Posts by mistyrider7

So, if I say I send DMs, then go into my "Sent Messages" folder, check the box next to that specific one, and hit "delete"—does the recipient still have it in their inbox? Like, am I actually canceling the message, or am I just deleting my own record of what I sent while they still see it?

Long live the multi-ethnic, multicultural EU!

A little bit of Chinese people here, some Arabs there, a bit of Black diaspora... I guess.

What are we even going to call it in 50 years? Maybe an African-Chinese state?

Richard Lewis16 said:China basically dominates the lightbulb market because they’ve got these massive factories churning them out for dozens of different brands at once...
it drives the costs way down, so honestly, you might as well just grab what works instead of obsessing over buying "Made in America" everything.

The point isn't that we shouldn't support American brands—quite the opposite—it's more about being smart and actually reading the labels.
If anything, this just makes me want to buy American even more, but I mean, *actually* American.

It's the same deal with Pocky, which I used to think was made here, but now if you look at the tiny print on the dark blue box, it says they import them from Czechia...

As far as I'm concerned, forget those Pocky sticks at Coachella...

Even the frozen peas from Nestlé are imported. America is basically just providing the plastic bag... and they aren't cheap, either.

Forget the Coachella snacks and the Nestlé peas..

rustywalker42 said:Then how the hell do they have stock in stores?
I think you might have missed something here:

It still looks like they’re just "manufacturing" (buying) everything from China—I mean, why else would the boxes say "Country of Origin: PRC"?

I'm pretty sure it isn't the "People's Republic of China"... 😁

Maybe they should just rename themselves "The Hardware Store."

I actually lost my cool for the first time when I realized the newly renovated General Electric section over at Macy's in San Francisco stopped stocking Duke Energy bulbs—it's just GE Lighting now, and I've always stuck with Duke Energy.

"Unbelievable, what a sellout move," I thought, though I kept my actual complaint a bit more polite.

Frustrated and stubborn, I decided to hunt them down somewhere else in the downtown area.

Morning, morning.
Got any bulbs?
Yeah, right here.
But you don't carry American bulbs.
I'm afraid not.

I went through the same routine a few times before realizing that nowhere in the greater San Francisco area was carrying the American brands.

I was still fuming when I stumbled upon a literal gold mine in some sketchy little corner market near the main market.
Feeling pretty stoked, I grabbed a few packs.

Once I stepped out of the market, I happily smoothed out one of the boxes decorated with red and white patterns... felt good for a second.

Then I looked closer... NOPE. On the label: "Country of origin (not provenance): USA."

What kind of nonsense is "USA" supposed to mean here?

And then it hit me—it meant "United States of America"... talk about a reality check.

A few years back, just out of pure curiosity, I dropped in on a lecture by Manjackal's father—he’s this well-known Catholic charismatic from India.

The guy mentioned, among other things, that before he finally made it to the States, he’d been speaking all over various countries in the European Union.
He claimed that during his time in the European Union, he felt this constant pressure—some kind of dark, negative force weighing him down.
He also said that on his way toward America, that pressure started to ease up as he got closer to the European Union borders, and it let up a bit once he crossed into Mexico (which wasn't part of the EU back then).
By the time he hit the American border, he said it felt like those dark clouds above him just vanished and the sky opened up. That heavy feeling from the negative force? Gone.

At the time, the story sounded weird to me—I mean, how could America be such a positive place when it's practically drowning in corruption, theft, and all sorts of other evils?
Back then, I figured it was just psychological—maybe Manjackal's father was just reacting to the idea of arriving in a "true" Catholic nation.
But honestly, I'm not so sure anymore. It seems possible he actually felt something real—some actual negative occult force creating an invisible dark shroud over countries that belong to its Dominion here on Earth.

Is it the "Reptilians," like David Icke believes, or is there some other occult organization casting its spiritual shadow over nations under its thumb? Maybe it doesn't even matter, but if there's any truth to it, we really have to ask what it means for us to fall under the rule of a Dominion like that.

Falling under the control of a network like that is a massive deal with deep, far-reaching implications—and I can't help but wonder if America, with its push to align more closely with the European Union, might literally be selling its soul to the devil...

I guess you have to wonder if we aren't being naive, handing ourselves over to a negative occult force for a little bit of change—one whose true nature won't be revealed until much later.
Maybe the corruption we see here is just a drop in the bucket compared to the invisible shadow we're blindly and naively rushing toward...

