• Current Events & Politics
    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • Current Events & Politics Moderators: deficiT | tryptakid | Foreigner

2017 Trump Presidency Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
What 23 said:
I was referring to beginnings. Life is naturally ordered, differently, in different places. If you and your diverse peers continue to live with each other, or around each other, you will all either blend (and maybe find a new peace down the road), or you won't (you might find peace, but not together, ultimately). Basically you don't have a choice (if you hold to your belief of equality...).
Click to expand...

What do you base this on? Life is naturally chaotic. Things are always changing.
 
"Natural order" is something entirely unnatural or non-existent. It is 'order' imposed by the human mind, not a structure that objectively exists (how can an idealised state not occur in nature, and yet be considered natural?). There is no 'right' or 'wrong' way to do this, no 'natural' state for humanity.

If there is a natural state, who has determined that? Where do we get these ideas from? Where outside the human mind do such concepts emerge? Its magical thinking to imagine a benchmark exists somewhere against which we can measure whether we are living 'naturally' or correctly.

Humans have adapted to every environment, social and geographic, that we've ended up in. There is no reason that we cannot continue that, and plenty of reasons to suggest that we can- because we have. For many of us, there is evidence within our bodies of interbreeding with neanderthals. Perhaps we didn't violently slaughter them but actually assimilated them entirely into homo sapiens. Neanderthals represented a true genetic threat to homo sapiens; a hominid that can be bred with but that has none of the qualities we associate with sapiens (ie. no real culture, art, symbolism, etc.) and repelete with the chance to cause human de-evolution, and yet we suruvived to conquer all.
 
Segregation means "apart"+"flock". As the word is used most often, to my knowledge, this may be a source of confusion here. But by the etymology, I'll just say it implies separation of different "flocks", which is what created the separate flocks, in the beginning; A human that looks Japanese and a human that looks Congolese, would not have sprouted up in the natural, chaotic evolution, only miles away from each other, unless one was subterranean or something, or lives inside a mountain completely (that there would be such diversity so close of the same basic species). Things need separation, to be separate. They need isolated, separated, "flocks". And this is why we have diversity.

I saw a picture of multiple races together. People of multiple races, and cultures. Very diverse. But there was a caption: "This is what makes America Great", which echos the sentiment of many. But what made these people come here? What made them (besides slaves), decide to just abandon their lives and families behind, to move here, to be with people from a different ethnic group? Opportunity here, where there, among their own, there was not the same. People love to champion diversity in areas, and I understand why they have interest in it. I get my hair cut at a place that doesn't understand my English. But it is usually as we see it the result of great inequality in the world... And the issue is complicated. For diversity to continue in our lands, that means non-stop importation of people from "failing" places, or, to keep up the diversity in the same spot, somewhere, it means potentially opportunity drying up where we are (or where-ever). I want prosperity, and peace, and true equality (what a word, though, if everything was truly equal, what is diverse?), and diversity is not a sign of that, absolutely.

Basically, I will dance around, and accept that diversity can be a way of strengthening, but I cannot abandon my mind that tells me that so is uniformity (with clear examples), and more "natural" breeding patterns and ways of organization of society, that happened when we didn't have the white man carting us around in his cars and transoceanic boats and planes, and this global banking system... That again the reason we are human is because we almost died and a small group evolved to survive and these genes then blossomed to become the human population of today (and that various other small groups colonized places, and evolved into the "races" which were suited to their environment). Basically I am trying to stay true. I can't let cliche statements, like "diversity is our greatest strength" and ideas that we need new blood constantly or else inbreeding and genetic diversity also = strength absolutely, fly unchallenged. I will give credit where it is due, and admit where I am wrong, but I don't see much give from my opposition. Usually my argument, which does beat them, or at least should open the door to question, is just ignored (though, I can understand).

But anyways. Now a Republican is in office. I'll probably stop being such a "racist". All white is not the way forward, now, but certainly not the way that led us here is, either. I don't think. Not that I'm going full "left/liberal". They're what opened the door to these asshats. But they were a reaction, as well.
 
Last edited:
I'd rather Trump in the presidency than Mike Pence any fucking day. Christ I hope they don't dethrone him, if only for that; now if Pence dies first, or is otherwise disposed of, then yeah let's oust Trump.
 
^(response to Cream Gravy?)

