-  [WT]  [PS]  [Home] [Manage]

[Return] [Entire Thread] [Last 50 posts]
Posting mode: Reply
  1.   (reply to 19817)
  2. (for post and file deletion)
/rnb/ - Rage and Baww
  • Supported file types are: GIF, JPG, PNG, WEBM
  • Maximum file size allowed is 1000 KB.
  • Images greater than 200x200 pixels will be thumbnailed.
  • Currently 871 unique user posts. View catalog

  • Blotter updated: 2011-01-12 Show/Hide Show All

There's a new /777/ up, it's /gardening/ Check it out. Suggest new /777/s here.

Movies & TV 24/7 via Channel7: Web Player, .m3u file. Music via Radio7: Web Player, .m3u file.

WebM is now available sitewide! Please check this thread for more info.

People are dumber than they think Teenage Girl 14/07/24(Thu)21:16 No. 19817 ID: 5c2228
19817

File 14062294012.gif - (418.49KB , 125x92 , 14023781138s.gif )

My wife has a temporary job grading standardized state education tests. In the course of her work she has made some rather disturbing findings. Aside from the fact that a very large majority of American children have no critical thinking, problem solving, or basic math skills form 5th grade to high school, the grading and testing programs are biased. During her work she is encouraged and rewarded for giving tests what are called "glimmer points."

For instance if a question asks the students to compare the movie Planet of the Apes to real life. A large number of the test takers have no idea what a comparison is and write their essay about how important it is that a film like Planet of the Apes was made to document the ancient history of Earth.

Missing the point entirely they should get a zero score but because the mentioned apes or used the History, they get a score of 1 or 2, their "glimmer point."

This all tells me that Americans are becoming increasingly stupid, and that the reality of the situation is being carefully and knowingly covered up by the educational system. So, when you see a report on whatever news channel talking about falling test scores in the United States, remember the score should be much, much, much, lower.

De-evolution is real


6 posts omitted. Last 50 shown.
>>
Teenage Girl 14/07/26(Sat)04:15 No. 19828 ID: 86e709

>>19826

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zsXP8qeFF6A


>>
Matchbox Prince 14/07/26(Sat)23:31 No. 19836 ID: 2f260d

I remember when I was in high school, I had to take the "CAHSEE", or "CAlifornia High School Exit Exam", which was some standardized "no child left behind" bullshit they devised to make sure that children in every school were learning the core curriculum as laid down by the STATE, instead of just whatever individual districts thought were important. I don't remember much about the exam, except that it had some math and some English sections. Also, it was PAINFULLY easy. The reading-comprehension and essay portions reminded me of stuff I did back in the fourth grade; I seriously doubt if the math section was more than basic algebra, which I took in the seventh grade.

The worst part? There were high schoolers who failed this exam. When it was instituted, you could theoretically take it every year, but as I was a sophomore I could only take it two more times (I believe the juniors and seniors were exempt) but of course I passed it the first time. I literally could have passed this exam when I was in 6th or 7th grade, and yet there are plenty of kids that wouldn't have been able to by 12th.


You know how I know the American school system is fucked up beyond measure? When I hear, about once a month or so, about some 12-year-old that got into college. You don't actually have to learn ANYTHING in order to graduate high school; you just have to take a test. All the American school system does is train kids on how to take tests. Unless they get a job that involves filling in circles on a scantron, their skills upon graduation are all useless.


>>
Teenage Girl 14/07/29(Tue)21:39 No. 19843 ID: 6b0e32

>>>19828
Interesting video. One problem in their test. The ape is motivated to do well by the instant reward it receives for getting it right. A little bit of fruit or candy. The random human test punk has only the satisfaction of beating a chimp at a memory game. Not much incentive overall.

If they gave the guy some pussy or a shot of heroin every time he got it right you'd see his test scores go off the chart.


>>
Teenage Girl 14/07/30(Wed)07:13 No. 19845 ID: e9ee54

>>19843
Cocaine, not heroin. Heroin would put them into a stupor where they couldn't respond, cocaine would heighten their senses (until they had so much they went insane).