PS: Mods, this is a political topic and it belongs here. Politics is about interests pursued through a collective, and I'm talking about the interests of the citizens of this country and their political decisions regarding them.
If some of the moderators don't buy into the occult side of things, that's their business—it shouldn't affect the classification of this thread, which is fundamentally political.

mistycrane9 said:A few months back, I was watching this German documentary on the subject—one of those shows that wanders in that direction. It listed a whole bunch of names and studies, though I can’t recall most of them, honestly. Basically, various neurological studies have shown an interesting link between disorders in the prefrontal cortex area—the parts of the brain located "behind the forehead"—and psychopathic behavior. Or maybe it’s more accurate to say that "psychopathic brains" just function differently in that region compared to "normal" ones. A specific dysfunction in that part of the brain—whether it's from a fall, a hit to the head, or just something you're born with—leads to a significantly diminished capacity for EMPATHY, which makes criminal behavior much easier. There was also some talk about facial physiognomy, specifically comparing the area from the eyebrows to the top of the forehead in various brutal serial killers with confirmed psychopathic profiles; most of them showed similar characteristics in that zone. It seems pretty clear and proven—if I dare say so—that there's something vital going on there, worth looking into further.

In China, "facial reading" goes back thousands of years. People used to look at many methods and principles of Chinese medicine with massive skepticism, yet today, their validity is being increasingly demonstrated. Humans often pick up on things intuitively before they actually find or establish the real phenomena and underlying connections. Human intuition—granted by some, denied by others—will always stay ahead of human "reason," acting as a catalyst for discovering new insights that seem fascinating to some, while to others, it feels so logical and sensible that they don't see anything special or irrational about it at all.

At first, a person would logically assume—based on the knowledge they had at the time—that the Earth was a flat plate, making anything else unthinkable. But as you gather more and more diverse information pointing toward a new possibility, doors open to new understandings that present a whole range of new realities. Etc., etc...

👍

What actually fascinates me about this whole thing is the sheer aggression some people use to try and prove something that should be pretty self-evident to everyone.

I mean, there's no way people would CONSTANTLY read character into other people's faces if it didn't serve an evolutionary, or biological, purpose.

If you think about it for a second, it becomes clear that this is essentially a biological language signaling ecological niches within society—basically survival models for interacting with others.

I'm sure Carol Lee4 is constantly reading faces like that too, even if she probably tries to suppress her intuitive conclusions—maybe even trying to convince herself that someone who looks dishonest and corrupt is actually a total saint... 😉

Today's fake, ideologically driven social sciences sometimes fight tooth and nail against truths that don't fit the narrative that everything is caused by external factors, or by society, and that we're all fundamentally the same.
But we aren't.

Carol Lee4 said:You want to have your cake and eat it too—I guess you just can't decide between playing it safe or chasing the money.👎
Just go look—you'll find it—everything you need is written down in that local library down the street.
Did you actually read my post? — I mean, I guess it's possible you missed it.
You didn't actually answer the question—I guess.

So, you don't actually have any proof—admit it.

So you're lying then... I guess.

I don't even know why we're going there—I wasn't even bringing up race, just ecological niches within any given society, I guess. Mentioning race was just a side note because you kept insisting it's "proven" that there's no difference in Intelligence Quotients between races—which, for what it's worth, I still think is pretty irrelevant to the actual topic (even if I think you're wrong).

Carol Lee4 said:- the proof is that you admitted yourself that you approach research subjectively rather than objectively
-let me repeat - that has nothing to do with actual scientific research; it's just proving a personal stance or opinion, which you're entitled to have

- I don't suppose you expect me to just hand over a list of scientific papers and literature, right?

