Intelligence Vs Incelligence

[-]

aVarangian@reddit

Well yeah, Germany couldn't have won under any tangentially realistic scenario

[-]

icabax@reddit

They probably could of, if Hitler Hitlerd less or he died early on into the war. In theory nazi Germany could still be around today, if Hitler just didn't invade Poland

[-]

177_O13@reddit

I mean their economy functioned on quickly disassembling everything of value from the territories they captured and feeding it to the war machine so eventually they would implode

[-]

aVarangian@reddit

Nope. It "could of" not. And beware Hitler was used as a scapegoat for other's own failures after he blessed the world with his non-presence.

[-]

If a "win" meant "taking over Europe/the world," it was a lost cause from the beginning, but if it meant "starting a war of aggression and taking territory from other countries without any real consequences," Hitler had plenty of opportunities to quit while he was ahead. Thankfully, he couldn't see the situation for what it was and overplayed his hand to the point that it led to his downfall.

[-]

aVarangian@reddit

Quitting how? The UK told them "no". As soon as they started it, it was no longer theirs to end.

[-]

liquidmccartney8@reddit

For example, after they invaded Czechoslovakia, rather than going on to invade Poland, if Hitler had proposed something like, “If the UK, France, USA and USSR all agree that such and such territories we invaded so far are now part of Germany forever, we’ll agree to pay back the rest of our WWI debts (by pillaging the shit out of the new German areas) and won’t invade anyone else,” the other countries may well have agreed to it to avoid the war escalating.

Of course Germany probably would only have honored the deal for as long as it took them to gear up for round 3, and that probably would have been even uglier than the real WWII…

[-]

aVarangian@reddit

Your scenario is impossible. If Germany did that its economy would collapse, it needed the plunder. The road to war was already set when they started the Sudeteten conflict and there was no changing course. And the nazis made a huge deal out of the reparations before being elected. The USSR literally co-started ww2; they wanted Germany to invade Poland as per M-R after the Allies refused to hand them over eastern Europe for an unworkable alliance vs the Nazis.

Germany probably would only have honored the deal for as long as it took them to gear up

They were already gearing up to the max. Everything they had and didn't have was already being channeled into rearmament. Waiting would only make them weaker. By 1940 France was producing as many fighters a month as the nazis. The main nazi advantage was 4 years of gearing up + all the military equipment from Czechoslovakia and Austria.

None of what you said here makes the slightest plausible sense...

[-]

AbIaZoLUTEMadMaN28@reddit

Don't waste thousands of planes (which you are unable to rapidly rebuild) and thousands of skilled pilots (which you are unable to quickly replace) on the flawed Battle of Britain.

Instead, send everything into the Mediterranean. Take Malta, secure supply lines to NA. Ship a mobile army to NA, instead of just a couple of divisions. Take Alexandria. Take Suez. Link up with pro Axis elements in the Iraqi government. Secure Middle Eastern oil.

Maybe Spain joins and takes Gibraltar? But with Suez and Malta taken, it isn't that important. Easy win. But then...

Invade the SU. Win several breathtaking victories. Fall short of Moscow and Leningrad. Lose the cream of your army to Russian counterattacks and the worst winter in 100 years. The US ships hundreds of thousands of trucks and millions of tons of resources to the SU. Britain and the US ship thousands of tanks and planes to the SU. The SU builds tens of thousands of tanks, planes, and hundreds of thousands of artillery pieces. They equip tens of millions of soldiers with equipment that is as good or better than yours.

Slowly get ground down in an unwinnable war of attrition. Lose.

[-]

Reading_username@reddit

Pretty sure the caveman wearing rock glasses and defining mammoth taxonomy wasn't helping Chug and the boys bring meat back to the clan

[-]

MaunThesecond@reddit

Okay but isnt it crazy how the mammoths are more closely related to Asian elephants than African elephants? That and mastodon being highly diverged from those 3

[-]

Trigger_Fox@reddit

Why do they have crosses near their names? Are they christian?

[-]

ReturnRadio@reddit

Elephant Jesus died for their elephant sins

[-]

GodNarwhalz@reddit

The ones with crosses are extinct species

[-]

HighlightSerious3348@reddit

Typical reddit atheists thinking Jesus is extinct.

