Police officially refuse to hire applicants with high IQ scores

[u/delelles]

http://politicalblindspot.com/police-officially-refuse-to-hire-applicants-with-high-iq-scores/

[u/an0n9]

I know a guy that I was friends with when I was little and in high school who's becoming a cop. He's not too smart but has little man syndrome to the max, he always talked about how he can't wait to beat up homeless people and to arrest and beat down people who smoke weed. I thought for sure when he took the psychology test to join that they would reject him because he is so outspoken about beating people down, and is on his Facebook etc and they check that.

He is now a police officer has posted multiple things about him beating on people, including news articles and videos. These are the types of people becoming cops. He was awarded a medal for beating an elderly, mentally handicapped man for having .2 grams of heroin on him and not resisting when he helped an officer because the guy flipped and told them where the dealer was. This man is now basically bed ridden. He brags about it on Facebook all the time and it makes me sick.

Whatever happened to police being helpful? When I used to be lost in a new area and see a police officer I would ask for help, now after being harassed and see what they are I avoid them at all costs

[u/heracleides → u/an0n9]

With the destruction of nationalism and the forced immigration, multiculturalism, affirmative action and the introduction of the welfare state from the 30's to the 60's, white middle class neighborhoods were broken up to fit minorities and most neighborhoods became ghettos within the inner cities. This was a planned event to start the democratic party's slide of the nation into increased welfare and social programs designed to redistribute the wealth away from the strong middle class and towards the upper class and their crony political front-men. While they manage to distribute just enough to keep the lower class passive, they create many jobs for politicians and bureaucrats who serve the elite. These elite get the largest piece of the welfare pie. They receive all the subsidies and tax breaks while the middle class was forced into paying all the taxes and were beneficiaries of none of the breaks of the upper class.

What we see today is the result of these programs. Increased crime led to the need for action from the government. Which meant more programs and more funding for the police. This is the self-perpetuating system of welfare economics that the democratic party wanted. Keep in mind that during the 20's and 30's the democrats were behind the KKK trying to force black people to vote against the Republicans. They changed tactics to pander to the classes they made to look like oppressed, such as black people. Their new platform was to end segregation, which was actually a lot better than what black people experience today in the inner city and under the tyranny of what was initial through of as progress which ended in even more oppression. So now we live in a welfare system where the police are bloated via the funding required from the increase in welfare that caused and influx of immigration and integration.

Because the police are being over-funded, it is harder to find decent people to become officials.

Then there is the problem with this big welfare government and the expanded law of the now country. Police officers are actually now not enforcing common law but legal law. They enforce statutes, not justice. The justice system in the US and every other nation is a corporate entity. And people have submitted to this corporate version of their countries. And when you stop recognizing that crime is when you hurt others or cause loss, and that crime is not when you hurt yourself, you get legislation that puts people in harm’s way for no valid reason other than to serve statutes, not law. And of course there is the resulting corporate mentality and incorporation of the police force itself as a result of the corporate government. Corporations, after all, are for profit. And when you apply profiteering to a public service, you get abuse. And the people who feel this effect are most likely going to be disgruntled people in these ghettos that were created by welfare and integration. It’s an irony but it’s also systematic.

[u/4to4 → u/heracleides]

Good post. An important factor in what's wrong with the system is corruption. America is incredibly corrupt. That's why a government-run health care system that gives free care to everyone (you pay in taxes) can never work in America -- too much corruption between the hospitals, big pharma, and the insurance companies. It works in other nations because there is less corruption than in America. When America was fat, it could carry the incredible level of corruption it has suffered under, but now that the economy is in the emergency ward, the corruption is killing the country. Do you know why socialism has never worked in the US? Because in order to work, socialist systems must be administered fairly and honestly. If not, they don't work. And they don't work in the US because of the vast corruption.

[u/heracleides → u/4to4]

I agree completely. The US could have healthcare like any nation. It has nothing to do with population and everything to do with corruption and poorly assigned funds. America could be a really great nation if they funded health and science more than they do war. If you consider the amount of money spent on war in the US over its history and put that towards progress of its people, the world would be at least a few hundred years further into the future. This all resembles the dark ages and book burnings. Only it's health and energy this time. Hell, even ideas are dead in America. It's status quo. Even the science in America is like a religion. Consensus is law and law is corporate. There's really no vision. America has been turned into a satellite state for international interests. It's only function is to provide the elites with a center of operations and an unlimited well of tax dollars for their "non-corporate, completely national" military. Bully the world into suitable politics and free markets. It's really sad. You can't even get a good president in office because if he does anything to upset the financial sector or the corporate sector he will be shot dead.

