> Shockley: He argued that a higher rate of reproduction among purportedly less intelligent people was having a dysgenic effect, and argued that a drop in average intelligence would lead to a decline in civilization. He also claimed that black people were genetically and intellectually inferior to white people.
Oh no no no. Why do so many geniuses have bad opinions?
And most importantly meat in the bones. naggers will not think twice before doing it, so if you want to survive you will have to eat the "sopa de macaco".
>Born in 1910 >Died in 1989 >African Americans only got the right to vote in 1965
I think it was safe to be openly racist back then. (Because everyone was)
most academics are dependant on institutions for income, so they are not unbiased.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
everyone is dependent on institutions (companies,government) for income, and these institutions hold political positions (blm,lgbt,climate,etc).
Only academics and the destitute can truly be outside of this
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
The former disproves the latter, because from the former actually follows the opposite of the latter. >the missile knows where it is
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
you claim everyone is a contrarian, have you been to reddit, or outside for that matter?
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
you claim everyone is a contrarian, have you been to reddit, or outside for that matter?
academics who aren't destitute cannot be outside this, as universities are also institutions themselves with their own interests and power and incentive structures and they're usually never independent.
And then they vote to block you and your children from attaining higher education so they can remain in power. What a fucking retarded take.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
how is restricting higher education a bad thing? Do people not worship the most selective institutions?
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
I just said why.
If you don't allow people education then you can control them. Which is why slave masters didnt want slaves to learn to read and write, same as the Catholic church not wanting peasants to be able to read and write.
You should know that in a scenario where society returns to a similar format, you will not be one of the people with power.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
it's the opposite, if you don't educate people, you cannot control them
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
That would be indoctrination, not education.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
Nigga what the fuck do you think you've been spewing on this thread for the last 40 minutes? It's genuinely laughable if you think you aren't indoctrinated, fucking retard. Keep ignoring reality, I'm sure the genetic disposition of billions of people will equalize eventually if you keep doing so
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
You go to academia and you see how much of a shit show it is, it’s like a playground for autistic kids trying to be the most popular
This is stupid. I work with very esteemed processors on a daily basis who are incredibly bright in their fields. They also have lived incredibly shelteres and wealthy lives (almost always coming from an upper class upbringing in their home countries in Asia) and generally they are dumb as a bag of bricks when it comes to anything outside of their academic discipline.
Having all of the voting power concentrated into a class of people who will be insulated from the repercussions of their decisions is a terrible idea.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>Having all of the voting power concentrated into a class of people who will be insulated from the repercussions of their decisions is a terrible idea.
so why does the US have representatives and senators, or a president with veto power?
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
In theory those representatives are supposed to be the vehicle by which the "will of the people" is supposed to propagate throughout the governmental body.
The US is actually a great case study in what I am getting at though. One of the biggest sources of political dissatisfaction in the US currently is how little the average American feels represented by their "representatives" in government who are supposed to advocate on their behalf. The legislative class being insulated from the negative externalities of their political decisionmaking lies at the heart of the current political instability and the rise revolutionary populist groups on both the left and right.
This isn't science though, and probably should be on a board devoted to politics/political science. If only we had one of those.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
You realize where the average person gets their ideas from, right? Direct democracy ultimately results in the idealization of a few thought leaders, ultimately serving as "representatives" for that group -- and my preference is these be academics (not in the modern sense of the word)
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
I think there will always be a dialectic between the elite in a society and the common people.
It is obvious that direct democracy becomes non-functional after a certain level of population size. There are too many logistical challenges to make it function and there are too many competence issues that would be brought to the fore.
On the other hand , it should also be fairly obvious that overly aggregating power into a concentrated ruling class is also not desirable. This is especially the case when the ruling class suffers not consequences of their behaviors severely damage the society that they live within. Just as building your society on the premise that the lowest common denominator sets the standard, if only those who experience no negative penalties for their incompetence rule, incompetence and largess will be the standard.
Instead there needs to be a balance. Power does need to be aggrefated towards competency (which over multiple generations is all but guaranteed to produce an elite class by the basics of heredity). This aggregation of power in an elite class needs to be checked by the ability of the average people to hold those elites to account in a real way when they are incompetent, selfish, and brutish with the power and privileges they have been granted.
The retarded still have a right to representation, and without the need to placate that block, it'll eventually go into full rebellion mode.