[-]

HighlightSerious3348@reddit

(joke)

[-]

callMeBorgiepls@reddit

Jesus is not extinct?

[-]

HighlightSerious3348@reddit

His only defining characteristics were that he was the only one of his kind, and he died. If you can point me towards any currently existing species of the genus Jesus, let me know.

[-]

cv0k@reddit

Half of Mexico is called Jesus.

[-]

616659@reddit

went from endangered species to extinct to endangered to extinct again

[-]

John-Sex@reddit

He is. I eated him all. Just like the mammoths.

[-]

pocketgravel@reddit

They fried for our sons

[-]

geoff1036@reddit

Everyone knows elephants and their adjacents are all practicing Catholics man, come on.

[-]

estou_me_perdendo@reddit

mammutidae

the absolute furthest thing from a mammoth

Explain atheists

[-]

Dracorex13@reddit

Mammut (mastodons) =/= Mammuthus (mammoths).

[-]

Redmangc1@reddit

but isnt it crazy how the mammoths are more closely related to Asian elephants than African elephants?

No, the bering straight was how they made it and became isolated in NA

[-]

King_Tudrop@reddit

Distinct lack of Hyraxes here

[-]

darkxenith@reddit

Thanks for lesson. I always thought mastodon was a different name for mammoth.

[-]

lmay0000@reddit

Lol elephants were white

[-]

chillinmantis@reddit

Not to mention gomphotherium being closer to modern elephants than mastodon

[-]

TheIronGnat@reddit

Serious question: why is intelligence associated with myopia/spectacles?

[-]

Unhappy-Anteater-202@reddit

Holding and focusing on stuff close to your eyes (books) increases natural progression of myopia. Especially in poor lighting.

It probably became an archetype because the rich dudes who could afford books/education/glasses also lived longer and would have ended up needing glasses anyway.

[-]

AntiProtonBoy@reddit

increases natural progression of myopia

myth

[-]

sloothor@reddit

myth

proof

[-]

Imrtltrtl@reddit

Shouldn't be the disbelievers job to obtain proof. That's like telling atheists to prove there are no gods. That said, everyone should be doing some simple googling if they want to know the answer and accept facts for what they are even if you have to change your beliefs. If you want to blindly believe in things, go for it, but don't be spreading those beliefs like they are guaranteed truth just because you think it makes sense.

[-]

sloothor@reddit

Brother, tell me what you’re smoking and where I can get some of that THIS INSTANT!!

The burden of proof is always on the person making a claim. That’s like… logic 101. I’m laughing at the idea that some student researcher would submit a paper with no cited references, get a zero, and get mad at their professor for not finding their sources for them.

[-]

Imrtltrtl@reddit

That's what I said. The disbeliever isn't the person making a claim. There's nothing to disbelieve if someone else isn't making a claim.

[-]

SieveHolder@reddit

Disbelief IS a claim. It's a claim about a claim! You need to support both!!

[-]

Imrtltrtl@reddit

That's where you're wrong. Someone declaring to you that something is the truth, making a claim, requires proof if you want to make them believe you. My choice to disregard anything you present and believe what I want requires nothing on my part. You see it quite often around the world.

[-]

RunningOutOfEsteem@reddit

The person making a claim is the one asserting that focusing on nearby objects progresses myopia. The person you're responding to disputed that claim. It's kind of funny that you busted out "logic 101" when you can't even keep track of the chain here lol

[-]

sloothor@reddit

You are completely lost in the sauce. They are both making claims, and they should both give evidence to back it up. Again, logic 101…

I specifically asked the guy responding for proof because I’ve already heard that keeping focus on nearby objects progresses myopia from other sources. I am not going to change my belief based on a single word comment lol.

[-]

RunningOutOfEsteem@reddit

You are completely lost in the sauce. They are both making claims, and they should both give evidence to back it up. Again, logic 101…

No, there was an initial claim, and then there was a subsequent rejection of said claim. The party rejecting the claim is under no obligation to provide evidence when the initial claim was made without evidence, as the negative position is the default. This is some of the most fundamental stuff in logic and argumentation; take some classes, because you clearly aren't going to figure it out on your own.

