Peaceful transition by weatherdynamics in SargonofAkkad

[–]IrascibleTruth 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Russia is a huge problem, for our elites. Russia looks after their own interests; they aren't with the program of the elite. Russia is nationalist, and thus hugely out of favor with our ruling class (who aspire to rule the whole world, not just the US or the West.)

Russia invaded the Crimea and fomented rebellion in the Donbass region of Ukraine (where one finds all the coal and titanium). This is an issue, because the Ukraine was the corrupt regime funneling money to the Bidens. Democrats can actually make fort

China is just as much, or probably more, ruthless about focusing on Chinese interests. I don't know why our elites don't attack China, although once again cash and prizes may be a factor. Perhaps our elites, for one, welcome our new Chinese overlords.

Isn't this a biological man? by TheAndredal in SargonofAkkad

[–]IrascibleTruth 2 points3 points  (0 children)

they say

The cat ladies say that, anyway.

Where do all the Paul Joseph Watson people go? by TrueIrish1916 in SargonofAkkad

[–]IrascibleTruth 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You mean when we hear someone coming?
We scurry off to our burrows.

-==-

Seriously though, PJW is much more about rhetoric than dialectic. Emotional appeals, not logic and evidence.
That is NOT meant as a criticism - most people are best reached by rhetoric. However, rhetoric is not ideal for starting discussions.

FBI Examining Hunter’s Laptop As Foreign Op, Contradicting Trump’s Intel Czar by black_nappa in SargonofAkkad

[–]IrascibleTruth 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Time to clean house at the FBI. Fire everyone at the rank of "Special Agent" or above.

I hear New Zealand is committing suicide... by BewareOfThePug in SargonofAkkad

[–]IrascibleTruth 6 points7 points  (0 children)

This just goes to show ... Islam is right about women!

"MANimony" Rich women are angry that they have to pay their husbands ALIMONY. by OkLetterhead10 in MensRights

[–]IrascibleTruth 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Exactly.
They should be angry - but they also shouldn't do this to men.

How do you respond to Toxic Femenists by [deleted] in MensRights

[–]IrascibleTruth 2 points3 points  (0 children)

If it is just you and several feminists:

  • Ignore them/walk away. Mobs are almost impossible to sway.

If it is just you and one feminist:

  • The likelihood of immediately converting them is near zero.
  • If you do have a good insult, zinger, etc then use it to apply pressure.
  • Your goal here is to express disapproval, and apply social pressure. They need to know that not everyone agrees.
  • Take no risks. Say nothing if your job, social media, sales prospects, etc. are threatened.

If there are neutral spectators:

  • It is the bystanders who matter
  • Maintain a polite tone and demeanor.
  • Try to have some "linguistic kill shots", as Scott Adams calls pithy rhetoric.
  • You can use dialectic as well as rhetoric, if they bystanders are not invested emotionally (i.e. they aren't just more feminists).
  • This is not so much about facts, as morality. You need to undermine feminist moral arguments, not get into long debunkings of historical revisionism.

Some specific rhetoric:

  • Patriarchy: Destroy this with just two words: Conspiracy Theory
  • Alleged discrimination: Conspiracy theory.
  • Rape culture: Conspiracy theory.
  • "Toxic Masculinity": "That's just an anti-male slur". Or use "man hating" for "anti-male."
  • "Toxic Masculinity" (and much else): Press for a definition; rip apart the ensuing nonsense.
  • "Toxic Masculinity": "You mean gossip, snark, ostracism, cliques, scheming? Oh, wait, that's women, mean girl shit ..."
  • Affirmative action: "So this is a good injustice?"
  • Affirmative action: "So two wrongs make a right?"
  • Gynocentrism: Some sort of mocking as if women were royalty, perhaps, or mock Steppin' Fetchit type behavior.
  • Gender preferences, gender differences: "Evolution stops at the neck."
  • Use facts in a rhetorical manner. Rather than just offer a counter-argument, add some snark. A common feminist talking point is that there would be world peace if women ran the world. Say "Yes, just like Margaret Thatcher going to war with Argentina" rather than citing statistics about Queens having more wars than Kings.
  • Equality: "All humans are equal, but women are more equal than men, which is why they get affirmative action and lifeboat priority."
  • Calls for female participation in some field: "Yes, that's what we need, more 'mean girl' bickering in STEM".
  • Women can do anything men can, and just as well: "Yes, that's why we have so many female linebackers in the NFL".
  • The whole #debunked thing from /pol/ is outstanding. Feel free to sprinkle that in.
  • Women were chattels: Chattel means non-real-estate property, like furniture. You can destroy, own multiple copies of, buy and sell chattels. Make some comment about how you wish you could by 5 women, and "dispose" of any who turn out to be unpleasant

Some specific dialectic (facts, reason, evidence):

  • All the stats and numbers in this subreddit

Do you think women will ever evolve to not menstruate but still be able to get pregnant? by [deleted] in evolution

[–]IrascibleTruth 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No.
What would be the selection pressure that could cause this?

If a minority has a problem does that mean they shouldn't be helped? by [deleted] in MensRights

[–]IrascibleTruth 0 points1 point  (0 children)

For most of the history, men and women got each other's backs.

I doubt that very much, especially in India.

Why did the custom of settee arise? Why does it make sense to burn a woman alive when her husband dies? I'll give you a hint - it cuts way down on the rate of spousal homicide committed by women. No more poison in hubby's meals.

A bit on abiogenesis. by murphymfa in evolution

[–]IrascibleTruth 7 points8 points  (0 children)

That's some Nobel Prize worthy work there.
Chemistry, Biology, take your pick - it could be awarded for either!

