Adieu

does this have anything to do with him not being able to name a single foreign head of state? Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk yes

Well gary johnson screwing the pooch at the town hall thingy is beneficial for not destroying america

I I just got a Zenbook Pro and it's really nice and powerful.

careful with your regrets fellas

when he was talking about taxes and the deficit I texted my friend, "if she would just say, "maybe we wouldn't be in debt if you paid taxes." she would own him on that. And then she did. I was very satisfied with that, but she could have taken it much further. She could have said, "look at this man with billions that pays barely any taxes. Now imagine how many billionaires in this country are doing the same thing. How is that patriotic? How can this man even begin to question the contributions of others, or the actions of our government when he contributes nothing to it? Especially not his fair share. etc. etc." but alas she missed a good opportunity.

everything in the world is baised. also, I flipped on fox last night after the debates to watch the spin and it was laughable. hannity is a fucking dirtbag scum of the earth human being that is willing to push complete falsehood for a pay check those types of people deserve to be shot into space and removed from the human race add newt gingrich to that list as well it's funny watching the completely out of touch white upper class go into paralysis about their perception of the world. Is anyone else totally amused by the fact that it's commonplace for people to oppose the iraq war? Remember when all the young liberals were opposing it over a decade ago? They didn't make the connection that maybe, just maybe, young liberal people have reasonably decent idea of how to make good decisions as a country. Paid family leave/paternity maternity leave also being on the lol list of now being supported by both parties.

*likes fox news page* *likes cnn news page* *likes young turks news page* *likes bbc news page* >gets balanced news experience there is not difference between someone selecting a single news source on tv which most do/did and someone getting news on facebook. At least with facebook you get the input of other individuals which may expose you to more outright, and if you're not a complete idiot then you can just cater your new sources to be wide ranging.

looks good man. also you've played that game how many times? You are pre-aiming at enemies and shit haha

http://forum.watmm.com/topic/86017-comedian-recommendations/

lol when they grabbed the black dude. classic.

Here's the tulsa one The second one is in North Carolina I guess this is after the shooting. The shooting video hasn't been released yet, and there were riots in the streets last night. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFRIbmUb83U Yeah people think that the cops planted a gun on the North Carolina man. The family says he was waiting for his son and reading a book and didn't have a gun. Of course they haven't released the video yet, because it's better to have riots in the streets. A man was shot in the head and put on life support last night during the riots. No one knows who fired the shot, but I suspect the cops did it too.

2 more unarmed black men were shot and killed this week more riots and protesting

Damn did I make him leave the forum?

