(((They))) are LITERALLY planning to put hormones in the drinking water in Europe to make them more accepting of "refugees"

[–] Tree_Snake 0 points 11 points 11 points (+11|-0) 2 days ago

There are all sorts of reasons to nerf the populace. We've been drinking hormones in our water for years.

There are all sorts of reasons to nerf the populace. We've been drinking [hormones in our water](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bisphenol_A) for years.

permalink

[–] ditch-digger 0 points 7 points 7 points (+7|-0) 2 days ago

such as water bottles, sports equipment, CDs, and DVDs

They left out cheap coffee machines. I think that one is the most dangerous as heated liquids rushing by these plastics will snag a portion of the BPA. Although leaving water bottles in the heat (back of car) for long enough can be worse.

> such as water bottles, sports equipment, CDs, and DVDs

They left out cheap coffee machines.  I think that one is the most dangerous as heated liquids rushing by these plastics will snag a portion of the BPA.  Although leaving water bottles in the heat (back of car) for long enough can be worse.

[–] RoBatten 0 points 4 points 4 points (+4|-0) 2 days ago

I don't use a coffee machine because of this. I brew by pouring water directly into a basket of fresh ground coffee beans. Fuckoff Starfucks, mine is a lot better and way cheaper . . .

I don't use a coffee machine because of this. I brew by pouring water directly into a basket of fresh ground coffee beans. Fuckoff Starfucks, mine is a lot better and way cheaper . . .

1 reply

[–] BaldersNightmares 0 points 11 points 11 points (+11|-0) 2 days ago

For fuck sakes... The violence have to start soon, or europe is toast.

For fuck sakes... The violence have to start soon, or europe is toast.

permalink

[–] dooob 1 points 2 points 3 points (+3|-1) 2 days ago

Europe is mostly toast. Poland and Hungary might save us but it would require a full blown civil/world war.

Europe is mostly toast. Poland and Hungary might save us but it would require a full blown civil/world war.

[–] BaldersNightmares 1 points 1 points 2 points (+2|-1) 2 days ago

To be honest i would not really count on east europe to save us. They might prove helpful but they are poor and not really that good themselves.

I think there is still time for us.

To be honest i would not really count on east europe to save us. They might prove helpful but they are poor and not really that good themselves. 

I think there is still time for us.

3 replies

[–] forgetme 0 points 7 points 7 points (+7|-0) 2 days ago

How can xenophobia be reduced and altruism strengthened?

Fuck that is an evil and frightening question that no one seems to care about.

Fucking WOW.

The question should be: Why xenophobia and increase altruism?

>How can xenophobia be reduced and altruism strengthened?

Fuck that is an evil and frightening question that no one seems to care about.

Fucking WOW.

The question should be: Why xenophobia and increase altruism?

permalink

[–] Muh-Shugana 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) 1.9 days ago (edited 1.9 days ago)

Do ya remember that research they performed where they shut down the 'racist' (see: threat assessment) part of the brain, thus increasing peoples trust of foreigners?

Yeaaap. They will damage our brains directly in order to make us accept their dominion over us.

Do ya remember that research they performed where they shut down the 'racist' (see: threat assessment) part of the brain, thus increasing peoples trust of foreigners?

Yeaaap. They *will* damage our brains *directly* in order to make us accept their dominion over us.

[–] shadow332 [S] 0 points 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) 1.4 days ago

That's right. I'm not saying the study is legit. It's totally biased and a stupid study. What bothers me is why they picked those parameters to begin with.

That's right. I'm not saying the study is legit. It's totally biased and a stupid study. What bothers me is why they picked those parameters to begin with.

[–] DrShitlord 0 points 5 points 5 points (+5|-0) 2 days ago (edited 2 days ago)

I know this is /v/Identitarian, but please let's have the science talk.

Oxytocin is unlikely to be successfully administered through ingestion (source), it is also rapidly metabolized. So the idea that they want to put oxytocin into the drinking water is not chemically feasible. Oxytocin also has a shitload of functions. The list of side effects would be so large that any conspiracy to put it in the drinking water would quickly blow up.

Furthermore, I want to look at the experiment. The psychological challenge was: "help locals vs. help refugees". It is likely that the wording was "refugees", which in the general population is understood as such - I think most identitarians would agree that temporarily housing a non-critical number of actual war refugees for the duration of the war would be okay. Furthermore, the challenge was very abstract: you didn't see pictures of people in need, their stories or anything else, just a short text. Next, the study population in psychological studies often are university students, which tend to be liberal. So it could have been an intervention to put an already overly altruistic mind on high speed.

