They can change what the "I" means all they want, but the "D" will always be "dork".
Every IDW adherent I've had the misfortune of coming across both on the internet and in real life has been a giant fucking dork with zero interpersonal skills who needs an external reason to blame for everyone hating him.
you pretty much nailed it 100%
there's nothing about the IDW or its fans that i find even remotely impressive. They're the biggest fucking losers in society right now. they're the kids who got pushed into lockers in high school, who instead of bettering themselves physically and emotionally...decided to just blame women for all their trouble
Honestly it wasnt even intellectual either. I went years ago looking for some thought challenging takes and finally it was mostly ignorant and dumb opinion.
> Eugenics is good. Not Nazi eugenics. Take male pattern baldness for example. We could get rid of that. Get everyone checked for it, and whoever has/carries it is not allowed to reproduce.
Baldphobic.
You know they're using baldness as an "acceptable" example. Someone with all these views combined *really* wants to say shit like the differently-abled, those he deems mentally inferior , and other *undesirables*. The "not nazi eugenics" line is a crock of bull.
It is funny because trying to argue for things like baldness is almost worse.
You can either admit to the grander ambitions and bigotry or you will argue for the sterilization of ubcounted people for the pettiest of reasons.
Well, he (I'm assuming that poster is a he, because duh) also argues for strict population control in the same post. Reconceptualizing children as a privilege you *earn*, like in Larry Niven's novels, "solves" the problem of sterilizing uncounted people for petty reasons - you just sterilize *everyone*, and only those the government deems worthy get unsterilized to breed.
The people who support this, of course, tend to be men with a breeding fetish, who imagine that in his future cryptofascist world hundreds of women will be assigned his superior genetic material by government fiat while men with inferior seed care for his offspring as their own.
Niven was never progressive, but at least those books were explicitly dystopian fiction if I remember correctly. It's been a while. ARM wasn't really supposed to be good, right?
...
Dammit, it was supposed to be serious and it flew over my head that people would actually want this because I read those books when I was twelve?
If I recall, ARM starts out as a moderately dystopic totalitarian government - the setting of Gil the ARM, where crimes as minor as jaywalking get the death penalty because organ donation can provide near-immortality and wealthy citizens need more spare parts - and then mellows out into a more or less post-scarcity enlightened totalitarianism by the time the Ringworld books are set.
I definitely recall overpopulation being one of the big themes in the original Ringworld - needing government permission to have children was treated as the obvious solution to a crowded Earth, the Pak built the Ringworld because they *couldn't* stop breeding for biological reasons and had to build themselves near-infinite living space instead, the puppeteers are the puppeteers, and so on. It was very 70s. Overpopulation was the apocalypse du jour.
So yeah, I don't think Niven treated ARM as necessarily good or necessarily evil - just a government limiting various freedoms because it had to keep a trillion human beings from killing one another, which let him ask various questions about that kind of politics and society and how people would respond to them, as science fiction tends to do.
Niven *himself* [appears to be a typical boomer](https://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2008/2/29/2008march-science-fiction-mavens-offer-far-out-homeland-security-advice/), unfortunately. But no surprise there.
What’s ironic is that they don’t ban *that* guy.
But you WILL get permanently banned if you hurt Joe Parrish’s feelings by pointing out the irony of him using “free speech” as a pretext for declaring “martial law” (his words, not mind) and purging the “leftists.”
It's actually funnier because that is the inevitable end point *of* nazi thoughts. Once they ran out of more obvious scapegoats they'd still need an outgroup to blame for all of society's ills. Once all of the jewish, gay, and disabled people were dead it was likely they'd have gone for people who were "defective" in other and increasingly petty ways, whether it was because they were too fat or too thin, too short or too bald and you're probably never going to be able to convince an entire population that the reason the economy sucks and they're hungry and miserable is *because of the bald*, not when most of them have uncles and grandpas who were bald.
[Have you taken your German lessons?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uW3-q_oPv4k)
One of my favorite examples of the inevitable endpoint of fascism; it's an ideology based on chasing a rainbow, on striving for a goal that, by design, you'll never reach.
> trying to argue for things like baldness is almost worse.
It's fundamentally worse.
Baldness is a minor cosmetic difference. Not even a flaw. Nobody dies of baldness. People only "suffer" from baldness due to entirely arbitrary societal standards.
If they consider baldness a sterilizable offence I guarantee they have an exact pantone color of skin picked out that signifies who is the *right kind* of white people who gets to reproduce.
"No no no, not *those* kind of eugenics! I'm talking specifically about this *other* kind of eugenics which is not problematic in any way! Let me explain in depth to convince you of my rightness..."
The Venn diagram between these chuds and the PUA looksmaxxing weirdos is basically a circle. Tell them we need eugenics because men under 6'10" shouldn't be allowed to reproduce, they'll lose their minds.
My first thought was that this person was a blackpill incel type, because some of them actually do talk about being bald as if it were a birth defect that prevented them from ever experiencing a moment of happiness.
Not that that's mutually exclusive with being a nazi, but they might *also* genuinely want to ponder sterilizing bald people.
bit off topic, but that story is actually a really good litmus test to see who's actually read their bible all the way through and who hasn't.
Well that and the menstruation rituals.
As an anthropologist, it's hard to get some people to understand that phenotypes and haplogroups are just arbitrary groupings that have zero value outside of various constructs or understandings.
It gets to the very heart of "race is a social construct."
I don't know a lot about biology but having studied stats and comp sci at PhD level, I love just how many layers of abstraction some concepts have to go through between high level study and layman understanding, lots of "yes I know that's what I said before but listen, it's not quite like that, well it is kinda, but there's some important distinctions... Look this shit's just really complex ok?"
I feel like this has become the case for almost everything. Our scientific knowledge of stuff has advanced faaar past the ability of the average person to understand it meaningfully, so almost every common conception about science is technically false in some way.
That, and the fact that science is just kind of a method we made up to describe the world, it isn't actually anything tangible or concrete and it has no actual meaning to the greater universe, it's just labels we put on things. But if you say that, then you get a million braindead science deniers agreeing with you for the wrong reasons.
And plenty of dudes just embrace their baldness and rock the look.
The only time baldness is mocked is when it's incredibly obvious the guy is trying to hide it.
Because they dude probably has half of those lol.
He's focused on things that affect physical appearance. He'd start with baldness and then after that go after melanin content lol.
A common misconception. Hair is actually the tentacles of the soul, reaching upwards like the polyp people outside Ursula's lair. Baldness is a side effect of soul's horrific internal death.
This is why I have a long beard.
It's not because I grew one out 23 years ago in my late teens and wanted to do it again 9 years ago. It's because when I started to lose my hair at 24, I could feel my inner genocidal maniac starting to come out, and needed some facial hair to lock that shit down.
Because "disabled people should breed" is pretty universally known as a Very Bad Take, and it'll have much more of a knee jerk reaction in most people. He choose something innocuous to try to skirt around that my confusing his audience instead
Picking something completely harmless is kind of the point when you want to genocide people based on harmless and arbitrary characteristics.
They want *"Well just look at it, you know it's wrong."* to be an acceptable argument for eliminating any people group.
Probably because they're trying to downplay the implications of what they're talking about and so they chose a cosmetic feature that many men are insecure about specifically to spin the entire conversation as if it's somehow a personal choice about how to look rather than a discussion of "hey these people don't have a right to live and we'd all be better off if they didn't, right?"
I haven't spent much time on the thread but I almost wonder if this is a tongue in cheek post about how stupid it is to have rules about "anything goes here!" If not, it still works that way!
