Consept

Very interesting and relevant vid -

Stay on this point, by your logic if i have a higher iq than most, i should be quite successful in society right, at least as long as im hard working? Well what if someone who comes from a rich family, who has a much lower IQ but went to a private school and received a much better education but mainly got further because of the connections of both the father and who he interacted with at school. Explain to me how that is meritocracy and an even playing field that promotes the most talented?

So is your point that we should go back to how it was in the 50s? Please show a bit of respect when you post replies to me even if you think im dumb or whatever, i havent disrespected you

Exactly, thats a good point, 'someone' is deciding what has merit. Another example is that you could make the argument that those who provide the most value to society should be paid the most ie doctors, nurses, scientists, whoever. But who gets paid the most are top of the tree sports people and actors. Now of course this is based on 'market value' as in these industries generate a lot of money, but its arguable that even within these industries people that make films happen ie director of photography or screen writers, are actually under paid compared to actors. They do of course provide value to society but do the provide 10,000 times plus compared to a doctor?

Meritocracy is really a myth, not a complete myth but a myth in terms of how its portrayed. Here is a real world example - In the UK, 7% of the population go to private schools (Eton, Harrow etc), these are schools in which entry is gained via fee paying so essentially anyone can go if they have the money, there is an entrance test but theres also one at state schools. These schools cost an average £15k a year for a day pupil or £33k for boarding. So most people will not be able to afford this. The number of people who went to private schools, where the prime minister Johnson also attended, and are current members of the prime ministers cabinet is 64%. Hugely over represented and literally only because their parents had the money, there are many people that have higher IQs as well as better understanding of social issues and want to get into politics, but it is very difficult if you arent privately educated. Now of course this is an advantage and is nothing to do with meritocracy, when you go to school at somewhere like Eton the chances are your parents are very well connected, these connections are not available to your average state school attendee. So where is the meritocracy in this scenario?

I see this point a lot that things were better for black people in the 50s, i think its come about from Trump and maga, but its a ridiculous statement, how could it be better for black people if there was segregation, redlining, no civil rights. You cant really have it both ways and assert that racism is better than before but then in the same breath say that we should go back to more racist times

This is the effect of a so called 'bad apple', question is, how many bad apples are currently operating and how many are getting away with it?

exactly!

The things you say just read like a Steven Molyneux, Crowder, PragerU digest. Thats not to be insulting but your views are filtered by this right wing, libertarian rhetoric. What you need to ask yourself is are you interested in getting as close to the truth as possible or are you looking to just confirm your anchored beliefs? If you are interested in getting as close to truth as possible you should look at the actual root and causes if the issues you raise, if you look at sociology or history and make a real attempt to see the whole picture and context of what youre talking about you may come to different conclusions. The way you see things is like looking at one square of a giant picture and saying that the whole picture is of a sky when that is only a tiny fraction of it. What you say may or may not be correct but it misses the context of everything around it. You say you want to be a nationalist, if youre really a nationalist then you cant agree with the English taking over America all those years ago and you should then fight for the Native Americans to reclaim their nation. Unless youre only a nationalist in the context that benefits you. People on the thread are not debating your points, they are more trying to get you to widen your view. No one on here can agree with your conclusions because they are very limited and only serve a certain rhetoric, most on here are really interested in getting as close to truth as possible, even if that is uncomfortable. What happens when you get caught in rhetoric (which happens on the left as well) is that you only really look at things that confirm you pre-held beliefs and you argue with those that dispute them. But whats the point? If you came up against someone with an opposing rhetoric youd just argue back and forth forever as theres no attempt to really learn whats going on. All of your views i could easily guess by watching some the videos you watch, i would urge you to, with an open mind, honestly search for whats true through actual academics whose life mission is to work out these issues.

Yeah didnt watch all of it but he makes some good points about training, definitely needs to be more. It would be hard to actually get numbers for how many officers dont report their colleagues, if they get away with it i dont know how that could be worked out. What you can see is the low conviction rate for offences by police officers, if the training is so poor it stands to reason theyd make a lot of mistakes. I can see how it would be difficult for officers to culpable if the training isnt sufficient, however if its things like shooting unarmed suspects i cant see the excuse for that, it does depend on the case but there are some serious problems there, even if we cant pinpoint the exact reason why

Yeah it will probably be a massacre tbh, like he'll malfunction and see all black faces as a threat

Forget the narrative, what im talking about is applying the law to everyone. If a civilian commits a crime (providing their not connected to the police or someone powerful) theyll get arrested if the evidence is there. If a police officer commits a crime he'll most likely get off, this is endemic in the police and its not to say police are bad, because its human nature to protect your 'tribe'. However their tribe is the only one that can be above the law of which they are supposed to uphold, and of course people are going to feel that that is unfair and so you will get the reaction from the public because people rightfully dont feel that the police are on their side or are there to help them, especially if they kill people illegally and get away with it. I mean its literally only 2 or 3 that get convicted despite 1000 shootings a year, 100 or so involving an unarmed suspect, i dont know how that can foster trust.