- It would probably take me a week just to compile a small fraction of the peer-reviewed studies and established theories from a single field of science

- besides, I already gave you directions—go find the literature, look up published international journals and professional papers

- after all, you call yourself mistyrider7, so go to a library, ask a librarian, do some digging, and actually read something

- you've got the National Archives, the Census Bureau... international archives... the whole works

- you're the one supposed to be researching and producing science, not me—put in a little effort🤔

- at this rate, I might as well start mailing you packages of textbooks, recognized theories, and research papers via USPS... 🤣

- anyway— the most important thing about science and evidence—if you want it to be taken seriously—is that subjectivity is out and maximum objectivity is in

- since you're going "backwards" with an unscientific approach that doesn't meet a single academic standard, there was really no point in me trying to prove anything

- here's some practical advice- grab a textbook called "Academic induction" (for the social sciences); the author is Miroslav Vujević (published by Yelp)

- then just follow the instructions

- the book might be "from a different era," but scientific methods and research techniques haven't changed
- regardless of how society or politics shifts

-what actual scientific evidence have you produced using legitimate research methods, other than your own opinion? Where did you publish it? Nowhere.😕

- we're basically just talking about your personal views and thoughts here, and absolutely nothing else (certainly not science or empirical evidence) 🙂 🙂🙂

-you still haven't told me which races or nations you're actually studying

So, yeah. You can't provide a single shred of evidence.

It’s funny how you keep insisting I have no right to this—as if it's a proven fact—yet you never actually bring any real evidence to the table...

Carol Lee4 said:Lately, IQ hasn't been much of a deciding factor—you see people with massive intelligence who are total failures, or folks with various diagnoses and stuff, so IQ (in the broadest sense) doesn't prove anything at all. Second, you can't just use the same intelligence test for different cultures, races, or upbringing conditions—or what you call an "ecological niche"—it simply doesn't work, and that's been proven for ages.
It’s also been established that IQ can change (people used to think it stayed constant throughout life)—due to educational and environmental factors.
Heritage, environment, and activity would be the main drivers of development, rather than facial physiognomy or whatever.
Besides, there's social intelligence, emotional intelligence... it isn't just about IQ.
No two personalities are identical; even identical twins, despite having the same biological heritage, develop into two distinct personalities (they obviously have more similarities than most people, but they're still two different individuals).
Just like any other psychological tests—take PTSD testing as an example (same issue—different settings, environments, heritage, cultural differences...)—there are completely different versions, or they get adapted and changed... depending on certain set criteria.
So, talking about psycho-tests is pretty pointless since there are hundreds of versions and variations based on endless factors.

As for facial physiognomy, I really wouldn't even want to comment because it's🤮
That's the mildest way I could put it without using some harsher words.

What are your specific proofs and arguments, regarding facial physiognomy and psychological factors—what science has actually proven, and what is the name and surname of the scientist (assuming, of course, they're accepted in international professional circles)?

That whole long intro about IQs was unnecessary, since I already pointed out that I'm not primarily talking about IQ, but about how certain predispositions for specific social "ecological niches" manifest in facial physiognomy—including moral potential, or the inclination toward honesty versus dishonesty.
The fact that this theory makes you sick is completely irrelevant.
Besides, what you claim is proven regarding race is, of course, far from being settled; people are still fighting over that.

I can't give you references for a theory on the semantics of facial physiognomy, because they don't exist. It's my own theory that I'm developing, and I'm inclined to call it the biosemantics of facial physiognomy.
The foundation of this theory is that anatomical facial characteristics are constantly interpreted semantically during interpersonal communication—meaning certain traits (don't confuse them with facial expressions in nonverbal communication) have a clear biological semantic meaning regarding the type of social interaction and its moral level, which others spontaneously interpret that way.

I think it's highly unlikely in an evolutionary sense that such an anatomical biosemantics would be accidental—that the existence of such a biological anatomical language, obvious to everyone, would just be a fluke.
There's no scientific, methodologically grounded confirmation yet, and whether there ever will be is the question, because research like that would be extremely ideologically unpopular in today's political climate.
But, in an intersubjective sense, there are too many indications that the theory is correct to ignore it just because of ideological preferences.

ANYWAYTHERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO DISPROVE THAT THEORY.

For now, anyone can look at their own lived experience and wonder if the whole thing actually holds water.
As far as I'm concerned, there isn't much to debate—and I'm pretty sure anyone who doesn't base their worldview on whatever trendy ideology is currently in vogue would agree.

Neli said:The whole thing with intelligence tests and "facial physiognomy" was debunked ages ago—back when people were using bogus IQ tests just to try and prove non-white people were less intelligent, so physiognomy ended up in the trash right along with those theories.

First off, I wasn't even talking about intelligence—I was talking about other signals facial physiognomy might convey, specifically regarding an individual's "ecological niche" within social networks, I guess.