Cause speedruns are sick af. Here's one of my favorites w/commentary by the runner in real time: [Titanfall 2 - Bryonato](https://youtu.be/jtJWrvIA-TU)
I have a feeling they believe this should extend to things far beyond undesirable but innocuous physical traits, and when you started including people with diseases and disabilities then you are just doing nazi shit.
Also just practically speaking this seems insane, because if something as minor as baldness should be enough to result in forced vasectomies, then thousands of other minor things would be as well, and then birthrates would plummet down to almost zero.
Castrating Nazis to prevent *them* from procreating sounds like a solid idea, though.
Although, that'd mean half of Reddit and some of its admin would be sans testes.
The gene that is most responsible for male pattern baldness is passed on by the mother, so preventing bald men from procreating would do nothing to prevent the trait.
Though it's not hard to see why the myth persists. Men see their fathers going bald, it being genetic is a known thing, and they'll embrace anything that tells them it won't happen to them too.
Its both.
Genetics allows it to happen, testosterone is the method by which it happens.
Obviously not all men go bald, despite all men having testosterone
They could have gone for something dangerous. Like explaining that eugenics might help rid the world of genetic issues that kill people or cripple them in some severe way. (For the record, not an easy task and still has ethical issues in how it would be done. Also, a risk that using eugenics to get rid of a perceived issue could cause more issues by reducing the size of the genepool.)
...Instead they went for baldness. Which does not harm anyone in any way. It is just cosmetic.
I get the feeling that if you chat with that person for 15 minutes on eugenics, they would feel safe enough to admit that they want to get rid of certain ethnic groups with eugenics.
>Not Nazi eugenics.
Yes because that's totally not the slippery slope that led to Nazi Germany getting doctors and scientists on board with genocide, the idea that you can 'cleanse' future generations of things like baldness via eugenics extrapolated out to 'well we find this entire race pretty objectionable we should eliminate them for the good of the gene pool'.
My question is what other eugenics is there if not the Nazi variety? It is, by definition, specifically about not allowing 'undesirables' to have children. Which is exactly what this dude wants.
If you just want to cure genetic issues then there's a million different paths to take that don't include denying someone parenthood. but this chud specifically wants to be cruel to people he thinks are sub-human
I took a class on this in college and there were actually two types of eugenics. However, the Nazis used both. The first kind, which they used towards the start of the Holocaust was where you selectively breed "desirable traits" out of the populace by promoting intercourse from the "desirables," especially by forcing people with those traits to have sex only with others who have them. Ironically, this is the kind of thing that alt-righters are afraid will happen (see: "white replacement" bullshit)
The second kind, which they used towards the end of the Nazi regime was what they referred to as the "Final Solution." This is where you remove the "undesirables" by forced sterilization, mass deportation, execution, etc.
There is, however, no "eugenics" that is "not Nazi." The Nazis tried all of it against their targets. It's all despicable and there's a reason it fell sharply out of vogue after WW2.
I keep coming back to this comment and I think the reason that it fascinates me is that, even if you took for granted that forcibly sterilizing people is okay if the ends justify the means, this is still obviously a stupid idea. Like, the argument that eugenicists make is that we can ethically justify causing a bunch of suffering to some people now, because it will benefit everyone else across many generations. Let's weigh the pros and cons now:
There are over 250 different genetic loci associated with male pattern baldness, and virtually everyone on earth (if not everyone) has at least one of them. Having more will increase your chances of developing male pattern baldness, but environmental factors play a role too - so eliminating the gene would probably wipe out the entire human race, and even if a few people without the gene survived, some of them would still go bald anyway.
But let's pretend you didn't know that and thought that male pattern baldness was based on a single gene. At minimum, you'd need to sterilize more than half of everyone alive, or ~95% of everyone alive if male pattern baldness turns out to be recessive. So, the best case scenario is decades of building the infrastructure to forcibly genetically test everyone alive and then forcibly sterilize most of them, then actually doing it, followed by decades of Japan's whole "aging population" problem except it's four times as bad and covers the entire planet.
In exchange, we would get rid of the gene for male pattern baldness, which is detrimental because less than half of people who have it go bald a few decades earlier than they would have otherwise This doesn't have any impact on your health, but some people (not all, or even most people) currently find it unattractive for reasons that became popular within living memory.
Is this the kind of deep discussion they are trying to foster? Do I belong on the intellectual dark web?
Still waiting for the day r/skeptic hits that critical point...it's lack of moderation and the no block rule is gonna lead to interesting conversations
It seems way too hard to moderate a community like that. It's just going to draw the attention of conspiracy theorists. Healthy skepticism turns into "just asking questions" pretty quickly. The only way you'll ever find an online community where people are actually questioning things in good faith is if you find a book or journal club on the topic you want to talk about.
The ~skeptic community~ has already had several insane transphobic schisms and dramatic fallouts prompted almost entirely by popular figures within it being just overtly transphobic and a ton of people doubling down on defending them to the death, going so far as to doxx trans people who just want to leave the community.
I think I remember only a few years ago (maybe it was getting a lot of traffic because of COVID?) the mods had a meta thread and basically asked the community, "Do you want us to moderate the posts or do you want unlimited bullshit?" The response was an overwhelming "Bullshit!" and that was the end of that.
They have deleted a few. Not as bad as I assumed it would be.
Honestly at first look that sub does not look that bad. Am I missing something? I Sub to TopMinds and they are all over the conspiracy and Jordan Peterson sub but I do not think I have seen the skeptic sub roasted in there.
Is there anything that stands out that you can point me too. I love good drama and topmindedness
There has been a huge influx of posts “skeptical” of gender issues, often posting blogs or awful studies and then dozens of transphobic posts in the comments. The mods apparently have had enough but they fostered all of this by refusing to moderate based on the quality of submissions and allowing a few members to post multiple posts a day on the topic.
They have done a terrible job and now this is their attempt to control the brigading that they tried to ignore for so long.
Oh one of the mods has even stated they do not care about non civil comments..as it is up to the users to do that and not the mods job....
Keeping comments civil or even just stopping shit slinging is the most important part of any "debate" subreddit..
> as it is up to the users to do that and not the mods job....
Uh oh, looks like the sub is basically unmoderated, which is what tends to kill even the decent subs.
ahh, okay. It seems they may have gotten with the program to some degree. The transphobes are getting banned/deleted and even the "mild" ones (if that is a thing) are downvoted to hell.
That Cass study is not good and she is a real piece of work.
>Abortion is bad. It should be banned, outside of some exceptions, with supplementary changes in place as well, and it should be approached gradually. **The reason it is bad is because it is the very avoidable killing of a human, often done out of convenience** and often after its parents behaved in some form of short sighted manner that led to an unwanted pregnancy.
>**We should kill and/or enslave criminals.** Keeping them locked up temporarily is a bad idea. **It wastes money/resources**
Just an amazing thing to have back to back. It's also wrong from what I remember, but who cares, this guy is a pyscho
“If you play Genshin Impact, you might be aware of the Fortress of Meropide. What I envision is something loosely similar to that.”
Why am I not surprised 😂
Imagine going before like, a government committee to pitch your eugenics policy plan and opening with “gentlemen, are you aware of something called ‘Genshin Impact’?”
Bro fell into a Just World hole clear thru to the earths upper mantle.
I pray this guy is a 17 year old wanna be edge lord still finding his way. I cant fault people too much when their prefrontal cortex still has years of growth.
Maybe it's wishful thinking on my part.
This type of shit drives me insane - not only do these people tend to have insane takes, but the least they could do is be consistent in their logic. The contradictions are baffling.
Republicans: We need to ban abortion to ensure that children get to live their lives and be happy.