>>
Teenage Girl 14/07/31(Thu)00:58 No. 19850 ID: f86070

>>19845

Nah, sugar water would be even better. Scientists have done test with rats, and a rat hooked on heroin will, if introduced to sugar water, take it over the heroin.


>>
Teenage Girl 14/08/03(Sun)23:22 No. 19865 ID: d7250d

>De-evolution is real
Again with this misrepresentation of natural selection. Evolution has very little do to with any perception of progress. Traits that get you killed or prevent you from getting laid die out, and ones that don't get you killed stick around. It's as simple as that.

The most charitable and reasonable-sounding explanation behind everyone ever insisting that the newest generation is the worst one yet is the same reason why people tend to prefer genres of music that they listened to when they were young and impressionable. Another small part of the reason people notice it more today is the Internet. Before the Internet, people could be stupid without the whole world knowing about it.


>>
Teenage Girl 14/08/04(Mon)21:50 No. 19870 ID: d04121

>>19865
>Traits that get you killed or prevent you from getting laid die out

This is the problem: compassion and medical advancement are keeping the genetically inferior alive; nearly everyone--even the fattest most cringe-worthy beta--has the opportunity to procreate. In the very best case, we're creating our own evolutionary dead end. At least in the first world, there will be no further progress in the gene pool. In the worst case, we've created a system that favors the least useful traits over the most: survival and reproduction that depend not on strength or intellect, but dependence on those who have strength and intellect for protection.


>>
Teenage Girl 14/08/05(Tue)01:59 No. 19871 ID: 4f1abc

>>19870
That just means that we've changed the rules of the game slightly. That doesn't mean it won't still get played. Attaching a moral value to who benefits and who doesn't under which systems is pointless.

Besides, you're describing sociological concerns in the language of evolutionary biology. That's a bit like using a sledgehammer to tap in some finishing nails on your deck: while not entirely impossible, it's still the convoluted and more ridiculous-looking way of going about solving your problem.


>>
Teenage Girl 14/08/05(Tue)09:15 No. 19872 ID: d04121

>>19871
Trolling?

Only a troll could so easily dance away from simple logic and into the lala lands of self-delusion.


>>
Teenage Girl 14/08/05(Tue)19:26 No. 19873 ID: e9ee54

>>19870
>dependence on those who have strength and intellect for protection
That's a funny way of writing "dependence on those who, through nothing besides luck, were born into families of inherited wealth and will prosper even when they fail miserably time and time again (e.g. GWB)."


>>
Teenage Girl 14/08/06(Wed)20:15 No. 19879 ID: 180992

>>19873
Correct. I would only defend this statement to say that being born into high society is the result of an evolved strength: the strength of dynasty.

Dynasty is an improvement on the family unit, extending the family to a clan with selective breeding as a means of ensuring superior social and living conditions for one's progeny. This is distinctive from communal social behaviors in that it is non-inclusive and primarily parasitic on existing communities. The goal is to establish a particular family in leadership roles throughout a community, and particularly in the role of selecting the leadership, such that the family may fully disenfranchise the community of its resources and management. Initially forming dynasties required other skills such as military tactics, agricultural production or acquiring resources, but established dynasties tend to become completely dependent on parasitism for survival.

Like any other specialized trait, overspecialization may lead this population to extinction. If the community fails, the dynasty is likely to be lost with it. Selective breeding has resulted in to problems for dynasties: genetically unfit progeny and dwindling numbers. In the long term, it's possible they will be overrun by the vast mongrel hordes they once ruled.


>>
Teenage Girl 14/08/07(Thu)00:28 No. 19880 ID: e9ee54

>>19879
>I would only defend this statement to say that being born into high society is the result of an evolved strength
Evolved strength? You clearly have never met someone who was born into such a situation. They're the weakest of the weak, the most ignorant and disconnected group on the face of the planet. If not for their luck in the womb lottery they would be living on the streets.

A member of this group once famously mentioned that placing aspirin in a vagina is a functional method of birth control.


>>
Teenage Girl 14/08/07(Thu)12:48 No. 19882 ID: ea405d

>>19880
If you would read past the first sentence you'd notice that I cover this point within my definition of dynasty as an evolved social behavior.