I specifically asked the guy responding for proof because I’ve already heard that keeping focus on nearby objects progresses myopia from other sources. I am not going to change my belief based on a single word comment lol.

And then you smugly responded to the second commenter with an impressive display of your own ignorance. Myopia isn't the topic here: your inability to grasp basic argumentative concepts while attempting to condescend to that commenter is the issue.

[-]

Rolex_throwaway@reddit

It isn’t. You missed the point.

[-]

nedal8@reddit

Iirc there is actually a statistically significant correlation between nearsightedness and intelligence.

[-]

Fanferric@reddit

Early glasses were largely considered an occupational tool of the Scholastics — clergy, academics, and scribes — because the technology was limited to fixing presbyopia, which reading glasses do to this day. Their expensive made them largely used by affluent or institutionally-supported scholars that required them. This type of lens would not really improve manual labor jobs where near-sightedness is the larger issue.

This is followed with Renaissance depictions of this class as the only ones wearing glasses, and so the trope survived into modern media portrayal well beyond the mass production of eye-glasses we see today.

[-]

Hiro_the_Bladeknight@reddit

“Tharg explain how woman not get less bananas than men. Small banana woman is Neanderthal lie”

[-]

somehuman16@reddit

youre crazy if you don't think the mf who invented fire was getting his dick sucked on an hourly basis

[-]

TheDivineRat_@reddit

No but his uncle Dave who finished cavemen engineering invented the slingshot, bow, 3 types of arrow and a new type of snare. Stacy still banged Chug who previously got pounded by even a woolly rabbit and cane home bruised and crying without Dave’s tools.

[-]

yungkoolwalkstay@reddit

Chug and the boys were intelligent enough to let some of the glasses wearing cavemen to reproduce with the less desireable females, they had the option of killing them for punching practise (we call it boxing now) or they could leach off their slow returning mammoth taxonomy, it's like a long investment where you buy low (mammoth shit) and sell high (anime and porn) that's 4000D chess right there.

[-]

whatthe_banana@reddit

Lust provoking image, irrelevant time-wasting question

[-]

Superman557@reddit

Repost too

[-]

UpbeatRegister@reddit

What's the meaning of life?

[-]

Metazolid@reddit

I'll take this as keepsake

[-]

lmay0000@reddit

Ass

[-]

mariojw@reddit

is coffee good for you?

[-]

lmay0000@reddit

Is confefe gerd fer hsh you lol

[-]

yungkoolwalkstay@reddit

Intelligence comment.

[-]

lmay0000@reddit

Sintelkgent comebt

[-]

GalaXion24@reddit

Many such cases

[-]

lmay0000@reddit

Mansy such casrers

[-]

ciuccio2000@reddit

Many such cases

[-]

lmay0000@reddit

Many such casers

[-]

MikeGianella@reddit

Made by a person with zero tact and that probably does not go outside

[-]

No-Section-4385@reddit

Anon did not provide context therefor it is the mammatha long meat anon referred too..

[-]

LemonFlavoredMelon@reddit

So bash my own head in with a hammer until I forget my knowledge of 1700s warships and pirate history

[-]

noseyHairMan@reddit

Anon is so unintelligent he doesn't understand that intelligence is what makes you the top of your surroundings. Being smart is useless if you can't talk to move people to do things for you. Sure you can make things by yourself but you don't stand a chance alone compared to a group of just 5 people

[-]

divinity995@reddit

Anon thinks women are into listening him yap about some andient greek book he skimmed the wikipedia article about

[-]

Invoqwer@reddit

You are describing the act of manipulating people but I think what you mean to say is charisma and the ability to act upon the world and have the world respond favorably. Like... making money, making people laugh, becoming fitter and healthier, moving up in the world, achieving goals, etc. As opposed to strictly convincing people to act how you want them to.

=

If I had to name this then I'd name it "success intelligence".

[-]

ABirdJustShatOnMyEye@reddit

Practical intelligence.