As I said, oxytocin has a multitude of functions. In another study (same journal!), oxytocin promotes human ethnocentrism:

Results show that oxytocin creates intergroup bias because oxytocin motivates in-group favoritism and, to a lesser extent, out-group derogation. These findings call into question the view of oxytocin as an indiscriminate “love drug” or “cuddle chemical” and suggest that oxytocin has a role in the emergence of intergroup conflict and violence.

So, calm your pants, please. The functions of hormones are not as easily translatable into behavior as it might seem. The anti-testosterone cult of the pseudoscientific left included.

And now for the downvotes.

I know this is /v/Identitarian, but please let's have the science talk.

Oxytocin is unlikely to be successfully administered through ingestion ([source](http://www.vetpharm.uzh.ch/reloader.htm?wir/00000005/0566_03.htm?wir/00000005/0566_00.htm)), it is also rapidly metabolized. So the idea that they want to put oxytocin into the drinking water is not chemically feasible. Oxytocin also has a shitload of functions. The list of side effects would be so large that any conspiracy to put it in the drinking water would quickly blow up.

Furthermore, I want to look at the experiment. The psychological challenge was: "help locals vs. help refugees". It is likely that the wording was "refugees", which in the general population is understood as such - I think most identitarians would agree that *temporarily* housing a non-critical number of *actual* war refugees for the duration of the war would be okay. Furthermore, the challenge was very abstract: you didn't see pictures of people in need, their stories or anything else, just a short text. Next, the study population in psychological studies often are university students, which tend to be liberal. So it could have been an intervention to put an already overly altruistic mind on high speed.

As I said, oxytocin has a multitude of functions. In another study (same journal!), [oxytocin promotes human ethnocentrism](http://www.pnas.org/content/108/4/1262.abstract):

> Results show that oxytocin creates intergroup bias because oxytocin motivates in-group favoritism and, to a lesser extent, out-group derogation. These findings call into question the view of oxytocin as an indiscriminate “love drug” or “cuddle chemical” and suggest that oxytocin has a role in the emergence of intergroup conflict and violence.

So, calm your pants, please. The functions of hormones are not as easily translatable into behavior as it might seem. The anti-testosterone cult of the pseudoscientific left included.

And now for the downvotes.

I know this is /v/Identitarian, but please let's have the science talk.

Oxytocin is unlikely to be successfully administered through ingestion ([source](http://www.vetpharm.uzh.ch/reloader.htm?wir/00000005/0566_03.htm?wir/00000005/0566_00.htm)), it is also rapidly metabolized. So the idea that they want to put oxytocin into the drinking water is not chemically feasible. Oxytocin also has a shitload of functions. The list of side effects would be so large that any conspiracy to put it in the drinking water would quickly blow up.

Furthermore, I want to look at the experiment. The psychological challenge was: "help locals vs. help refugees". It is likely that the wording was "refugees", which in the general population is understood as such - I think most identitarians would agree that *temporarily* housing a non-critical number of *actual* war refugees for the duration of the war would be okay. Furthermore, the challenge was very abstract: you didn't see pictures of people in need, their stories or anything else, just a short text. Next, the study population in psychological studies often are university students, which tend to be liberal. So it could have been an intervention to put an already overly altruistic mind on high speed.

As I said, oxytocin has a multitude of functions. In another study (same journal!), [oxytocin promotes human ethnocentrism](http://www.pnas.org/content/108/4/1262.abstract):

> Results show that oxytocin creates intergroup bias because oxytocin motivates in-group favoritism and, to a lesser extent, out-group derogation. These findings call into question the view of oxytocin as an indiscriminate “love drug” or “cuddle chemical” and suggest that oxytocin has a role in the emergence of intergroup conflict and violence. 

So, calm your pants, please. The functions of hormones are not as easily translatable into behavior as it might seem. The anti-testosterone cult of the pseudoscientific left included.

And now for the downvotes.

permalink

[–] TimberWolfAlpha 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) 1.7 days ago

I think most identitarians would agree that temporarily housing a non-critical number of actual war refugees for the duration of the war would be okay.

Actual Women and Children MAYBE. Fighting age males? fuck that. They want the benefits of a first world country, they can invite us to colonize theirs. Or they can fight for their homeland.

>I think most identitarians would agree that temporarily housing a non-critical number of actual war refugees for the duration of the war would be okay.

Actual Women and Children MAYBE. Fighting age males? fuck that. They want the benefits of a first world country, they can invite us to colonize theirs. Or they can fight for their homeland.