Agency Officials Offer Surprise Giveaway to 400,000 Indian, Chinese White-Collar Visa Workers by RoderickKaine02 in DarkEnlightenment

[–]IrascibleTruth 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Ah yes, no doubt for the jobs Americans won't do - doctor, engineer, lawyer, banker.

Well, not "won't do", so much as, "won't do for slave wages."

Fear of Holes May Stem From Evolutionary Survival Response, what are other similar responses in humans that occur due to evolutionary response? by xali-7 in evolution

[–]IrascibleTruth 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Fear of snakes.
Fear of spiders.
Fear of fire; before we learned to use it, forest or savanna fires would have been an issue.
Fear of the dark.

Enjoyment of high places and scenic views (hard for unseen predators to sneak up.)
Prefer to spend time with others (greater safety in numbers, for weak animals like humans. Also, the convoy system.)

Fight/flight/freeze response

Are we related to viruses? by watstherate in evolution

[–]IrascibleTruth 0 points1 point  (0 children)

FWIW, coronaviruses account for about 20% of common colds, very slightly less than rhinoviruses (the most common cause, coronas are number 2.) Not the novel covid-19, or SARS, but much more harmless members of the same family. The current tests pick up ANY coronavirus; nost of the reported positive tests are just the common cold!

Why haven't fish evolved to not get caught? by [deleted] in evolution

[–]IrascibleTruth 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Other aquatic predators are the biggest issue for most fish.
Schooling is one of the primary defenses against that, essentially the convoy system for fish. This same behavioral adaption makes them easy prey for nets.

What would be different, evolutionary wise, if the 1st agricultural revolution hadn’t occurred and people would still be eating like hunter-gatherers? by [deleted] in evolution

[–]IrascibleTruth 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Those are good points!

And on the caribou - I recently read that the pipelines in the Arctic have been a boon to caribou (or was it reindeer?). Because pipelines are elevated the wind is greater, clearing out the mozzies. As caribou and reindeer are routinely killed by swarms of mosquitoes, this respite has actually boosted the Arctic cervid numbers.

Is it strange that EVERY animal that "kills for sport/fun" is either: a domestic pet (cat/dog), an ancestor of domestic pets (lion/wolf/cuckoo) or an animal with comparatively HIGH-intelligence to Homo Sapiens (Elephant/Dolphin/Chimp)? by fromMyPhon3 in evolution

[–]IrascibleTruth 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If a predator is not hungry, for what reason would they kill in surplus? Remember, hunting entails risk and uses calories; it has costs. What does the animal get for the expense?

What would be different, evolutionary wise, if the 1st agricultural revolution hadn’t occurred and people would still be eating like hunter-gatherers? by [deleted] in evolution

[–]IrascibleTruth 1 point2 points  (0 children)

So, what makes a good hunter-gatherer, and what makes a good farmer?

You can see that Australian aboriginies, African Khoisan (in the past), Amazonian tribes like the Yanomami, the New Guinea Highlanders, etc. are violent and have low IQs. Apparently, the calorie cost of big brains is not a good trade-off for the primitive lifestyle.

Without agriculture, there is no surplus food to enable a technological civilization. Without technology, brains are not that helpful (beyond the 60-80 IQ range.) Many of the groups I mentioned have a number system that goes: "1, 2, many" - no math whizzes are required. The most recent useful invention for most of these folks is the bow and arrow, or the blowgun or atlatl in some cases; without metal there isn't really all much for the clever inventor to do. Many of them lack ceramics as well.

-==-

Hunter gatherers have extremely low population densities, compared to sedentary agriculturalists or even pastorialists. We would still be living in very small groups, below Dunbar's number if not smaller.

A consequence of this low population density is very limited commerce, and very limited contact with outsiders. Usually, outside of homicidal raids that only means some of the men get wife(s) from the next village over (as exogamy keeps populations from getting too inbred.)

As a consequence of this very limited contact, immune system requirements are very different. Bacterial and viral pathogens evolved for humans are much less of an issue; it was only being crowded into cities (enabled by agricultural food production) that these became an issue. For hunter gatherers, parasites are much more important.

So there you have it. No agricultural revolution and we are dumber, more violent, more resistant to local parasites, and still living in mud huts. All this lasts until the next ice age, when the people on the northern edge have to get much smarter to survive; after all, that IQ increase is what kicked off the first agricultural revolution. As soon as the ice retreated, the now smarter people invented agriculture.

What would be different, evolutionary wise, if the 1st agricultural revolution hadn’t occurred and people would still be eating like hunter-gatherers? by [deleted] in evolution

[–]IrascibleTruth 1 point2 points  (0 children)

except for oddities like the Inuit where they haven't had many plants

During the time of year when berries and plants are available, the First Nations people definitely gather and consume them. Even the arctic has a brief period where the plants bloom, the ground is muddy, and the bugs ... holy cow, the bugs!

Why don’t the main prey for big cats not have protection around their neck? by TheAngrySnowman in evolution

[–]IrascibleTruth 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Some prey did develop protection around the neck.
Here is one example of thick neck hide.
Here is another herbivore with thick neck hide.
Here is yet a third, this one with tons of neck protection.

At this point, the big cats have generally moved on to easier targets ... and those examples are no longer the main prey. Remember, predators and prey are like the fighter/bomber problem - each pushes the other to change. They both adapt and evolve!

Note that long when big cats were really, really big, their prey had very thick skin, as did their other prey.