>>
Teenage Girl 14/08/08(Fri)04:19 No. 19883 ID: e9ee54

>>19882
The problem is nuture, not nature. By allowing their progeny to live isolated lives with no meaningful interaction with normal people, it perpetuates fantasies of superiority due to their genetic lottery. This kind of idiotic thinking allows individuals to push through the implementation of patently crazy ideas, like that they should be allowed to live tax-free existences while simultaneously exploiting all the benefits that modern society has to offer.

The history of the world has shown that royal lines end violently, along with the aristocracy that supports them. Attempting to start a new royalty will end the same way. Yet they're attempting to do it all the same. Because >>19880


>>
Teenage+Swag 14/08/09(Sat)03:00 No. 19889 ID: 5798c1

And that is how we make the Planet of the Apes come true.

De-evolution.

They shouldn't be writing about Earth's past if they're so ignorant and dumb; they should be writing about their future (the Planet of the Apes).


>>
Teenage Girl 14/08/09(Sat)03:42 No. 19890 ID: e9ee54
19890

File 14075485774.jpg - (27.64KB , 460x335 , planet-of-the-apes.jpg )

>>19889
Except POTA isn't about de-evolution. It's about humanity destroying itself and apes evolving to take their place.

If anything it's about evolution. Left to its own devices, evolution will eventually replace an apex predator that dies out with a new apex predator. But the timeline in POTA is extremely optimistic, it would likely take far, far longer.


>>
16 year old tumblr user 14/08/09(Sat)23:25 No. 19893 ID: 5798c1

>>19890
Precisely.

If we were intelligent enough to keep evolving, do you think Apes would out-evolve and surpass us?


>>
Teenage Girl 14/08/10(Sun)00:44 No. 19894 ID: 86e709

I have yet to hear someones concept of de-evolution that isn't built upon the fallacy that evolution has a sense of direction or end product all previous generations were all building toward.

Evolution is mutation and both natural and artificial selection. Mutations aren't up to anyone yet, they're inherent in the structure of genes. But natural and artificial selection? How are you going to de-choose who you're making a babby with? Either you choose, or you make no babes, and neither evolve nor devolve.

If fifty generations of losers with poor eyesight all fuck other losers with poor eyesight, you haven't devolved poor eyesight, you've evolved poor eyesight in a subset of your species population. Eventually if they're isolated, say, they're shockingly ugly and the only people that will fuck them are other people with poor eyesight, and they find a way to survive in a world that looks like a monet painting & not die out, you'll have evolved a subspecies of hideous, blind, severely inbred office managers, and no one outside their little genetic culdesac could even successfully reproduce with if they wanted to, which they don't, you fat fucking disgusting cow, jesus christ have some self respect and get off my ass about the photocopier paper would ya for fucks sake it's 3 bucks for 500 sheets...


>>
Teenage Girl 14/08/18(Mon)20:37 No. 19914 ID: 0fbf54

>>19894

"De-evolution" has nothing to do with direction, except maybe down the toilet.

De-evolution is about the downfall of mankind by its own hand. Specifically technology. Computers, mass communication, television, hell even the automobile, were all wonderful ideas that were designed to entertain, educate, or make some part of the daily routine of being alive much easier, and they all succeded. The problem is they worked so well and they were marketed, and enhanced, and marketed, and simplified, and marketed that now they are the central focus of the human culture of most of the people in the world. Even people with no direct access to it all want that shit.

The real problem is human kind has allowed the proliferation of technology to make the species less effective as a group. There is more knowledge available now then ever before...but humans as a whole are now dumber then they may ever have been. And its not where there are no books, or an internet connection, its here, in our face.

Evolution relies on the mating of strong survivial traits. Humans are not the strongest, fastest, or even warmest creatures on this planet. We are the SMARTEST, most adapatable species. That is what we have going for us. So when the mating habits of modern humans has been skewed from that line, the race as a whole starts to suffer. People may have great jobs, a brand new car, shiney things on their arms, or pants that make their ass more round, but they are still stupid. Modern technology in all its forms has allowed people with no survial instinct, bad genetic traits, and weak minds to proliferate.

