Racism is not a value neutral stance

[Caesercel]

There's this idea permeating certain circles that race realists are completely value neutral "truth seekers" who are simply trying to uncover the biological reality of humanity like innocent little taxonomists. And every claim they make simply follows downwards from that via analysis, from biology to crime statistics to iq levels.

But thinking about it for more than a few seconds reveals it to be not accurate. In reality, the race classification, as it stands today, is assumed as a fact. And the values that come with it are presumed as well. Which means that from the get go, the position is a-neutral. Then the next logical step is to pick and chose data that fits the narrative.

What that means is that white supremacy is baked into the very classification of races. Instead of being derived after the races are established. This ties in to the joke that none of the bad words for white people actually land. Which becomes most obvious in insults like "cracker" that are most blatantly white supremacy coded.

And this is not limited to derogatory terms. It follows into the wider concept that true racism against white people is theoretically impossible because of the aforementioned reasons.

 

[Wizardmaxxer]

The line between a loud ass nigger and a normal black person is very thin but so different

 

[ardeys]

There's this idea permeating certain circles that race realists are completely value neutral "truth seekers" who are simply trying to uncover the biological reality of humanity like innocent little taxonomists. And every claim they make simply follows downwards from that via analysis, from biology to crime statistics to iq levels.

But thinking about it for more than a few seconds reveals it to be not accurate. In reality, the race classification, as it stands today, is assumed as a fact. And the values that come with it are presumed as well. Which means that from the get go, the position is a-neutral. Then the next logical step is to pick and chose data that fits the narrative.

What that means is that white supremacy is baked into the very classification of races. Instead of being derived after the races are established. This ties in to the joke that none of the bad words for white people actually land. Which becomes most obvious in insults like "cracker" that are most blatantly white supremacy coded.

And this is not limited to derogatory terms. It follows into the wider concept that true racism against white people is theoretically impossible because of the aforementioned reasons.

Cope lol what we call races are genetical clusters they don’t change because we include some in the category and let others out to make the racial configuration thing that doesn’t actually happen and is very open to debate, one could argue that race realism pushes for east asian supremacy or jewish in some cases, the data and the anthropology are neutral what people decide to do with it is up to them and to morality

 

[Caesercel]

what we call races are genetical clusters

No, race is not derived from genetic clusters. Knowledge of genes didn't even exist when race already was a thing.

, one could argue that race realism pushes for east asian supremacy or jewish in some cases,

Pffft, no? Where are the real life instances of people bendng over backwards to argue for fookin east asian supremacy.

the data and the anthropology are neutral what people decide to do with it is up to them and to morality

To better phrase it, the data is neutral but is misuse and gross misinterpretation isn't.

 

[Juarez]

If somebody claims that some races are better than others, the somewhat obvious counter question is "at what?". Making such a claim neutrally is not really possible. It is like asking whether a screwdriver or a hammer is the superior tool. However, one could ask which is better for western society, and then such a question would make sense neutrally. Let them be niggers if they so wish, but I would strongly prefer they try to outnig each other in africa, not here. For most people their culture is implicit, so its a honest mistake to make.

 

[ardeys]

No, race is not derived from genetic clusters. Knowledge of genes didn't even exist when race already was a thing.

Pffft, no? Where are the real life instances of people bendng over backwards to argue for fookin east asian supremacy.

To better phrase it, the data is neutral but is misuse and gross misinterpretation isn't.

what is visible with genes was visible before with phenotypical features in a lesser extent, I see why we could say many people today wrongly advocate for white people as superior (in the sense being able to have higher power and capabilities as a collective society in long time outcomes) so yes I agree with you that these people could be cherrypicking and falsely claiming themself as race realists but race realism is still a thing and acknowledge the adaptations that races have in certain things and how do these races live together when counting culture also

 

[Nicusor_delaBraila]

There's this idea permeating certain circles that race realists are completely value neutral "truth seekers" who are simply trying to uncover the biological reality of humanity like innocent little taxonomists. And every claim they make simply follows downwards from that via analysis, from biology to crime statistics to iq levels.

But thinking about it for more than a few seconds reveals it to be not accurate. In reality, the race classification, as it stands today, is assumed as a fact. And the values that come with it are presumed as well. Which means that from the get go, the position is a-neutral. Then the next logical step is to pick and chose data that fits the narrative.

What that means is that white supremacy is baked into the very classification of races. Instead of being derived after the races are established. This ties in to the joke that none of the bad words for white people actually land. Which becomes most obvious in insults like "cracker" that are most blatantly white supremacy coded.