I have read/heard this elsewhere. I can see how Pence could be more troublesome. He was the previous governor in my state, and garnered lot's of attention especially around women's concerns. And he would be a definite "no" for cannabis, and went against needle exchange programs for my state, I seem to recall, which probably continued to an HIV outbreak here, or he was blamed for it (might as well, since he stood against reason... It would have contributed to one in time if this not this one).

I would like to hit "abort" on this adminstration right now. But I wouldn't want Hillary still. Put me there.
 
swilow said:
"Natural order" is something entirely unnatural or non-existent. It is 'order' imposed by the human mind, not a structure that objectively exists (how can an idealised state not occur in nature, and yet be considered natural?). There is no 'right' or 'wrong' way to do this, no 'natural' state for humanity.

If there is a natural state, who has determined that? Where do we get these ideas from? Where outside the human mind do such concepts emerge? Its magical thinking to imagine a benchmark exists somewhere against which we can measure whether we are living 'naturally' or correctly.

Humans have adapted to every environment, social and geographic, that we've ended up in. There is no reason that we cannot continue that, and plenty of reasons to suggest that we can- because we have. For many of us, there is evidence within our bodies of interbreeding with neanderthals. Perhaps we didn't violently slaughter them but actually assimilated them entirely into homo sapiens. Neanderthals represented a true genetic threat to homo sapiens; a hominid that can be bred with but that has none of the qualities we associate with sapiens (ie. no real culture, art, symbolism, etc.) and repelete with the chance to cause human de-evolution, and yet we suruvived to conquer all.
Click to expand...

So many questions.

(1) Considering that H. Neanderthals Y chromosome appears to be extinct, aren't you overestimating either their genetic threat or ability to genetically overwhelm with H. Sapiens?

(2) H. Sapiens, at least the European branch, does carry DNA from H. Neanderthals - DNA that gives us an advantage for the environments H. Sapiens found itself at the time. It's not unusual - H. Sapiens appears to have a genetic legacy from a few other hominids they interbreed with, and about the only "pure" H. Sapien DNA you'll find these days is sub-Saharan. If the non-African branch of H. Sapiens found it advantageous to get genetic mutations from our cousins, is not intermixing advantageous?
 
Escher's Waterfall said:
(1) Considering that H. Neanderthals Y chromosome appears to be extinct, aren't you overestimating either their genetic threat or ability to genetically overwhelm with H. Sapiens?
Click to expand...

In retrospect, it is an overestimation; I recently read that the global population of Neanderthals was pretty low, with estimates of something like 100,00 to a million. And that is scattered across Eurasia. Plus the advantage of interbreeding.

Pure speculation but I wonder how early modern humans would have responded when encountering them; as an animal of similar intelligence and ecological niche, I am convinced we didn't respond entirely favourably, and I can imagine a certain biological reason for that too given the pretty striking difference in aspects of culture/art/language between the two groups. Biologically, in many senses, it would not be useful to favour breeding with an inferior animal if the goal of a species is further control over the environment/resources/survival/etc.

Thinking about things like the "uncanny valley", I wonder if early humans had that response to Neanderthals or other populations like denisovans? There's a ream of scientific studies that discuss the majority of humans rather startling innate xenophobic reactions too. Its not evidence, but seems suggestive that we would have likely responded with antagonism to Neanderthals. Perhaps there really was once a 'subhuman' to fear? :\

(2) H. Sapiens, at least the European branch, does carry DNA from H. Neanderthals - DNA that gives us an advantage for the environments H. Sapiens found itself at the time. It's not unusual - H. Sapiens appears to have a genetic legacy from a few other hominids they interbreed with, and about the only "pure" H. Sapien DNA you'll find these days is sub-Saharan. If the non-African branch of H. Sapiens found it advantageous to get genetic mutations from our cousins, is not intermixing advantageous?
Click to expand...

It probably was, in that early humans may have gained certain traits advantageous in the colder and higher and darker conditions of Europe from Neanderthals. I'm just not sure that early modern humans would have taken that into consideration. It is not intuitively apparent.
 
Would it be advantageous for a black crow to mate with an albino crow? Maybe to the albino.
Would it be advantageous for a Tibetan to mate with someone without the genetic variant that allows them to breath better at higher altitude (assuming they are in and will settle in Tibet)? Probably not, going by this information. It would be advantageous for the newly introduced people- as their offspring may survive better, but it would be a risk to the Tibetan that had that beneficial mutation; One would increase their fitness (the newcomer), or the fitness of their line, and one would potentially decrease their fitness (Tibetan).
 