This is de-evolution.

Your comment on mutation is right on. I totally agree. The only way out of this IS mutation. Human "mutation" can come in many forms. What is pure mutation in the animal world can be helped along or proxied by human adaptation. Essentially we can choose to change all this. Find other beautful mutants and save humanity.


>>
Teenage Girl 14/08/19(Tue)04:46 No. 19915 ID: 789203

>>19914
>but humans as a whole are now dumber then they may ever have been
That's weird, because every method of measurement we have says the exact opposite. Although it's probably not genetics.
Where did you get this idea?


>>
Teenage Girl 14/08/20(Wed)21:36 No. 19920 ID: 0fbf54

>>19915

Did you not read the first post?


>>
Teenage Girl 14/08/21(Thu)01:12 No. 19921 ID: 10d6c2

>>19920
Do you not understand the scientific method and how it differs from the casual observations of laypeople?


>>
Teenage Girl 14/08/22(Fri)21:12 No. 19926 ID: 19844b

>>19915
Never bet on the literacy of internet users.

>>19921
1. Results found by scientific method =/= the observations of lay people because it is scientific is actually a fallacy.

2. Don't even bother with actual science on the internet; no one who didn't sleep through those classes in high school is here.


>>
Teenage Girl 14/08/23(Sat)01:24 No. 19928 ID: 10d6c2

>>19926
>because it is scientific is actually a fallacy
...
>Do you not understand the scientific method and how it differs from the casual observations of laypeople?
Do you have the reading comprehension of a fifth grader? Nowhere in that sentence does it even remotely infer that casual observations are in any way scientific.

>Don't even bother with actual science on the internet
In particular don't mention anything about ectopic pregnancies to 7chan's resident cranky old man. He insists they're a myth because pregnancies always work themselves out, and that he would know because it's his job to know. Or a similarly illogical reason - his stories tend to change from time to time, much they do in people with dementia.


>>
Teenage Girl 14/09/02(Tue)12:45 No. 19967 ID: 3690d0

>>19928
You've replied to at least two different people as if you were talking to one.

You're right about the resident crochety old quack(s). I would go so far as to say one should expect to lose when presenting scientifc fact supported by empirical data and decades of research in an internet argument: no one gives a shit about that stuff, the truth is invalid.


>>
Teenage Girl 14/09/08(Mon)06:00 No. 20007 ID: e9ee54

>>19967
>Replied
LURK MOAR


>>
Teenage Girl 14/09/08(Mon)21:45 No. 20008 ID: e48ce0

>>20007
seriously gay; only invoke the rules when you're right.


>>
Teenage Girl 14/09/09(Tue)23:18 No. 20010 ID: 10d6c2

>>20008
You may want to rethink that.

Dumbass >>19967 didn't realize that one of the people I was "replying to" was myself.

I quoted the reply >>19926 had replied to as a means of pointing out his level of dumbassitude.

Since >>19967 (and yourself) aren't doing anything more than casually glancing at poster IDs, shutting the fuck up and lurking moar would be a good plan for your futures.


>>
Teenage Girl 14/09/10(Wed)08:45 No. 20016 ID: e9ee54

>>20008
What makes you think I was wrong?


>>
Teenage Girl 14/09/10(Wed)18:15 No. 20018 ID: b9f5c7

>>20010
>>20016
I could sort this all out for you, but as I've already pointed out stupid people can never lose arguments so I'll just let you have this one.


>>
Teenage Girl 14/09/17(Wed)12:24 No. 20057 ID: cba213

Ok, samefag (by postid):
>>19926
>>19928

Now I get it, you are retarded. Were you attempting to dispute the point of >>19928? Because you fail by attempting.

In order to declare that scientific observations always trump the observations of laypeople, you'd have to:

1. Prove that lay observations never lead to the same conclusions as scientific observations (most of the time they do; a lot of science is backing up what people already know)

2. Prove that scientific observations are always more accurate than lay observations (scientists make mistakes too, and then lead entire generations of research off track)

3. Establish a means of differentiating scientific observations from lay observations (how scientific does "scientific" need to be? is an unaccredited person performing scientific observations still a lay person and their observations still lay observations? etc.)

