Posted the wrong link and now I've lost it, sorry folks, not like you can actual go dunk anyway :shrug
sticking my balls into a panini press and screaming 'EUGENICIST' at everyone who tries to help
Dril is just an account that posts chud takes from 10 years in the future.
Ivermectin chuds aren’t people with low intelligence. They're people so committed to their political ideology they’re willing to destroy their liver and/or die of covid.
Yep. Gotta remember that a lot of those folks are actually smart cookies or specialists in their fields, but ideologically misguided to a cultish degree.
I thought he was dead, but is apparently alive saying it's a hot housing market rn
That was Herman Cain who was killed by COVID-19 that he most likely caught at a Trump rally.
hot housing market
Lmao yeah, great insight there, doc
Idk is it really out of principle for their lolbertarian ideology? They might genuinely believe the vaccine is dangerous and that Ivermectin will provide legitimate relief for their symptoms.
If it didn't have anything to do with their ideology, we'd see a more even spread of ivermectin case usage. Though, tbh, I haven't seen any numbers
I like Elle, and they generally have good takes, but this sucks.
If someone willingly eats horse paste and becomes infertile, that's hilarious.
It's eugenics if it's forced on people, like prisoners. That's bad and we should absolutely fight that shit
Doing dumb things and then not being able to pass down genes as a consequence is normal evolution at work here.
Didn't know this site had people that actually believed in social darwinism
Social darwinism is both the belief that society has an imperative to root out and cast out "losers" and let them die, and the attempt to implement those beliefs.
Eugenics is that belief applied on the literal genetic level.
This is neither of those. Society did not at any point impel or encourage these people to take horse dewormer and destroy their balls. They did it out of free choice entirely of their own accord. You're flat out wrong.
Social darwinism is both the belief that society has an imperative to root out and cast out “losers” and let them die, and the attempt to implement those beliefs.
This idea that social darwinism only refers to applied ideas is extremely stupid. You can hold social darwinist ideas without being Hitler or some shit.
The idea that dumb people removing themselves from the gene pool being an example of darwinism is pseudoscience. Again, I'm begging you to crack open a book or at least read up social darwinism and darwinism on Wikipedia. It's fucking insane to see this type of garbage on a leftist forum.
How is it not Darwinism? Anything that results in you being removed from the gene pool is doing a Darwinism.
I am with @Mrtryfe here the amount of ignorance in this comment chain regarding Darwinism is alarming. If anything the argumentation is completely ridiculous with people bending themselves backward to justify Darwinism lol.
Like holy shit by the logic here if anything that "removes you from the gene pool" is Darwinism then driving a Tesla and having it crash instead of taking the likely inexistent public transportation is Darwinism, being a poor African child starving to death is Darwinism, being an American eating fast food and sitting on a desk all day is also Darwinism. Being a poor muslim getting a drone missile to the face? You guessed it.
The fact we are adding being a stupid chud who is sterilizing himself because he is being drawn into an anti-intellectual death cult to the list doesn't make the argument any more sound.
Are you saying humans are except from evolution and Darwinism because we live in societies?
Darwin himself didn't have a whole lot to say in regards to humanity's place within his framework on evolution, and much of that had to do with the complexity of human societies. There is no hard or fast rule to any of this, and still holds true to this day.
Are you saying humans are except from evolution and Darwinism because we live in societies?
You need to understand the selection process. It seems at first that this whole circus is "selecting" based on intelligence yes? But the reality is because we live in societies as you put it, intelligence is not the dominant factor here but rather a large combination of factors, intelligent people can do stupid things if society enforces it, just look at any religion.
Intelligence here isn't just whatever libs think of IQ but simply access to information and education. So when you think these chuds are "stupid" and so are being selected out based on some form of inherent intelligence, it will turn out you are actually selecting based on whether someone was lucky enough to go to school or have access to factual information instead of garbage.
All of the joke examples I listed were only jokes because I expect someone to understand that there is nothing related to evolution when you get a drone missile to the face or you are born as a poor African child.