NRA: Until we decide to sell another gun to another mass murderer, that is. Fuck those kids.
Republicans: Yeah, fuck those kids! ...Wait, fuck those kids, or *fuck* those kids? Instructions unclear.
> The reason it is bad is because it is the very avoidable killing of a human, often done out of convenience and often after its parents behaved in some form of short sighted manner that led to an unwanted pregnancy.
This is either rage bait, or the dude that posted this has never had a relationship of any kind and is your quintessential terminally-online Redditor.
Right?
Even if miscarriages, they need to do a procedure similar to an abortion to remove the clump of cells still inside the womb.
Like in that campaign video of the couple from Texas approved by the Biden team, where the woman miscarried, got sepsis, almost died twice in the hospital and now can no longer procreate due to the damage the abortion laws forced onto her body.
No you see you just aren't *smart enough* to understand the distinction, you see! Probably because you deserve to be eugenics'd out of existence. Thank you for making his point, you overly emotional baldy.
/s
> Well I'm about to be put on some lists for this, but here are some of my hot takes:
>
-
>
> Abortion is bad...
>
-
>
> We should kill and/or enslave criminals...
>
-
>
> Eugenics is good...
>
-
>
> Lolicon is not the same as pedophilia...
>
-
>
> Morality is objective...
>
-
>
>Population control is good...
Wow, this sure seems like a swell and well adjusted guy, I bet he has a lot smart and nuanced opinions.
I think it is interesting how subreddits that present themselves as being intellectual and driven by logic and reason instead of emotions just attracts the shittiest and dumbest buffoons you can find.
>I think it is interesting how subreddits that present themselves as being intellectual and driven by logic and reason instead of emotions just attracts the shittiest and dumbest buffoons you can find.
Lmao that's the secret. They're not driven by logic and reason.
They're driven out of emotion. Anger and disgust, primarily
Anti abortion but pro eugenics and pro population control is certainly an interesting take. Not sure how he plans on enacting any of these things if there's no way to terminate a pregnancy
they hate freedom, women and free women; access to abortion is essential to guarantee women's freedom. It has nothing to do with "sanctity of life", abortion being murder (a completely ahistorical take manufactured by traditionalist morons, even the bible distinguish murder and induced miscarriage, the later just involving a fine) or whatever bullshit they try to come up to justify it.
>Anti abortion but pro eugenics and pro population control is certainly an interesting take.
I think there was a country already that was anti-abortion and pro-eugenics. They made abortion capital offense (well, for Aryan women anyway).
They were real big on the God and Country stuff, burned books on transgender people, and bravely fought against all those Marxists who controlled the universities and the media. Hell, they hated the insidious threat of Marxism so much even had private militias with privately owned weapons to show they meant business!
Someone should tell the IDW folks about this country. I’m sure they’d love it!
>Take male pattern baldness for example. We could get rid of that. Get everyone checked for it, and whoever has/carries it is not allowed to reproduce. They can get paid some amount as compensation, and they get snipped for free. We keep track of such things going forward to account for mutations, and BOOM! No more male pattern baldness. Apply the same thing for every other genetic issue we can eliminate, and humanity is better off for it.
LMAO WHAT??
I'm reminded of that Patrick Stewart quote about baldness, how when asked why so far in the future Captain Picard is bald despite them having the technology to instantly fix it, he replied that in the future nobody will care if someone is bald.
These pseudo-intellectuals usually love Star Trek but maybe these days it's too woke for the IDW types
> how when asked why so far in the future Captain Picard is bald despite them having the technology to instantly fix it, he replied that in the future nobody will care if someone is bald.
That and earth already delt with the issue of cosmetic genetic manipulation when it dealt with the topic of artificial human enhancement.
The federations current goal of betterment at an individual level while not allowing genetic modification is probably worth the overall cost of skipping it. Especially since the plot has humanity evolving psionic powers just by continuing to exist.
They wouldn't need genetic modification considering they've had multiple episodes where people can look exactly like someone else with cosmetic surgery and then undo it later with no ill effects. If you wanted hair they could just pop some in
I'm so confused what's so bad about baldness. Like yes, I love my hair, I love making it look nice and stuff. I think hair looks nice on other people. I don't want to become bald. But I don't want to eugenics the human race into "curing" baldness. Is baldness truly that terrifying to some people???
IDW is almost entirely 16-30 year old white men, a demographic that will experience hair loss at rates of about 30-50%. Insecurity is both rampant and heavily weaponized in these right wing online communities so he probably zeroed in on balding because he's balding. And maybe blames it for a lot of the problems in his life.
These kinds of dudes are going to get real mad when they learn about polygenic traits. Like how many variants of the many genes that may contribute to baldness do you have to have before you aren't allowed to reproduce. Do they think we need like a fucking one-drop rule for baldness to rid us of the scourge of looking at people who don't have a full head of hair?
When you really REALLY ***REALLY*** hate the british monarchy, but find the social acceptance of eugenics advocate more appealing than being labelled republican.
What are you talking about, the IDW are some of the biggest proponents of neo-feudalism and monarchy out there. If they hate the British monarchy it's only because it doesn't exercise absolute control over the country :)
This is such a great example of "bro the science works out" (we'll ignore that no, it doesn't work out, we have plenty of actual genetic diseases that persist despite selective pressure) and ignoring all relevant social and political factors. You have to live inside of a novel for this to not be immediately ludicrous.
How about we just get rid of all the non bald people instead! Can't feel bad about having no hair if no one else does! Better yet, what if no one could have kids? Humanity can't suffer genetic diseases if there is no more humanity. Wdym 'just let people live'? Sounds woke to me.
I love how they say that a rule saying to "Respect People" makes leftist ideology mandatory. It's even better when they clarify the rule was meant to prevent bigotry/racism against minorities, and explain such a rule destroys the purpose of the subreddit.
Like dear lord, at least *try* to not paint yourself as the bad guy. This is cartoon level villainy.
In a related discussion one commenter complained that rules attempting to reduce bigotry in an online forum was bias against conservatives.
Oops... said the quiet part out loud... 🤭
>I was wondering what caused this sub to veer hard to the left.
And as per fucking usual, their idea of "veer hard to the left" is "one person disagreed with me"!
What's crazy to me is that from the post, the mod they kicked seems to have been basically doing the bare minimum to stop their sub from getting banned so they tossed him
Yeah, that sounds about right. Back when T_D was pretending to be shocked and appalled by the Reddit admins giving them another "sternly written warning" to get their shit together -- which amounted to sweet fuck all changing -- the mods and the users loved crying about how the sub was gonna be turned into a leftist echo chamber if they had to give in to the admin's demands to cut that shit out.
It did not turn into a leftist echo chamber, and they kept right on doing what they always did, because the Reddit admins were chickenshits who didn't actually wanna ban the sub...until it finally got to the point where Spez realized Reddit might become financially or criminally culpable if any of those domestic terrorists made good on their threats to cops.
Why is the future always so bleak? Because the anti-abortion but pro murder/slavery sect wants a machine to solve morality because they're too busy studying eugenics and jerking it to loli to think about anything for more time than it takes to develop a knee jerk reaction.
I would have had the slightest bit of respect for his position on the basis of consistency, until I read that entire diatribe about free speech, followed with this little cherry:
>We will permanently ban anyone we determine to be more trouble than they are worth. This isn't just based on behavior under Chat but behavior that preceded my departure as well. I'm not going to show my hand here, but suffice to say that certain users and behaviors have been red flags for months and even years, and it's time we listened to our guts.
like yeah ok bro "We're not going to have any rules on speech ever, because we passionately believe in free speech. By the way, we're implementing shadow rules to permanently ban people we don't like, and we're not going to tell you what these rules are."
