Didgeridon’t – Rolf Harris and the harm caused by Trolls/MRA »« Lazy Travelling – More Photography

Cultural Marxist War on Darwinism

Wow! With a name like that you know it must be good!

Except? No!

See this is one of those things about evolution that’s heavily misunderstood. White supremacists like to think that the races are essential to humanity. That somehow a huge chunk of human diversity that is “African” can be summed up as “black guys”. And to emphasise this they speak about the vast achievements of white guys (other than themselves).

It’s like me claiming to be awesome because of Gandhi.

People who bring this up tend to be speaking about black people. They tend to give up on this notion when faced down by Asians. Why? Well? Black people in the USA at least tend to come from low socio-economic strata and so perform poorly at schools while there are more white people to drag the average up. But Asian kids? Perform highly due to the fact that most came in as the the children of the Middle and Upper Middle Classes and so were better equipped to perform while coming from cultures that pride education and hard work but not child independence.

The joke here is that this is not evolutionarily sound. Darwinism isn’t a thing. In fact Darwin’s Theory of Evolution is not the theory that we follow today. It has grown and expanded way past “Darwin”. Racist forget that more than a hundred years of science have passed since then.

Yes, the races are different. Black people have more melaniin than white people. But what these people really mean is that there is a “poverty gene” that keeps black people poor. Must be! That’s why black people are poor!

Biology has moved past Darwin at a frankly astonishing rate because Darwin is effectively the father of a core science. Darwin turned the genteel pseudo-science of “Naturalism” into a science. A sport and pastime beloved of pastors and gentlemen who bagged game and collected insects, became a science much like Chemistry and Physics.

The strains of mankind have different allele frequencies but at no point has IQ been selected against as much as in the really soft societies of the West. In the west? Stupid people survive. People who make mistakes tend to live thanks to our medicine and our society that is designed to protect everyone. Hunter Gatherers live by the knife’s edge. There are no stupid old hunter gatherers.

I make it clear that I am no fan of Bear Grylllz but a fan of Ray Mears because of Mears’ attitude towards people. Survivalists treat nature as something to be beaten, Ray Mears learns from people who live in inhospitable environments. The end result is Bear Gryllz goes around biting small animals to death while Ray Mears lays out a three course meal he made from the same stuff. And one of the things he points out is how important traditional skills are and how much intelligence you require to live like these people we often denigrate.

The San were considered stupid. They live in the Kalahari. A place where most of us would die in a few days. The Australian Aborigines? Live off the land in the outback, a place where white explorers have simply vanished to die of exposure. The rainforest amazonians, tribals of India, Africa? All these people survive in places that are inhospitable with little to no tools of modern life and do so rather well. And we think they are stupid because they don’t pass western developed IQ tests.

Imagine how they would view Bear Gryllz? Why is that man eating raw  snakes and killing them with his teeth? What’s wrong with him? Doesn’t he know that these roots, fruits, berries, game and fish are perfectly edible?

Imagine if our entire society had to survive like the Kalahari and we dropped Justin Beiber there as the entire representative of white people. Everyone would think Caucasians were idiots. They would call them “Leopard Distractors”.

We are all human. The genetic difference between us is minute and frankly our brains work the same way. Nurture determines our final goal in life, not nature. Darwin spoke about favoured “races” but he meant it in terms of survival in the environment rather the global domination of “one race”. And honestly?

Hybrid Vigour. The thing that breaks apart this idiotic argument has been known for centuries among breeders even prior to Darwin. That if you take two established pure strains and cross breed them, you get healthier offsprings. If anything it would mean the “winners” of the human race are mixed race people.

But yes, this is not evolution. This is some sort of weird race essentialism trying to back racism with pseudo-science of eugenic supremacism and failing.

This is without going into how much the creator failed basic economic theory with regards to not knowing what Marxism despite using it as a description.