Right but this isnt something thats definitely true(mbti), it is just a concept, its a map but thats about it. What would make it true for you? Ultimately youll find another map and think thats 'true', for example Jung, who ive read as well, is still just a map, maybe it works for more people, who knows. I think currently youre looking at why things arent true and that is important, but what i notice is that theres usually partial truth or something to take from everything. I'm not really resistant to you questioning it im more questioning the reasons behind your questioning, as its important to establish the intention behind such a question, and then also i felt you could benefit from considering it. I felt that you had already made your mind up on it and maybe wanted to confirm your findings which would then lead to battles in the thread which dont really lead anywhere. Jung is great for example but i could easily bring up many criticisms about him, such as lack of conducting experiments to demonstrate his ideas, theres many more - https://www.europeanmedical.info/cognitive-therapy/the-unscientific-nature-of-jungs-psychology.html#:~:text=One of the earliest criticisms,as well as its content.&text=The charge that Jung's psychology,archetypes and the collective unconscious. https://classroom.synonym.com/weaknesses-carl-jungs-theory-8505105.html We could then go back and forth about whether hes true or not. Ultimately you would only know by testing it yourself. So no i dont really like amassing concepts for the sake of it, but if something rings true to me and i test it experientially then thats good enough for me, also i dont really take it so seriously. But anyway its good what youre doing you should read and explore

Yeah but when cops do legitimately fuck up, their colleagues cover for them, i very much doubt that of the 1000 police killings every year since 2005 there are only 35 'bad apples' (cops convicted). If a pilot crashed because he was drunk and his co-pilot and traffic controllers covered for him that would be a bit insane, might happen though who knows

What @Serotoninluv is referring to is that you are seeing the 'pieces' that match with the narrative you follow or believe. You could look deeper into the whole thing as to why are there disproportionately more killings in that area by black people, you may stumble upon the fact that white people kill each other quite a lot as well. But if you look at the whole picture, poverty might be an part of the issue as well as other factors, then maybe look at why black people are disproportionately in poverty in America. Your view currently, without being insulting, is quite limited, its just a simple 'black people kill each other', if you expand your view its never as simple as you initially think it is. Its like if you were going to study sociology to work out the route of societal problems, before you started you would have a view that you swore was true but after you started studying youd realise there is no one, simple truth, people and societies are complex. You should explore with an open mind

Why i ask is because it seems youve come to a conclusion and you want to convince others of it, in a way you want to 'win', that may not be true but its just the impression i get. The way i see mbti, regardless of the science or whatever behind it, someone wrote some personality traits down that i related to and felt defined my personality quite well, which allowed me to then look at my personality more objectively and be aware of my tendencies and essentially be more honest with myself. Now does that mean everything was true? no, but it gives a general framework that i felt worked for me, the map is still not the territory, but a map is useful nonetheless. Of course dont take it as 100% accurate.

Some maps will work for some people, i dont think every map will resonate with all people. Psychology and medicine can provide varying results, like for example ssris may help some people and have no effect on others, is it then worth saying theyre useless on that basis? I would like you to consider and answer this question, what is your true intention behind this post? really consider this

By their nature conservatives main thing is to keep the status quo, so they are not for change unless it was to enhance their interests ie tax breaks for the rich, unregulated market

Just thought I'd put this here, an interview with Rayshard Brooks shot a few months ago

Its a big stretch to say Trump handled this well, he made many mistakes and was set on ending the lockdown in April which wouldve been a disaster. China could have done much better as well. I think in most places those with compromised immunity were isolated. But it is a hard job to be in charge when something like this happens, i think preventative measures are key so hopefully everyone learns for next time

I agree with with pretty much all of your points

i wouldnt say its fear, fear would be that theres no basis to be worried about it and then you over react based on not a lot. I would say there was a lot of basis to be worried about covid considering what happened early on in Italy. Me personally it wouldve been too much of a gamble to say 'despite strong advice from all of my advisors and experts, im going to risk the lives of a few 100 thousand people so our economy can stay open, i have no basis for this decision other than i dont trust my advisors and i dont think a disease can be that bad'. I honestly dont think many people wouldve have made that gamble, for example would your gamble your own families life in such a manner? A sensible position would be to lockdown initially and then get as much research and what not so you can make an informed decision rather than just say no lockdown without sufficient information. The Brazil bitchute vid would need more context, i dont know whats being said, if its new, nothing, so i cant really comment on that, as in i would need more information before making a reaction

Im with you it should be examined, but my point is that what would you have done differently, im not saying that in a challenging way, im just saying examine what you would have done in that position yourself. Ultimately, people have talked about a virus killing a lot of people for the last 20 years, even George W warned about it, no preparations were taken, thats more the issue. This could have been dealt with easy if there was real pre-planning and preventative measures, Trump released a budget just before the outbreak that was going to cut funding to the CDC, so there really was nothing in the way of planning for this. Another point is that this is exactly the type of disease that could be dangerous because its in a sweet spot of not being very fatal (if its too fatal it wont spread ie ebola) but being quite contagious, which means that it can get around quickly and be deadly to the people it will be deadly to. So this is what the people that foresaw it were worried about. Even at a death rate of 0.2% if the whole world got it youre looking at around 14,000,000 deaths which is pretty significant, obviously thats simplistic and a worst case scenario but again I dont think you would take that gamble. You can think its not believable but with due respect, youre not a virologist, so essentially you will be telling people who have dedicated their lives to the field that they were wrong and taking a gamble on that basis, in which people definitely wouldve died. If youd like context for it the Brazilian president did something similar and its been a complete mess there - https://www.nytimes.com/article/brazil-coronavirus-cases.html

@Parththakkar12 Ok so lets say, you were the prime minister of Britain, at the time your information was that if we dont lockdown 470,000 people will die (thats what some have said would be the number now without lockdown in the UK). So the question is would you confidently say that we wont do a lockdown knowing this number, so at best gambling with lives and possibly killing 470,000 people, most old but not all, or deal with the problems that youve highlighted? I agree they are issues but potentially will get better over time

I don't think the suicide rate is any higher than last year at least in the UK of course that could change but for now there's nothing saying the lockdown caused more suicides, not to say the lockdown didn't have issues, domestic abuse etc. The other thing is that if the economy can't survive a lockdown for 3 months then there's a lot of problems with the economy than we thought and it probably needed to be exposed. Hopefully we can move forward and either improve the system or overhaul it in favour of some form of socialism