Id like to argue with the voice of the master race..

Aus welchem Grund glaubt ihr Rassisten und Rechtsradikalen besser zu sein als die, die ihr hasst? Macht ihr andere schlechter um euch selbst aufzuwerten? Das klingt sehr clicheehaft. Es gibt keinen glaughaften Grund für eure Annahme, dass ihr in einem direkten Vergleich (egal in welchem Bereich) mit anderen Rassen vorn liegen würdet. Was begründet eure Überzeugung von der eigenen Überlegenheit? Statistische Mittelwerte von IQ-Messungen? Als hochintelligenter Mensch ist es doch normal zu zweifeln. Zweifelt also auch an euch selbst! Nur Gläubige, denen die Gewissheit fehlt und deren Eifer mit der Angst vor dem Versagen befeuert wird, können sich so blind echauffieren.
Letztendlich will ich nur noch eine Sache mitteilen: Der Unterschied zwischen Links und Rechts ist maginal. Es gibt eigentlich nur einen Unterschied. Das was die Rechten für sich allein wollen, aus rein minderwertigem, infantilem Egoismus wollen die Linken uneingeschränkt für alle. Evolutionär betrachtet sind die Linken den Rechten voraus. Das Individuum wird irgendwann aufgelöst und bildet aus seinen Einzelbestandteilen die soziale Gesellschaft -> die nächste evolutionäre Entwicklungsstufe. Ihr Rehten seid leider die ewig Gestrigen. In logischer Konsequenz seid ihr ein Relikt ein Rudiment, dass keine Funktion mehr erfüllt.

Actually I'm more of a neoreactionary traditional monarchist. Sometimes I RP as an minarcho-capitalist/lolbertarian to contradict the commies.

I have my own communities now

I don't know who this "Castle Bravo" is. I hear he's an alt-right neo-Nazi guy. I'm a anarcho-capitalist, and therefore opposed to all forms of statism.

Tabby, you really should stop putting this stuff on public forums and save it for your PDF manifesto for when you drive your mom's beat-up truck into a crowd at a Black Lives Matter protest.

HBD

Presumably, huge black dicks? Is that what you're blaming your involuntary celibacy on?

That would make for a great preface. Let me know if you create any printed copies so I can buy one for my "I don't want anyone to sit next to me on the bus" reading list.

@Tabby i've stopped you in your tracks many times lol. you have nothing to say because you know you cant say anything to my facts



and hold the fuck up everyone Tabby is planning to do something like an attack???!!!!!

''Presumably, huge black dicks? Is that what you're blaming your involuntary celibacy on?''

LMFAO

A liberal tiger roars at a Felid Supremacist lion, "You speciesist! Look at these poor dogs!"
The lion is baffled. "Why? You are a tiger! I'm a Felid Supremacist, not a Lion Supremacist, a Cougar Supremacist, etc. Why not support us instead? We have no hard feelings towards you tigers. Come on."

You keep using this, "We aren't trying to destroy you, why not join us?" argument. The flaw with this is that people can see how narrow your ideology is in the end.

First Tabby came for the blacks, and I did not speak out because I am not black.

Then Tabby came for the liberals, and I did not speak out because I am not a liberal.

Then Tabby came for me, and there was nobody left to speak for me.

Only a severely narrow subset of the populace are part of your "ubermensch". Due to this, the vast majority of people are going to oppose you just out of self-preservation. You'll never gain a significant following to your cause, because you're nothing more than a detriment to most of humanity.

^Stop moralizing. You are a scientist. Don't be like these irrational retards. Respond to my arguments about facts with arguments about facts.

Moralizing is part of what makes us human. Unlike you, the rest of us haven't allowed ourselves become more akin to an emotionless machine that lacks all empathy and creative thought.

Besides, for all your mewling about facts your arguments contain a fair bit of opinion and biased nonsense. You're also very adept at sliding around facts that don't fit your ideology, there's a reason people have stopped arguing with you in a serious matter.

On the other hand peafowlism is about destroying all houses and then forcing everyone to be homeless.

I dont find much when I try to search for the term "Peafowlism". Can you please use scientic language that is accepted?

We will peacefully reclaim any land that has been lost to peafowlism and will let the light of civilization shine upon every corner of this planet, including the Dark Heart of Africa, Congo. Peafowlism shall be annihilated just like head-hunting.

Who is "we" though? Is there more people like you? I am geniously curious.

^Stop moralizing. You are a scientist.

Another example that even scientists are just humans.

@strongkillaz I'm no longer very active in this community.

Judging by the scientific data I collected, your comments, I can say with 100% certainly (the fact that we all could live in a Matrix-like world excluded) that you are still active in this community, and therefor your statement is wrong.

Edited 9/7/2017 13:02:17

Oh and in a Tabbiocracy knyte, kretoma and MathWolf are going to be honored but not you. Sorry. I always like my fellow STEM folks even if we disagree.

You're skipping the part in which they like you, though...

Oh and in a Tabbiocracy

Yeah, and when are we going to see some progress on that by the way? It's almost hilarious how deluded you are to think you're going to be forming your own government anytime soon.

For a guy who claims to only care about facts and reality you spend a lot of time in a fantasy land where you somehow have control over the rest of us.

We will have to upgrade all humans if humans reject rationality.

If you're an example of what "rationality" is like than I'm pretty sure it's best the rest of us stay far away from that.

Also, +1 Zephyrum. It's going to be pretty hard for you to establish the Tabbiocracy when even your precious fellow STEM majors find you repulsive.

Humans are mostly irrational, we shall never be ''fully'' rational unless, as you said, we become ''robots''. So your ideas are irrational.

You do realize that, on a species level, maximizing diversity makes a hell of a lot more sense than artificially inducing selective pressure, right? The more biodiversity we have, the more likely we are to survive low-probability near-extinction events (or other cataclysmic changes in selective pressure).

If you want to talk about being retarded, let's talk about your brilliant idea of artificially reducing biodiversity in a species that's already low on genetic diversity thanks to the genetic bottleneck from 70,000 years ago. The reason there's so much 'undesired' biodiversity is because certain traits you value are not being strongly selected for. It doesn't even make sense to call those traits undesirable in the context of our environment, because if they were you wouldn't have to worry about artificially weeding them out.

For someone who seems to care all this much about STEM and human biology, you sure as hell don't devote a minute of your life to actually understanding these subjects. This seems to be the ultimate form of self-sabotage- wasting your life away on a pointless obsession over controlling the human species. When normal people value traits, they strive to improve those qualities in themselves- but you're too lazy or scared or incompetent to do that, so you decide to spend your time obsessing over those traits in other people.

Value STEM? Pick up a few books.

Value intelligence? Then stop wasting your life turning Off-Topic into a watered-down version of wannabe-Stormfront.

Try doing something with your own life first before you go after all these people you'll never even meet. Whatever genetic superiority you think you have, I gotta feel really bad for those genes because they're stuck inside the body of some pathetic loser where their potential will never be realized.

Try doing something with your own life

^Cool! That's the kind of response I want to see.

^ lol

I'm already a STEM researcher and will remain one. I'm also a member of the rationalist community on LessWrong

What research do you do? Or do you consider spending time on LessWrong to be equivalent to research?