Comments

  1. says

    I wonder if you’ll get any of the racists on your post, from what I’ve seen they mainly distinguish themselves by being staggeringly illiterate. As a “master race” they don’t do my fellow melanin deficient whities any favours :P

  2. johngreg says

    You should call Dr. Hornbeck in here. He insists that any form of sex difference is a purely socio-cultural construct, and that there is in fact no such thing as Male or Female — beyond the social construct of patriarchically developed ersatz phenomena such as dictionaries, and so forth. His scientifically sound and deepity … erm, I mean, deeply researched proofs should work well with all of the above.

    Personally, I identify as a melatonin underpriviledged socio-papier contructed M -> fluid dragon-to-siamese cat Brony/Furry/Otherkin splice, and answer to the pronouns Waldo, Pepper, and Sneeze. And if you say otherwise, then clearly you are not only anti-feminist, you are also deeply anti-otherist and should be slung and arrowed to a frenzy

    I present as an old white CisHet male, ’cause that’s where the money’s at.

  3. johngreg says

    Marcus Ranum said:

    “cat vines” comment @#2 looks a lot like a spam-bot testing to see if it can post correctly.

    Marcus, you don’t spend a lot of time here, do you.

  4. says

    He insists that any form of sex difference is a purely socio-cultural construct, and that there is in fact no such thing as Male or Female

    Looks like a straw man. Is he saying that there’s no such thing as physical sex differentiation in humans (clearly wrong), or that there’s no such thing as an inborn male/female gender identity which exists completely independent of culture (true, and trivial)?

    I suspect you don’t spend a lot of time here. If you did, you’d have probably noticed that Marcus Ranum is one of the more frequent visitors on this blog.

  5. johngreg says

    shockna said:

    Looks like a straw man. Is he saying that there’s no such thing as physical sex differentiation in humans (clearly wrong), or that there’s no such thing as an inborn male/female gender identity which exists completely independent of culture (true, and trivial)?

    Hornbeck insists, at great length, that there is no such thing as physical sex differentiation in humans. He has even posted a YouTube lecture, of sorts, about it. It was rather hilarious when he argued his position on one of the FTB blogs — I cannot remember which FTB blog, but I suspect it was one of Ally’s because Ally* is the only FTB blogger who almost never moderates, edits, and delete’s commentor comments — because Hornbeck used himself, mostly, as his reference to authority.

    I suspect you don’t spend a lot of time here. If you did, you’d have probably noticed that Marcus Ranum is one of the more frequent visitors on this blog.

    I spend only a small amount of time here, it’s true. Nonetheless, yes, I do know that Marcus is a fairly frequent commentor. My comment was intended somewhat ironically (or perhaps tongue-in-cheek), as Avi’s blog has a history of being invaded by spam bots, which Avi usually does nothing about. I was actually surprised to see Avi delete that one.

    Irony is such a useful tool, but it is hard, even after all this time, to accept the fact that irony usually does not work well in a blog comment.

    * To be fair, Avi, too, rarely deletes comments. Between them, they really are the only FTB blog hosts who regularly allow major disagreement with their personal opinions to surface and remain.

  6. says

    Greg, I’ve seen HJ argue with one of the pitters on “SkeptiSchism” or whatever it’s called… Him referring to himself as authority and not providing copious citations sounds like a total fantasy on your part. The video you reference was chock full of them for a start.

  7. johngreg says

    ooleoh, as clueless as ever.

    I am not derailing, I am providing an example, tangential, perhaps, but nonetheless related, of an equally dumb-ass assumption as those held by the folks pointed to in the OP, to wit:

    Creationists: evolution is a social construct, not biologically real.

    Liberl Creationists: race is a social construct, not biologically real.

    Hornbeck: sex dimorphism is a social construct, not biologically real.

    And I don’t think Hornbeck’s been much of a topic at the Pit over the last few days. The Pit didn’t make me think of Horns, the OP did.

  8. Seven of Mine, formerly piegasm says

    Between them, they really are the only FTB blog hosts who regularly allow major disagreement with their personal opinions to surface and remain.