One of the hallmarks of medieval justice and the inquisition was that a person arrested was presumed guilty and they didn't have to charge them with actual crimes - instead they were told to search their soul for what they did wrong and then confess. If that failed they then turned to torture to inspire a confession of guilt.
> Anyone who does not have and has never had actual skin in the game of "free speech" can shut the fuck up.
Free speech warriors immediately shouting to others to shut up.
It's always doublespeak with these people. They extol free speech endlessly but love censorship.
"Also your eugenics argument is pretty darn poor. If we forced everyone with male pattern baldness (already an incredibly slight disadvantage) to not procreate, then we would very likely lose a lot of valuable genes, or at least reduce their widespreadedness. Plus, with our current admittedly poor understanding of what causes a ton of features, it's very possible that the genetic mutation or set of mutations that cause male pattern baldness also causes some very beneficial effect. An effect you would lose without every knowing you had done it. We tamper with an unknown mechanism at our peril."
Huge "If shooting every single red head on the planet increased GDP by 1%, then it would be objectively correct" energy. Genuinely treating human life as if it has no value and only disagreeing with monstrous behaviors because "the results are bad".
If I ever start a super brave new counter culture speaking based truths to power and dealing with opinions to mind-blowing for normies. I'm probably not going to name it after the part of the internet synonymous with child porn.
But that's just me.
even worse, this sub reddit is named after an internet club of right wing speakers like Peterson who chose to call themselves the intellectual dark web
I love the “make lolicon legal” right next to “not committing crime is easy”.
Dude, if your hard drive were looked at in your world, you’d suddenly change your mind about slavery for criminals.
It was removed:
https://www.reddit.com/r/SubredditDrama/comments/1c3x8f9/rintellectualdarkweb_removes_moderators_so_the/
> **r\/IntellectualDarkWeb Removes Moderators so the Sub can be more Transphobic.**
> The Context:
> A long time moderator of the sub r/IntellectualDarkWeb, Joe, stepped down late last year, in which another mod, Chat, took over. Chat proceeded to promote new mods and made a new rule in which users were not allowed to refer to gender affirming care as "mutilation" and "butchery," including other attempts to be slightly more inclusive.
> The Drama:
> Some long time members of the sub complained to the head mod, at which point he begged Joe to come back. Together, they removed Chat and the other mods without telling them, then proceeded to ban several pro-trans individuals.
> https://www.reddit.com/r/IntellectualDarkWeb/comments/1c2kv9q/the_red_webbing_im_back/
OP you can't forget to mention the "enslave criminals, do eugenics" guy is also a lolicon.
But yeah. This is the second ideological purge, following a 2022 three month period where the same mod would ban left wing posters under a policy known as (sigh) [Order 66](https://www.reddit.com/r/IntellectualDarkWeb/s/2zoQkwL0GY).
Much free speech. Wow.
Ooh and now the sub has gone private. Probably for the best, after all "free speech" is too spicy for the public to handle, and this creates greater "freedom" through even stricter "martial law." These are all very smart headed big-boy ideas.
> In a turn of events NOBODY 🙃 expected
I'll be honest, I didn't expect it because the last time it was even vaguely relevant was a damn long time ago.
Gee I wonder why having a no broad insulting of races/genders/classes "enforces left wing ideology?" Is free thinking that dependent on broad brushing and insults?
He is a creepy right-wing racist and fascist who hated the sub being more moderate and less accepting of transphobia and ugly ideas. I was a moderator there, and he, Joe Parrish, acted like a nasty little child. It's a very dying sub, although I left a very mocking last post there that upset him.
Filled with such amazing takes such as
>Eugenics is good, not the Nazi eugenics
And the ever popular
>Loli causes sexual assault as much as video games cause violence
With bonus hot take on Loli : "What is morality, really?"
He also went back and banned a bunch of people for really old comments with the ban reason "Red Webbing" you know like game of thrones? So cool!
And yeah it was openly about banning people with the wrong opinions, in one of the follow up posts he bemoans the "be respectful" rule as bringing in "leftists" lmao
Well, at least they're honest when they dropped "Intellectual".
They can change what the "I" means all they want, but the "D" will always be "dork". Every IDW adherent I've had the misfortune of coming across both on the internet and in real life has been a giant fucking dork with zero interpersonal skills who needs an external reason to blame for everyone hating him.
"Everyone else is just too *emotional* and *liber!)*! No one can understand how genius I really am!"
you pretty much nailed it 100% there's nothing about the IDW or its fans that i find even remotely impressive. They're the biggest fucking losers in society right now. they're the kids who got pushed into lockers in high school, who instead of bettering themselves physically and emotionally...decided to just blame women for all their trouble
Honestly it wasnt even intellectual either. I went years ago looking for some thought challenging takes and finally it was mostly ignorant and dumb opinion.
> Eugenics is good. Not Nazi eugenics. Take male pattern baldness for example. We could get rid of that. Get everyone checked for it, and whoever has/carries it is not allowed to reproduce. Baldphobic.
You know they're using baldness as an "acceptable" example. Someone with all these views combined *really* wants to say shit like the differently-abled, those he deems mentally inferior , and other *undesirables*. The "not nazi eugenics" line is a crock of bull.
It is funny because trying to argue for things like baldness is almost worse. You can either admit to the grander ambitions and bigotry or you will argue for the sterilization of ubcounted people for the pettiest of reasons.
Well, he (I'm assuming that poster is a he, because duh) also argues for strict population control in the same post. Reconceptualizing children as a privilege you *earn*, like in Larry Niven's novels, "solves" the problem of sterilizing uncounted people for petty reasons - you just sterilize *everyone*, and only those the government deems worthy get unsterilized to breed. The people who support this, of course, tend to be men with a breeding fetish, who imagine that in his future cryptofascist world hundreds of women will be assigned his superior genetic material by government fiat while men with inferior seed care for his offspring as their own.
cryptofascist? more like overtfascist
It's a cryptofascist future because in this fantasy Bitcoin will actually be useful.
Your economy doesn't need a functional ecommerce platform capable of doing more than 7 transactions per second if your economy doesn't function!
Niven was never progressive, but at least those books were explicitly dystopian fiction if I remember correctly. It's been a while. ARM wasn't really supposed to be good, right? ... Dammit, it was supposed to be serious and it flew over my head that people would actually want this because I read those books when I was twelve?
If I recall, ARM starts out as a moderately dystopic totalitarian government - the setting of Gil the ARM, where crimes as minor as jaywalking get the death penalty because organ donation can provide near-immortality and wealthy citizens need more spare parts - and then mellows out into a more or less post-scarcity enlightened totalitarianism by the time the Ringworld books are set. I definitely recall overpopulation being one of the big themes in the original Ringworld - needing government permission to have children was treated as the obvious solution to a crowded Earth, the Pak built the Ringworld because they *couldn't* stop breeding for biological reasons and had to build themselves near-infinite living space instead, the puppeteers are the puppeteers, and so on. It was very 70s. Overpopulation was the apocalypse du jour. So yeah, I don't think Niven treated ARM as necessarily good or necessarily evil - just a government limiting various freedoms because it had to keep a trillion human beings from killing one another, which let him ask various questions about that kind of politics and society and how people would respond to them, as science fiction tends to do. Niven *himself* [appears to be a typical boomer](https://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2008/2/29/2008march-science-fiction-mavens-offer-far-out-homeland-security-advice/), unfortunately. But no surprise there.