You're associating me with things that are so far off-base that it's ridiculous. You proposed eugenics and apparently being opposed to eugenics is a super liberal PC position I dunno man. I think the only way to fix the situation with forum users like you is to ban you. There's no helping the situation. Its genetics. Being opposed to eugenics and genetics is just emotional and hypocritical. Nowadays, when a baby is expected to be severely disabled an abortion is recommended. If you are pro-choice, you at least partly propose eugenics whether you like it or not. Not to mention that it was still possible to legally sterilize an extremely retarded person just a few years ago in the EU and in the US and I believe it is still legal for parents to decide for their retarded child to get sterilized (which still leaves us with the dilemma of rights of mentally disabled people - where is the line?). Also, being opposed to the vision of health/life improving implants and genetic modifications could be, in the future, considered a crime against humanity in a similar way a doctor refuses to give a medicine to a sick patient. Somehow people have no problems recognizing that pets can be from a bad or a good breed but I guess humans are a completely different form of life and evolution is a lie. Also, intelligence can be improved only if an individual has a motivation to learn and think which leaves us with the problem of what to do with individuals lacking such motivation (for example people with extreme cases of laziness, clinical depression, people in bad social conditions having totally different priorities etc.). Development of intelligence throughout generations is a very long process that is nowhere near the rates of reproduction of low class population. Where in the past natural laws kept the healthy balance, nowadays with social benefits and advanced medical care the balance has to be created differently (and maybe artificially which does not necessarily mean inhumanely even with today's standards). Intelligence is closely tied to how parents raise their children and neuroplasticity of a young brain is brutally effective exactly at the time when kids adopt the key behavioural patterns of their parents. And I am not even talking about genetically inherited traits. Kids have a right to be healthy and happy. Period. You should really take a look at yourself. It's worrisome that you frame everyone that is opposed to the things you espouse as being "emotional". Especially when you flipped your shit and went all ad hominem emotional outburst on me, and you attributed all these things to me that aren't even close to true. What is occurring with you is a failure to imagine and understand the full implications of the things you're suggesting, and to be honest, I think the worst thing for society is not low-intelligence poor people. I think it's mediocre intelligence that's capable of understanding certain concepts, but fails to be able to grasp the big picture and the nuance that goes along with it. What then frequently happens is a misguided application of a specific half-truthful concept such as social darwinism. You know, I don't really understand why you would even mention that it was recently legal to sterilize retarded people. It was recently legal to lobotomize people and give them ECT against their will. Up until very recently medicine was barbaric in a lot of ways, and it's something that we should distance ourselves from as much as possible. Those practices are hardly supporting evidence. Being pro-choice doesn't mean that you support eugenics. The vast majority of abortions are related to someone simply not wanting to have a child in their life for their personal reasons. I think in the case of potential disability the parents are likely going to abort simply to alleviate the huge inconvenience raising a disabled child would bring. Not so much a desire to improve the gene pool. Further, there is no comparison between a person making a personal decisions with how to handle their pregnancy vs a government mandated birth control policy. Pets are a bad example and they don't support your position. The problems with most pets, especially dogs and cats, is overbreeding and too much emphasis on certain traits that causes genetic problems. Pets are a perfect example of eugenics gone wrong. There are no "bad breeds" by the way. Only people's opinion of what a good and bad breed is. It's totally subjective. This concept can be further applied to human eugenics. What are the desired characteristics in a human? How relevant is a high level of intelligence to someone operating functionally in society? How often do you see an example of a smart person unable to function properly? Is this simply a biological problem? What you fail to grasp is the ethical implications of an accepted eugenics program, and historically how ineffective it is to attempt to control how your population grows and functions. Not only will it reinforce biases and class warfare, but it will lead to the denial of basic rights to people. Especially a program of disallowing birth to certain populations. China tried to control their population using authoritarian reproduction laws and look at the disgusting effect it has had. Not only that, but it's actually disrupted the proper functioning of their society in the long run, because it has created a massive imbalance in the population of females vs males in their society. What you've also done is completely misapplied the function of natural selection in regards to human beings. Nature keeps things in balance for sure, but you don't need to be that intelligent or that motivated to survive in nature. You just need a certain amount of understanding and a base line level of ability. It's arguably much more difficult to navigate the modern world than it is to navigate a more primitive one. It's at the very least way less taxing and stressful on the brain, and likely more demanding on the body. So nature was controlling for physically capable and less intelligent people before we created societies that altered what was demanded of people to survive. Moreover, it does not require that much intelligence or motivation to simply feed, clothe, and house yourself in society today. What were are likely experiencing that's causing us major problems in the way society functions, and by the way, this was your impossible to believe concept of it being the "white man" causing all these problems for black people. Funnily enough this perfectly displays your bias and ignorance on the topic. The fact that it's just not believable says a lot. Is a total imbalance in resource distribution and a structural problem in how not only black people are treated, but how poor people are treated. The best form of eugenics (and safest btw) is not the denial of reproduction for "undesirables" it's the elevation of the conditions of the people that are struggling, because the vast majority of factors that play into genetic desirability are environmental (see epigenetics). That it is to say, that for the most part we all possess the same genetic potential for positive and negative traits, it's merely the environmental factors that play into our gene mutations, intelligence, emotional stability, etc. So what you should be proposing instead of eradicating certain people from the human species, is that we should be distributing our resources in a way that promotes the achievement of the highest level of potential functioning for all humans. Not only is this the most ethical, but it's also the most effective, and the best for society as a whole. Can you imagine how dangerous it would be not to have genetic variability? Genetic variability is an insurance policy for our species remaining in existence. That isn't to say that I don't support gene manipulation, although it's a very risky thing to do without fully understanding the human organism. Gene manipulation is made a necessity in large part due to less than ideal environmental factors. Epigenetics shows us very clearly that when you control for the inputs into the organism that you can control it's genetic expression and either improve or degrade it's status based on the character of the inputs. What that means is that gene manipulation in the short term is a compensatory response to our inability to control our environment at the moment. I also think you are underestimating the ability of a human to improve their intelligence very rapidly by supplying them with the necessary nutrients and other environmental factors like stability and emotional support. All these things play into it, and drastically alter the state of the human in very short time when adjusted. I've seen this personally in myself, and it's not uncommon to hear someone discuss how when they were unhappy or in a state of anxiety they felt dumber and noticed a lack of normal brain functioning. Behavioral patterns are an issue but even recently we are discovering new tools for disrupting behavioral patterns and enabling people adopt new ones more successfully with things like psychedelic therapy, and we will only continue to improve our ability to do so. Technology is also very functional for things like this, (see quantified self) As we improve our understanding of the human organism we will only improve in our ability to reach higher levels of potential as humans. TLDR: I think your ideas are misguided and misinformed, and lack empathy to a frightening degree If you are interested in understanding some of this stuff better this is a good listen. And a very interesting view of depression as an inflammatory disease. https://chriskresser.com/is-depression-a-disease-or-a-symptom-of-inflammation/