In fact, lay people often observe and make conclusions about the phenomenon around them that are later backed up with scientific proof. Not to say they're as smart as scientists or that I don't prefer an expert's opinion.


>>
Teenage Girl 14/09/18(Thu)01:10 No. 20060 ID: 10d6c2

>>20057
>most of the time they do
So you're saying that animal/human sacrifices do have a direct impact on harvests, weather patterns, wealth, etc.

Gotcha.


>>
Teenage Girl 14/09/18(Thu)16:40 No. 20062 ID: a72381

>>20060
Let's find out!

Lay here on this table, and I'll summon Sithra while priests shove poisonous snakes in your throat and anus.


>>
Anotherfool 14/09/18(Thu)20:59 No. 20065 ID: b16efc

>American children have no critical thinking, problem solving, or basic math skills form 5th grade to high school, the grading and testing programs are biased

I can't even take this post seriously. I would like to take a moment and point out that overall, the US is retarded. Yet, if you take a look at individual State scores (cus you know... The US is a FEDERATION OF STATES), you will find that a large portion are well above the international average. Utah, for example, has higher SAT scores than South Korea (the highest average in the world). Iowa, has higher scores than Utah...


>>
Anotherfool 14/09/18(Thu)21:04 No. 20066 ID: b16efc

>>20065

Also, if de-evolution was real, then there should be scientific basis for the assumption. However, the recent resurgence of native tribes from the Amazon, proves that de-evolution is in fact... Not possible.

Cultural de-evolution, however, is a reality. Culture is something that is taught, learned, and remembered. Culture can be lost. Knowledge can be lost, but a physical de-evolution is not possible.


>>
Teenage Girl 16/11/01(Tue)00:46 No. 21265 ID: 293b0d

> De-evolution is real

You've been listening to Devo too much anon.


>>
Teenage Girl 16/11/01(Tue)03:46 No. 21266 ID: 5a53ee

>>21265
After two years I'm pretty sure he's either de-evolved himself or come to the realization that its not going to happen.


>>
Teenage Girl 16/11/02(Wed)09:31 No. 21269 ID: 9087a5
21269

File 147807548446.gif - (760.16KB , 400x294 , freedom of choice.gif )

>>21265

You may have a point. That doesn't make it wrong. Besides DEVO is a better alternative to most of the mind-fucking audio garbage being mass produced these days. How many Katie Perry Clones does this world need?

De-evolution has nothing to do with physical evolution. We have been adapting, or at least we are supposed to through physical culture. Modern technology, unfortunately, is systematically removing our human cultural ability to adapt, learn,and advance.

I watched two people today sway around in circles for 20 minutes outside an ATM machine on a busy street, both texting and doing what the fuck ever on their cell phones. They looked like spasming, strawberried, shock therapy patients. But oh, I look around me, and I see that's considered FUCKING NORMAL NOW! So yeah, I'm listening to a lot more DEVO now!


>>
Teenage Girl 16/11/02(Wed)18:55 No. 21270 ID: 15c08c

>>21269
When everyone else but you is changing, is it proper to say that they're the ones failing to adapt and not you? You can say all you want that their behavior is manifestly maladaptive, but consider how they're hooking up with each other on Tinder while you're stuck hooking up with your hand.

If you want to preserve humanity's cultural and intellectual advancement, contribute to it. This is National Novel Writing Month, after all, so you even have websites encouraging your commitment to enriching human culture. Getting mad that apathetic decadence actually works okay in the short term doesn't solve anything.