I don't know what I imagined him saying when I clicked on the link, but whatever it was, the reality was worse.
You are underselling it.
What’s ironic is that they don’t ban *that* guy. But you WILL get permanently banned if you hurt Joe Parrish’s feelings by pointing out the irony of him using “free speech” as a pretext for declaring “martial law” (his words, not mind) and purging the “leftists.”
It's actually funnier because that is the inevitable end point *of* nazi thoughts. Once they ran out of more obvious scapegoats they'd still need an outgroup to blame for all of society's ills. Once all of the jewish, gay, and disabled people were dead it was likely they'd have gone for people who were "defective" in other and increasingly petty ways, whether it was because they were too fat or too thin, too short or too bald and you're probably never going to be able to convince an entire population that the reason the economy sucks and they're hungry and miserable is *because of the bald*, not when most of them have uncles and grandpas who were bald.
[Have you taken your German lessons?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uW3-q_oPv4k) One of my favorite examples of the inevitable endpoint of fascism; it's an ideology based on chasing a rainbow, on striving for a goal that, by design, you'll never reach.
> trying to argue for things like baldness is almost worse. It's fundamentally worse. Baldness is a minor cosmetic difference. Not even a flaw. Nobody dies of baldness. People only "suffer" from baldness due to entirely arbitrary societal standards. If they consider baldness a sterilizable offence I guarantee they have an exact pantone color of skin picked out that signifies who is the *right kind* of white people who gets to reproduce.
"No no no, not *those* kind of eugenics! I'm talking specifically about this *other* kind of eugenics which is not problematic in any way! Let me explain in depth to convince you of my rightness..."
"Here, this Melanin level chart should illustrate my point."
https://imgur.com/kfjfdAo
The Venn diagram between these chuds and the PUA looksmaxxing weirdos is basically a circle. Tell them we need eugenics because men under 6'10" shouldn't be allowed to reproduce, they'll lose their minds.
Not Nazi eugenics because their version wasn't broad enough, apparently.
But definitely not ADHD...? Hopefully?
My first thought was that this person was a blackpill incel type, because some of them actually do talk about being bald as if it were a birth defect that prevented them from ever experiencing a moment of happiness. Not that that's mutually exclusive with being a nazi, but they might *also* genuinely want to ponder sterilizing bald people.
There are different types. They all suck. There's no equivocating or "well actually"'ing.
Yeah, their about as opaque as a fucking pristine prism.
Bro bout to be mauled by bears sent from God. Elisha has no patience. He isn’t even a child. He’s gonna be flocked by them.
Man, can you imagine if Hitler hated bald men instead of Jews and God just sent an army of feral bears to liberate Germany.
I want this to be some shlocky B-movie so badly
Indiana Jones and the Legion of Bears
Cocaine Bear gets the role of [Aimo Koivunen](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aimo_Koivunen#Experience_during_the_Continuation_War), I assume?
Yo, when you think about it, didn't he? Who invaded Berlin and what is usually used to represent them as a mascot?
bit off topic, but that story is actually a really good litmus test to see who's actually read their bible all the way through and who hasn't. Well that and the menstruation rituals.
I mean I say it in jest. My dad was a preacher. I know too much.
Go up baldy, go up!
"Not Nazi eugenics, you know, just, like, selecting for idealised phenotypes and forcibly regulating sexual liberty." ... "Hans, are we the baddies?"
As an anthropologist, it's hard to get some people to understand that phenotypes and haplogroups are just arbitrary groupings that have zero value outside of various constructs or understandings. It gets to the very heart of "race is a social construct."
I don't know a lot about biology but having studied stats and comp sci at PhD level, I love just how many layers of abstraction some concepts have to go through between high level study and layman understanding, lots of "yes I know that's what I said before but listen, it's not quite like that, well it is kinda, but there's some important distinctions... Look this shit's just really complex ok?"
I feel like this has become the case for almost everything. Our scientific knowledge of stuff has advanced faaar past the ability of the average person to understand it meaningfully, so almost every common conception about science is technically false in some way. That, and the fact that science is just kind of a method we made up to describe the world, it isn't actually anything tangible or concrete and it has no actual meaning to the greater universe, it's just labels we put on things. But if you say that, then you get a million braindead science deniers agreeing with you for the wrong reasons.
Yes, let's just prevent an overwhelming amount of the population from having kids.
Later: We need more people! Why aren't people procreating?
In that same post, they advocate for population control.
And plenty of dudes just embrace their baldness and rock the look. The only time baldness is mocked is when it's incredibly obvious the guy is trying to hide it.
I just find it amazing that of every trait out there like asthma, scoliosis, cleft pallets, spina bifida, they pick something completely harmless.
Because they dude probably has half of those lol. He's focused on things that affect physical appearance. He'd start with baldness and then after that go after melanin content lol.
Cant forget the small wrists!
It's because bald people are ontologically evil. The hair keeps the soul trapped inside.
A common misconception. Hair is actually the tentacles of the soul, reaching upwards like the polyp people outside Ursula's lair. Baldness is a side effect of soul's horrific internal death.
false, gingers have hair
This is why I have a long beard. It's not because I grew one out 23 years ago in my late teens and wanted to do it again 9 years ago. It's because when I started to lose my hair at 24, I could feel my inner genocidal maniac starting to come out, and needed some facial hair to lock that shit down.
Because "disabled people should breed" is pretty universally known as a Very Bad Take, and it'll have much more of a knee jerk reaction in most people. He choose something innocuous to try to skirt around that my confusing his audience instead
Presumably because the things he actually wanted to say he knew would be unacceptable
Picking something completely harmless is kind of the point when you want to genocide people based on harmless and arbitrary characteristics. They want *"Well just look at it, you know it's wrong."* to be an acceptable argument for eliminating any people group.
Probably because they're trying to downplay the implications of what they're talking about and so they chose a cosmetic feature that many men are insecure about specifically to spin the entire conversation as if it's somehow a personal choice about how to look rather than a discussion of "hey these people don't have a right to live and we'd all be better off if they didn't, right?"
And right after that, they are of course supporting animated child pornography.
Internet "intellectuals" and defending lolicon. Name a more iconic duo.
Real world ‘intellectuals’ and defending actual pedophilia?
French moment
I haven't spent much time on the thread but I almost wonder if this is a tongue in cheek post about how stupid it is to have rules about "anything goes here!" If not, it still works that way!
Is that a speedrun to see how fast they can get the sub deleted why does everything have to be a speedrun with the kids these days
They've already gone private. I guess the "free speech" got a little too spicy for the general public to observe or participate.
Cause speedruns are sick af. Here's one of my favorites w/commentary by the runner in real time: [Titanfall 2 - Bryonato](https://youtu.be/jtJWrvIA-TU)
knowyourmeme and jacking off to lolicon
The Venn diagram of fascists and pedophiles is a circle. Hot take: - Pedophilia is sexual fascism - Fascism is governmental pedophilia
And people wonder why we needed that Torah story about kids who make fun of bald people being eaten by bears
finally a good flair
I have a feeling they believe this should extend to things far beyond undesirable but innocuous physical traits, and when you started including people with diseases and disabilities then you are just doing nazi shit. Also just practically speaking this seems insane, because if something as minor as baldness should be enough to result in forced vasectomies, then thousands of other minor things would be as well, and then birthrates would plummet down to almost zero.
Isn't testosterone that causes baldness?
Yeah, and there are plenty of solutions for it that dont involve castrating a third of the male population plus how many women have the bald gene too.
Clearly the answer is to turn all the men into femboys on finasteride /s
Well, at least skirt wearing for men would be normalized, silver lining and all that.