[–] DrShitlord 0 points 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) 1.3 days ago (edited 1.3 days ago)

Depends on the specific context, but yes. If you were part of a minority, have no firepower and no way of self-defense (i.e. Copts in Egypt) and the situation would be that of a genocide, then I'd accept fighting age males. Otherwise, a fighting age male "fleeing" a war is almost exclusively a traitor or deserter.

Depends on the specific context, but yes. If you were part of a minority, have no firepower and no way of self-defense (i.e. Copts in Egypt) and the situation would be that of a genocide, then I'd accept fighting age males. Otherwise, a fighting age male "fleeing" a war is almost exclusively a traitor or deserter.

[–] shadow332 [S] 0 points 1 points 1 points (+1|-0) 1.4 days ago (edited 1.4 days ago)

Thanks DrShitlord for providing the details. You're not on plebbit so I doubt some fat stupid dumbfuck is going to downvote you because you know more than them.

The study itself is complete garbage. I don't even know how something that like that in its proposal phase was admitted.

This is the part that bothers me:

why are these parameters even set for a study? (xenophobia, refugees, non-refugees)
how did this proposal get past a commission of fellow academics where no one raised his hand and said that the study is just a waste of time and money?

This study itself is complete shite, biased, and completely untestable. This is psychology crap mixed with some effects of oxytocin. Like you mentioned, oxytocin has so many effects, singlng out one to attribute to alleviating some socially (and further politically) motivated factors is complete nonesense.

What we can gather from this though, is that the basic intention in the minds of these "academics" is that they find 1. xenophobia problematic and 2. it should be alleviated. Otherwise why would they set up a study like that to begin with?

This is what is bothering me about the study most of all. When you have these intentions, and such things will get funding, you can see where this will go.

Thanks DrShitlord for providing the details. You're not on plebbit so I doubt some fat stupid dumbfuck is going to downvote you because you know more than them.

The study itself is complete garbage. I don't even know how something that like that in its proposal phase was admitted.

This is the part that bothers me:

- why are these parameters even set for a study? (xenophobia, refugees, non-refugees)
- how did this proposal get past a commission of fellow academics where no one raised his hand and said that the study is just a waste of time and money?

This study itself is complete shite, biased, and completely untestable. This is psychology crap mixed with some effects of oxytocin. Like you mentioned, oxytocin has so many effects, singlng out one to attribute to alleviating some socially (and further politically) motivated factors is complete nonesense.

What we can gather from this though, is that the basic intention in the minds of these "academics" is that they find 1. xenophobia problematic and 2. it should be alleviated. Otherwise why would they set up a study like that to begin with?

This is what is bothering me about the study most of all. When you have these intentions, and such things will get funding, you can see where this will go.

Thanks DrShitlord for providing the details. You're not on plebbit so I doubt some fat stupid dumbfuck is going to downvote you because you know more than them.

The study itself is complete garbage. I don't even know how something that like that in its proposal phase was admitted.  

This is the part that bothers me:

- why are these parameters even set for a study? (xenophobia, refugees, non-refugees)
- how did this proposal get past a commission of fellow academics where no one raised his hand and said that the study is just a waste of time and money?

This study itself is complete shite, biased, and completely untestable. This is psychology crap mixed with some effects of oxytocin. Like you mentioned, oxytocin has so many effects, singlng out one to attribute to alleviating some socially (and further politically) motivated factors is complete nonesense.

What we can gather from this though, is that the basic intention in the minds of these "academics" is that they find 1. xenophobia problematic and 2. it should be alleviated. Otherwise why would they set up a study like that to begin with? 

This is what is bothering me about the study most of all. When you have these intentions, and such things will get funding, you can see where this will go.

[–] DrShitlord 0 points 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) 1.3 days ago

Full agreement. I think the political agenda behind this is pretty obvious, but for the sake of argument let me play the devil's advocate. Suppose you are a boring scientist who has nothing to offer than pushing a hormone into noses and then do a psychometric test, but you need funding. What you could do is tie your useless research to some hot topic that panders to the powers that be - "refugees"! At least, that's how the losers in our faculty did it back in my days. The other way of getting funding was not publishing your latest, but your second-latest research and claim you want money for doing your already-finished latest experiment, you know the results beforehand and with the money you can do research on the next topic.

Peer review for funding has become a travesty. The idiocy is funding ideas, not good people. See Manhattan project. Ask angel investors. They'll tell the same.

Also, we should accept the fact that science is not always self-correcting and act accordingly:

Some prominent scientists and philosophers have stated openly that moral and political considerations should influence whether we accept or promulgate scientific theories. [...] It is suggested that misrepresenting findings in science to achieve desirable social goals will ultimately harm both science and society.