>>
Teenage Girl 16/11/03(Thu)05:44 No. 21271 ID: 2faca0

OK, maybe you need a little REO Speedwagon?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PdU6migsqQ


>>
Teenage Girl 16/11/04(Fri)17:01 No. 21273 ID: 0d6c66

You can go right to hell


>>
Teenage Girl 16/11/05(Sat)01:11 No. 21274 ID: a870df

>>21273
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4NsQYlmvZM


>>
Teenage Girl 16/11/30(Wed)19:43 No. 21321 ID: 617b9e

>>19823

This is a perfect example of the phenomenon that I am going to dub "ooo, shiny." You, OP, have presented a perfectly valid, reasonable, complex viewpoint that could birth much discussion, but instead, people fixate on one minor detail and expand upon it until it dominates the conversation. I have watched huge, often shallow conversations develop that have absolutely nothing to do with the original point of the topic being brought up at all, especially when the original topic is a deeper one or even remotely ambiguous or abstract. People seem to fixate on the easiest detail to comprehend and then expand upon it until room for real thought is lost. They also seem to demonstrate a lack of comprehension for anything not well-defined. (I'm not trying to pick on you, either, 19823, but this really does perfectly illustrate what I actually came here to say.)

There is another habit that people have that I will call "series-blindness." I have consistently observed this phenomenon when asking a series of questions to people of any age, be it in a written/electronic text or in person. The scenario for this is something like asking someone more than one question at a time like: "Hey, what movie would you like to see and what time would you like to go?" Even something as simple and easy to follow as this is answered with a resoundingly incomplete: "Oh, about nine o'clock would be good."

The reply above reveals a sort of mental block that I keep observing in people in which they seem totally incapable of keeping track of and responding to more than one thought in their mind at any given time. This phenomenon is especially present in text-messaging, especially if more than two questions are asked and/or if these questions are asked in more than one text-message. I can send one question in a text and then send a follow-up question immediately following it, and far, far more often than not (in fact, I cannot remember a time when it did not happen), the other person will reply to ONLY the last question in the series. I have seen this happen even when all of the questions are in the same message. The human beings that I interact with seem utterly incapable of even noticing that they are not noticing anything about the situation or series. They simply fixate on the last question presented and are blind to anything other than that. I observe this so often that I have stopped asking multiple questions to people and instead painstakingly pull the answers out of them one. at. a. time. so. I. get. the. information. that. I. need.

Our intelligence as a species is quite alarming, but I would suspect that we have always been somewhat dim-witted and crude. Or maybe the creatures that are most socially influential and that breed the most just happen to be consistently lower-minded. We seem to persecute those with above-average intelligence as a species pretty frequently anyway, though we also have a weird habit of glorifying them later (and often inaccurately).


>>
Teenage Girl 16/12/01(Thu)11:34 No. 21322 ID: 5a53ee

>>21321
This is a perfect example of how no post on 7chan can ever truly die, and is instead kept in a perpetual half-alive half-dead state from which it, and the site itself, can never escape.


>>
Teenage Girl 16/12/04(Sun)06:39 No. 21325 ID: 77a501

>>21321
>ooo, shiny
On the internet, it's called thread derailment. It does happen in face-to-face conversations as well, but I think personal interaction limits the degree to which one particiapant can deviate from the discussion at hand, whereas online interaction allows for immediate, less-than-tagenitally-related discussions to initiate in the midst of any other.

>series-blindness
People are dumb. You want efficiency and responsiveness? Make AI friends. Humans are seriously limited, and always will be. We can barely comprehend a group of more than four objects without counting them, we hear selectively, and we tend not to respond to things that make us, even subconciously, uncomfortable--no matter how absolutely required or obvious our response should be. Maybe your friend wanted you to choose the movie, but prioritized the schedule for their self-interests.

Just be glad you don't live in Japan.

Example:
I intend to ask: "What movie would you like to see and what time would you like to go?" Assume these conversations happen in japanese; it wouldn't be much use to you if i typed it all out in moonrunes.

For completion's sake, let's ask it just that way once:
Me: "What movie would you like to see and what time would you like to go?"
Jap: "eh? mov? have schedule."
Result: Failure, Jap has made up a fake appointment to get out of this uncomfortable conversation. don't take it personally, they are avoiding this conversation, not you--they probably don't remember that you have (inspecific) plans to see a movie together and think you intend to go right now even though you asked them what time they want to go. furthermore, two questions at once is a huge amount of pressure and without detailed advanced planning, your plans are likely to be considered optional or non-existing.

