this post was submitted on 20 Aug 2024
243 points (95.2% liked)

collapse of the old society

949 readers
1 users here now

to discuss news and stuff of the old world dying

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Meet the new right, same as the old right.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] stabby_cicada@slrpnk.net 88 points 2 months ago (1 children)
[–] expatriado@lemmy.world 25 points 2 months ago

just in the last few centuries

[–] conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works 48 points 2 months ago (14 children)

IQ is to intelligence as BMI is to obesity.

Loosely correlated at best.

[–] LainTrain@lemmy.dbzer0.com 20 points 2 months ago (8 children)

Don't you mean weight? Forgive my ignorance but I'm pretty sure in the medical world BMI is literally what determines obesity.

[–] jonne@infosec.pub 23 points 2 months ago (1 children)

It's only a rough guideline. There's Olympic athletes that would be considered overweight based on their BMI that are basically all muscle. It's a decent guideline for your average person, but there's outliers that don't fit in that scale. After all, you're making a judgment based on just 2 parameters.

[–] LainTrain@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 points 2 months ago (2 children)

So it's a decent guideline like you said, barring some extreme exceptions like olympic-level athletes which aren't a high percentage of the population.

[–] curbstickle@lemmy.dbzer0.com 16 points 2 months ago

Nah, its off in a lot more ways. Bone density, it exaggerates tall peoples "fat"ness, and short peoples "thin"ness, racial differences, differences between the sexes, so on and so forth.

Its a 200 year old formula that's extremely generic. There are newer ones that are better, like waist to height ratio, hip and height, body comp, etc. Each one of those has some flaws too, but the waist to height is apparently pretty damn accurate. Way more than BMI. But it doesn't work for certain ethnicities, children, or people with medical conditions that would enlarge their waist.

[–] tacosplease@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago

My workout partner in college was clinically obese based on his BMI. He was like 6% body fat and had more than average muscle mass but was not huge. He was built like Hugh Jackman as Wolverine except shorter. There's lots of guys like that. Not sure I'd consider them to be extreme exceptions.

[–] Default_Defect@midwest.social 3 points 2 months ago

I was considered obese by BMI standards in high school, when I was outside with friends riding bikes all day and phys ed at school where I lifted weights daily. I would be impossibly thin if I tried to achieve it now.

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (13 replies)
[–] carl_dungeon@lemmy.world 24 points 2 months ago

I guess when you’re all white and stupid, these things become important to you

[–] Dasus@lemmy.world 17 points 2 months ago (1 children)
[–] guyoverthere123@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 2 months ago

Definitely the strongest word here, seeing how much lefting it's doing.

[–] hydroptic@sopuli.xyz 16 points 2 months ago

Despite their important implications for interpersonal behaviors and relations, cognitive abilities have been largely ignored as explanations of prejudice. We proposed and tested mediation models in which lower cognitive ability predicts greater prejudice, an effect mediated through the endorsement of right-wing ideologies (social conservatism, right-wing authoritarianism) and low levels of contact with out-groups. In an analysis of two large-scale, nationally representative United Kingdom data sets (N = 15,874), we found that lower general intelligence (g) in childhood predicts greater racism in adulthood, and this effect was largely mediated via conservative ideology. A secondary analysis of a U.S. data set confirmed a predictive effect of poor abstract-reasoning skills on antihomosexual prejudice, a relation partially mediated by both authoritarianism and low levels of intergroup contact. All analyses controlled for education and socioeconomic status. Our results suggest that cognitive abilities play a critical, albeit underappreciated, role in prejudice. Consequently, we recommend a heightened focus on cognitive ability in research on prejudice and a better integration of cognitive ability into prejudice models.

We report longitudinal data in which we assessed the relationships between intelligence and support for two constructs that shape ideological frameworks, namely, right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) and social dominance orientation (SDO). Participants (N = 375) were assessed in Grade 7 and again in Grade 12. Verbal and numerical ability were assessed when students entered high school in Grade 7. RWA and SDO were assessed before school graduation in Grade 12. After controlling for the possible confounding effects of personality and religious values in Grade 12, RWA was predicted by low g (β = -.16) and low verbal intelligence (β = -.18). SDO was predicted by low verbal intelligence only (β = -.13). These results are discussed with reference to the role of verbal intelligence in predicting support for such ideological frameworks and some comments are offered regarding the cognitive distinctions between RWA and SDO.

[–] collapse_already@lemmy.ml 15 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I would spend up to $50 for a pay per view of Trump taking a fair IQ test. Mr. Room Temperature IQ would do bigly well.

[–] Default_Defect@midwest.social 5 points 2 months ago

Person. Woman. Man. Camera. TV.

Result- 180 IQ

[–] PrincessLeiasCat@sh.itjust.works 14 points 2 months ago

I don’t understand how they square defining themselves as beacons of intelligence when we’ve seen so many times in history how fascists target anyone they deem “intellectual” because they could pose a threat to the regime.

I guess you also have to subscribe to the racist and blatantly untrue ideology, which the majority of truly intelligent people do not subscribe to because it’s racist and fucking stupid.

[–] Matriks404@lemmy.world 14 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

People should stop using a term 'race' for humans because there's no scientific evidence that humans have races.

Being white or black doesn't have anything to do with having different race in biology. It's just a skin color that is different.

I think the closest term for genetic and environmental (cultural?) differences in human population would be phenotype, and these definitely exist. But keep in mind I do not know much about biology, so I might be wrong here and there, I only rephrase Wikipedia.

