ITT: Describe TED in a nutshell

>>8710289

>Postmodernism

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KuTSAeFhdZU

>>8710289

popsci garbage with some diamonds in a pile of shit

Sesame Street for floor managers.
Or
"How to use rhetoric, try it out in public."-lesson 1b

File: 1487447458427.jpg (1MB, 1800x1200px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1800x1200px

1. Vast majority of time there's a literal nobody blabbering about some completely meaningless bullshit.
2. Filled with cringe-worthy B class jokes for the brainlet audience.
3. Often ideology-driven, tries to shove far-left values like feminism down onto people's throats.
4. People who watch that shit think that they're more intellectual than the rest of the population.

>>8710603
>it's okay when far-right values are driven down throats
Conservatives would do the exact same thing if they didn't reject science

File: jim-carrey.jpg (30KB, 530x298px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 530x298px

>>8710624
>all conservatives reject science
>all liberals fully embrace science

Alrighty then

>>8710637
Not all, but I'd say more moderate liberals embrace science than moderate conservatives. Probably because even moderate conservatives are chirstfags on some level. This lends itself to skepticism of science.

File: 1478598239860.jpg (27KB, 694x535px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 694x535px

>>8710638
>moderate liberals embrace science
>moderate conservatives are chirstfags
<muh feels

Snowflake detected. You are no better than a redneck.

A few good videos about science, a ton of bad videos about social issues and political bullshit.

>Cuck stands on stage in front of audience for the first time in his life
>stammers and stutters for 15 minutes
>and then everybody clapped

>>8710643
>>8710637
Conservatives in general are science-rejecting christfags. This means moderate right as opposed to the left where it's only the far left that also reject science.

>>8710638
Anyone who claims diversity is a strength is objectively rejecting science( read bowling alone). And that basically constitutes the entire left.

>>8710674
Certain types of diversity can be a strength, in the right situation. Categorical statements like "diversity is strength" or "diversity is weakness" are for brainlets.

>>8710679
Racial diversity obviously. Diversity of ideas is a good thing without a doubt. I didn't think anyone would be stupid enough to need clarification.

>>8710683
I think racial diversity has the potential to be a strength too, given a realistic outlook and a culture that makes use of different races' strengths.

>>8710689
>emotional bullshit

nah, I'll stick to science and reality and stuff like that.

http://thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2017/01/07/ethnic-diversity-strength-or-weakness/

File: 1485201197995.jpg (1MB, 2444x2336px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2444x2336px

>>8710689
soooo slavery or an intense caste system?

>>8710690
OK, I mean I'm just a researcher in a top ten genetics program but hey if you think your blogs' secondhand interpretation of one scientist's work is equally valid I'm not going to fight you.

File: sam.jpg (131KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

131KB, 1920x1080px

Pic related was a cool talk

>>8710692
Thanks to slavery, the US is super diverse. So in the long run, not so much. But the caste system worked out well for the elite Indians.

>>8710693
I'm a navy seal with 5000000 confirmed kills

>>8710692
It's completely feasible to rehabilitate the "lesser races" through breeding programs to increase the frequency of alleles for intelligence. But that would probably hurt your sense of superiority.

What was the one with the morbidly obese woman? That was my favorite.

Hanauer banned talk proves Ted is a shill.
>Banned TED Talk: Nick Hanauer "Rich people don't create jobs"
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKCvf8E7V1g

File: 1487286266652.png (602KB, 963x720px) Image search: [Google]

602KB, 963x720px

>>8710701
I agree it is feasible and eugenics would be a great thing for society and the human race.. it has nothing to do with "my sense of superiority"
The question is then raised though, why waste the time and resources of raising the collective IQ of lesser races to the norm of others, instead of raising whites/asians/jews to be better than they already are?
Doing what you are suggesting would only be done because of emotion.. to for some reason keep those people around (which could be useful for manual labor etc.) but mostly it would be retards claiming diversity is our strength, which is pure propaganda and not proven to be true for humans at all.