And this is not limited to derogatory terms. It follows into the wider concept that true racism against white people is theoretically impossible because of the aforementioned reasons.

being racist is just having some assumations based on what u heard to an extend

im not going to be racist to some high iq incel wizrd nigga/gypsy but if I dont know them im staying alert

 

[Caesercel]

. However, one could ask which is better for western society, and then such a question would make sense neutrally.

I don't know what this question is even supposed to mean.

what is visible with genes was visible before with phenotypical features in a lesser extent, I see why we could say many people today wrongly advocate for white people as superior (in the sense being able to have higher power and capabilities as a collective society in long time outcomes) so yes I agree with you that these people could be cherrypicking and falsely claiming themself as race realists but race realism is still a thing and acknowledge the adaptations that races have in certain things and how do these races live together when counting culture also

There are certain issues with this. First of all, genetic differences existing between different races does not mean races are derived from genetic differences. If we follow first principles then, depending on where we draw the line, there can be 100s of races or "one race human race". Its kind of arbitrary because unlike biological taxonomy there are no criteria to draw the line when it comes to race.

In any case, my point was not to critique race realism itself but to present the idea that race classification and racial supremacy are inseperable. Since, it is not based on real science then the entire point of classification becomes defining an in group, an out group and declaring one better than the other. It's in the very assumption that white people and brown people are two different people's. Or that all white people belong to the same group or all brown people belong to the same group. Although no one can clearly define an objective criteria which defines these groups. We know it's not genetics or skin color. And if it is about heredity then we come back to the point about putting people with one heredity over another.

The fundamental question here is, why should a group called "white people" even exist? And to what purpose, other than establishing supremacy over the non-whites, would anyone want to idenitify with this group?

 

[ardeys]

There are certain issues with this. First of all, genetic differences existing between different races does not mean races are derived from genetic differences. If we follow first principles then, depending on where we draw the line, there can be 100s of races or "one race human race". Its kind of arbitrary because unlike biological taxonomy there are no criteria to draw the line when it comes to race.

In any case, my point was not to critique race realism itself but to present the idea that race classification and racial supremacy are inseperable. Since, it is not based on real science then the entire point of classification becomes defining an in group, an out group and declaring one better than the other. It's in the very assumption that white people and brown people are two different people's. Or that all white people belong to the same group or all brown people belong to the same group. Although no one can clearly define an objective criteria which defines these groups. We know it's not genetics or skin color. And if it is about heredity then we come back to the point about putting people with one heredity over another.

The fundamental question here is, why should a group called "white people" even exist? And to what purpose, other than establishing supremacy over the non-whites, would anyone want to idenitify with this group?

There are clear differences between races that genetic clustering and anthropology make possible to identify, it is debatable which group is which, but you can’t say “the differences aren’t there because you can make macrogroups from the same data” I can’t say “all animals are the same specie because we have very similair dna”, and anyway there’s no need to invent a name for it, I could as well say “the genetic cluster of iberia in it’s continuos history is better at doing some things than the genetical cluster of nigeria”, groups still exist whether we categorize them or not there are distinctions even if the precise classifications are still debated today, saying that “white” has changed as category doesn’t mean there’s no “white” race at all

 

[1Disturbed]

All of us were created by God.

 

[ardeys]

There are clear differences between races that genetic clustering and anthropology make possible to identify, it is debatable which group is which, but you can’t say “the differences aren’t there because you can make macrogroups from the same data” I can’t say “all animals are the same specie because we have very similair dna”, and anyway there’s no need to invent a name for it, I could as well say “the genetic cluster of iberia in it’s continuos history is better at doing some things than the genetical cluster of nigeria”, groups still exist whether we categorize them or not there are distinctions even if the precise classifications are still debated today, saying that “white” has changed as category doesn’t mean there’s no “white” race at all

The reason why we do this classification is first for scientific truth and categorization of human biological differences therefore for anthropology and for the political and sociological effects that race has I mean if we put people of races that have a hard time going along with each other it would cause a bad environment for every member of that society

 

[ardeys]

The reason why we do this classification is first for scientific truth and categorization of human biological differences therefore for anthropology and for the political and sociological effects that race has I mean if we put people of races that have a hard time going along with each other it would cause a bad environment for every member of that society

Almost the same reason why we can’t let foids have “rights” (I’m not alluding that black people or other races shouldn’t have rights tho), we acknowledge that male and female are both human but have biological differences and letting foids act like men dooms everyone

 

[turbocuckcel_7000]

idk cumskin is pretty annoying

 

[Caesercel]

There are clear differences between races that genetic clustering and anthropology make possible to identify, it is debatable which group is which, but you can’t say “the differences aren’t there because you can make macrogroups from the same data” I can’t say “all animals are the same specie because we have very similair dna”, and anyway there’s no need to invent a name for it, I could as well say

Nobody is saying that minor biological differences between different population groups do not exist. The point is that biologiIcal differences are NOT the basis of racial classification. Because, as I said, we could have one single race or 100s of races if actual biology is practiced depending on how nit-picky we wanna get.