    You read extremely selectively if you actually believe this statement.

  9. johngreg says

    Seven said:

    You read extremely selectively if you actually believe this statement.

    I have read and commented at the following blogs:

    A Million Gods
    Almost Diamonds
    Ashley Miller
    Black Skeptics
    Blag Hag
    Brute Reason
    Butterflies and Wheels
    Comrade Physioproffe
    Cristina Rad
    Dsiapatches from the Culture Wars
    Godlessness in Theory
    Greta Chsitina’s Blog
    Heteronormative Patriarchy for Men
    Lousy Canuck
    Pharyngula
    Richard Carrier Blogs
    Sincerely, Natalie Reed
    The Crommunist Manifesto
    YEMMYnisting

    I have been moderated and deleted and, in almost all instances, banned on the following:

    Almost Diamonds
    Ashley Miller
    Black Skeptics
    Blag Hag
    Butterflies and Wheels
    Comrade Physioproffe
    Dispatches from the Culture Wars
    Godlessness in Theory
    Greta Chrisitina’s Blog
    Pharyngula
    Richard Carrier Blogs
    Sincerely, Natalie Reed
    The Crommunist Manifesto
    YEMMYnisting

    Now, you were saying?

  10. Seven of Mine, formerly piegasm says

    @ johngreg

    Even taking your word (something I’m not inclined to do) that you were, in fact, banned for no reason other than disagreeing with the bloggers’ personal opinions, you’re a sample size of one.

    While we’re doing the anecdata thing: I’ve read every one of those blogs and commented at most of them and the only times I’ve seen anyone get deleted is when they’re either being exceptionally vile or blatantly trolling. The vast majority of bans are not accompanied by deletion and are usually the result of a protracted argument in which the ban-ee refuses to engage meaningfully with others’ arguments.

    Annnnd….speaking of engaging meaningfully…the fact that you personally have managed to get banned and/or deleted from so many FTB blogs for reasons you don’t state doesn’t even speak to the claim you made that most FTB bloggers ban everyone who disagrees with their personal opinions, let alone support it.

  11. johngreg says

    I, and several other Pit people (so called), have been banned from several FTB blogs, and the Skepchick blog, for no reason other than disagreeing, strongly, with the stated ideology and opinions of the host bloggers.

    That does not mean that every blog I’ve ever been banned from does so because of that disagreement. In some cases I have indeed been an intentional asshole, and was justifiably banned for that. In yet others, I have literaly no idea why I was banned. Ed Brayton banned me (even though I only had I think 2 or 3 posts on his blog) because he didn’t like what I said about some of his fellow bloggers on blogs other than his own. Ophelia banned me before I even posted on her blog. And, in some cases I was banned for no reason other than I am what is called a Pit person — meaning, I am a regular commenter at the Pit.

    On most of the FTB blogs, it is impossible to show a meaningful cause for bannings, because the majority of FTB blog hosts intentionally refuse to publish specific and meaningful commenting rules — arbitrary, vague, obscure, and self-contradictory is the norm. Ally Fogg has what are probably the most straight forward, and adhered to, commenting rules on FTB. Some folks, like PZ, or Zvan, or Ophelia, never come clean with what their rules actually are, and they change them up abitrarily, without notice, anyway, so that they can specifically maintain total control over the dialogue and create a deeply false consensus.

    PZ has even stated publically, in some location on his blog, that he will ban anyone who he discovers posts at the Pit, and he will do so for no reason other than they post at the Pit.

  12. says

    There is disagreeing strongly and there are the sort of people who push the rules of the blog to breaking point then complain when they get told to not break the rules.

    Do you think Pitchguest, Larry Silverstein and whoever the first guy whose name I forgot didn’t deserve banning?

    Pitchguest kept breaking the rule about posts that had safe zone rules in place. He was also highly insulting to me and thus got himself a rather faster ban. So sue me. I don’t like people being insulting.