Only designated academics with experience should have the right to RUN. Make requirements for high office have a similarly high bar, and it won't matter who votes for what, as all your candidates are the best of the best, and the only people in high office are those with suitable experience.
No where in the corporate world do we put untested people with no experience and no education into high positions, so why do we do it in government, hell in the highest office in the land?
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>retarded still have a right to representation
No, the retarded are too stupid to have a right to vote, the same way the blind do not drive tractor trailers.
Government systems should not be immutable to revolution however, there should absolutely be mechanisms for large emancipatory groups to overrule without persecution, however these events should be isolated (IE a recurring election cycle which serves as "mini revolutions" is not necessary)
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
The social contract is not voluntary, thus the government has a duty to please all those it rules over insomuch as possible, and should have a hard motive to do so. Giving everyone the right to representation helps to guarantee this.
Retarded votes can only do good, if high offices can only be occupied by the highly qualified.
Most academics are utter retards or autists who were born rich enough to fuck about doing “their passion” or “their call to fame”; theyre on par with artists or musicians.
I would prefer economists since the best governments used to be ones with exposure to wars and come from military (thus cared for their people), most wars now are economical so it’s best to have them in charge
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
Thanks for the proposal, anon. I'm glad to take you up on it and rule the world by myself.
>invents transistors
except he didn't.
John Bardeen did all the theoretical work,
Walter Brattain did all the experimental work,
Shockley was just the supervisor for that group in Bell Labs that was assigned the task to find a more efficient alternative to the vacuum tubes.
>invent nothing
>name is OP
>creates a function with a literal heavy side
>name is Heaviside
>invents your mom
>name is Big Cock
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominative_determinism
> Shockley: He argued that a higher rate of reproduction among purportedly less intelligent people was having a dysgenic effect, and argued that a drop in average intelligence would lead to a decline in civilization. He also claimed that black people were genetically and intellectually inferior to white people.
Oh no no no. Why do so many geniuses have bad opinions?
>Why do so many geniuses have bad opinions
Surely it's just a toxic culture.
The people who persecuted this man have names and addresses
And most importantly meat in the bones. naggers will not think twice before doing it, so if you want to survive you will have to eat the "sopa de macaco".
>crakkka grandpa is racist
shocking!
He had the opinions of his time.
Doesn't make him special.
You can find intelligent people with all kinds of beliefs.
Midwit take.
>saying blacks are genetically inferior is an opinion of the 1970s+
Blacks are genetically dumber than they were when Shockley was telling them how to avoid this happening...kind of proves him right
>Born in 1910
>Died in 1989
>African Americans only got the right to vote in 1965
I think it was safe to be openly racist back then. (Because everyone was)
My apologies, everyone wasn't racist, but most people were.
no one besides designated academics should have the right to vote
most academics are dependant on institutions for income, so they are not unbiased.
everyone is dependent on institutions (companies,government) for income, and these institutions hold political positions (blm,lgbt,climate,etc).
Only academics and the destitute can truly be outside of this
The former disproves the latter, because from the former actually follows the opposite of the latter.
>the missile knows where it is
you claim everyone is a contrarian, have you been to reddit, or outside for that matter?
academics who aren't destitute cannot be outside this, as universities are also institutions themselves with their own interests and power and incentive structures and they're usually never independent.
And then they vote to block you and your children from attaining higher education so they can remain in power. What a fucking retarded take.
how is restricting higher education a bad thing? Do people not worship the most selective institutions?
I just said why.
If you don't allow people education then you can control them. Which is why slave masters didnt want slaves to learn to read and write, same as the Catholic church not wanting peasants to be able to read and write.
You should know that in a scenario where society returns to a similar format, you will not be one of the people with power.
it's the opposite, if you don't educate people, you cannot control them
That would be indoctrination, not education.
Nigga what the fuck do you think you've been spewing on this thread for the last 40 minutes? It's genuinely laughable if you think you aren't indoctrinated, fucking retard. Keep ignoring reality, I'm sure the genetic disposition of billions of people will equalize eventually if you keep doing so
You go to academia and you see how much of a shit show it is, it’s like a playground for autistic kids trying to be the most popular
This is stupid. I work with very esteemed processors on a daily basis who are incredibly bright in their fields. They also have lived incredibly shelteres and wealthy lives (almost always coming from an upper class upbringing in their home countries in Asia) and generally they are dumb as a bag of bricks when it comes to anything outside of their academic discipline.