”, groups still exist whether we categorize them or not there are distinctions even if the precise classifications are still debated today, saying that “white” has changed as category doesn’t mean there’s no “white” race at all

I disagree. Groups do not come into existence until the act of classification. If you don't know the precise classification criteria then your group does not exist at all.

This is not to say that there is no white race. Only that the qualifying criteria here is not a biological one but a social one. Which would explain my main point as to why supremacy is inherent to the very idea of a "white race", and not independently "proven" a-postiori to the racial classification

The reason why we do this classification is first for scientific truth and categorization of human biological differences therefore for anthropology

This is just blatantly untrue. Frist, the scientific consensus agrees in tandem that significant biological differences that qualify the criteria of "homogenous inside and heterogeneous outside" simply do not exist among human populations .

Second, to repeat myself, the racial classifications are not arrived at through a scientific study. They are presumed beforehand and then the differences are applied as a justification. I can come with an alternate study with not 3-5 but 100 different "races" and still show that all of them have "biological differences". I can claim that the French and the Irish do not belong to any common group but are completely different "races". And before you say anything I can show lineage criteria that may justify my classification.

political and sociological effects that race has I mean if we put people of races that have a hard time going along with each other it would cause a bad environment for every member of that society

The political and sociogical effects exist because it's a social construct to begin with. We don't talk about the "sociological effects" of giving chicken rights because we don't think of them as humans at all. Which they aren't, so it's not a sociological question anymore.

 

[ardeys]

Nobody is saying that minor biological differences between different population groups do not exist. The point is that biologiIcal differences are NOT the basis of racial classification. Because, as I said, we could have one single race or 100s of races if actual biology is practiced depending on how nit-picky we wanna get.


I disagree. Groups do not come into existence until the act of classification. If you don't know the precise classification criteria then your group does not exist at all.

This is not to say that there is no white race. Only that the qualifying criteria here is not a biological one but a social one. Which would explain my main point as to why supremacy is inherent to the very idea of a "white race", and not independently "proven" a-postiori to the racial classification

This is just blatantly untrue. Frist, the scientific consensus agrees in tandem that significant biological differences that qualify the criteria of "homogenous inside and heterogeneous outside" simply do not exist among human populations .

Second, to repeat myself, the racial classifications are not arrived at through a scientific study. They are presumed beforehand and then the differences are applied as a justification. I can come with an alternate study with not 3-5 but 100 different "races" and still show that all of them have "biological differences". I can claim that the French and the Irish do not belong to any common group but are completely different "races". And before you say anything I can show lineage criteria that may justify my classification.


The political and sociogical effects exist because it's a social construct to begin with. We don't talk about the "sociological effects" of giving chicken rights because we don't think of them as humans at all. Which they aren't, so it's not a sociological question anymore.

Sorry bro but this is pure coping you didn’t even read the aurgument groups aren’t build on nothing but in differences there are no distinct shades of dark blue and black in your language until you call them so but dark blue is still distinct from black and your mind knows it (the ancient greeks used to call dark blue a shade of black like we could do with very deep grey) therefore the same can be done with subspecies species etc. The idea that there could be one big or 100 races are both true actually there are many classification until you get to the individual unique in his own (there is a macrogroup wich is homo sapiens and a microgroup wich is caucasian a smaller group wich is tronder etc… until you get to me and you). In case you didn’t know researches on race are often banned from academia here’s how much they know about it appeal to authority means nothing. Again the east asian group is superior to the european group in many ways yet nobody claims asians are supremacists for stating their average iq and brain volume. The fact that you can divide groups in even more subgroups doesn’t mean there are no macrogroups and the fact that you can have macrogroups doesn’t mean there are no microgroups I know that you say that white includes many people like jews who have little to do with whites to boost the qualities of white people but in fact I don’t agree with this as I said before I don’t contradict u on this.