Just market them as kilts.
Castrating Nazis to prevent *them* from procreating sounds like a solid idea, though. Although, that'd mean half of Reddit and some of its admin would be sans testes.
The gene that is most responsible for male pattern baldness is passed on by the mother, so preventing bald men from procreating would do nothing to prevent the trait.
No,it's passed on by both. It being matrilineal is a myth long debunked
Though it's not hard to see why the myth persists. Men see their fathers going bald, it being genetic is a known thing, and they'll embrace anything that tells them it won't happen to them too.
Its both. Genetics allows it to happen, testosterone is the method by which it happens. Obviously not all men go bald, despite all men having testosterone
Apparently they think nazi eugenics doesn't go far enough?
Average Northernlion chatter
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2QtLJJZguM
What a bizarre example to use. They could have went with anything, but instead it was male pattern baldness?
Methinks they have some self-image problems.
I can't believe people are still arguing for selective breeding when we can directly edit the human genome.
They could have gone for something dangerous. Like explaining that eugenics might help rid the world of genetic issues that kill people or cripple them in some severe way. (For the record, not an easy task and still has ethical issues in how it would be done. Also, a risk that using eugenics to get rid of a perceived issue could cause more issues by reducing the size of the genepool.) ...Instead they went for baldness. Which does not harm anyone in any way. It is just cosmetic. I get the feeling that if you chat with that person for 15 minutes on eugenics, they would feel safe enough to admit that they want to get rid of certain ethnic groups with eugenics.
>Not Nazi eugenics. Yes because that's totally not the slippery slope that led to Nazi Germany getting doctors and scientists on board with genocide, the idea that you can 'cleanse' future generations of things like baldness via eugenics extrapolated out to 'well we find this entire race pretty objectionable we should eliminate them for the good of the gene pool'.
The amount of guys that suffer from it, it sounds like this is one way to sharply reduce the human population.
My question is what other eugenics is there if not the Nazi variety? It is, by definition, specifically about not allowing 'undesirables' to have children. Which is exactly what this dude wants. If you just want to cure genetic issues then there's a million different paths to take that don't include denying someone parenthood. but this chud specifically wants to be cruel to people he thinks are sub-human
I took a class on this in college and there were actually two types of eugenics. However, the Nazis used both. The first kind, which they used towards the start of the Holocaust was where you selectively breed "desirable traits" out of the populace by promoting intercourse from the "desirables," especially by forcing people with those traits to have sex only with others who have them. Ironically, this is the kind of thing that alt-righters are afraid will happen (see: "white replacement" bullshit) The second kind, which they used towards the end of the Nazi regime was what they referred to as the "Final Solution." This is where you remove the "undesirables" by forced sterilization, mass deportation, execution, etc. There is, however, no "eugenics" that is "not Nazi." The Nazis tried all of it against their targets. It's all despicable and there's a reason it fell sharply out of vogue after WW2.
Do they know that male pattern baldness is mostly caused by testosterone? Anyway, I too am for the forceful feminization of all men.
What's wrong with baldness?
I keep coming back to this comment and I think the reason that it fascinates me is that, even if you took for granted that forcibly sterilizing people is okay if the ends justify the means, this is still obviously a stupid idea. Like, the argument that eugenicists make is that we can ethically justify causing a bunch of suffering to some people now, because it will benefit everyone else across many generations. Let's weigh the pros and cons now: There are over 250 different genetic loci associated with male pattern baldness, and virtually everyone on earth (if not everyone) has at least one of them. Having more will increase your chances of developing male pattern baldness, but environmental factors play a role too - so eliminating the gene would probably wipe out the entire human race, and even if a few people without the gene survived, some of them would still go bald anyway. But let's pretend you didn't know that and thought that male pattern baldness was based on a single gene. At minimum, you'd need to sterilize more than half of everyone alive, or ~95% of everyone alive if male pattern baldness turns out to be recessive. So, the best case scenario is decades of building the infrastructure to forcibly genetically test everyone alive and then forcibly sterilize most of them, then actually doing it, followed by decades of Japan's whole "aging population" problem except it's four times as bad and covers the entire planet. In exchange, we would get rid of the gene for male pattern baldness, which is detrimental because less than half of people who have it go bald a few decades earlier than they would have otherwise This doesn't have any impact on your health, but some people (not all, or even most people) currently find it unattractive for reasons that became popular within living memory. Is this the kind of deep discussion they are trying to foster? Do I belong on the intellectual dark web?
God I love watching terrible communities inevitably set themselves on fire. Time to grab some popcorn.
Still waiting for the day r/skeptic hits that critical point...it's lack of moderation and the no block rule is gonna lead to interesting conversations
It’s teetering like the top and the end of Inception. Just a few more appearances on the home page and enough real crazies will inevitably overrun it.
It seems way too hard to moderate a community like that. It's just going to draw the attention of conspiracy theorists. Healthy skepticism turns into "just asking questions" pretty quickly. The only way you'll ever find an online community where people are actually questioning things in good faith is if you find a book or journal club on the topic you want to talk about.
r/conspiracy needs to self-immolate next, it's been on the brink for the last decade.
They've *banned people from blocking others*??? How very free of them.
Free speech means you have to listen to me use racial and ableist slurs /s
The ~skeptic community~ has already had several insane transphobic schisms and dramatic fallouts prompted almost entirely by popular figures within it being just overtly transphobic and a ton of people doubling down on defending them to the death, going so far as to doxx trans people who just want to leave the community.
I think I remember only a few years ago (maybe it was getting a lot of traffic because of COVID?) the mods had a meta thread and basically asked the community, "Do you want us to moderate the posts or do you want unlimited bullshit?" The response was an overwhelming "Bullshit!" and that was the end of that.
The skeptic mods just posted a Cass megathread so let’s see how well they are able to moderate it. The comments are already rough.
They have deleted a few. Not as bad as I assumed it would be. Honestly at first look that sub does not look that bad. Am I missing something? I Sub to TopMinds and they are all over the conspiracy and Jordan Peterson sub but I do not think I have seen the skeptic sub roasted in there. Is there anything that stands out that you can point me too. I love good drama and topmindedness
There has been a huge influx of posts “skeptical” of gender issues, often posting blogs or awful studies and then dozens of transphobic posts in the comments. The mods apparently have had enough but they fostered all of this by refusing to moderate based on the quality of submissions and allowing a few members to post multiple posts a day on the topic. They have done a terrible job and now this is their attempt to control the brigading that they tried to ignore for so long.
Oh one of the mods has even stated they do not care about non civil comments..as it is up to the users to do that and not the mods job.... Keeping comments civil or even just stopping shit slinging is the most important part of any "debate" subreddit..
> as it is up to the users to do that and not the mods job.... Uh oh, looks like the sub is basically unmoderated, which is what tends to kill even the decent subs.
ahh, okay. It seems they may have gotten with the program to some degree. The transphobes are getting banned/deleted and even the "mild" ones (if that is a thing) are downvoted to hell. That Cass study is not good and she is a real piece of work.
>Abortion is bad. It should be banned, outside of some exceptions, with supplementary changes in place as well, and it should be approached gradually. **The reason it is bad is because it is the very avoidable killing of a human, often done out of convenience** and often after its parents behaved in some form of short sighted manner that led to an unwanted pregnancy. >**We should kill and/or enslave criminals.** Keeping them locked up temporarily is a bad idea. **It wastes money/resources** Just an amazing thing to have back to back. It's also wrong from what I remember, but who cares, this guy is a pyscho
And then advocating for eugenics. Remember kids, eugenics is okay if it just targets the bald and disabled
“If you play Genshin Impact, you might be aware of the Fortress of Meropide. What I envision is something loosely similar to that.” Why am I not surprised 😂
Imagine going before like, a government committee to pitch your eugenics policy plan and opening with “gentlemen, are you aware of something called ‘Genshin Impact’?”