    Larry Silverstein kept spamming walls of text that had fuck nothing to do with the topics and contained racist, islamophobic and anti-semetic material. He also used to sock puppet as Layla Rashid and both posted similar stuff.

    And finally we had the first guy who got banned who literally spammed the place with insults to me, the other half.

    So tell me? Which one of these fuckwits didn’t deserve to get banned? I have few rules. They are simple and easy to follow. Stay on Topic. Keep to the rules of civility and safe zones when used to discuss such topics and don’t be racist/sexist/homophobic.

    I have let discussions take place above and beyond politeness considering Pitchguest was laying out personal insults at me repeatedly. Yes, you call it disagreeing strongly, I call it someone coming here and calling me names. He wasn’t willing to play nice so got banned.

    And consider I told him repeatedly, dedicated a post to telling him to behave. I wasted my time on that. I should have simply banned the idiot who couldn’t play by the rules of the place.

    And my rules exist because I cannot police the place. I don’t have the time that others have. Honestly? I actually am trading comments to maintain such a place. A lot of people tell me they don’t want to post because “I let you lot post without restriction”.

    Frankly? I figure you are posting these comments to the Slymepit and so gloating in whatever ban comes your way.

    But FYI? Do you understand that this topic has nothing to do with anything regarding the pit and yo simply are derailing it in order to push whatever pit malarkey of the day you wish to adhere to? I mean “Post about a racist evolution meme” and you are discussing comment policy….

  13. Seven of Mine, formerly piegasm says

    @ johngreg

    You’re really just illustrating my point. You claim everyone else bans just for disagreeing. I challenge that assertion. You cite as evidence a list of your personal bans/deletions which doesn’t even speak to the claim, let alone support it. Then, when pressed on that you list a variety of reasons for your bans, up to and including deliberately behaving like an asshole. Your narrative changes from one sentence to the next.

  14. Hj Hornbeck says

    johngreg @2:

    He insists that any form of sex difference is a purely socio-cultural construct, and that there is in fact no such thing as Male or Female — beyond the social construct of patriarchically developed ersatz phenomena such as dictionaries, and so forth.

    Awww, I’m flattered you still remember me. A shame you’ve got it wrong:

    hjhornbeck@8, in a galaxy far, far away…

    So if that division is a myth, then isn’t the notion of a physical sex also a myth, as it relies on the same divide? I think you [Ally Fogg] and Myers are making the same error of confusing the description with the described. Gravity is real, but it has many constructed models to describe it such as Newtonian Mechanics and General Relativity. In the same manner, genes, hormones, chromosomes, and anatomy are all real, while our descriptions and classifications are not real.

    Sex is not real; the physical attributes we use to construct sex are very real. I hope any disagreement with that is due to confused terminology, and nothing more.

    I then spent much of that thread doing variations on that theme, over and over, as something like eight SlymePitters kept ignoring my repeated clarifications and continued to accuse me of thinking all biology is an arbitrary construct.

    hjhornbeck @366

    My assertions have not changed in the last five weeks, and I have not backed down. The closest I’ve come is over the penis/clitoris division, as I wasn’t aware of the subtle non-homologies between the two structures. I’m not alone there, as other doctors and researchers have also accepted the lay view of thinking in terms of shafts, and according to that view the division is arbitrary (see #84, #87, and Fausto-Sterling’s Phal-O-Meter, upthread).

    I will grant you this, though; it takes a metric shit-tonne of obliviousness to miss the point made, repeatedly, on five weeks’ worth of comments. It might help explain why you get banned so frequently…

  15. johngreg says

    Avi said:

    Do you think Pitchguest, Larry Silverstein and whoever the first guy whose name I forgot didn’t deserve banning?

    Well, I have no idea who Larry Silverstein and whoever the first guy whose name [you] forgot are, so obviously I cannot have an opinion about them and/or their bannage.

    As to Pitchguest and safe zone rules, I do not know what you are talking about. I do not recall you stating any specific safe zone rules that Pitchguest then went and broke. Like everyone else everywhere else I am prone to confirmation bias: I seem to recall Pitchy being goaded into hostile reactions — of course, I might be wrong. So, perhaps you could refresh my memory with a link?