 

[ardeys]

Sorry bro but this is pure coping you didn’t even read the aurgument groups aren’t build on nothing but in differences there are no distinct shades of dark blue and black in your language until you call them so but dark blue is still distinct from black and your mind knows it (the ancient greeks used to call dark blue a shade of black like we could do with very deep grey) therefore the same can be done with subspecies species etc. The idea that there could be one big or 100 races are both true actually there are many classification until you get to the individual unique in his own (there is a macrogroup wich is homo sapiens and a microgroup wich is caucasian a smaller group wich is tronder etc… until you get to me and you). In case you didn’t know researches on race are often banned from academia here’s how much they know about it appeal to authority means nothing. Again the east asian group is superior to the european group in many ways yet nobody claims asians are supremacists for stating their average iq and brain volume. The fact that you can divide groups in even more subgroups doesn’t mean there are no macrogroups and the fact that you can have macrogroups doesn’t mean there are no microgroups I know that you say that white includes many people like jews who have little to do with whites to boost the qualities of white people but in fact I don’t agree with this as I said before I don’t contradict u on this.

Saying that race doesn’t exist for ethical reasons is like saying that the earth doesn’t orbit the sun to preserve a geocentric mystic worldview

 

[Caesercel]

you didn’t even read the aurgument

Which arguments are those? I've replied to everything you've posted even though there's not much of an argument there. And if you're talking about race "realist" arguments in general, then which one of those cherry picked pseudo scientific bs do you want me to address?

there are no distinct shades of dark blue and black in your language until you call them so but dark blue is still distinct from black and your mind knows it (the ancient greeks used to call dark blue a shade of black like we could do with very deep grey)

If you are arguing for empiricism (observation) then what is it that is being observed that defines the races as they exist today? You yourself admit that there can be one race or 100 races depending on how much you "zoom in". So it's not coming from geneticism. It's quite literally nothing but phenotype (skin color) and social status.

The idea that there could be one big or 100 races are both true actually there are many classification until you get to the individual unique in his own (there is a macrogroup wich is homo sapiens and a microgroup wich is caucasian a smaller group wich is tronder etc… until you get to me and you).

And as I pointed out these classifications do not exist a-priori to analysis. There are observable biological differences but those do not form the basis on which races are defined or classified no matter how much you'd like to pretend that's the case. Reality won't change to your whims. The question is, what reason makes you chose the particular classification that does not lead to one race or 100 races but specifically stops at 3-5 races? That reason is NOT biological. It's social. It's ARBITRARY.

And saying that all those classifications are true down to the individual level won't change the social biases that lead you to considering the 3-5 race classification (with white/black etc) above all else.

For example- you might argue that black people have on average less iq so they shouldn't immigrate to the west. But if it's found that southern Italians have lower iq than northern Italians then shouldn't the former also be stopped from moving to the latter? Or if you , as an individual have low iq, whatever the race, then shouldn't you be kicked out as well?

The above hypothetical shows how the fixation with the 3-5 race (black/white) classification is entirely an unscientific arbitrary social phenomena with supremacy baked into it. If you really cared about science you'd be stopping white Irish from immigrating to white France or whatever. Or telling us how one of them is "superior".

Of course it's all bullshit. So none of this actually matters

. In case you didn’t know researches on race are often banned from academia here’s how much they know about it appeal to authority means nothing.

Researches make race based studies all the time when it leads to actual positive results in medical science or whatever. Because some biological differences do exist. What is banned though is the kind of nonsensical pseudo-science that forms the bread and butter of race realists. And that's a good thing because (much like troons) race realists tend to peddle their political opinions as science.

. Again the east asian group is superior to the european group in many ways yet nobody claims asians are supremacists for stating their average iq and brain volume.

It's a bullshit stereotype that hurts east Asians more than anything else. The supremacy in this particular style of racial classification ALWAYS lies with white people.

And no it's based on logic or science. White people are simply assumed to be superior (whatever that means)

Saying that race doesn’t exist for ethical reasons is like saying that the earth doesn’t orbit the sun to preserve a geocentric mystic worldview

None of my reasons are ethical if you haven't noticed. My point is that biological differences between human populations do exist. We both agree on that. I only point out the fact that those biological differences are NOT the criteria through which the modern 3-5 racial classification is arrived at.

I believe this video covers a fine example of how "race science" is a fraud.

 

[Caichan]

Pffft, no? Where are the real life instances of people bendng over backwards to argue for fookin east asian supremacy.

it’s just built on aesthetics, that’s why it’s for whites and not others

 

[Roastie Crusher]

ALWAYS lies with white people.

The British made it up. And why are the British so obsessed with classification? Even the Ancient Egyptians classified Asiatics and others.

What creates social hierarchy without aesthetic differences? Also, capitalism naturally pools intelligent people together and they become aesthetically similar.

 

[Lonelyus]

I love nascar!

 

[ardeys]

Which arguments are those? I've replied to everything you've posted even though there's not much of an argument there. And if you're talking about race "realist" arguments in general, then which one of those cherry picked pseudo scientific bs do you want me to address?