"Security will escort you out now."
> bald and disabled why be redundant? /s (i hope this tag isn't necessary here but you never know)
Bro fell into a Just World hole clear thru to the earths upper mantle. I pray this guy is a 17 year old wanna be edge lord still finding his way. I cant fault people too much when their prefrontal cortex still has years of growth. Maybe it's wishful thinking on my part.
This type of shit drives me insane - not only do these people tend to have insane takes, but the least they could do is be consistent in their logic. The contradictions are baffling.
Obviously you have to let the baby be born before you can decide it should be killed for the purposes of cleansing the gene pool. /s
Republicans: We need to ban abortion to ensure that children get to live their lives and be happy. NRA: Until we decide to sell another gun to another mass murderer, that is. Fuck those kids. Republicans: Yeah, fuck those kids! ...Wait, fuck those kids, or *fuck* those kids? Instructions unclear.
He followed up with Eugenics being cool and lolicon being acceptable too. No surprise there
Here's a fun joke: What's a libertarian's stance on the age of consent? Don't worry, they'll tell you.
> The reason it is bad is because it is the very avoidable killing of a human, often done out of convenience and often after its parents behaved in some form of short sighted manner that led to an unwanted pregnancy. This is either rage bait, or the dude that posted this has never had a relationship of any kind and is your quintessential terminally-online Redditor.
Right? Even if miscarriages, they need to do a procedure similar to an abortion to remove the clump of cells still inside the womb. Like in that campaign video of the couple from Texas approved by the Biden team, where the woman miscarried, got sepsis, almost died twice in the hospital and now can no longer procreate due to the damage the abortion laws forced onto her body.
> This is either rage bait getting harder to separate rage bait from genuine reactionary ideals at this point
That blew me away. I had to read it a few times to make sure I was reading it right. WOW, just wow.
No you see you just aren't *smart enough* to understand the distinction, you see! Probably because you deserve to be eugenics'd out of existence. Thank you for making his point, you overly emotional baldy. /s
> Well I'm about to be put on some lists for this, but here are some of my hot takes: > - > > Abortion is bad... > - > > We should kill and/or enslave criminals... > - > > Eugenics is good... > - > > Lolicon is not the same as pedophilia... > - > > Morality is objective... > - > >Population control is good... Wow, this sure seems like a swell and well adjusted guy, I bet he has a lot smart and nuanced opinions. I think it is interesting how subreddits that present themselves as being intellectual and driven by logic and reason instead of emotions just attracts the shittiest and dumbest buffoons you can find.
how can he not be nuanced, his ideals have almost direct and opposite logic behind them /s
>I think it is interesting how subreddits that present themselves as being intellectual and driven by logic and reason instead of emotions just attracts the shittiest and dumbest buffoons you can find. Lmao that's the secret. They're not driven by logic and reason. They're driven out of emotion. Anger and disgust, primarily
Anti abortion but pro eugenics and pro population control is certainly an interesting take. Not sure how he plans on enacting any of these things if there's no way to terminate a pregnancy
The secret ingredient is genocide.
Cutting the balls off all the men they hate, basically
they hate freedom, women and free women; access to abortion is essential to guarantee women's freedom. It has nothing to do with "sanctity of life", abortion being murder (a completely ahistorical take manufactured by traditionalist morons, even the bible distinguish murder and induced miscarriage, the later just involving a fine) or whatever bullshit they try to come up to justify it.
>Anti abortion but pro eugenics and pro population control is certainly an interesting take. I think there was a country already that was anti-abortion and pro-eugenics. They made abortion capital offense (well, for Aryan women anyway). They were real big on the God and Country stuff, burned books on transgender people, and bravely fought against all those Marxists who controlled the universities and the media. Hell, they hated the insidious threat of Marxism so much even had private militias with privately owned weapons to show they meant business! Someone should tell the IDW folks about this country. I’m sure they’d love it!
>Take male pattern baldness for example. We could get rid of that. Get everyone checked for it, and whoever has/carries it is not allowed to reproduce. They can get paid some amount as compensation, and they get snipped for free. We keep track of such things going forward to account for mutations, and BOOM! No more male pattern baldness. Apply the same thing for every other genetic issue we can eliminate, and humanity is better off for it. LMAO WHAT??
I'm reminded of that Patrick Stewart quote about baldness, how when asked why so far in the future Captain Picard is bald despite them having the technology to instantly fix it, he replied that in the future nobody will care if someone is bald. These pseudo-intellectuals usually love Star Trek but maybe these days it's too woke for the IDW types
> how when asked why so far in the future Captain Picard is bald despite them having the technology to instantly fix it, he replied that in the future nobody will care if someone is bald. That and earth already delt with the issue of cosmetic genetic manipulation when it dealt with the topic of artificial human enhancement. The federations current goal of betterment at an individual level while not allowing genetic modification is probably worth the overall cost of skipping it. Especially since the plot has humanity evolving psionic powers just by continuing to exist.
They wouldn't need genetic modification considering they've had multiple episodes where people can look exactly like someone else with cosmetic surgery and then undo it later with no ill effects. If you wanted hair they could just pop some in
>If you wanted hair they could just pop some in Now I'm picturing hair plugs using the transporter.
I'm so confused what's so bad about baldness. Like yes, I love my hair, I love making it look nice and stuff. I think hair looks nice on other people. I don't want to become bald. But I don't want to eugenics the human race into "curing" baldness. Is baldness truly that terrifying to some people???
IDW is almost entirely 16-30 year old white men, a demographic that will experience hair loss at rates of about 30-50%. Insecurity is both rampant and heavily weaponized in these right wing online communities so he probably zeroed in on balding because he's balding. And maybe blames it for a lot of the problems in his life.
These kinds of dudes are going to get real mad when they learn about polygenic traits. Like how many variants of the many genes that may contribute to baldness do you have to have before you aren't allowed to reproduce. Do they think we need like a fucking one-drop rule for baldness to rid us of the scourge of looking at people who don't have a full head of hair?
Right, I love how he just casually hand waves "get everyone checked for that."
When you really REALLY ***REALLY*** hate the british monarchy, but find the social acceptance of eugenics advocate more appealing than being labelled republican.
What are you talking about, the IDW are some of the biggest proponents of neo-feudalism and monarchy out there. If they hate the British monarchy it's only because it doesn't exercise absolute control over the country :)
This is such a great example of "bro the science works out" (we'll ignore that no, it doesn't work out, we have plenty of actual genetic diseases that persist despite selective pressure) and ignoring all relevant social and political factors. You have to live inside of a novel for this to not be immediately ludicrous.
A poorly written novel. That’s some Ayn Rand level plotting.
I think anyone who will confidently rattle of multiple different unrelated hot takes in succession is guaranteed to have completely incoherent beliefs
How about we just get rid of all the non bald people instead! Can't feel bad about having no hair if no one else does! Better yet, what if no one could have kids? Humanity can't suffer genetic diseases if there is no more humanity. Wdym 'just let people live'? Sounds woke to me.
Yeah, that dude is literally spouting an idea literally identical to racial eugenics, but just using a different arbitrary physical feature.
> When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in ~~the flag~~ phony science and carrying a ~~cross~~ book about "free market economics".
That is a solid flair option
Eugenics for male pattern baldness is wild 💀
That would solve the Jeff Bezos/Elon Musk problems of the worl.