File: 1488273556960.jpg (439KB, 2000x3000px) Image search: [Google]

439KB, 2000x3000px

>>8710743
We need eugenics so all girls look like this

File: IMG-20170220-WA0021.jpg (4KB, 160x180px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 160x180px

>>8710694
>Teaching African refugees to code in JavaScript

>>8710743
Genetic and cultural diversity are actually good for humans whether you want to accept it or not. Jews are only what they are because they mixed with europeans (there is something about the blending itself, not just the races, that resulted in that superior IQ. You can see that by just analyzing the IQs of both north italians and non-mixed jews. Neither are as high as of the ashkenazim.
Also, what differentiates the general IQ of a race as opposed to another is just the frequency that genes for intelligence appear in each one. If you mix a smart asian/jew with an equally smart black person, you'll get a better result than if you mix them with another asian/jew who isn't as smart. The genes for intelligence can arise in anyone regardless of their race. If eugenics is ever to be executed, we would have to eliminate the dumb people from each race, not just let a few races reproduce. On the former case, you'll have a much more higher likelyhood of producing just smart people than on the latter.

>>8710747
If she has any jewish genes in her, that's literally the perfect woman.
>above average IQ
>big breasts without too much fat accumulation

>>8710769
False, Genetic diversity with an inferior group is a terrible thing.

Jews are smart because of selective pressure, and pogroms killing the Jewish lower class numerous times for the last 1,000 years. It has nothing to do with race mixing you dunce. It was simply accidental eugenics.

>>8710784
>>>False, Genetic diversity with an inferior group is a terrible thing.
Prove it.
Nevertheless, for the means of actual eugenics, defining inferior and superior races for the means of knowing which ones to reproduce ends up being a terrible generalization that won't improve the general IQ as much as focusing on individuals. Like I said, it's better to select the smartest individuals of each race and have them mate than selecting just a few races to be allowed to mate.
You seem to be very emotion-biased. You don't want a smarter society, you just don't want to mix with blacks. If you did, you wouldn't mind subsaharan smart DNA on the general pool.

>>8710800
>Ignore the majority of my post
>desperate to make sure blacks don't get left out
>calls me emotion based

kek

File: 59576356369.jpg (91KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 600x600px

>>8710800
that's not even the same person as me, who you replied to previously.. so your emotion claim is stupid
Did you ever think maybe other people don't see it the same way you do? You're the one insinuating -ALL- blacks or whatever, since blacks weren't even named, would be wiped out, when no one said that directly. No one (here) is denying there are intelligent people of every race, or calling for their execution. Your claims about racemixing >>8710769 seem convoluted. If you're saying IQ isn't based solely on race (it's not) then what good does racemixing do? That's not measureable or provable. Obviously intelligent should breed with other intelligent people. Saying a dumb jew breeding with a smart jew is worse than a smart jew and a smart white is common sense. As long as a smart black was as smart as a smart white in that situation, they would be interchangeable. As in, not smart for a black, but as smart as the white.

>>8710810
yeah he is starting to seem suspicious since he's the one who brought up blacks

>>8710810
Your entire point is based on the premise that intelligence chooses race, thus it is pointless to try to improve the general IQ of the lesser races because history already has done it with others and that would hold the intellectual development of such races.
My point is that to think of intelligence in terms of race is a dumb reductionism created by white people centuries ago to legitimize slavery. We have enough data to know that we can do selective breeding focusing on the genes that determine intelligence itself rather than focusing on races, as those genes are present in literally every race existent.

File: hqdefault.jpg (32KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 480x360px

>>8710289
Sam Hyde it it pretty well.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-yFhR1fKWG0

>>8710832
I brought up blacks because the point of literally every racebaiting thread (like this one) is to implicitly or explicitly prove that racism is justifiable because blacks have on average lower IQs. If you don't think that's the point of this thread, you are jusy really new here.

>>8710842
groups are real bro, as much as it hurts to hear it. Your hyper individualistic world view doesn't reflect on reality. The negative aspects aren't entirely intelligence, but also conflict, decreased social capital, lower community trust, ect. A 130 IQ society is worthless if everyone is a malicious and/or scared asshole.

