RatifyGuy1776

RatifyGuy1776 wrote (edited )

I'm not saying that IQ is a hard fact; we aren't that good at measuring anything. Further, it should be obvious to anyone that whenever the establishment sorts people on any axis, they do terrible and stupid things with that data. People should only be sorting themselves. What I'm saying is that it's at least an honest attempt to measure something that does exist. People have different limitations.

To reject the concepts of intelligence or even that genetics can have an effect on it seems to me to be a mistake; these ideas lead to eugenics only because that's what eugenicists already wanted to do, and oversimplifying this topic in a way that satisfies the privileged is unfortunately pretty easy. I'm not an expert on either topic, or indeed on any topic, but I know enough about genetics to know that eugenics is stupid: there are few genes that directly encode traits without side effects, especially when it comes to the brain. Biodiversity is always the winning strategy.

Meanwhile, a proper understanding of intelligence must include that regardless of whatever a person's genetic limitations might be, cognitive development and function are profoundly affected by environmental factors. We know that financial stress impairs it, for example, and compulsory schooling under the Prussian model is designed to make the kids sorted into the lower bin stupider. With automation on the rise, the public school systems are basically being re-tuned to make all students dumber by the time they get out, so that the common people can be maximally exploited by the prison-industrial complex. This wouldn't work if intelligence weren't real, however good or bad we are at measuring it.

On a deeper philosophical level, it should also be obvious to anyone that a lack of raw processing power does not hide the most important things about life from anyone. We all experience consciousness and connection, and develop insight from that experience that doesn't have anything to do with how good you are at rotating shapes in your head. That kind of knowledge is what makes life worth protecting, and you don't need to have wetware nearly as fancy as any human's to have that.

1

RatifyGuy1776 wrote

It really isn't, but I'm not going to claim I'm being anything but sloppy about how statistics work. Really the reason you see more stupid things than smart things is probably that most smart people seem to think of stupid people as problems more than as people. So, they don't talk to the intellectual have-nots except to manipulate them once they get too "smart" for ethics. Partisanship is like that.

−3

RatifyGuy1776 wrote

No, I'm wrong about shit all the time.

Dumb people need human rights, too. My comment wasn't "people suck" it was "the masses are brutally victimized, and can't be blamed for misunderstanding how it happens."

−5

RatifyGuy1776 wrote

If there is a government, it will be bought. Whatever cannot be bought will have war made against it. The ruling class often prefers this, because it allows them to arbitrarily extract wealth from both the occupied country and its own citizens. Even among those not convinced of climate crisis, extinction within a few generations is widely considered totally inevitable due to the threat of nuclear war. The only way to stop this is to end nations.

1

RatifyGuy1776 wrote

Because that's how a bell curve do. Half of humanity is so unintelligent that they have to work hard on that level of discourse, and they're very proud of it. This is also why people are very gullible, and thus easily accept narratives that blame other powerless people for their troubles.

−7

RatifyGuy1776 wrote (edited )

Reply to comment by BulletDog15 in What is anarchy? by BulletDog15

Very few of the Founding Fathers intended any such thing. To begin with, they weren't of one mind, not nearly. A number of them were religious zealots of a sort that most modern Christians would consider nearly insane; they more or less believed that monarchy is the only form of government and that the only way to get right with God after our treason against the English crown was to make a new monarchy here. Many more of them were ready to get rid of monarchy, but believed that a very strong federal government was necessary. They won that fight; the Articles of Confederation were much closer to the kind of loose union I'd like to see, and it failed due to 18th century networking technology not being up to the task of facilitating defensive cooperation and trade between states that couldn't be bossed around.

The US Constitution is all about federalism, which would be much better than what we have if we were allowed to actually do it, but it's still not good. Federal governments are already empires pretty much by their definition. The better networking technology gets, the more it acts like one. If we are to escape from the cycle of perpetual warmongering until the nuclear one, we have to use that same technology to dismantle the federal government and replace it with something that takes a drastically lighter touch. The only way to avoid eventually scouring the planet in nuclear war is to make sure there are no targets big enough that you need nukes to fight them. The end of nations, returning the power of self-determination to individual city-states, is in my view essential to our long-term survival.

4

RatifyGuy1776 OP wrote (edited )

yik yak was good at the beginning as just a local, anonymous message board, but for pretty similar reasons to what happened with cl, dl, and bp, it didn't make it easy to actually talk to a person you saw on there outside of the public threads. As such, the most interesting thing you could really do with it was shitpost. Later, it stopped being anonymous, and later still, it went away entirely. I've heard it is or was back at some point, but it's definitely not on Android as of when I looked a few days ago, and I wouldn't expect it to be anymore useful than it was back then anyway.