Last edited:
swilow said:
In retrospect, it is an overestimation; I recently read that the global population of Neanderthals was pretty low, with estimates of something like 100,00 to a million. And that is scattered across Eurasia. Plus the advantage of interbreeding.

Pure speculation but I wonder how early modern humans would have responded when encountering them; as an animal of similar intelligence and ecological niche, I am convinced we didn't respond entirely favourably, and I can imagine a certain biological reason for that too given the pretty striking difference in aspects of culture/art/language between the two groups. Biologically, in many senses, it would not be useful to favour breeding with an inferior animal if the goal of a species is further control over the environment/resources/survival/etc.

Thinking about things like the "uncanny valley", I wonder if early humans had that response to Neanderthals or other populations like denisovans? There's a ream of scientific studies that discuss the majority of humans rather startling innate xenophobic reactions too. Its not evidence, but seems suggestive that we would have likely responded with antagonism to Neanderthals. Perhaps there really was once a 'subhuman' to fear? :\
Click to expand...

Maybe, maybe not.

It probably was, in that early humans may have gained certain traits advantageous in the colder and higher and darker conditions of Europe from Neanderthals. I'm just not sure that early modern humans would have taken that into consideration. It is not intuitively apparent.
Click to expand...

The thing about it being apparent or not doesn't matter - cultures that adopt the correct survival strategy survive. Those who do not, do, obvious, not survive.

No man is an island - much less a culture. Those cultures that engages in the illusion that they are an island tend to fair poorly.
 
What 23 said:
Would it be advantageous for a black crow to mate with an albino crow? Maybe to the albino.
Would it be advantageous for a Tibetan to mate with someone without the genetic variant that allows them to breath better at higher altitude (assuming they are in and will settle in Tibet)? Probably not, going by this information. It would be advantageous for the newly introduced people- as their offspring may survive better, but it would be a risk to the Tibetan that had that beneficial mutation; One would increase their fitness (the newcomer), or the fitness of their line, and one would potentially decrease their fitness (Tibetan).
Click to expand...

This... is not what evolution is. At all. This is some white pride fantasy turner diaries jerking off darwin nazi version of evolution. "Beneficial" is whatever will help you survive in the environment at the moment. It takes thousands of years and it is not always "fittest" from our point of view as humans, only what helps the species survive at the moment. No conscious thought involved.
 
noone1 said:
This... is not what evolution is. At all. This is some white pride fantasy turner diaries jerking off darwin nazi version of evolution. "Beneficial" is whatever will help you survive in the environment at the moment. It takes thousands of years and it is not always "fittest" from our point of view as humans, only what helps the species survive at the moment. No conscious thought involved.
Click to expand...

I was going in line with a conversion about interbreeding with neanderthal that was going on. It was on the subject, speaking about advantageous traits/adaptations gained from them, possibly- but also them having a potential negative impact. This is indeed part of what goes on in "evolution".

Evolution involves different types of selection, and the gradual mutations that are selected for, however they are. One example of natural selection: Some insects have a type of mutated gene that allows them to survive very cold temperatures, and some of the same group of insects do not have the gene(s) (I am not an expert). One night it gets very cold.....The ones that have the certain gene- and quirk of body chemistry survive, and reproduce, passing this configuration onto the next generation, while the ones that don't have it don't. This is evolution.

I also disagree about the "conscious thought" bit, because sexual selection is also part of it (although, how conscious we are/what is conscious choice?), and I always choose my mates very consciously. Although, much of it is "not conscious".

Nice try.

This is interesting/related - but aside: Is Evolution Blind?

I wonder if epigenetics could somehow play into it as well, into reproductive and other success. Perhaps health and health/fitness of mates.

What I meant about fitness is just how fit they are to their environment. Like, Tibetans are a "fit" to their environment, and Nigerians are a fit to their environment, much more than another may be, and on and on. Naturally, at the bottom of it, if someone Black moved north they are much more ultimately dependant in ways others more suited to this environment aren't. They would need a source of vitamin D. They also have more lactose intolerance. Not a lot of plants have vitamin D. Fish. Black mothers wouldn't soak up enough always and this could effect them, and the next generations. I mean, these aren't killer, definitely, because we have civilization as it is, and knowledge. But if somehow that was lost, and it is vulnerable ultimately, some would more easily survive in respective environments.

*It would be perhaps messy to call hybridizing evolution (I don't know), but it definitely has an effect on things. It is messy. I mean it would be in the realm of what evolution occurs as. They (Neanderthal) were closely related in the first place. Yes?
 
