Meshugger

I don't know of any cultural attitudes that are genetically hardwired. This gives a vastly higher probability to my "speculation", as you call it, being right. Well, i am seing it from the angle of that i cannot tell where exactly biology ends and where culture begins. Add to the fact that people make culture, it probably becomes a question never really properly answered. Maybe.

His speculation is as good as mine since there was neither one of us has any concrete evidence. I just found mine to be hilarious.

WHAT I'll.....I'll see myself out.

What? There is an actual Aquaman?!! I always thought that it was a some sort of joke from The Simpons. Kinda like Radioactive Man, Ant Man and so on. I am really out of my element when it comes to comic books, it seems.

So that would imply that people are to a certain degree inheritly racist? Like being racist is actually normal? (Biologically speaking) Hohohohoo, now that would be politically incorrect to say in public, if anything.

On the contrary, it just means that they haven't accepted Satan as their lord and saviour yet. The process simple: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ikvIb3yM_4I#t=24

Because no matter how loathsome you and I may find an individual, those individuals sometimes still have a social network. Relatives, gang members, fellow inmates etc. I've got no illusions about there not being sympathisers who sees his actions as an outlet of their own anger and frustrations at the injustice of life. Some turn to gangs, some turn to hooliganism, some turn to drugs, and yes, some turn to ideological extremism. Yes, even a small place like Denmark has it's share of people who looks for something to blame for their misery, whether that misery is inflicted or self inflicted. http://www.clarionproject.org/analysis/majority-europes-muslims-favor-sharia-over-democracy Not entirely linked, but it shows how two different societies are emerging, and it will certainly not do anything to help stopping potential loonies.

This is interesting personal insight from someone who lives in the region So do you think the Danish social model of real attempts at integration and understanding is the way to go, or do you feel if someone leaves a country to fight Jihad they then forfeit there European citizenship and if they return they could be arrrested and or refused entry? I feel that if you choose to join groups like ISIS then you need to realize you can't just come home when convenient. So I'm not sure I agree with the Danish approach which is very conciliatory and still attempts to bring people who have been possibly radicalised back into Danish culture? As other have already said, this guy has never been in Syria nor has he been fighting alongside ISIS. Just a local drug dealer turned nutso. What i find appaling is the local support he gets from his actions. Sounds like breeding ground for masochists, sociopaths and evil people in general. As long as they are around as a positive feedback loop, then terrorist attacks are here to stay as a cultural phenomenon.

Perhaps. I'd wager the researchers are pushing pills, surgery, or something else that can make them (and/or whomever funded the study) $$$ though. Exercise and a good diet indeed does work for the vast majority of folks out there who actually do stick to a good regimen of both. Always follow the money.

It was the same old. The target was the swedish satirical artist Lars Vilks, again, and the perpetrator was a muslim failure-man, again. Allegedly he was dealing drug and doing petty crime until he got into prison, where he was later radicalised. It's the same song, when failing in everything, you can always out-muslim your fellow muslims by killing kuffars; people who ridicule the prophet and the jews. And why shouldn't he? honor was restored among his peers, especially in the neighbourhood where he grew up in. The guy was a hero for them because he had the balls to pull off what his friends and extended acquaintances dared not to. All while the media discusses on how to maintain social cohesion, experts are discussing about polite self-censorship under the disguise of "provocation might be inheritly damaging", where artist maybe should approach difficult matters politely and jews might be better off if they didn't boast around in their kippahs. While the singular incident only ended up with 2 people dead, i do not think it will be the last. Either Europe will become more tolerant, where it practically means that it will appease the muslim community and add further restrictions to free speech in the name of "personal dignity", or it will spiral further down in violence and we will have a quite bloody future for our children. It's quite worrying that it is the second and third generation muslims that are doing this, meaning that the level radicalism increases eventhough we have now families that are by all means considered integrated into society. That's why i am very pessimistic about the third option of full integration, meaning that the current muslim cultural identity will die out and a new one born which pretty much just has different holidays and odder looking temples compared to the one in the host country.

Maybe we shouldn't call fit people "normal" anymore, thanks to this study. Maybe they should "Massly challenged" or with the medical term "Chronic mass deficiancy disorder". But also please remember that we must not judge. As a normal guy, i hereby come out of the fit closet. Please be nice.

http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-eat-less-more-obesity-20150212-story.html Welp, like the great philosopher of our time, Homer, said: "Trying is the first step to failure."

Why should they need guns when local beaurocracy only needed to declare the the town as unneeded and forcibly move each citizen to another town as soon as anyone tried to "elevate beyond his position".

Now, now. Lets not get personal about who is dismissive or who is rude to whom. The only way to settle this is by mud-wrestling. Naked. The first one refusing to take part is declared as fairy fruitcake gay-person. I will wrestle LadyCrimson.

We didn't just have fights here, we used fight wars here. It has definitely cooled towards the boring side of the meter. But the truth is among the regulars everyone knows everyone's politics and we're all so stubborn it's impossible to change anyone's mind so why bother? Not true. I used to be left wing, but i have turned more rightwing (as in more libertanian) through the years here. You (and taks, wherever he is) can pat yourself on the back for that

we were a second or two away from making an on-topic post in this thread, but common sense, inexplicably, took a hold o' us. the bat-crap crazies is even more stubborn than is Gromnir, so we decided the best way to win this fight were to avoid it altogether. the release o' poe will create a new kinda board havoc for a considerable period o' time, but at least it will be chaos related to games. sadly, the "usual suspects" will not starve in the absence o' plentiful fodder. they will hibernate, feeding on their own stored rage until poe is forgotten or until the next major world crisis hits. we hear that snails can hibernate for years. some similarly tedious obsidian posters is very snail-like... angry snails... angry and bat-crap crazy snails. HA! Good Fun! I find this post offensive on the behalf of people i do not know and whose sensibilities that i cannot possibly feel. Calling people bat-crap snails is quite problematic and in my opinion, zoophobic. This kind of trolling behaviour is not acceptable by any means and your post have been reported. Expect a displinary warning for a lack of tolerance and self tone-policing.

