Polls: Society & Politics

New Mexico Republican Party’s HQ set on fire, tagged with ‘ICE=KKK’ - san.com/.../

I say refined because I asked a similar question before but this is refined.

I believe that all races are equal in intelligence, but I also believe that once someone of a race reaches pioneer level intelligence, the intelligence in expressed in different ways.

For example, I believe black people, when they reach a pioneer level of intelligence, tend to live a less materialistic life compared to other races. Think of the very smart tribe leaders in Africa who have knowledge of cells and science, but still choose to live that life.

I believe Asians (particularly from oriental regions) have a bit of a balance

And Europeans are most likely to use materialism like technology to satisfy their happiness, when they are that smart, (unlike other groups)

Just to be clear it isn’t that I don’t believe they are intelligent in those fields at that stage? But with Africans for example the information on how to make technologically mostly exists as knowing the concept, and maybe imagining the technology without actually coming down to needing to build it.

I also believe that the reason why European and Asians tend to be more technologically than blacks at pioneer level intelligence is because their native lands are colder. So they have materialism (like shelter, and material conveniences to compensate to survive.)

I also believe that’s why Europeans look the way that they do, it’s because they are expressing survival in a more primitive way, like more tangible to people, because of their colder land. And primitive survival ties to reproduction in the primitive part of the brain.
While blacks and Asians (and those in between the scale) tend to have a look that is more like they are holding ancient knowledge of the rhythms of the earth.

Also non white races do contribute to society even in their tribal states, it’s just that most people are blind to how to help’s because it taps into natural rhythms rippling through collective humanity.

The Vances oppose abortion for religious reasons, but tends not to mix that subject with the birthrate conversation except to say that with all the new restrictions on reproductive choice, it would make sense to do more for young mothers financially.

Rather than religious belief, Musks supporters are motivated by a fear that humanity will not replace itself. They dismiss immigration as a remedy, arguing that it can weaken the culture of the receiving country.

This Musk aligned group, which embraces assisted reproduction, is most visibly identified with Malcolm & Simone Collins, a media-friendly couple with 4 children born through IVF. They favor using genetic selection to pick embryos with desirable characteristics, an approach that Christian groups typically oppose. The Collinses said they recently composed a suite of suggested executive orders and sent them to allies in the White House. They include deregulating child care businesses to bring down the cost, and loosening car seat laws, which can now require buying larger vehicles to accommodate more than two children. Another would create an award for women who have six or more children, versions of which exist in a handful of countries, including France.

An agenda that prioritizes large families makes plenty of people queasy. Groups like Population Connection worry that the tactics required to raise birthrates can verge on authoritarianism, and believe that the consequences of population loss aren’t as catastrophic as pronatalists make them out to be. And increasing numbers of young people do not want to burden the planet by having children of their own.

Nevertheless, pro-natalists want the administration to establish a commission to elevate and study the subject, as well as to infuse their priorities across the federal government. The Biden administration screened many policies and grant applications for their impact on climate change and racial equity, they point out; the same could be done for procreation.

A federal appeals court ruled that President Trump can fire members of independent federal agencies, including two Democrats on the Federal Trade Commission. This challenges a 1935 Supreme Court precedent that limited a president’s ability to remove officials without cause.

Supporters say it’s a win for accountability—if the president is held responsible for the executive branch, he should be able to control it.
Critics argue it undermines agency independence and opens the door to partisan abuse.

Do you agree with the ruling? Or do you think it gives the president too much power?

Appeals court rules Trump can fire board members of independent agencies - www.npr.org/.../trump-firings-board-members-appeals-court

As the case unfolds, you start to realize you may be the one truly responsible for the victim’s death—it was an accident, and no one suspects you. But the evidence will almost certainly convict the man on trial. You’re about to have your first child, and confessing could destroy your life. If you stay silent, an innocent man will go to prison.

Do you vote “Guilty” and keep your secret, or “Not Guilty” and risk exposing yourself?

(Inspired by the movie Juror #2)

Hmmm... 🧐 🤔

There is an apparent gender conflict going on that has polarised men and women with non binary usually tending toward the women's end that has created a lot of toxicity and relationship challenges that has seen a rise of things MGTOW and 4B away from interaction between the members of a social species because of political leanings about how society has treated and perceived injustices between each side that seem to ignore the others points of view.

Given that women tend to be the victims of sex based crime but men are of crime in general (while also ignoring reasons why it's also men who end up in a life of crime as well as making up most of the low status positions and as victims of societies lack of provisions for those in need such as homelessness, poverty, destitution, domestic violence, etc.) the current narrative is that women negatively prejudice against men they don't know as threatening or risky until a man proves himself to not be so while women are not regarded similarly.

So should employment be restricted in a similar way that women can request a female doctor for consultation, that men should therefore be appraised on their suitability for jobs by other men instead of having mixed or women only employment panels. (One could use the same notion that women getting jobs over men because they're more appealing to the eye and thus able to use that attraction for a business as being a valid reason for employing them in the first place)

Why or why not?

The law of the jungle: the principle that those who are strong and apply ruthless self-interest will be most successful