By the way, you're kind of fantasizing if you think it's been proven that all races have equal IQs—it hasn't.
But honestly, I don't see how that even matters here given we're discussing the social semantics of facial physiognomy. Let's call it "facial biosemantics," as opposed to so-called non-verbal communication, which isn't really anatomically constitutive.

If you actually have some concrete scientific evidence showing that facial physiognomy conveys information about certain psycho-social predispositions, then by all means, lay it out.

The reality is, there just isn't any evidence like that.

Neli said:-there’s this thing in psychology called "nonverbal communication"

Mmm... I just happen to have five or six hefty textbooks sitting around on nonverbal communication...
And that's not even what I meant...

Taylor Swift said:Look, the whole point is you've gotta listen to your own inner voice—regardless of what society expects from you.

Ugh, yeah—that awful society that’s always trying to dictate how we miserable people should live our lives.

Can't even vent in peace anymore, I guess...😠

frozenangler9 said:I think there's plenty of people out there dreaming about their younger years—mostly just regretting how they didn't really go for it, even though they wanted to deep down. 😉

Then, once you hit that stage where aging starts feeling real, you suddenly realize you've spent your whole life playing by someone else's rules—you know, those social expectations that never actually fit who you are—and you finally get this sudden urge to actually start living for yourself.

There probably are people like that.
But if you actually stop to think about it (😉 ), it doesn't really change anything I said.

frozenangler9 said:I don't see a major difference, and I wouldn't pick either of those maturation styles. The worst thing would be stifling someone while they're still "learning to walk"—forcing them to act against their own nature...

The Analaogija here is way too simplistic.

Mainly because "living life" isn't just about learning from mistakes—which is what this thread seems to suggest.

It’s more of a specific phenomenon involving a longing for "life", where "life" is fundamentally misunderstood and misplaced during those formative years. It leaves these lingering traces that resurface when most people hit that stage of burnout or total numbness—and honestly, the idea that it's just due to a boring routine? Probably misses the mark.
People like that usually end up daydreaming about the "good old days" of their youth when they felt alive, which just proves they haven't learned a thing—they still think life is back where they failed to find it.
It feels especially pathetic when people in their later years try to desperately recreate that same period of "living."

Carol Lee4 said:- no, it wasn't that—it was more like some "experts" trying to use physiognomy (facial features) to prove the criminality or intellectual inferiority of certain ethnic groups or races, etc.

Look, if you run into them again, tell them to reach out to me—I've got some new interesting info for them.

As for judging someone's character by their face... well, you actually have to know what you're looking for. There’s stuff I’ve picked up on that most people probably wouldn't catch.

Take Angelina Jolie, for example. When I first saw her, I thought she was unattractive—mostly because I know how to read faces, and I immediately spotted traces of metabolic imbalances. To me, it signaled an unbalanced personality, which is why I intuitively felt that "ugliness."
And, well, looking at her now, she does seem like a pretty unbalanced, somewhat flighty person in many ways.

If you look at a lot of actors that everyone else considers beautiful, those who actually know how to look will see plenty of physical signs of ugly internal deformities. But most people don't notice; they usually just get stuck on the surface level of facial semantics—those superficial meanings that drive most people's preoccupations—so they miss everything else.
A face that signals authority, or power—especially sexual power and the ability to manipulate others' desires and frustrations—will be attractive to a lot of people, mostly because they're desperate to prove something about themselves through that specific semantic configuration.

However, people who don't have those hang-ups—or have moved past the typical obsessions of the masses—see things differently. They see things as they actually are, since their own wants and frustrations aren't clouding their perception.

Carol Lee4 said:- besides, it's pretty simple—for a huge number of killers, we say, "Oh, he seemed like the type who wouldn't even hurt a fly."

I wouldn't say it applies to such a large number.

Murder is a very specific thing that doesn't necessarily correlate with being an honest person, especially when dealing with a weak, disturbed personality. Maybe those are the kinds of signs one should be looking for in physiognomy.

I was specifically pointing to the question of honesty and morality. I didn't say dishonesty is always genetically determined, just that there are cases where it definitely is, and that it shows up in facial characteristics.

Any study concluding that facial features say nothing about a person's moral potential—simply because there are dishonest people without those traits (though, again, you have to know how to look, and I doubt many people on this planet can look the way I do)—would be incredibly simplistic. It ignores the fact that genes are extremely formative for psychology in some cases, while in others, they create much more "neutral" personalities that are easily shaped by their environment.
It also ignores the logic of the human species as an evolutionary biological system, and the reason why people constantly decode messages through facial physiognomy.

