Comments on religion, money, and sex

Razib writes:

I want to disagree with something Armin said in relation to the history of religion: that universalism and post-tribal religion was invented by Christianity and the Abrahamic tradition. This is clearly false.

From Ashoka’s Edict 13, put down in the 3rd century before Christ: ... the fact is that Ashoka was involved in the proselytizing of Indian religious views to non-Indians. This gave rise in the subsequent generations to Indo-Greek kings, such as Menander, who seem to have patronized Buddhism.

I am filing this under the saying: the exception proves the rule.

Christianity is universalist. Hindus do not try to convert non-Indians. Except maybe some guy in 200 BC.

Roosh V. writes:

For the longest time, I believed that corporations existed simply to make money for their owners and shareholders. ...

I came to the conclusion that corporations had to be about human control when examining how most companies of the Fortune 500 go against basic principles of profitability and business sense to virtue signal for marginal audiences like homosexuals and transvestites that comprise only a tiny part of their business. ...

Fortune 500 corporations are controlled by the same group or entity (i.e. “spider”) that is pushing globohomo to control and enslave humanity. Revenue and profits are useful by the spider to fulfill its main objective of control (power).

If you start with that theory, absolutely everything that corporations are doing today makes sense.

Roosh has been de-platformed for contrarian views like this, but he has a lot of good insights.

Norway is supposed to be feminist utopia, and it looks at sex differences:

Several studies have previously shown that when primary school teachers make subjective assessments of their pupils, boys fare worse than they do on objective tests like exams and national standardized tests.

But why do teachers undervalue boys’ achievements?

Only in physical education do boys get better grades than girls in Norway. In all other subjects, the teachers seem to believe girls do best. ...

Teachers in lower secondary school systematically give boys grades that are too low.

This has previously been demonstrated by comparing the classwork grades given by the teachers with examination marks achieved by the same students. Overall, boys fare better on exams than on classwork marks from their own teacher. This happens to a lesser degree for girls.

The same trend is evident on national tests taken by pupils in lower secondary school.

National test scorers don’t know the student's gender. On these tests boys achieve distinctly better results, and on average they score just as well as girls in subjects like reading and mathematics. In school, boys tend to get worse marks than girls in these subjects.

So, the teachers who know their students actually show more gender bias than the test scorers who don’t know the same students.

You sometimes hear it said that boys are treated better than girls in school, as if that were just an obvious consequence of our patriarchy. But there are many studies showing that girls are treated better than boys. A consequence of this is that many colleges are now 60% female.