Chuds deserve dunking and I have no sympathy for them, but nobody should go down the path of "this is good actualy because something something Darwinism".
unironically yes, we are evolving in a way that's very different from natural selection imperatives because we have not been tethered to them for a while (probably since the agriculture revolution)
social imperatives are by definition not natural selection, ants if anything should be considered as having social natural selection, since their common interaction does not affect their behavior over the long term, and they evolve to face natural threats, having homeless people die on the streets is simply the result of artificial society standards as to who matters, same reason why i am not purely a materialist, since ideas (or more truthfully institutions, laws...) have an actual impact in human societies, separating them from the purely material natural selection, helped by the fact we have no natural predator and medicine of course
do you know about Darwin? natural selection clearly doesn't entail social processes now on whether ideas are material, i think the issue is around whether the material conditions lead to the ideas or if it can be vice versa sometimes, which is what i believe is increasingly true, now that everything is built on a materialist basis at the start anyways is obvious, but this is a philosophical conversation and doesn't pertain to the fact that social processes are clearly not natural selection (unless you're fash or in fash world)
natural selection is about what traits lead to higher reproduction/survival compared to other, this entails a rigid framework (selection pressures) that allow for the selection to take place over several generations, this rigidity is only possible if social processes are the reflection of genetics, see back to fash
is Darwinism then driving a Tesla and having it crash instead of taking the likely inexistent public transportation is Darwinism
I mean, other companies do make cars that won't drive themselves into a cartoon tunnel painted on a wall.
but I can’t discount individual intelligence coming into play when you’re willing consuming horse dewormer
How are you defining intelligence here? Down to the specific viewpoint of them consuming ivermectin? Societal effects are much easier to get a handle on, so why are we speculating on something neither you and I could answer, unless we're getting really into the weeds?
Like, the wider hegemonic society is literally trying to jab you, not convince you to consume horse dewormer.
Getting a vaccine is accepted as hegemonic in the US, or even worldwide? That's news to me. Hell, there are some people getting vaccinated despite genuinely not wanting to, for various reasons.
Hegemony doesn't only apply to what the dominant ruling class wants. If nothing else, you'd need further inquiry to figure out why half the US population is dead set against the hegemony.
No, it isn't exactly what hegemony is, especially if there's a counterculture that's having a noticeable effect on people's behaviors. Putting that down to some vague definition of intelligence is ridiculous.
This is neither of those. Society did not at any point impel or encourage these people to take horse dewormer and destroy their balls. They did it out of free choice entirely of their own accord. You’re flat out wrong.
What is your definition of society? Because it seems you are equating society with government. These chuds are all being influenced by social media, peer pressure from their social groups(online and IRL) and probably family members. To me that easily qualifies as social encouragement. To say they are doing it out of "free will" is just a lib take. People will do crazy shit things in order to remain part of a group and the consequences means there is very little actual choice here unless you think people willingly choose to suffer on purpose.
They have the resources. This isn't people with low intelligence. It's people so committed to their political ideology they're willing to destroy their liver.
ideology poisoning should get a label: might be harmful to your liver or drastically increase your chance of lead poisoning when the revolution comes :malcolm-checks:
Doomer bloomer take:
Yeah. If anything we're lucking out that their ideology is going in such a self-destructive direction. Things would have been a lot easier for the anti-fascist resistance if a bunch of Nazis had overdosed on neurotoxins before shit got real.
More of them going now = less innocent lives lost later. I know that's harsh, but if they were willing to do this shit over being asked to wear a mask and get a vaccine... imagine what they'd do if they were asked to redistribute wealth and give up systemic white privilege.
although to be fair ideology poisoning is not exclusive to nazis, in the US of K the relentless double whammy of personal responsibility (you are responsible for your own health and yours alone) and false consciousness (can't trust the media or state but can random snake oil salesman) makes even non :fash-mad: into horse med enjoyers
It's some cringe irony poisoning from the "darwin award" meme that boomers / gen x loved. Not surprised its showed up in response to chuds picking up death cult behavior. Also not surprised people are pushing back on it. :shrug-outta-hecks:
I guess I get it if its shorthand for "they won't be able to raise kids they can indoctrinate?" but that also totally forgets adoption is a thing... I don't know. There are better ways to dunk on fash chugging dewormer to own us.
