc. and Aztecs and Sub-Saharan Africans every day. Guess which are the easiest for another European-descended person to get along with in just about every way imagineable?

>>510299164 (OP)
>I like oversimplified toy models of large scale multiagent interactions because they are easy for my little nigger brain to grasp

Many such cases

>>510322563
thank the christcucks for allowing species mixing so now you cant tell them apart

>>510320403
>>510320996
>>510322642
Stop replying to him. The Moldovan is the biggest retard I've seen on /pol/ in a long time.

I noted in relative terms that humans have limited attention to invest into their relationships, and he's making a quantitative argument about cookies (which is a disingenuous example, because overeating is unhealthy but deep investment in loved ones is healthy).
I listed a number of ways that race is observable. He focused specifically on infants and said they don't show racial bias. He ignored the other examples. I showed evidence infants do show bias, so he pretends it is the only evidence I provided and dismisses it for being uncorroborated.
He can't seem to differentiate between biological race and sociocultural groups, no matter how many times it is explained to him. Probably because he seems to hate his own kind for globalism.

Stop posting. Let the thread die.

>>510322480
>>510322563
No shit. And yet race delineates your ethnic group and theirs, and is an easy thing to rally around (over here, especially) for instinctual tribaistic reasons. But "it's not real" and it needs to be dissected (at a level of scrutiny that destroys all words because ALL of them are abstract and conceptual, ALL of them are to some extent not objective) and no one can use it, according to you.

>>510322839
I'll stop. saging

>>510322642
>Ironically, you would likely instinctively grasp this if you grew up in a genetically mixed environment. This is partly why the Americans you so loathe often understand it: We live around German-descended people, Anglo-descended people, Swede-descended, etc. and Aztecs and Sub-Saharan Africans every day. Guess which are the easiest for another European-descended person to get along with in just about every way imagineable?
I agree with you completely: in your synthetic society, without shared roots, real culture or traditions, turbo-mongrels like you have nothing better to go by than this borderline globohomo concept of "racial brotherhood".

>>510322839
>he's making a quantitative argument
Holy mother of genetic deformities, he still fails to grasp it even after having it spelled out in terms of cookies.

>which is a disingenuous example, because overeating is unhealthy
Nor is he capable of basic abstract thought.

>>510323361
cookies are a quantitative unit, retard. Do you understand the difference between quantity (number of things, like cookies) and relative quality (thing 1 is relatively weaker than thing 2)?
Your example is proof that you don't understand what "relatively" means.
>what did you have for breakfast this morning?

>>510323187
>No shit. And yet race delineates your ethnic group and theirs, and is an easy thing to rally around (over here, especially) for instinctual tribaistic reasons. But "it's not real" and it needs to be dissected (at a level of scrutiny that destroys all words because ALL of them are abstract and conceptual, ALL of them are to some extent not objective) and no one can use it, according to you.
You're getting exterminated and you can't do anything about it because you and your opinions simply don't matter in a "society" of 100 million golems. Your individual political stances are the social equivalent of Brownian motion. Seethe about it some more, and while you're at it, be sure to extol the virtues of "societies" that lump ludicrous amounts of people together into a helpless mass based on ideological abstractions. :^)

>>510323835
>cookies are a quantitative unit,
Fucking kek.

>>510299164 (OP)
laws are made to be selectively enforced this is want conservaniggers fail to remember when they suck on piggy dick.

Alright, I'm coming back

>>510323228
You're likely more mongrelized than I
>>510323868
Don't extol virtues of societies that do "x". Don't want mine this dysfunctional. Simple as.

"Brownian motion" is almost all people's opinions on just about everything. You're right here with me: 67 posts on this thread of noise in the void

>>510324484
>You're likely more mongrelized than I
Nothing is more mongrelized than you.

>"Brownian motion" is almost all people's opinions on just about everything. You're right here with me
Yes, you fucking mongoloid. That's the point.