2

RatifyGuy1776 OP wrote (edited )

My apologies. I read dismissiveness into your suggestions because of the context that I was on meta, asking about how to use raddle. But I suppose I didn't really make that context explicit enough in my actual post, so I'm sorry for going off at you.

I don't really want "my writing" to be "read and known." This is extremely not about me. If people like the ideas, I want them to take them and do their own thing with them. Though I'd like to participate, even if just to explain myself better in early days, it's probably better in the long term if I don't. As a private citizen, I am a total mess. Walking kompromat. Being a public figure might literally kill me. I believe these ideas can be helpful, but I'm well aware that if a movement ever actually materializes around them, it will evaporate the moment it's associated with me as a person. I'm trying to give something to the world in a truly altruistic sense, because I am not meant to be successful in this society. Given the kind of press real leftists get in America, lots of people here probably have similar feelings, but I promise I'd be worse, and if I can get some traction here at least there's more of us plotting and sneaking and weaving influence, all things I'm terrible at.

Ultimately, the concrete plan I have is an extremely big-tent sort of thing, certainly. I do have a twitter account and a youtube account, and I've made my content available there, should they ever serve a purpose. But I'm a lefty on the inside, and I think some of what I've put together will resonate with people here. I'd hoped to be able to kick around ideas about how to get this to be a thing, and whether there are particular eyes the document needs to land on. And a part of me is also just yearning for community. I know this is sort of a backward way of pursuing that, but I suck really bad at fitting in anywhere.

As for the location-based forum idea, yeah, there are plenty of places that don't mind where you are. But as far as I know, they don't have the specific function/format I'm looking for: in which the user does care where posters are. (or at least claim to be) Sites like craigslist and doublelist make it hard to search outside where you are because, being respectively focused on selling junk and hooking up, there's massive perceived liability when somebody claims you're enabling scamming or trafficking. In fact, the latter is exactly why craigslist doesn't have personals anymore, and it's why backpage no longer exists. My thinking was that making a site that does this in a distributed fashion on the darknet would allow people to make those sorts of long-distance connections without being subject to that sort of censorship. I don't know how to do that, though, which is why I was wondering if I should bring it to askRaddle or tech.

2

RatifyGuy1776 wrote

I would say that anarchy is when communities get to make their own decisions about what's okay there, without some massive federal or corporate body using violence and mammon to make people defect to a global monoculture.

6

RatifyGuy1776 OP wrote (edited )

  1. I have enough experience with mainstream platforms to know that the first rule of blogging is that literally nobody cares about your blog, including your close friends. Those websites are for memes, fandom, callouts, and whoever the algorithm has decided is the main character today. You can't build an audience (which is not actually what I even want) on platforms like that unless you have connections or an ad budget. If I had either of those, I'd write on substack and I'd probably be too privileged to ever feel a need to start up the tor browser to find meaningful discussion.

I mean, this is probably just your polite way of saying you don't want to hear it. And I get it. Some Guy shows up and wants you to read his garbage because he thinks he knows how to save the world. Big snore. Obviously you think I should start a blog because the proper way to ask people to read your ideas is to labor in total obscurity for years, weathering everyone's apathy and contempt. The thing is I did that already, I just didn't do it on a blog. The document is 14 pages instead of a biweekly stream of consciousness because it's the condensation of that toil, which I completely recognize could be worth nothing, but I had at least thought that if I go to the meta-board of this cool leftist website I found in the part of the internet you're not supposed to go to, somebody might at least suggest what board it's appropriate for me to talk in. Thanks for your support, comrade.

  1. On this point, I think I just didn't get across what I mean very well. I do not want to find/make a platform that geolocates you. If I was fine with that, I wouldn't really find either craigslist or doublelist unfit for purpose. craigslist didn't always, and to be honest, I'm not 100% sure that either of them do now, as opposed to just making it difficult-to-impossible to search and respond to ads outside the region you designate in your account. The thing is, that's specifically what I don't want it to do. When I say "location-based," I mean that regardless of where you are, if you have some reason to want to read and post to the board for a completely different region, you can. I'd like a way to find like-minded people to travel to/with, in other words. Existing websites that I know of really don't like you doing that these days, even if it's not actually against their rules.
2