Funny, Strange, Random Pics

GuardianX said:

HAHA

the fuckin dude at the end like

"HEY...HEY HEY...THESE TWO ARE FUCKIN AROUND IN PUBLIC WTF MAN!"

meanwhile the dude is blowing his load on the side-walk.

View attachment 223821

EDIT

For real? this chick was already posted?!? god damnit...

View attachment 223822

Also a classic:

Click to expand...

I found the longer clip... there is a handful of cops RIGHT THERE literally just out of the camera view.

Random pic: good movie for a low budget B- very enjoyable

apraetor said:

Several of those authors are discredited as frauds. Rushton was paid to tailor results to support a conclusion, and deliberately chose sample groups to produce the desired result.

The studies are meta-analyses, using data sets on different ethnic and racial groups acquired at different points in time in different locations. Some of them are meta-analyses of meta-analyses. No attempt has been made to control for... anything, aside from body mass. They aren't comparing apples to apples -- caucasian data comes from students at a university measured using one technique, while the data on black folks comes from a study separated by thousands of miles and decades in time. It's deliberate selection bias. At least if the cohorts were drawn from socio-economically-similar populations inferences could be drawn. We might only have learned how different groups respond to the same environmental stressors, but at least we'd have actually learned something. As it is, basically all we've learned is that yes, p-hacking works when you want to fabricate support.


View attachment 223883

Click to expand...

Wow, so a studies on differences in racial groups drew from populations thousands of miles apart....where those racial groups live as indigenous populations? You don't say. That's mind blowing. I mean why would you want to select subjects within the regions of origin and segregated from each other where you're attempting to study genetic lineage and controlling for interbreeding would be a paramount value? Clearly the only way to study racial differences is to select from groups in regions where their proximity is close enough to allow for significant interbreeding and thus decrease the average difference in genetic variation between groups, right? "The only way for the work to be valid is if you specifically choose your subjects in a manner that would inherently adulterate the variable you're attempting to isolate" (These studies were all well before the price drop in DNA sequencing). The rest of these "criticisms" can essentially be leveled at all of the social sciences. I mean for fuck sake you just got done using modern gender "science" to critique a post. lol, that entire field makes Rushton look like a paragon of Academic integrity. (Also would love a citation on the Rushton thing, I always wrote him off as a bit of a nutter, but the only economic controversy I remember was the Darwin group thing--and that was not what you claim.)

Any case, to the racism point...Racism is merely a stereotype bias; and stereotypes are actually accurate heuristics based on large data sets. The idea that they are born from ignorance is just pure dogma at this point, the evidence is overwhelming. (The ignorance comes into play in applying them to individuals, since even group-accurate traits might not apply to a majority of the individuals in the group because of how averages and power laws work in distributions..)

Anyway, won't shit up the thread anymore with text. Come down and post in general (Nature vs Nurture or Politics), you seem fun.

a c i d.f l y said:

Wait, is that Asmongold?

View attachment 223903

Click to expand...