You are seing patterns here that i haven't yet detected. What elements constitutes as social-reactionary in this sub-forum?

Well, i have been looking for material on cognitive science and cultural inertia (not wikipedia) and i can't really find anything that justifies political correctness as the way of communication in society instead of free speech. Not 'justified' as in irrefutable evidence, but rather the literature doesn't seem to exist or is very hard to find. Perhaps my google-fu is not good enough. Most of it seems to be more about pattern recognition, biology in relation of development of the mind, memory and sensory development in different surroundings and so on. Most of cultural inertia seems to be about project management and adopting to new market strategies in order to not to fail or miss emerging markets. So, in conclusion: Still not better than free speech, which is so simple. You use it, and you defend it. Political Correctness on the other is not really defined, it can be anything from basic morality found in many religions to authoritarian social engineering, and you cannot defend it without the expense of the freedom of expression of another.

I have been asking this for the last two pages. Please define it yourself and we take it from there. And I did! "Expecting people to not behave like racist/sexist/etc. ****wads" is pretty much my definition. I want something more formal, do better! So the definition may differ because its based on the word "political " which will differ from region to region and within cultures. So political correctness will be different in Saudi Arabia than Sweden...I think we all understand that But this is a Western forum where there are clear rules that are defined that you will not discriminate against people based on sexual orientation or race or sex or many other things So "political correctness " in this context is that you won't use offensive or derogatory comments when addressing these groups or encourage dislike of these groups through some discussion Thats just one example of what political correctness means Ok, i will play nice here. How can a vibrant and open society grow if it depends on the sensibilities of the one feeling most offended? Excellent question, but you are misunderstanding something. We don't concern ourselves with the feelings of minority groups, for example, because this helps us grow as a society. We do it to prevent us going backwards. In the Western world we should be striving for a society that is completely tolerant of all groups so if you allow offensive comments to run rampant on a forum you are taking that forum backwards...this applies to the general level of how a society is measured nowadays. So in summary societies don't grow based on how they treat victims of abuse but they can get taken backwards. Russia is a good example of this Russia is not a free society with freedom of speech, so we cannot compare to that. But back to the point, is tolerance and political correctness virtues that people would die for, compared to other ideals?

Your wants in this matter are sadly irrelevant to me. The definition works for every purpose except rules-lawyering the **** out of it in an attempt to prove that political correctness is, ultimately, evil incarnate Even if an arbiter of political correctness deems that despite what you think is completely reasonable is actually an "-ism" because someone you don't know thought of it as that "-ism" and took offense. That's pretty much the thinking man's sado-masochism to me. Solution: you listen to them explain why they feel you've wronged them. If their argument holds water, you apologize and make a mental note not to repeat what you did, because even if you think it's stupid, their feelings are more important to you than your freedom to use certain words (hell, I know I have a hard time cutting back on my usage of "Jesus ****ing Christ" and "retarded", but I still do it because members of my peer group find them tasteless). If their company is less valuable to you than your freedom to cuss as much as you want, however you want, you simply let them drop out of your life. Easy as that. I do not associate with adults who have the audacity to tell me what to say and what to think, so i wouldn't know about the bolded part. But i think that i have mistakenly shaken hands with those kinds people at a dinner party or two, yuk. But what you're talking about here is within limits of freedom of association. What i am asking is why this is good for all society? Why is this solution better than using the ideal of freedom of speech? Does cognitive science tell us that human beings do not flourish mentally unless their speech and manners are led by a leader?

I have been asking this for the last two pages. Please define it yourself and we take it from there. And I did! "Expecting people to not behave like racist/sexist/etc. ****wads" is pretty much my definition. I want something more formal, do better! So the definition may differ because its based on the word "political " which will differ from region to region and within cultures. So political correctness will be different in Saudi Arabia than Sweden...I think we all understand that But this is a Western forum where there are clear rules that are defined that you will not discriminate against people based on sexual orientation or race or sex or many other things So "political correctness " in this context is that you won't use offensive or derogatory comments when addressing these groups or encourage dislike of these groups through some discussion Thats just one example of what political correctness means Ok, i will play nice here. How can a vibrant and open society grow if it depends on the sensibilities of the one feeling most offended?

Racism as an ideology is pretty much marginalized into irrelevance. Racism as an institution, an emergent property of cultural inertia? Very much alive and kicking. What? And this is why I don't do these discussions nowadays. You not being up-to-date with decades' worth of research into cognitive science is not something I can correct during the course of a random internet conversation. So what then? Should we leave it out to experts to police speech because they have the esoteric knowledge in a field that most people do not?

Your wants in this matter are sadly irrelevant to me. The definition works for every purpose except rules-lawyering the **** out of it in an attempt to prove that political correctness is, ultimately, evil incarnate Even if an arbiter of political correctness deems that despite what you think is completely reasonable is actually an "-ism" because someone you don't know thought of it as that "-ism" and took offense. That's pretty much the thinking man's sado-masochism to me.

Racism as an ideology is pretty much marginalized into irrelevance. Racism as an institution, an emergent property of cultural inertia? Very much alive and kicking. What?

I have been asking this for the last two pages. Please define it yourself and we take it from there. And I did! "Expecting people to not behave like racist/sexist/etc. ****wads" is pretty much my definition. I want something more formal, do better!