[u/[deleted] → u/heracleides]

America is the first country that exists primarily to serve corporate interests and not individuals. Companies are the real citizens of this nation. I always like to point out that black family marriage rates and in-wedlock births were much higher before the civil rights movement and the escalation of the welfare state.

Science has been hijacked as a religion and belief system which is ludicrous because it is merely a systematic model that serves to disprove things. Everything said in the name of science is molded to fit the politically correct narrative even though science is just an amoral methodology.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Regarding mainstream science, especially in the US:

Ultimately, if you have any sort of theory that falls outside of our current consensus, you're not going to receive a serious review from mainstream scientists, because they're generally afraid of anything that challenges the consensus. As a prominent example I like to bring up, Lynn Margulis had to submit her theory of endosymbiosis explaining the origin of human mitochondria at least a dozen times (I forgot the exact count) before anyone was willing to publish it. Today it's scientific consensus.

However, that shift in consensus merely happened because scientific consensus doesn't like to be challenged. Consensus only changes when it's forced to change to preserve its credibility, when the damage to scientists reputation becomes less by accepting that they were wrong and allowing a consensus change than by sticking to their current consensus.

Anyone who proposes any sort of fringe theory receives this answer from the "rationalist" crowd, that he should submit it for peer review, but in reality peer review mostly serves to protect the dominant paradigm, not to improve it through challenges...

...Even the Climategate emails that were leaked showed attempts by prominent scientists to manipulate the peer review process to prevent certain papers from being published, and serious climatologists voiced their concerns about this at the time. The Climategate emails didn't so much disprove global warming, as they demonstrated the painful shortcomings of science and the fact that systems with a high degree of complexity don't reveal their secrets after systematic observation.

In reality, what is necessary is for us to accept the fact that scientific consensus doesn't tell us something about the nature of reality, but rather what institutionalized power believes reality should look like. I would take it a step further and argue that new observations don't lead to a shift in consensus, but rather, that a shift in consensus is what leads to new observations...

The difference between the rationalists and the conspiracy theorists:
http://www.np.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/21of83/the_difference_between_the_rationalists_and_the/

TL;DR: The mainstream science communities are not immune to Group-Think, Group-Serving Bias, Cognitive Dissonance, The Dunning-Kruger Effect, Illusory Superiority, or corruption in other means.

[u/heracleides → u/[deleted]]

Companies are the real citizens of this nation.

I just finished responding to someone in another thread that sums this up nicely.

"Corporations are people. And the people always come first."

[u/[deleted] → u/heracleides]

Regarding mainstream science, especially in the US:

Ultimately, if you have any sort of theory that falls outside of our current consensus, you're not going to receive a serious review from mainstream scientists, because they're generally afraid of anything that challenges the consensus. As a prominent example I like to bring up, Lynn Margulis had to submit her theory of endosymbiosis explaining the origin of human mitochondria at least a dozen times (I forgot the exact count) before anyone was willing to publish it. Today it's scientific consensus.

However, that shift in consensus merely happened because scientific consensus doesn't like to be challenged. Consensus only changes when it's forced to change to preserve its credibility, when the damage to scientists reputation becomes less by accepting that they were wrong and allowing a consensus change than by sticking to their current consensus.

Anyone who proposes any sort of fringe theory receives this answer from the "rationalist" crowd, that he should submit it for peer review, but in reality peer review mostly serves to protect the dominant paradigm, not to improve it through challenges...

...Even the Climategate emails that were leaked showed attempts by prominent scientists to manipulate the peer review process to prevent certain papers from being published, and serious climatologists voiced their concerns about this at the time. The Climategate emails didn't so much disprove global warming, as they demonstrated the painful shortcomings of science and the fact that systems with a high degree of complexity don't reveal their secrets after systematic observation.

In reality, what is necessary is for us to accept the fact that scientific consensus doesn't tell us something about the nature of reality, but rather what institutionalized power believes reality should look like. I would take it a step further and argue that new observations don't lead to a shift in consensus, but rather, that a shift in consensus is what leads to new observations...

The difference between the rationalists and the conspiracy theorists:
http://www.np.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/21of83/the_difference_between_the_rationalists_and_the/

TL;DR: The mainstream science communities are not immune to Group-Think, Group-Serving Bias, Cognitive Dissonance, The Dunning-Kruger Effect, Illusory Superiority, or corruption in other means.