Having all of the voting power concentrated into a class of people who will be insulated from the repercussions of their decisions is a terrible idea.
>Having all of the voting power concentrated into a class of people who will be insulated from the repercussions of their decisions is a terrible idea.
so why does the US have representatives and senators, or a president with veto power?
In theory those representatives are supposed to be the vehicle by which the "will of the people" is supposed to propagate throughout the governmental body.
The US is actually a great case study in what I am getting at though. One of the biggest sources of political dissatisfaction in the US currently is how little the average American feels represented by their "representatives" in government who are supposed to advocate on their behalf. The legislative class being insulated from the negative externalities of their political decisionmaking lies at the heart of the current political instability and the rise revolutionary populist groups on both the left and right.
This isn't science though, and probably should be on a board devoted to politics/political science. If only we had one of those.
You realize where the average person gets their ideas from, right? Direct democracy ultimately results in the idealization of a few thought leaders, ultimately serving as "representatives" for that group -- and my preference is these be academics (not in the modern sense of the word)
I think there will always be a dialectic between the elite in a society and the common people.
It is obvious that direct democracy becomes non-functional after a certain level of population size. There are too many logistical challenges to make it function and there are too many competence issues that would be brought to the fore.
On the other hand , it should also be fairly obvious that overly aggregating power into a concentrated ruling class is also not desirable. This is especially the case when the ruling class suffers not consequences of their behaviors severely damage the society that they live within. Just as building your society on the premise that the lowest common denominator sets the standard, if only those who experience no negative penalties for their incompetence rule, incompetence and largess will be the standard.
Instead there needs to be a balance. Power does need to be aggrefated towards competency (which over multiple generations is all but guaranteed to produce an elite class by the basics of heredity). This aggregation of power in an elite class needs to be checked by the ability of the average people to hold those elites to account in a real way when they are incompetent, selfish, and brutish with the power and privileges they have been granted.
The retarded still have a right to representation, and without the need to placate that block, it'll eventually go into full rebellion mode.
Only designated academics with experience should have the right to RUN. Make requirements for high office have a similarly high bar, and it won't matter who votes for what, as all your candidates are the best of the best, and the only people in high office are those with suitable experience.
No where in the corporate world do we put untested people with no experience and no education into high positions, so why do we do it in government, hell in the highest office in the land?
>retarded still have a right to representation
No, the retarded are too stupid to have a right to vote, the same way the blind do not drive tractor trailers.
Government systems should not be immutable to revolution however, there should absolutely be mechanisms for large emancipatory groups to overrule without persecution, however these events should be isolated (IE a recurring election cycle which serves as "mini revolutions" is not necessary)
The social contract is not voluntary, thus the government has a duty to please all those it rules over insomuch as possible, and should have a hard motive to do so. Giving everyone the right to representation helps to guarantee this.
Retarded votes can only do good, if high offices can only be occupied by the highly qualified.
Most academics are utter retards or autists who were born rich enough to fuck about doing “their passion” or “their call to fame”; theyre on par with artists or musicians.
I would prefer economists since the best governments used to be ones with exposure to wars and come from military (thus cared for their people), most wars now are economical so it’s best to have them in charge
Thanks for the proposal, anon. I'm glad to take you up on it and rule the world by myself.
it was not a subjective opinion, it's an argument.
It's a statistical fact.
I'm aware, my comment is on that poster's classification of Shockley's argument as an 'opinion'
>invents temporal logic
>name is Prior
>Tries to show american blacks how to advance beyond the stone age
>invents transistors
except he didn't.
John Bardeen did all the theoretical work,
Walter Brattain did all the experimental work,
Shockley was just the supervisor for that group in Bell Labs that was assigned the task to find a more efficient alternative to the vacuum tubes.
>discovers vector that points in the direction of energy flux
>name is Poynting
Discovers the vector field which zeros the Lie derivative of the metric tensor. Name is Killing.
being a good inventor is not synonym with being able to come up with decent nomenclature
transistors
Stolen German Patent from the '30ies. There is a reason the first was called Germaniun.Transistors
Glad LULZ has societies greatest and brightest
>German fairy tails
Germanium is an element.
>discovers Kepler's laws of planetary motion
>name is Kepler
we live in a simulation
lol/kek
>discovers various forces
>name is Newton
bros....