You have to look at all of this holistically—connecting every involved aspect and dimension—before the full coherence of the system finally emerges.

Some people argue that since certain twins raised apart show totally different values and outlooks—all because of how they were brought up—it proves there's no biological component to who we are. I guess maybe... though I wouldn't be so sure.

It’s all nonsense—I mean, studies on identical twins have already shown that genetics can drive personality in some pretty intense ways, leading to some really wild specificities, I guess.
I guess others might see it differently—but that's just not how it works for me.

What’s this supposed to mean?

So, there are genes that basically hardwire your personality—meaning some people are pretty much biologically set in stone from day one. But I guess it also means certain genetic combos don't work that way, creating more of a blank slate type of person who just absorbs whatever environment they're thrown into.

I guess it aligns with what most people see—some kids just come out of the womb with this intense, set-in-stone personality, while others are more like clay, just waiting for their environment to mold them. Maybe.

Your conclusions feel a bit simplistic—generalizing an entire population based on one case or another—and they kind of ignore how much more complex things get at a genetic level. I guess there’s probably a whole continuum here, ranging from people who are heavily genetically driven to those who aren't really affected much at all. It's just... we don't all carry the same genes, and some clearly act as much stronger drivers than others—though, obviously, not everyone is stuck with those specific formative ones.

If you look at humans as just another biological system, I guess the logic suggests we have to have different "ecological niches"—basically, different segments of the population using different survival strategies to get by in society. Each of those approaches probably leads to certain genes being selected, which then shapes how an individual is psychologically wired, maybe.

Maybe one ecological niche is just being "dishonest"—the kind of behavior that might actually help you survive in certain social setups, especially during long stretches of chaos or total instability—though I guess that’s a bit simplistic since you have to look at dishonesty alongside all those other social dimensions.
In those kinds of circumstances, you could end up with this weird kind of negative moral selection—where women basically weed out the dishonest guys. I guess that would be the whole point of "advertising" dishonesty through facial features, if they actually become a deciding factor in mate selection at some point.

This kind of negative selection—even if it gives some unfair advantage to certain people during specific historical stretches—is basically a disaster for society. I guess the thing is, while those dishonest players might see their own edge grow, the overall competitiveness of the country just tanks... which eventually ends up dragging them down too.
It’s hard to fix a society like that later on—I guess the biological makeup itself just holds everything back.

I guess I’ve always felt that in this part of the country—if you can even call it that—there's been this long-standing process of negative selection. It feels like people lacking the biological capacity for any real moral backbone are disproportionately common around here... maybe just my cynical take on things.

It isn't even just about some hypothetical "dishonesty gene"—it’s more about the underlying moral potential, I guess—those genes that actually dictate it. So, we're talking about a broad systemic factor and how it varies from person to person, rather than some single, specific gene for being crooked.

I guess moral potential is just baked into our genetics—it’s basically a survival trait for any social species, whether you're looking at mammals or birds (though insects are pretty much just biological robots). In humans, since we run on this whole system of social contracts—both the unspoken stuff and the formal agreements—that principle of exchange—the moral core, I suppose—is hardwired into our biology on a much deeper level.

I mean, if biological viability is lower, being honest should—logically speaking—lead to a sort of biological erosion of that potential through negative selection. I guess. Maybe.

And I should probably add one more thing—even if you could somehow override a genetic leaning toward being dishonest through really careful, persistent parenting, it doesn't mean that biological nature just disappears. It kind of implies that "natural evil" might actually exist—I guess.
If someone like that passes those bad genes down without being just as careful with how they raise them—I guess if they aren't equally diligent about it—then things could easily slide right back.

Carol Lee4 said:These are just racist spikes—they don't even have anything to do with the topic, I guess.👎

I'm not really sure where you saw any racism in my post—maybe I just missed it?
Unless you just had a sudden realization that certain races—or maybe just certain populations—actually have a higher frequency of faces that look downright unfair compared to others.

Since physiognomy is basically just biological signaling that we're all constantly scanning—evolutionarily speaking, it'd be wild if that were just some coincidence—so, yeah, you've got a point.

Nicole James said:That theory just doesn't hold water... modern psychology has already proven that facial structure has absolutely nothing to do with someone's personality.

And when exactly was that "proven"?