    So tell me? Which one of these fuckwits didn’t deserve to get banned?

    As I have always stated all along whenever this topic is brought up: your blog; your rules. That does not mean I agree with your rules, but it does mean I accept them as the rules by which you choose to run your blog. If those folks actually did as you say, and broke your few rules, then yes, indeed, it is fully your right to ban them if you so choose. Go ahead, ban away. As for deserving it? Well, that’s an entirely different set of debates, isn’t it. I mean, I can agree that it is your right and your choice to ban them, I can accept that and yet still think they did not deserve it.

    Frankly? I figure you are posting these comments to the Slymepit and so gloating in whatever ban comes your way.

    I am not gloating over an anticipated deletion or ban; frankly, I hope neither occur.

    But FYI? Do you understand that this topic has nothing to do with anything regarding the pit …

    Yes, of course I do, and I have not brought the Pit into this comment thread; others have done that, oolon being the first, not me.

    … and yo simply are derailing it in order to push whatever pit malarkey of the day you wish to adhere to?

    But Avi, I did not derail it, and I am not in anyway pushing any Pit malarkey of the day. What are you talking about? Hornbeck’s ridiculous views regarding sex dimorphism (which he repeats here) fit quite well, in my opinion, within your OP about anti-evolutionist nonsense. And that’s what my first comment, along with the sardonic “self-identification” paragraph, was all about.

    And any derailing that was done here was done by the Anit-Pit brigade; not by me.

    Seven said:

    Your narrative changes from one sentence to the next.

    Bah. Nonsense. Just because one or two out of 14 people banned me because I was in fact acting like an ass does not change my narrative at all.

    And how on Earth does it not speak to the claim? I list a group of blog hosts by whom who I, and several other Pit people, have been banned for disagreement with the general commentariat and blog host. How does that not speak to my claim?

    And how does one backup, or prove, that one has been banned for simple disagreement? Outline for me what kind of backup or proof you would support, and I will see if I can supply it? I think that is a highly reasonable request.

  16. says

    I, and several other Pit people (so called), have been banned from several FTB blogs, and the Skepchick blog, for no reason other than disagreeing, strongly, with the stated ideology and opinions of the host bloggers.

    Bullshit John Greg, http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterfliesandwheels/2013/05/meet-the-neighbors/

    Yemisi, you are indeed a perfect fit with FfTB. Dogmatic; poor English skills; poor reading comprehension; vigourous defensive posture; misrepresentation of commentor’s comments.
    Yes, you will do well on this dying network of mad ideologues.

    That’s the one I remember, I also vaguely remember looking up your Pharyngula banning when you were whining about it on the pit. Also for being an asshole… So where are the bans for doing nothing but “disagreeing”? (P.S. On a blog network where you are a rude asshole to many it may get around, so the host tolerates less rude assholery before banning you. Seems fair to me)

  17. says

    Ooo, then flounced back, and got a final warning, but no ban…
    http://freethoughtblogs.com/yemmynisting/2013/05/11/mother-nature-my-explosive-lover/#comment-332

    Haha, you also reminded me of this post I made comparing your slimy pals “welcome” to Yemmy vs Ally… Nicely makes a mockery of you and pals assertions that you are treated horribly over here for “just disagreeing” after attempting to comment in good faith. Yemmy took a lot of abuse, not sure Ally would react so well to that level of nastiness. http://www.oolon.co.uk/?p=305

    Of course its all the FTBullies fault, nothing to do with the fact that you will have already trashed Yemmy at your “forum of anti-FTB obsessives”, glad you admit that is an accurate description of the pit but I was thinking of other fora too, such as Twitter, Skeptic Ink and elsewhere. How does it feel being this oblivious John? And the rest of the pitters for that matter… Although I note Damion has since left, I assume the confirmation bias got too much for him in the end :)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>