You're associating me with things that are so far off-base that it's ridiculous. You proposed eugenics and apparently being opposed to eugenics is a super liberal PC position I dunno man. I think the only way to fix the situation with forum users like you is to ban you. There's no helping the situation. Its genetics.

Good point. But I would say that social mobility is pretty limited (and I would even say impossible) around the whole world, not only in US - no matter the system/society. Because social mobility is directly connected to mental state of an individual in question. You cannot educate a brain that has not enough computing power or is malfunctioning which is something many left-wing ignorants don't seem to understand at all. Determinism and natural selection seem to be dangerous terms for them. Maybe with cloning, brain implants and state-directed birth control things would change for the better in the future but who knows. Anyway, I am super-tired atm. Not sure if I make sense anymore. Good night. Social Darwinism in 2016 sigh... intelligence is not even that well understood and it can definitely be increased further, most people that seem "smarter" are just better educated and in better environments not necessarily possessing higher "computing power" at a base level you are making really big assertions with a very superficial understanding and it's offensive you also proposed eugenics I dunno I would have banned you from the forum for being a dumb fuck already if I owned it

What if they are, though? Not because of race, of course, but because of social/cultural context of their communities and everyday lives they are in in combination with many psychological and neurological phenomenons developing throughout generations? Various social/environmental conditions are perfectly able to develop laziness and hopelessness. Laziness can be an epidemic mental illness if not treated well. It is a behaviour pattern. This is then easily transferred to their kids. I am aware I might be controversial here and I will probably not be able to explain it very well in English but I just wanted to point out that there have to be reasons why is situation with black people in USA what it is and no, I don't believe it is only because of "white people". Btw, "racist" is not the word you want to use there. "Culturally/ethnically-biased" might be a better term for Trump imo. Race is physical appearance and I would be very surprised if Trump actually thought that you can rate people according to that. hmmm.... When people say really stupid things with a sort of naive politeness like you've done here it's difficult to decide how to respond. The me of 5 years ago would lay into you for the idiotic shit you just said, but the me of now accepts that you're probably just a well-meaning retard. Unfortunately it's way too difficult to explain the structural problems we are dealing with in the US and how they relate to african americans. There are a lot of contributing factors, but I think "they are just lazy as a group of people" is not really one of them. Maybe you should go read and not look to the forum to educate you. Yeah, I forgot. I will repeat this to myself here: 1) be interested in psychology, neurology, psychiatry and social issues 2) develop a view based on your sincere opinion and critical thinking 3) share your thoughts on WATMM while naively expecting others to be polite and constructive in discussions (especially when you express that you are aware of the sensitivity of the issue) 4) get shitstorm and personal attacks from overly-sensitive, in-person-fake, safe-space-addicted-SJW westerners who have never heard of neuroplasticity and scientific experiments with human behaviour and probably believe that naturally stupid, asocial and mentally ill people can be educated/changed/fixed by social engineering, money and goodwill 5) face-palm yourself and remind yourself of the points above Thanks, Adieu. Hopefully I will remember this better now. I am just a well-meaning retard after all 1) your interest doesn't make your opinion or assessment informed or valid 2)your ignorance how ever sincere doesn't excuse you for framing something in such an absurd way that it is racist and inflammatory 3)your question and line of thought was impolite. many people often forget that you can be as impolite with a query as you can with a statement 4) surely my reply wasn't a shit storm, and I'm way more genuine in person than on watmm. definitely not a sjw, definitely don't care about safe spaces, definitely have heard of neuroplasticity, which is partly why I think your assertions are stupid. But really your asking these questions as admittedly ignorant, and then proposing some other contributing factors without even understanding the situation to begin with. so... 5) you don't have to hurt yourself over me unless you want to ;)

On a serious note, I think the "happiness pill" is a really naive idea, and fails to properly understand what happiness is, how the body functions as an organism, not only the brain but the cascading factors that play into feeling happiness on a biological level, but also what is required for a human being to feel fulfilled to their core, whether that be called spiritual or not is up to you, and it also fails to acknowledge the reality that drugs are a really sloppy solution to altering the functioning of the human body. Most notably poor when applied in a habitual way. I'm not criticizing your joke, but people's approach to drugs and applying them to humans.