[–] taiyang@lemmy.world 33 points 2 months ago (5 children)

While I dislike the concept and you're right that it's a made up construct, I need to mention that made up constructs still impact our lives. A phenotype is just a phenotype until it costs you a job or makes your home value go down. At that point, race is something you have to confront simply because racists exist.

The problem is, humans instinctually categorize people because it's easier to process. This can be as reasonable as knowing a person in a uniform works at a place, or life saving like identifying someone shady, who very well might harm you. If the phenotype of skin color ends up associated with something incorrect or misleading, however, you then have a very benign thing (appearance) leading to very real outcomes (racism).

Hope that makes sense. Race is stupid, but people judge others for all sorts of things. Otherism is very real.

[–] houseofleft@slrpnk.net 5 points 2 months ago (1 children)

This is such an interesting topic!

I completely agree that race as an idea as steeped in false science and racism, but I always find it really difficult to consider race when it's used as a positive force as well- movements like US civil rights have massively reduced racism, partly by using race as a concept (such as black pride).

On the flip side, neoliberalism often advocates "color-blindness" as an idea (don't acknowledge/consider people's race) which is a great ideal, but in practice often seems to amount to turning a blind eye to on going racism.

[–] LustyArgonianMana@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago

Colorblindness has its roots in white settler colonialism over Native Americans, including the schools they made them go to. This helped settlers assert their claim to these lands.

That's why it's not as common in the south, where it was important to hilight race to assert control over black people.

The historical context of race is what still affects people to this day.

I think ethnicity and intersectionality are a better thing to focus on when around others (more socially acceptable and less threatening/charged), along with individual experience. Race is just one way to look at somebody but there's many many other layers and they all work together.

[–] jaggedrobotpubes@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago

Framing it this way makes things worse, even though it's true. The focus has to be on moving towards everybody understanding, talking like, and acting like it's the bullshit that it is. We don't want to state the truth in a way that hand waves it away and centralizes the lie.

Race is a bullshit concept and we need to fix the damage caused by idiots not getting it.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works 13 points 2 months ago

Big talk from the ham sandwich race

[–] guyoverthere123@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 points 2 months ago (1 children)

The far right can't even spell IQ.

[–] yesman@lemmy.world 12 points 2 months ago (1 children)

IQ is eugenics. It was developed by eugenicists to do eugenics. It's not just a matter of controlling for bias, the whole endeavor is a logical fallacy (reification).

It's a bad instrument and should be abandoned.

[–] zeephirus@lemmy.world 13 points 2 months ago

it was designed to help find which children needed extra help with school work!

Binet and Simon worked closely to develop more tests and questions that would distinguish between children who did and did not need help in attending regular education. In 1905 they published a preliminary version of their test for measuring intelligence (chased by a committee set up at Bourneville's instigation to decide on this). The full version of the test with age-appropriate standards was published in 1908 and was known as the Binet-Simon scale.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Binet#Later_career_and_the_Binet%E2%80%93Simon_test

It was then used by others to push eugenics

In 1908, H.H. Goddard, a champion of the eugenics movement, found utility in mental testing as a way to evidence the superiority of the white race. After studying abroad, Goddard brought the Binet-Simon Scale to the United States and translated it into English.

Following Goddard in the U.S. mental testing movement was Lewis Terman, who took the Simon-Binet Scale and standardized it using a large American sample. The first test was published in 1916 and called “The Stanford revision of the Binet-Simon Intelligence Scale”. A revision was published in 1937 and now called the Stanford-Binet scale. The name of Simon was all but erased from the record and this has been the reason why Simon's contribution to the development of the test has been overlooked in much of the 20th century and early 21st century.[14]

The Stanford revision of the Binet-Simon Intelligence Scale was no longer used solely for advocating education for all children, as was the original objective. The new objective of intelligence testing was ultimately "curtailing the reproduction of feeble-mindedness and in the elimination of an enormous amount of crime, pauperism, and industrial inefficiency".[15]

[–] InternetUser2012 10 points 2 months ago

Because they're worried that other races are more attractive and they're idiots?

[–] marx2k@lemmy.world 10 points 2 months ago (1 children)
[–] uienia@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago

The far right guy called Adolf Hitler and his little group was also pretty obsessed with it. I have no idea where the author of this piece has been hibernating all this time, because they never stopped obsessing over race.

[–] tacosanonymous@lemm.ee 8 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

One is made up and they other they don't have.

[–] Prunebutt@slrpnk.net 16 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Both are made up. The second one to legitimize the first one.

[–] starchylemming@lemmy.world 7 points 2 months ago (5 children)

i didn't click the article because im stupid and lazy, - but all i need is the title to share an old german saying with you:

"he, who sits in a house made of glas shouldn't throw rocks"

"Wer im Glashaus sitzt, solllte nicht mit Steinen werfen"

[–] tacosplease@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago

It's common in the US as well. We say "He who lives in glasshouses should not throw stones."

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] taanegl@beehaw.org 7 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Phrenology is sooo hot right now.

[–] 5ibelius9insterberg@feddit.org 4 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

As a the german hiphop crew K.I.Z. famously said: "Nazis erkenn ich an der Kopfform"

I recognise nazis by the shape of their heads

[–] Gradually_Adjusting@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago (1 children)

What would Adolf make of semi-literate mutts who claim his racial ideals? I like to think it would scare him into normality, or at least convince him to kill Hitler sooner.

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 16 points 2 months ago

He'd use them to achieve his goals like he did the first time.

[–] NigelFrobisher@aussie.zone 4 points 2 months ago

When all you have is a caliper…

load more comments
view more: next ›