Last edited:
spacejunk said:
Trump is making a lot of powerful enemies.
The CIA, the FBI and the press are increasingly hostile to him.

It seems to me pretty obvious that he's corrupt (many business conflicts of interest), he lies (a lot - about practically everything) and that he may very well be compromised, as has been suggested by many, by Russia - if not others too.

His history of shady business dealings with underworld figures, links to Russian mafia types, weird predatory sexual allegations made against him - and of course his refusal to release his income tax details, all points to a high likelihood that he will be brought down by the sort of scandal that makes Bill Clinton look squeaky clean by comparison.

Especially when his lack of care, lack of self-restraint and discipline is taken into account.
I really don't think the guy is going to last.

He's a threat to the USA's relationships internationally, not to mention the global economy - and even more importantly, world peace.

I think when he goes, he will go in the biggest tantrum we've seen yet. It won't be pretty - but it will be funny
My only hope is that not too many people's lives are ruined by this oligarch and his band of rogues in the meantime.

Sadly, many of the people under trump who would seem likely to replace him in case of impeachment, resignation or whatever are just as snakey and nasty as Trump (if not moreso).

Still, i'm looking on with great interest at how Trump reacts when the intelligence community make their moves on him.
The President is not the King, but he's still not wearing any clothes.
Click to expand...

I agree that he won't last. He's too impulsive. I give him two years before he is forced to resign.
 
What 23 said:
I was going in line with a conversion about interbreeding with neanderthal that was going on. It was on the subject, speaking about advantageous traits/adaptations gained from them, possibly- but also them having a potential negative impact. This is indeed part of what goes on in "evolution".

Evolution involves different types of selection, and the gradual mutations that are selected for, however they are. One example of natural selection: Some insects have a type of mutated gene that allows them to survive very cold temperatures, and some of the same group of insects do not have the gene(s) (I am not an expert). One night it gets very cold.....The ones that have the certain gene- and quirk of body chemistry survive, and reproduce, passing this configuration onto the next generation, while the ones that don't have it don't. This is evolution.

I also disagree about the "conscious thought" bit, because sexual selection is also part of it (although, how conscious we are/what is conscious choice?), and I always choose my mates very consciously. Although, much of it is "not conscious".

Nice try.

This is interesting/related - but aside: Is Evolution Blind?

I wonder if epigenetics could somehow play into it as well, into reproductive and other success. Perhaps health and health/fitness of mates.

What I meant about fitness is just how fit they are to their environment. Like, Tibetans are a "fit" to their environment, and Nigerians are a fit to their environment, much more than another may be, and on and on. Naturally, at the bottom of it, if someone Black moved north they are much more ultimately dependant in ways others more suited to this environment aren't. They would need a source of vitamin D. They also have more lactose intolerance. Not a lot of plants have vitamin D. Fish. Black mothers wouldn't soak up enough always and this could effect them, and the next generations. I mean, these aren't killer, definitely, because we have civilization as it is, and knowledge. But if somehow that was lost, and it is vulnerable ultimately, some would more easily survive in respective environments.

*It would be perhaps messy to call hybridizing evolution (I don't know), but it definitely has an effect on things. It is messy. I mean it would be in the realm of what evolution occurs as. They (Neanderthal) were closely related in the first place. Yes?
Click to expand...

What you posted is a hypothesis, one study that has not been replicated elsewhere. Also all I see them proposing is that mutation does not "spring out randomly" to adapt to its environment proving my point, the DNA accommodates the most "fit" traits no matter how small but it still takes a very long time to get there through a mass orgy of reproduction of all of the species with different traits, notice how it is about the DNA and not the species snubbing each other for not being adequate to survival.

You can try to site sexual selection as some sort of proof but that too is random and part of evolution. Again survival does not imply "better" but only fittest to survive which can mean anything. It involves the die off of species with unsurvivable traits, a non-albino bat does not sit there and go "hmmm I better not mate with that albino bat our offspring will not survive" It might have an inbuilt preference after thousands of years because of evolution, but it will mate with any of its species until it has offspring survive since things such as rape and murder are part of it too.

Also Tibetans, blacks, whites, whatever are not a different species they are groups of humans with different traits. As humans we are higher than animals and have evolved our brains so we can alter our environment making all of this moot. Intermingling of the species is not a problem to anyone who is not a racist fuck.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top