File: 1469729771646.jpg (84KB, 800x687px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 800x687px

>>8710833
>>8710842
This is a TED thread m8.
>Racism is justifiable because x
Who gives a flying fuck, we were talking about the idea that diversity is a strength in society, specifically multiculturalism. The fact you see a discussion about that as racebaiting just shows you are not open to any new ideas that might hurt your feelings.
If you think it is extremely ****RACIST*** to suggest more homogeneous societies are and have always been more successful in every way, then just fucking kill yourself. Do you think slaves "built this country too"?
>created by white people used to legitimize slavery
whites didn't invent slavery and generalizations exist for a reason
If you find a possible way to interview every individual to get to the bottom of what you see as a mystery (which to non-retards is very obvious) let me know. I'll give it a week you're in a predominately black area before you say "you know what, I give up".
If the idea/measuring of IQ was never invented, the races with a higher mean intelligence would still recognize those with a lower avg. The only person I know who refuses to recognize the fact generalizations and stereotypes exist for a reason is half black, and an otherwise sensible individual but can't let go of MUH RACISM

Please imagine we all have transparent skin. The group of predominately low IQ individuals will still exist, and would (genetically) mostly be comprised of the groups of people you are "fighting for" Who gives a shit in the grand scheme of things? An higher intelligence would agree they are a detriment to society and should be outbred/sterilized. You only argue like this to make yourself feel better and demonize people who see things more logically by assuming they are from pol, white, racist etc.

>>8710869
spot on, brevity is not my strong suit

>>8710872
>an
woops, A* sorry

>>8710869
Negative aspects of diversity*

>>8710638
Depends if you consider economics a science

>>8710743
>The question is then raised though, why waste the time and resources of raising the collective IQ of lesser races to the norm of others, instead of raising whites/asians/jews to be better than they already are?
Because there could be valuable genes in the African gene pool with importance we don't understand yet. Maybe there will be a virus in the future that can be resisted by people with a certain rare allele. It doesn't even take that many resources to do basic remedial eugenics, just let the dumbest 99.9% of Africans starve. Boom, you just increased the average IQ of Africans to over 100 (aka normal.)

It's easy, and it has nothing to do with sentimentality (I am neither black nor white so I don't prefer either one.)

>>8710643
>I have no argument, better start hurling insults.

>>8710950
100? I know you said IN Africa, but based on what? It's not like blacks outside of Africa are much more intelligent, maybe 10-20 pts max. And the result of that would mostly be the government officials/royalty live and most others die. Some of the most intelligent people there could be in a place without food, clean water, or schools. The problem, as >>8710869
pointed out is that their behavior and culture is a detriment to society in most countries. Though I agree there would be a boost in Africa's IQ and we need to stop supplying aid and allowing rapid reproduction there.
Again, no one said anything about wiping out all blacks, so the virus resistant allele argument is absolutely fucking retarded.. I think you've been watching too much hollyjew scifi. It's not like we preserve the genetic material of all living people right now anyways. I'm sure there would be plenty of intelligent blacks able to provide samples if there was suddenly an issue like that.
>I don't prefer either one
well that's it's own bias, because you are choosing to ignore facts and numbers to force races to be equal when they're not, and suggesting that race mixing somehow boosts IQ of offspring.
I guess maybe you'll learn when your brainwashed pro-miscegenation children pump out some niglets and you're wondering why they aren't gifted.

>>8711364
OK, it's pretty clear that you're too emotional to reason with. I took care not to insult you or misinterpret your arguments but if you won't do me the same courtesy I can't be bothered to talk with you anymore. I just hope you can keep your ego in check long enough to do a more serious study of genetics, because it's a very interesting and nuanced field when you can check your opinions at the door.

I'm really glad I don't subscribe to any political ideologies, they seem to really cloud one's judgment.

>>8710289
Smugness on display.

>>8710671
>Conservatives in general are science-rejecting christfags
I just want marked liberalization, fuck off

>>8711421
*market

File: lekotface.jpg (3KB, 125x125px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 125x125px

>>8710289
Anyone and Everyone who has an opinion and wants an audience.

I stopped watching for a long time because of this gay guy who came on and said "What to gays want? Well they want the same rights as you! Tehe"

Oh thats funny because i dont see a right to be gay on the bill of rights. Hack away at your own family tree, humm doesn't seem to be on there, mental infertility nope not an amendment i know of. Could you possibly be trying to definition control what is a right until you get what you want just like you definition control the political correctness to get what you want.