[-]

Previous_Air_9030@reddit

That isn't what intelligence is. What you're describing is manipulation. Can intelligent people manipulate? Of course. Intelligent people are also easily manipulated.

[-]

Rolex_throwaway@reddit

/r/im14andthisisdeel

[-]

Ok_Introduction6045@reddit

Social intelligence is a type of intelligence, and a very useful one in a hunter and gatherer societies.

[-]

SenpaiDerpy@reddit

Social Intelligence isn't charisma. How much influence you have over others does not imply social intelligence. Social intelligence is simply the abbility to recognize patterns in human behaviour.

A very attractive person can easily manipulate others, but you wouldn't treat them as some sort of mentalist negotiation genius because of this.

[-]

Ok_Introduction6045@reddit

Social Intelligent provides the foundation upon which charisma is developed. A very attractive person is just a very attractive person. They don't become charismatic just because they are very attractive. Attractive people do have some ability to influence other people, but it's limited. Without actual charisma to back them up, they can't do much other than making people act a bit more friendlier.

[-]

kunell@reddit

If you cant use your intelligence to achieve useful things then that intelligence is largely useless.

Social intelligence is very important and downplayed but mainstream media when they talk about "intelligent people".

[-]

FalseStructure@reddit

"Being smart is useless if you can't talk to move people to do things for you"
Painter was peak then

[-]

liberalhellhole@reddit

It's funny how everyone understands who the painter was.

[-]

keremhm@reddit

Why is he being mean?

[-]

Soldierhero1@reddit

Lets be real here. Theres no “how to succeed in life” theres just “you get lucky”

[-]

I_just_came_to_laugh@reddit

It's more like:

Step 1. Be fairly lucky

Step 2. Don't be a complete fucking moron

Lots of people have wasted their success and fortune by forgetting step 2.

[-]

baudmiksen@reddit

And lots of people never have the chance, because they skipped straight to step two

[-]

Orochilightspam@reddit

if you think women aren't attracted to intelligence, you aren't as intelligent as you think you are

[-]

whydoyouevenreadthis@reddit

It could be that the kind of intelligence Anon thinks he has is not very accessible. What people perceive as being smart in daily life is being sharp, witty, and understanding relatively simple things quickly, not the ability to solve hard problems.

[-]

Tomridddle@reddit

incelligence

[-]

SomeSortaWeeb@reddit

people just dropped rocks off of cliffs on to mammoth i dont think it takes a genius to figure that out

[-]

Segmentum@reddit

[-]

sega20@reddit

I can’t hear ‘Zug Zug’ without thinking of the orcs in Warcraft 2.

[-]

Phenix_Flare@reddit

Archive link: https://desuarchive.org/his/thread/13842593/#13856394

[-]

ForGrateJustice@reddit

"Incelligence" I love that.

[-]

Reptilesblade@reddit

This one is a classic.

[-]

SmoothPimp85@reddit

Hey, ladies, did you know that when you delete files on your computers, laptops, and phones (files are a generic term for video, photos, music, and documents on your devices), in most cases you don't delete the files themselves, but only the records that such files exist and are located in a particular place? And if you don't overwrite the areas of the hard drive where the deleted files are located with special software, they can generally be recovered without any problems. How about that, right?

[-]

torito_supremo@reddit

People are also attracted to humor. And I mean actual humor (smart comebacks which take creativity and wits), not internet humor ("ironic" bigotry or canned memes)

[-]

flyinthesoup@reddit

Humor is definitely a sign of intelligence (the first kind, like you mentioned). Witty comebacks require understanding of situations and a good and well timed delivery. That definitely attracts people, even if you're not the best looking guy around.

[-]

liquidmccartney8@reddit

There are a lot of things which are related to intelligence which are attractive, like the ability to make people laugh, and other which aren't, like the ability to remember sports statistics.

[-]

Mayo_Kupo@reddit

Seen this a few times. Women are definitely attracted to intelligence, even nerdy theoretical intelligence. But that doesn't overwhelm a bad personality, bad social skills, crippling insecurity, or good old ugly-face. But if you're confident, good-natured, and brainy without being obnoxious, some women will be interested.

[-]