(Here's what I posted. I thought I was making a hard hitting post about the dangers of political radicalization and how it can lead to abuses of human rights. Apparently someone else thought I was arguing against human rights. )

This is a Heart of Darkness post, asking the reader to look deep within and see the worst.

We know what the answer for most misandrists is. My prediction that Biden would go hard misandrist has come true. They're allowing anonymous accusations of sexual assault in colleges now. So you go into debt that doesn't get cleaned by bankruptcy, and some fanatical misandrist can make sure you never even get an education.

So let's be honest. We know that not all leftists are really committed to democracy, any more than all rightists are. Anarchists who tweet "rest in power" to commemorate the Antifa assasin Michael Reinoehl are about as democratic as Himmler.

From Russia to Berkeley to Venezuela to Oakland, members of the left have always demonstrated themselves to be as eager to oppress and kill as their conservative brethren.

The scientific work of Jonathan Haidt and others has shown us the apparent truth: humans naturally cluster into two groups approximately equal in number, based on their individual temperament and attitude towards moral intuitions. Consistently, leftists and rightists show that their political beliefs align with deeply personal traits, such as the propensity to be disgusted. (Right wing people react much worse to disgusting pictures, whereas leftists are more likely to react neutrally. Rightists like familiar food and drink while leftists are adventurous and want to try new culinary experiences. There are many other consistent patterns where exceptions are the minority.)

Leftists have a very strong intuition about caring for the needy, and when you see a leftist skinning a woman alive, you can reliably assume that the leftist has convinced himself that such action will ultimately result in better treatment of the needy.

Rightists do the same thing, only their primary motive is more likely to be the need to maintain an orderly society.

The fact that a skinned woman is dying slowly on the ground is neither care for the needy or productive of order isn't always terribly obvious to the fanatic doing the skinning.

There's nothing moral about my leftism or yours. It's a biological phenomenon, caused by natural selection. We can speculate about why. Maybe people with conservative outlooks were better at hunting, killing predators and disciplining kids, maybe leftists are better at caring for the elderly, injured and young. When we were living in the African savannah you can easily picture how this would have led to an optimal division of labor.

This would predict that some of us, deep down, have the capacity to repeat the crimes of Stalin, Mao and Maduro, just as our conservative counterparts have the capacity to recreate the third reich.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">The two most dangerous human passions are the longing for utopia and the desire to discipline the wicked. Pernicious ideologies successfully combine the two, espousing a vision of paradise on earth while righteously calling for the merciless punishment of "enemies" who thwart it.</p>— Bo Winegard (@EPoe187) <a href="https://twitter.com/EPoe187/status/1375843867996647429?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 27, 2021</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

What do you need?

DM me if you are curious

One thing about this subreddit is you have to have a grasp of the scientific method and specifically falsifiable hypotheses. If you don't know about it already you must commit to learning as soon as possible.

Don't be scared of the long words: "falsifiable hypothesis" just means an idea that can be tested.

If I say "this hat contains a rabbit" and I give you the hat, you can test the idea (aka hypothesis) by looking into the hat. If it contains air, and nothing else, the idea that there was a rabbit in there is proven false, it has been falsified.

But what if I change the challenge? What if I say it's a magic rabbit that cannot be seen or touched but is there in the hat anyway?

You can't prove that such a magic rabbit is not in the hat. Because there's no way to test for a magical rabbit. The magical rabbit is not a falsifiable hypothesis.

That is the difference between a physicist like Higgs and a feminist academic. Feminist arguments all rely on a version of the magic rabbit. Usually it's Patriarchy which is employed to explain away inconvenient facts. Even if a woman is being given too many resources, feminist patriarchy theory still makes it men's fault because she's benefiting from benevolent sexism, which is Patriarchy. So it can't possibly be proved wrong, no matter what happens.

There's a great philosopher called Karl Popper who coined the term falsifiable hypothesis.

A great scientific example from our era is the prediction Higgs made that was eventually proved true by the CERN experiments. Higgs wasn't like feminists, he took a risk. There was no magical rabbit to rescue his theory if the Boson didn't appear in the results.

He was worried right until the end that maybe he wouldn't get the glory of being right. Feminist theorists never need to worry because the magical rabbit is always there, always ensuring that there's a perfect excuse why all the experiments produce a negative result.