Let's try that again, and break it own for our logic inhibitted friend:
Me (one week in advance): "What movie should we watch?"
Jap: *some awful hollywood blockbuster with no plot, lots of special effects, and a lead actor or actress who was hot thirty years ago*
Me: "Great, what day and time should we go?"
Jap: "er, wanted go, have schedule week."
Result: Failure, Jap has again created (a week-long) fake appointment to avoid answering uncomfortable questions about time. Time is very important to Japanese people, and not to be discussed or inquired about lightly.

One more time, this time, with a little more prep work:
Me (two weeks in advance): Hey Jap, did you know *worthwhile film* is playing at *some theatre*?
Jap: Rly? Time?
Me: Seven o'clock, eight thirty, and ten on weekends.
Jap: Fri/10?
Me: Friday, this week--December 9th--or Friday, next week--December 12th?
Jap: Fri/12! have schedule Fri/9.
Me (two weeks later): Ready to go to the movie?
Jap: Yeah, watch *horrible hollywood blockbuster* at 9:30? at theatre, u late?
Result: Success? Jap arrived the standard half hour or more early, and has changed your movie plans to something tasteless and awful--but probably easier to break the language barrier (awful movies tend to be easier to translate for some reason and are always more popular in japan than their countries of origin). It is important that you make plans a minimum of two weeks in advance and avoid the possibility that Jap will feel even the slightest bit of hastiness in your planning (resulting in immediate failure). It is also essential that you be prepared for Jap to change anything unexpectedly (they will see it as a slight modification of the parameters of the original plan, no matter how drastic the change).


>>
Teenage Girl 16/12/04(Sun)17:12 No. 21326 ID: 2d1065

>>21325
Japan: The place where autism was born.


>>
Teenage Girl 16/12/15(Thu)16:48 No. 21330 ID: 2ede8c

>>21326
The birthrate of children with add, adhd, and autsim spectrum disorders in Japan is sharply rising while the general birthrate continues to dwindle. Meanwhile healthcare is improving and life expectancies for men and women are longer every census--but little can be done about senility, senile dementia, and alzheimers.

I think the japanese are facing genetic implosion and will be extinct within a few generations.


>>
Teenage Girl 16/12/16(Fri)01:07 No. 21331 ID: fccd8d

>>21330

Are they too racist to mate outside their gene-pool?

Hey look at that! the thread is back on Devolution again. Well done chaps!


>>
Teenage Girl 16/12/17(Sat)16:51 No. 21334 ID: c3286f

>>21331
>Are they too racist to mate outside their gene-pool?
Yes and no. It's still rare, but "half" children are a valued commodity, regarded as inherently more cute than full-blooded Japanese and some Japanese women are willing to have children with foriegners to get them, but tend to discard the barbarian male shortly after childbirth.

Note the way I am talking about children as things is absolutely intended--it is not different from going to the store to get a puppy only for it to grow too big to take care of.

After adolescence, you find most of these kids being bullied in school, getting involved in drugs and gangs, or otherwise maligned and exluded from society. That could be expected, given most are raised without a father (the divorce rate for international couples in Japan is very high and a woman who already has children cannot remarry) in a country that regards half their genetic heritage as barbarian filth. Those who are unable to leave the country will be raised to disregard or even disdain their non-japanese heritage. Many do not attend high school (it isn't mandatory) and few go to college; almost none enter adult life with any upward mobility. Even if they miraculously graduate for a good university, "good" companies will not hire people who do not have black hair and eyes and there is no "racial equailty" law to protect them (the Japanese do not consider that there are any other races to be protected in their country--lots of these people dye their hair and wear contacts just so they don't get harrased all day). You do see one or two on TV ever year though, either as a musician or a comedian (ie, the only ways black people could get famous in the US just a few decades ago).

>the thread is back on Devolution again. Well done chaps!
7chan :D


>>
Teenage Girl 16/12/22(Thu)14:40 No. 21335 ID: e4210a

>>19843
Reminds me of the fallacies of the marshmallow test:

1) Maybe the kid just wants one marshmallow.
2) Maybe the kid doesn't trust the adult.



[Return]


Delete post []
Password  
Report post
Reason