What if they are, though? Not because of race, of course, but because of social/cultural context of their communities and everyday lives they are in in combination with many psychological and neurological phenomenons developing throughout generations? Various social/environmental conditions are perfectly able to develop laziness and hopelessness. Laziness can be an epidemic mental illness if not treated well. It is a behaviour pattern. This is then easily transferred to their kids. I am aware I might be controversial here and I will probably not be able to explain it very well in English but I just wanted to point out that there have to be reasons why is situation with black people in USA what it is and no, I don't believe it is only because of "white people". Btw, "racist" is not the word you want to use there. "Culturally/ethnically-biased" might be a better term for Trump imo. Race is physical appearance and I would be very surprised if Trump actually thought that you can rate people according to that. hmmm.... When people say really stupid things with a sort of naive politeness like you've done here it's difficult to decide how to respond. The me of 5 years ago would lay into you for the idiotic shit you just said, but the me of now accepts that you're probably just a well-meaning retard. Unfortunately it's way too difficult to explain the structural problems we are dealing with in the US and how they relate to african americans. There are a lot of contributing factors, but I think "they are just lazy as a group of people" is not really one of them. Maybe you should go read and not look to the forum to educate you.

It'll help with your light depression, though may cause a brain hemorrhage, or sudden death! They are pushing fucking prescriptions for "overly dry eyes" It's fucking absurd.

I've been watching the news lately...every other commercial is for a pharmaceutical. It's actually insane.

Republican tax plans are always a mess. Trumps childcare plan was almost entirely subsidies. regressive tax plans do fuck all for people that barely pay taxes.

That depends, of course, on where you get your tv. You can get satellite feeds of hundreds of channels, at least 1 or 2% of that is news. Then there's local news. There's also magazines and newspapers, which I mention because in your assertion that someone would be confined to either YT (the entire internet) or not (poor losers lol wtf it's 2016 get hype oldie) then a person interested in politics but without internet would most likely seek out non-TV media. Plus there's library resources in most first world countries, for historical resource references. Basically I'm saying that people always have choices, if they want them. But of course most don't want to try very hard, we all know that. If you get news from television then you are severely limited in what you will be exposed to. There isn't much of a choice on television and a huge portion of our country get most or all of their news from tv. This is a problem for obvious reasons.

Anyone fed the wrong information for a long time, from an authority source they trust, will believe almost anything. IF since birth evidence and facts were taught as important criteria, then I think the majority of people would call these cable networks on their BS. I mean, everytime I watch CNN pretend like Global Warming is still a discussion, I sigh. Or how they get all complain-y about yet another stupid thing Trump said, I sigh. They could be handling Trump so much better. It's sad that the best news sources are from youtube outlets since they usually don't have an underlying agenda. Btw, CNN and Hillary are much better than Trump and Fox. But we're still getting hoodwinked in the end, yes? Youtubers are still looking for clicks, just the same as CNN. I'm sure there's some percentage of them that are worried more about facts than clicks, but the same can be said of the 'mainstream media.' The mainstream media is presenting shit, of course, but they're also sometimes presenting knowledge and truth; that stuff just doesn't grab the headlines and isn't easy to chat about at the watercooler. But YT/whatever alternate sources people go for, though it's great that they're out there, are as a whole worse than mainstream journalism, imo. But ultimately it's all the same, it just depends how discerning the end viewer/reader/whatever is. At least people have a choice on YouTube. Not so much with regular television.

There's no argument about them being aligned with the establishment but they have on many occasions discussed the things you referred to and they continue to do so. They at least support the positive elements of our society and progressiveness while they are shilling for the democrats. The most unfortunate thing I see is that fox and the right wing folks associated with it have no issue telling outright lies which I see much less often and more close to never on CNN. The true cognitive dissonance of an entire party and its supporters claiming liberals are liars when they oftwn are telling the truth and it's the right wing folks coming onto CNN that are outright lying and even worse on Fox News. It's mind boggling to me. I agree they do a terrible job but what do you expect from a bunch of people willing to compromise themselves for a paycheck? it's crazy to me that hillarys deplorable comment so easily turns from less than 25% of the country to 50% the moment Hannity throws his insane spin on things. It's also very distressing to watch everyone involved distort facts, concepts, and realities and constantly frame things in the most reductive way possible to support their positions. I truly feel sorry for the young people of this country that have that as an example to follow.