If you truly believe that the greater presence of winter encouraged long-term planning in white people and not black people. If you truly believe that IQ differences are purely attributable to genetic lack of intelligence.

If you truly believe that there is a genetic basis for behavioral differences that explain statistical differences in per capita criminality. If you truly believe that it's degeneracy for one of your own to procreate with blacks.

Then isnt what the black guy said in this situation completely rational? What else was I supposed to conclude? Do we not live in the information age? Is there not a diminished, if not nonexistent socioeconomic advantage from my marginally genetically superior athleticism?

"You shouldnt say that about yourself" why the sudden humanism? If they were being honest, they'd say "Yeah sucks to suck I guess, life's gonna be tough but hang in there man, they'll figure out intelligence augmentation any day now, try not to rob anyone in the meantime"

@zeeo7824 Nationalism or whatever you want to call it doesn't have to be a zero sum game

@othejestr If you think similar levels of nationalism can exist for races that internalize the belief that they are genetically inferior, you're lying to yourself just as much as the blank slatists

@zeeo7824 @othejestr I am racist. I value the continuity and sovereignty of my race. I do not want anyone to hate their race or think of themselves as inferior. They are different expressions of a form, this doesn't necessitate an ontological hierarchy. There is no contradiction here.

@21CNXD @othejestr If there’s no ontological hierarchy, then ‘race’ isn’t a boundary worth preserving. The only way your argument works is if you smuggle in value judgments about which forms should persist Hierarchy by another name

@21CNXD @othejestr There are things that are compatible with 1st world civilization and things that are not. If you both believe the groyper worldview and want a 1st world civilization to persist, then you necessarily believe in a hierarchy of races

@zeeo7824 @othejestr If I think all forms should persist, how is that contradictory? Also, my worldview is very different than that of groypers, even if there is agreement on race. My views on "1st-world civilization" and modernity in general are too complex to condense into a twitter exchange.

@21CNXD @othejestr Thinking all forms should exist is not mutually exclusive with having a hierarchy of forms. If you have violent crime low on your preference ordering over outcomes, then you necessarily have blacks low on your preference ordering over races

@zeeo7824 @othejestr 1: neither are they mutually dependent. That goes both ways. 2: hierarchy can exist both in preference and measurable performance in metrics without entering into the realm of ontological value.

@21CNXD @othejestr This makes sense if you place no literally ontological value in the continued existence of society. But if you do, then to the extent that certain races hinder the continued existence of the society you prefer, those races necessarily have less ontological value

@zeeo7824 @othejestr Subjective preference doesn't necessitate ontological hierarchy. Example: I prefer my family and friends to strangers. I would not say that preference is justification to the idea that they are in some way objectively superior. They are only "worth more" to me.

@zeeo7824 @othejestr When it comes to the presence of other groups hindering the formation of my "ideal society", I see this akin to finding oranges in the apple container. I remove the oranges and place them in the orange container. Each has their place.

@21CNXD @othejestr No, low crime high trust society is not a subjective preference that doesnt necessitate ontological hierarchy in the same way apple and oranges are. But I get the feeling you're not actually a post-modernist

@zeeo7824 @othejestr I never claimed to be a postmodernist. I am a particularist. Different groups are suited to different modes of being. I value my group because I think in-group loyalty is important, not because of a universalist hierarchy.

@21CNXD @othejestr No, there are objectively good societies that have objectively good outcomes High violent crime is not a "different mode of being" that some people are just "suited for" And I get the feeling that you don't genuinely believe that either.

@zeeo7824 @othejestr I could say that a society would be objectively improved by excluding some groups from it, but I suspect that any group of people could live relatively peacefully in the right environment and under the right conditions. Also, I don't really have any incentive to lie here.

@21CNXD @othejestr I guess I was wrong! https://x.com/zeeo7824/status/...