“darwin award” meme that boomers / gen x loved.
Go ahead and rope millennials in there too.
At least there's some recognition on your end that there's a social order at play here, driving these choices. Some of the other responses in this thread are just outright reactionary
I'm not reading any of whatever dumbass struggle session this caused. Stop being nerds.
Yeah they seems like they have their heart in the right place, for sure.
Yeah, they're trying to equate this actually funny thing to like when libs say "people in Southern states deserve what their oppressive governments do to them and they should leave if they don't like it"
It is hilarious. I do feel sorry for them as human beings, in the sense that capitalism's decay has given them terminal brainworms, but it's still very, very funny.
The desperation of these woker than thou hot-takes is revolting. They all basically amount to posting "fight me, bro".
This isn't a moral stance, this is a symptom of someone's brain liquefying.
I'm fine with a moral stance. And I don't think there's not any point here. It just covered up by a nauseating helping of self-righteous posturing.
Posting is not and never can be a moral act. And what's worse, it's often a substitute for actually doing something. So in that way, it's worse than doing nothing, if it convinces you that you already have.
Who sees "Wow, all these people we told not to take ivermectin took it and are getting fucked up by it" and goes "THIS IS JUST LIKE WHEN MY DAD USED TO SLAM MY HEAD INTO THE WALL BECAUSE I ASKED FOR A GLASS OF WATER"
Is there a general name for this sort of argument?
Where you find oppression in literally everything including the people who are actually oppressive?
"equality poisoning" maybe?
It's called mediation and its what libs worship, centering everything around this idea of civility so that every scenario has both sides needing to "compromise" and come together, ignoring of course what matters which is power and one side will benefit from this "compromise" a lot more than the other, who might even suffer as a result, so "compromise" just means "status quo"
The paradox of tolerance, maybe? Tolerating shitty people who suffer as a direct result of their own action and defending them from criticism.
But the paradox of tolerance argument, at least the ones I've seen all support why you shouldn't tolerate fascism
It's so dumb when the right tries to weaponize "wokeness" to own a straw man character they invented.
No one is forcing them to take horse dewormer. They are doing it willingly so it is funny and if they become infertile because of it then idk what to say besides lol
In this context the take is fucking dumb. But I do see liberals constantly saying shit about how rednecks shouldn't breed and such, which is probably what they're talking about on a larger scale.
This horse paste situation seems to be melting people's brains a bit and producing some absolutely bonkers takes.
42 upbears
77 comments
:wut: chud ball eugenics struggle session :wut:
The Radical Left needs to stop shaming people who shoot themselves in the dick
When I watched my first case of a parent killing their kid with woo, it really destroyed any notion I still had of parenting being some sacred right or ultimate authority. The best thing that could ever happen to a kid in that position is their parents being infertile due to gettin' horse drunk.
No one:
Someone: have you considered that I'm a victim of Abuse?
btw, I'm maybe ignorant, do abusive parents commonly call their kids infertile?
I could see that being something a transphobe might end up saying in certain circumstances, or just being said to someone who just isn't having great luck
I think what she's saying is that it's hurtful to people who had shitty parents to say that shitty people shouldn't have kids
IDK I had to read this garbage like three times to try and parse it
Damn you did better parsing it than me. What an insecure take lol, my parents shouldn't have had kids that's not an indictment of me
Yeah, understanding it didn't make the take any better
Can anyone explain what "the children who have survived having hateful parents can see you making them." means? I earnestly do not understand the connection.
people whose parents resented them? People who just realized their parents suck and are currently Practicing Radical Self Love whenever they see mean jokes on Twitter because it reminds them of their shitty parents and makes them feel uncomfortable?
I Survived shitty parents and
all I got was this lousy t-shirtI have no idea what they mean lol