Interesting paper, deals with the flawed and biased research on intelligence.

Full agreement. I think the political agenda behind this is pretty obvious, but for the sake of argument let me play the devil's advocate. Suppose you are a boring scientist who has nothing to offer than pushing a hormone into noses and then do a psychometric test, but you need funding. What you could do is tie your useless research to some hot topic that panders to the powers that be - "refugees"! At least, that's how the losers in our faculty did it back in my days. The other way of getting funding was *not* publishing your latest, but your second-latest research and claim you want money for doing your already-finished latest experiment, you know the results beforehand and with the money you can do research on the next topic.

Peer review for funding has become a travesty. The idiocy is funding ideas, not good people. See Manhattan project. Ask angel investors. They'll tell the same.

Also, we should accept the fact that [science is not always self-correcting](https://www.gwern.net/docs/iq/2015-cofnas.pdf) and act accordingly:

> Some prominent scientists and philosophers have stated openly that moral and political considerations should influence whether we accept or promulgate scientific theories. [...] It is suggested that misrepresenting findings in science to achieve desirable social goals will ultimately harm both science and society.

Interesting paper, deals with the flawed and biased research on intelligence.

Full agreement. I think the political agenda behind this is pretty obvious, but for the sake of argument let me play the devil's advocate. Suppose you are a boring scientist who has nothing to offer than pushing a hormone into noses and then do a psychometric test, but you need funding. What you could do is tie your useless research to some hot topic that panders to the powers that be - "refugees"! At least, that's how the losers in our faculty did it back in my days. The other way of getting funding was *not* publishing your latest, but your second-latest research and claim you want money for doing your already-finished latest experiment, you know the results beforehand and with the money you can do research on the next topic.

Peer review for funding has become a travesty. The idiocy is funding ideas, not good people. See Manhattan project. Ask angel investors. They'll tell the same.

Also, we should accept the fact that [science is not always self-correcting](https://www.gwern.net/docs/iq/2015-cofnas.pdf) and act accordingly:

> Some prominent scientists and philosophers have stated openly that moral and political considerations should influence whether we accept or promulgate scientific theories. [...] It is suggested that misrepresenting findings in science to achieve desirable social goals will ultimately harm both science and society.

Interesting paper, deals with the flawed and biased research on intelligence.

[–] Slim_Jimmy 0 points 1 points 1 points (+1|-0) 1.7 days ago (edited 1.7 days ago)

Still, this is very disturbing:

“Given the right circumstances, oxytocin may help promote the acceptance and integration of migrants into Western cultures,” says Hurlemann.

Still, this is very disturbing:

>“Given the right circumstances, oxytocin may help promote the acceptance and integration of migrants into Western cultures,” says Hurlemann.

[–] Sosacms 0 points 3 points 3 points (+3|-0) 2 days ago

(((They))) will be the ones to pump PAX into the air and create Reavers. And the left will call us bigots for not welcoming them with open arms. #NotAllReavers.

(((They))) will be the ones to pump PAX into the air and create Reavers. And the left will call us bigots for not welcoming them with open arms. #NotAllReavers.

permalink

[–] Groomzilla 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) 2 days ago

He tried to warn you

[He tried to warn you](http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view8/4595407/alex-jones-o.gif)

permalink

[–] elitch2 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) 2 days ago (edited 2 days ago)

I've got a well. Ironically I spend less money and time treating my well water than I did removing all the shit they put in city water.

I've got a well. Ironically I spend less money and time treating my well water than I did removing all the shit they put in city water.

permalink

[–] littlemissfister 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) 2 days ago

There is NO single successful society based on altruism.

There is NO single successful society based on altruism.

permalink

[–] shadow332 [S] 0 points 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) 1.4 days ago

Using that as a variable is stupid to begin with.

Using that as a variable is stupid to begin with.

Menu

Sets

Subverses

Identitarian

Welcome to /v/Identitarian

Subverses to Visit

Education

Video Channels

Advertisement

MODERATORS

MODERATION LOGS

Sort: Top

Preview

Preview

Preview

Preview

Preview

Preview

Preview

Preview

Preview

Preview

Preview

Preview

Preview

Preview

Preview

Preview

Preview

Preview

Preview

Preview

share a link

Identitarian

Welcome to /v/Identitarian

Subverses to Visit

Education

Video Channels

Advertisement

MODERATORS

MODERATION LOGS

Sort: Top

Preview

Preview

Preview

Preview

Preview

Preview

Preview

Preview

Preview

Preview

Preview

Preview

Preview

Preview

Preview

Preview

Preview

Preview

Preview

Preview