>>510323868
You're very clearly a dysfunctional person who feels done-wrong by society. Were you in a "natural", pre-civilizational tribe, you wouldn't be their chief lecturing everyone. They would probably expel or kill you, and it would be evolutionarily sensible for them to do so.

>>510299386
>we don't value rocks more than family
>we value family as little as rocks
So much better, in the leftoid mind.

>>510324787
>Were you in a "natural", pre-civilizational tribe, you wouldn't be their chief lecturing everyone. They would probably expel or kill you, and it would be evolutionarily sensible for them to do so.
This isn't even a coherent hypothetical. How the fuck would someone like me - or like you, for that matter - even come to exist under that context? Regardless, it's pretty funny how you, human cattle that you are, can't even conceive of any arrangement where individuals actually make a difference instead of being handed down a policy by the "chief". That's a "white" racial characteristic right there.

>>510299164 (OP)
Someone give me a QRD on this weird fuckin circle thing.

I saw it just randomly start getting used one day, and there was really never any context to it prior nor going forward. Admittedly, I made no attempt to engage with it, but I'm tired of seeing it and not understanding its relevance.

>>510325289
nvm, someone already asked. thanks previous anonfags, I get it now and will continue disregarding these threads.

>>510324547
Ironic you use mongoloid as an insult. You're Moldovan, so you probably have some amount of steppe admixture. I have none.
Mongrel this, Anglo that. The hatred of Americans. Why the vexatious fixation? You know how much Americans obsess about Moldovans?

>>510325203
Chief is an easy tribe concept reference, a throwaway, you grasping-at straws loser. And it's because you're an obtuse, overly agressive pest that's not satisfied with anything and hates everyone. Those traits wouldn't magically be absent if you grew up in a tribe, they're probably partly genetic. The tribe wouldn't tolerate you and would get rid of you. There's no society you could comfortably exist in. You're defective.

>>510325436
>I lost another argument so I'm resorting to incoherent fantasies about you getting bullied by grug just like they treated me back in highschool

>>510299164 (OP)
saved.

>>510299164 (OP)
It’d just be gangs fighting for control until one gang won, and then guess what, now you’re not a libertarian country anymore

>>510311011
>it's not about priority of care, it's about the possible extent of caring about right or wrong done to someone
When you spread your care like that, it absolutely changes your priorities

>>510325713
Was big and strong in highschool. School didn't have bullies, anyway. You've lost multiple args in this thread, you're a pedantic, rules for thee but not for me fag, and you speak frequently about societal programming and nature and basically a bunch of "return to monke" shit, but you'd get killed in that environment.

>>510326088
Seethe more kek. Eternal loser.

>>510299164 (OP)
Once all the niggers are shot, everyone else then doesn't commit crimes because it's a shitty thing to do, and in as much as it is, utopia is made.

>>510299164 (OP)
The funny thing is that the leftist view is an inversion of natural values. It's like a tree without roots, and such trees always die or topple catastrophically.

>>510310173
>A reactionary study with no actual results by angry atheists
seems legit

>>510326142
*yawn*

>>510326542
It has to be since their belief system is rooted in tabula rasa (blank slate: Everything is 100% environment, 0% genetic). In their eyes, every inequity must be the result of environmental tampering, such as some groups being treated better or worse for no reason. The result is an attempt at punishing people and values that rose to the top or produced the best results, and replacing them with people and values that didn't produce results. Then things fall apart.

>>510300411
I don’t care what side you’re on, this is a stupid study. For example, one category is “All mammals”, and the next is “All mammals, reptiles, etc”. But they also said in the study that the categories were non overlapping?

This is some retard study probably done by a student.

>>510327723
The map sucks, too. The scale runs from 0 to 12 for conservative and 0 to 20 for liberal using the same colors. Pretty sloppy even though it's an interesting idea.

>>510327723
What's more revealing is that the study lacks a "my race" or "my ethnicity" or even a "my community" category.
It jumps from friends to strangers to geopolitics.