Operation Beaver Nugget | Chapo Trap House
Vložit
- čas přidán 2. 02. 2024
- For the full episode, subscribe at / chapotraphouse
Teaser for Episode 803 - The Buc-ee’s Brigade feat. Pendejo Time (2/1/24)
/ chapo-trap-house
Jake and Thomas from Pendejo Time join us to look at this year’s scuffle at the Texas border, and the brave trucker patriots volunteering for Civil War 2.
#chapotraphouse #chapo
The bass pro shop pyramid will be turned into the second confederacy's pentagon.
It’s calling my name
This convoy shares insulin needles. So hard-core
I only get radical in the 1990s sense (pizza party)
Crazy that I know a guy just like the dudes being made fun of.
He sounds hot
We all do
It's like 60% of Americans dude, that's the running joke ???
Has anyone started playing ram ranch over their walkie talkie yet? Gotta play the classics at these “convoys”
Ram Ranch really rawks!
give me vienna sausages or give me death. also, can we carpool?
Can I bum a Zyn
the guy shitting in the trash can was also a fed
Shit I ripped my diabetic sock! Do u have extras?
second try wasn’t funny either
@@mightywurm 'Exterminate All the Brutes,' Raoul Peck Takes Aim at American Mass Murderers the USA is THE NATION OF GENOCIDE
Joseph B. Atkins the Texas Attacks on Mexico Shows how Warmongering is USA Hegemonic Racist ideology Mexican People not considered White People, Republicans see Negroes and Mexicans as "Brute Beasts."
for land, liberty and luby's
Sitting in truck to stand with Texas.
#America
It would be more appropriate to call it a rollout, just ask the governor 😂
I have always been more of a tendies guy
Jesus Christ. I'm listening to the episode now. all i can say is TALK INTO YOUR MICROPHONE WILL. TALK INTO THE MICROPHONE. HOW DO YOU NOT KNOW HOW TO USE A MICROPHONE.
WHAT IS CHAPO DOING TO STOP TRUMP????????
lol what are the democrats doing
DO YOU CONDEMN DESANTIS?
@@witchdoctor180 ALL MAGATs are BAD!!!!!
Maybe I'm just growing up but I swear these guys are not nearly as funny as they used to be
The only thing you can do is to have an honest conversation about the fundamental fact of our species, that life is not fair, and a corollary of that fact, that we are not all equal in our abilities. You can then hope that the conversation sparks social action that mitigates, in whatever way possible, that ubiquitous unfairness. And starting that conversation is exactly what somebody like Paige Harden has gone and done.
Got confused before i realized it was just lance :)
Hey Matt, you're from college, right?
Read a 700 pg non-fiction book for once in your life.@@matthillfromcollege4109
It's almost as if things going to each according to their need and from each according to their ability would be a good basis for a society.
I’m gay
@@lanceblankenship9995 Read a non-fiction book that wasn't written by white supremacists for once in your life.
Unsurprising, then, that the kinship studies were always subject to relentless criticism. Much of it was of the explicitly mysterian “maybe there are some things science shouldn’t investigate” flavor. But others were methodological arguments, of varying levels of seriousness - the data sets were frequently contaminated by twins who were partially reared together (a real problem), there were potential confounds from influence of the environment in utero (a semi-real problem), some claimed that parents treat twins so differently from the way they treat other children that it confounds everything (not remotely a real problem). Methodological disagreements are a ubiquitous aspect of social science; all studies have critics and all fields feature profound internal disagreements about the truth. But people with no larger interest in research methods have long been deeply invested in critiques of kinship studies, and issues that would be considered minor in most contexts are seen as damning. People have always badly wanted to find a reason to shut down this line of thinking. The most relentlessly cited complaint, and an eminently fair one, was that we just couldn’t look directly at the genome, and so we simply couldn’t make any responsible conclusions.
And then the first real genomic studies arrived. A 2006 study was the big breakthrough, the first time genetic relatedness scores were successfully generated between siblings which could then be matched with degrees of similarity in different variables. And indeed those siblings which were more closely genetically related also had higher correlations in various behavioral factors, strongly suggesting a genetic influence on those variables. In the almost 20 years since, more and more major studies were published that sought to examine genetic influence on behavioral variables, through various specific experimental means. There were complications and early struggles, but over time they revealed such influence as techniques became more and more sophisticated. As Razib Khan has said, “Heritability was more than a statistical construct, it was a biophysical reality.” Perfectly mainstream scientific publications, some quite prestigious, have also discussed such research as a matter of mundane academic inquiry, rather than as somehow outside the bounds of propriety.
All of this would appear to have merely lent additional credence to an entirely banal observation, which is that our genes influence absolutely every element of our selves. To assume that this included our behavioral selves would seem to me to be sensible rather than controversial. Our behavior is driven by our physiology, especially our brains, and as organs our brains are built according to the architecture described in our DNA, which passes to us from our parents and from far further back in our genealogy. Yet this simple observation about the world - that genes matter for our behavior - is not only not treated as banal but as a marker of irredeemable bigotry by many in left wing circles. Even when care is taken to discuss the difference between a group genetic claim (such as genetic origins for racial or gender differences) and an individual genetic claim (the influence of parents’ genes on their progeny), any discussion of DNA and behavior is frequently greeted with extreme condemnation, especially discussion of how DNA influences academic ability.
Man The Hunter, Hierarchy in The Forest, and Society Against The State are all good books to read before musing on how DNA influences how we should organize within our society. Within political anthropology, it's already understood that the human capacity for tool usage is what has led to a lack of the presence of natural alphas, and low sexual dimorphism compared to other primates. The creation of things like spears made it so that even the weakest human can stab the biggest "alpha" and immediately kill them - weeding them out from the gene pool.
One human being above another is not "natural". People oppose this line of thinking because it doesn't align with centuries worth of evidence indicating that tribal chiefs and warlords were not common, and their prominence encompasses less than 1% of history.
@@isdel9474 Were any of those books funded or written by white supremacists? Because I don't think that Lance will ever read a book that doesn't pander to his reactionary fantasies.
Please do less meth
The rude thing is… I just don’t believe people, on this issue. When they say that they think all people have the same innate ability to perform well in school or on other cognitive tasks, that any difference is environmental, what I think inside is, I don’t believe that you believe that. When researchers in genetics and evolution who believe that the genome influences every aspect of our physiological selves say that they don’t believe that the genome has any influence on our behavioral selves, what I think inside is, I don’t believe you. I think people feel compelled to say this stuff because the idea of intrinsic differences in academic ability offend their sense of justice, and because the social and professional consequences of appearing to believe that idea are profound. But I think everyone who ever went to school as a kid knew in their heart back then that some kids were just smarter than others, and I think most people quietly believe that now. Like I said, it’s rude. But I can’t shake it.
After listening to this teaser in pod form, I ran across the anti-militia bill submitted a month ago.
You really are in an echo chamber. You’ve lost sight with the poor Americans. I wish you the best.
You're sympathizing with fascist grifters. Wake up.