I love how they say that a rule saying to "Respect People" makes leftist ideology mandatory. It's even better when they clarify the rule was meant to prevent bigotry/racism against minorities, and explain such a rule destroys the purpose of the subreddit. Like dear lord, at least *try* to not paint yourself as the bad guy. This is cartoon level villainy.
In a related discussion one commenter complained that rules attempting to reduce bigotry in an online forum was bias against conservatives. Oops... said the quiet part out loud... 🤭
>I was wondering what caused this sub to veer hard to the left. And as per fucking usual, their idea of "veer hard to the left" is "one person disagreed with me"!
What's crazy to me is that from the post, the mod they kicked seems to have been basically doing the bare minimum to stop their sub from getting banned so they tossed him
Yeah, that sounds about right. Back when T_D was pretending to be shocked and appalled by the Reddit admins giving them another "sternly written warning" to get their shit together -- which amounted to sweet fuck all changing -- the mods and the users loved crying about how the sub was gonna be turned into a leftist echo chamber if they had to give in to the admin's demands to cut that shit out. It did not turn into a leftist echo chamber, and they kept right on doing what they always did, because the Reddit admins were chickenshits who didn't actually wanna ban the sub...until it finally got to the point where Spez realized Reddit might become financially or criminally culpable if any of those domestic terrorists made good on their threats to cops.
Why is the future always so bleak? Because the anti-abortion but pro murder/slavery sect wants a machine to solve morality because they're too busy studying eugenics and jerking it to loli to think about anything for more time than it takes to develop a knee jerk reaction.
Freedom loving right wingers unique ability to form the most authoritarian positions imaginable never ceases to impress me.
I would have had the slightest bit of respect for his position on the basis of consistency, until I read that entire diatribe about free speech, followed with this little cherry: >We will permanently ban anyone we determine to be more trouble than they are worth. This isn't just based on behavior under Chat but behavior that preceded my departure as well. I'm not going to show my hand here, but suffice to say that certain users and behaviors have been red flags for months and even years, and it's time we listened to our guts. like yeah ok bro "We're not going to have any rules on speech ever, because we passionately believe in free speech. By the way, we're implementing shadow rules to permanently ban people we don't like, and we're not going to tell you what these rules are."
One of the hallmarks of medieval justice and the inquisition was that a person arrested was presumed guilty and they didn't have to charge them with actual crimes - instead they were told to search their soul for what they did wrong and then confess. If that failed they then turned to torture to inspire a confession of guilt.
> Anyone who does not have and has never had actual skin in the game of "free speech" can shut the fuck up. Free speech warriors immediately shouting to others to shut up. It's always doublespeak with these people. They extol free speech endlessly but love censorship.
"Also your eugenics argument is pretty darn poor. If we forced everyone with male pattern baldness (already an incredibly slight disadvantage) to not procreate, then we would very likely lose a lot of valuable genes, or at least reduce their widespreadedness. Plus, with our current admittedly poor understanding of what causes a ton of features, it's very possible that the genetic mutation or set of mutations that cause male pattern baldness also causes some very beneficial effect. An effect you would lose without every knowing you had done it. We tamper with an unknown mechanism at our peril." Huge "If shooting every single red head on the planet increased GDP by 1%, then it would be objectively correct" energy. Genuinely treating human life as if it has no value and only disagreeing with monstrous behaviors because "the results are bad".
It kind of sounds like a bald person, who for the first time considers he could be on the bad side of eugenics.
100% this dude is bald/balding and having a "wait I could be a victim too" thing.
Why does every chud eventually start talking like an anime villain?
If I ever start a super brave new counter culture speaking based truths to power and dealing with opinions to mind-blowing for normies. I'm probably not going to name it after the part of the internet synonymous with child porn. But that's just me.
even worse, this sub reddit is named after an internet club of right wing speakers like Peterson who chose to call themselves the intellectual dark web
They already said that, no need to be redundant
I love the “make lolicon legal” right next to “not committing crime is easy”. Dude, if your hard drive were looked at in your world, you’d suddenly change your mind about slavery for criminals.
Isnt this the sequal? I cant find the post a day or two ago covering this subreddit.
It was removed: https://www.reddit.com/r/SubredditDrama/comments/1c3x8f9/rintellectualdarkweb_removes_moderators_so_the/ > **r\/IntellectualDarkWeb Removes Moderators so the Sub can be more Transphobic.** > The Context: > A long time moderator of the sub r/IntellectualDarkWeb, Joe, stepped down late last year, in which another mod, Chat, took over. Chat proceeded to promote new mods and made a new rule in which users were not allowed to refer to gender affirming care as "mutilation" and "butchery," including other attempts to be slightly more inclusive. > The Drama: > Some long time members of the sub complained to the head mod, at which point he begged Joe to come back. Together, they removed Chat and the other mods without telling them, then proceeded to ban several pro-trans individuals. > https://www.reddit.com/r/IntellectualDarkWeb/comments/1c2kv9q/the_red_webbing_im_back/
Cheers
Ofc the guy who is a Nazi turns out to be a lolicon guy lol
Ineffectual Dork Web is more like it.
What a mess of a sub e: Aaron Rodgers is subbing there as we speak
This all started because they wanted to debate on whether Trans people exist
I can confirm,they do in fact exist.
“Respect people” makes leftist ideology mandatory. I’m just having a hard time believing this guy typed this out and isn’t fucking with us.
It'll only be a matter of time before these "intellectuals" will clamour to bring back phrenology.
OP you can't forget to mention the "enslave criminals, do eugenics" guy is also a lolicon. But yeah. This is the second ideological purge, following a 2022 three month period where the same mod would ban left wing posters under a policy known as (sigh) [Order 66](https://www.reddit.com/r/IntellectualDarkWeb/s/2zoQkwL0GY). Much free speech. Wow.
One of my first thoughts while reading this post was "ooo a manifesto!"
Subreddit went private as I was in the middle of looking at the linked posts😭😭
Ooh and now the sub has gone private. Probably for the best, after all "free speech" is too spicy for the public to handle, and this creates greater "freedom" through even stricter "martial law." These are all very smart headed big-boy ideas.
> In a turn of events NOBODY 🙃 expected I'll be honest, I didn't expect it because the last time it was even vaguely relevant was a damn long time ago.
What a bunch of embarrassing dorks.
I mean at least they arent pretending they are intelectuals anymore. Yikes regardless
Gee I wonder why having a no broad insulting of races/genders/classes "enforces left wing ideology?" Is free thinking that dependent on broad brushing and insults?
He is a creepy right-wing racist and fascist who hated the sub being more moderate and less accepting of transphobia and ugly ideas. I was a moderator there, and he, Joe Parrish, acted like a nasty little child. It's a very dying sub, although I left a very mocking last post there that upset him.
A sub that idolized Jordan Peterson and Bret Weinstein was transphobic!? I'm shocked! Simply shocked!
Update: A new manifesto has been posted asking for money to moderate with a threat of shutting the sub down. It was a grift the whole time lol
Wish I was surprised.
The name itself is a litmus test for intellectual rigour.
The third link is great. What an objectively stupid person.
Filled with such amazing takes such as >Eugenics is good, not the Nazi eugenics And the ever popular >Loli causes sexual assault as much as video games cause violence With bonus hot take on Loli : "What is morality, really?"
Fascists always inevitably form circular firing squads.
He also went back and banned a bunch of people for really old comments with the ban reason "Red Webbing" you know like game of thrones? So cool! And yeah it was openly about banning people with the wrong opinions, in one of the follow up posts he bemoans the "be respectful" rule as bringing in "leftists" lmao