>>8710683
>be mixed kid
>one parent's family originates in west Africa
>the other's family originates in eastern Europe
>kid has one allele for sickle cell
>kid has one allele for cystic fibrosis
>kid is now immune to malaria and tuburculosis

>>8710693
You've ever heard of a thing called a smart idiot?

Well just to warn you. Universities mass produce these things, and im sure your level of competence doesnt extend to all areas of academics like a true genius does.

Also, name one reason why gayness is healthy that doesnt rely upon plausibility. No? Thats what i thought.

>>8710289
Artist, Innovator, Idea

>>8710769
>If you mix a smart asian/jew with an equally smart black person, you'll get a better result than if you mix them with another asian/jew who isn't as smart.

You cannot prove this. This sounds like just so much jewish bias. If this were true, then the entire population of smart people would be mixed race.

That is not what happenes.

>If eugenics is ever to be executed, we would have to eliminate the dumb people from each race, not just let a few races reproduce.
This however is true. But smartness isnt the only gene that matters brainlets.

>>8710784
>It was simply accidental eugenics.

And this too is not entirely believable. If it was the way you are suggesting, then that would be able to prove that massively beneficial genes for intelligence can appear only in 1000 years. Whereas genes for other traits are not visible, such as speed or strength or immunity. It is the jews ability to select good mates which generated a synergy of genes.

As far as i have been able to understand, the ashkenazim are unusual because they can trace their roots back to a single guy in Greece. And that guy probably happened to have a high IQ.

File: 1487911478715.jpg (30KB, 196x326px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 196x326px

>>8711386
>don't acknowledge most of my points in every single post
>call me emotional when your points are based on emotion and extreme/wild what-ifs, and respond to others saying they are too emotional when they aren't saying anything emotion-based at all
>continue to for some reason assume that I am white, that I have a sense of superiority because of that assumption, and you assume what my political ideologies are
>think you are better, smarter, more enlightened by your own intelligence, yet you have no factual points and continue to just judge and dismiss people who you disagree with
>try to ride off on your high horse after I get understandably irritated that you continue to do all of the above things

Please fuck off back to twitter/reddit
>check your ego, my amazingly nuanced field will wreck u buddy
If you were actually studying genetics you would be able to say "You are wrong about this, because this" "This study shows this, which goes against what you said" In which case, I would gladly acknowledge you are right about certain things, or that I agree with you (as I have multiple times now.)
Instead, you're spouting off shit that isn't proven, or even scientific on a science board, and have the gall to call others "too emotional to reason with"
Not to mention I was addressing an initial point you made, and you kept changing the topic, to the point where it was specifically about blacks and a doomsday virus scenario
Try having an actual discussion with people you disagree with, instead of talking down to them, spouting fallacies, and changing the subject.
Good day.

>>8710872
>****RACIST*** to suggest more homogeneous societies are and have always been more successful in every way

And there ladies and gentlemen is the opposite of a racist, a homogonist.

Tell me, if race can be judged by IQ (which it can). How in realistic terms are those high IQ races more homogonist than others? What makes europe more homogonist than west africa, than china, than south america?

If you measured it you wouldnt come up with a straight gradient like you'd want.

>>8711364
>>8711386
As an anon with varied enough genetic heritage, I have to say that I agree with the first anon here. Really, my being "mixed" shouldn't constrain me to this or that, but due to the manner of replying the latter anon is taking up, it should mean something when your anecdotal example disagrees with what you're trying to affirm- that is, if it's not all shitposting.

I get the feeling that it's shitposting.

>>8711461
Yeah, but then there's the case of having a certain amount of sickle cells, anyways. Also, maybe I'm wrong, but if you paired me up with someone who has one of each allele as well, won't it be a gamble to have children?
>sorry son/daughter there's a 25% chance you'll die in this specific fashion

>>8710289

>Describe TED in a nutshell

football for the non-retarded

>>8710624
>someone brings up the cesspool known as modern liberalism
>but muh conservatives are just as bad right?

how to spot a liberal in denial

>>8710671
you know that a political party's attitude on issues have the ability to change right? to say extremist idiots represent the average conservative and only the few extreme liberals in [current year] is delusional.

>>8710842
this is a thread about TED you're the one sucking black people's dick m8

>>8710289
>popsci

/thread