If you are arguing for empiricism (observation) then what is it that is being observed that defines the races as they exist today? You yourself admit that there can be one race or 100 races depending on how much you "zoom in". So it's not coming from geneticism. It's quite literally nothing but phenotype (skin color) and social status.


And as I pointed out these classifications do not exist a-priori to analysis. There are observable biological differences but those do not form the basis on which races are defined or classified no matter how much you'd like to pretend that's the case. Reality won't change to your whims. The question is, what reason makes you chose the particular classification that does not lead to one race or 100 races but specifically stops at 3-5 races? That reason is NOT biological. It's social. It's ARBITRARY.

And saying that all those classifications are true down to the individual level won't change the social biases that lead you to considering the 3-5 race classification (with white/black etc) above all else.

For example- you might argue that black people have on average less iq so they shouldn't immigrate to the west. But if it's found that southern Italians have lower iq than northern Italians then shouldn't the former also be stopped from moving to the latter? Or if you , as an individual have low iq, whatever the race, then shouldn't you be kicked out as well?

The above hypothetical shows how the fixation with the 3-5 race (black/white) classification is entirely an unscientific arbitrary social phenomena with supremacy baked into it. If you really cared about science you'd be stopping white Irish from immigrating to white France or whatever. Or telling us how one of them is "superior".

Of course it's all bullshit. So none of this actually matters

Researches make race based studies all the time when it leads to actual positive results in medical science or whatever. Because some biological differences do exist. What is banned though is the kind of nonsensical pseudo-science that forms the bread and butter of race realists. And that's a good thing because (much like troons) race realists tend to peddle their political opinions as science.


It's a bullshit stereotype that hurts east Asians more than anything else. The supremacy in this particular style of racial classification ALWAYS lies with white people.

And no it's based on logic or science. White people are simply assumed to be superior (whatever that means)


None of my reasons are ethical if you haven't noticed. My point is that biological differences between human populations do exist. We both agree on that. I only point out the fact that those biological differences are NOT the criteria through which the modern 3-5 racial classification is arrived at.

I believe this video covers a fine example of how "race science" is a fraud.

I will watch the video you sent please if u’re interested watch this:
View: https://youtu.be/Uc8DWmOX5Ac?si=IyQONAEGHpSGg48c


Saying that southern italians shouldn’t move to northern italy because subsaharan africans shouldn’t move to europe is like saying that since we’re arresting a serial killer for life we should do something similair with someone that has been on a street fight if S Italians were really that low IQ I would suggest at them too to not go and live in mass with high Iq people since they wouldn’t understand each other well and would have difficulty living in the same society as we can see with some areas in the US today, the point is that most of aurguments against race have been made by jews like Rosenberg who are also pretty delicate to these concepts, there are way more differences in a bigger group then in a smaller genetically also because we could make the group bigger and analyze the extremes that would give us bigger differences in any case but the method used by these geneticist is incomplete and has been disproven I’ve read this but now I don’t remember who did the test I’m sure you can find it, the fact that we can divide in many groups doesn’t disprove the groups just as we can divide from the colors as a big all, to the main colors red green blue, to smaller colors pink, reddish, full red, dark red etc… I said before that how these groups are done is debatable but there are still clear differences, in the case of race both empirical and genetical (I used colors as an example because by being empirical it is easier to understand), plus as I said there is no reason why whites should consider themselves superior in intelligence or other important traits when compared to east asians and jews so I don’t see how they could cherry pick, few pseudosciences are banned actually you can do researches on many dumb things they try even with bs like telepathy or knowledge through dreams but when it’s about race it becomes illegal… I’ll respond you after I’ll watch the video for more opinions

 

[Rapistcel]

Nobody is saying that minor biological differences between different population groups do not exist. The point is that biologiIcal differences are NOT the basis of racial classification. Because, as I said, we could have one single race or 100s of races if actual biology is practiced depending on how nit-picky we wanna get.


I disagree. Groups do not come into existence until the act of classification. If you don't know the precise classification criteria then your group does not exist at all.

This is not to say that there is no white race. Only that the qualifying criteria here is not a biological one but a social one. Which would explain my main point as to why supremacy is inherent to the very idea of a "white race", and not independently "proven" a-postiori to the racial classification

This is just blatantly untrue. Frist, the scientific consensus agrees in tandem that significant biological differences that qualify the criteria of "homogenous inside and heterogeneous outside" simply do not exist among human populations .

Second, to repeat myself, the racial classifications are not arrived at through a scientific study. They are presumed beforehand and then the differences are applied as a justification. I can come with an alternate study with not 3-5 but 100 different "races" and still show that all of them have "biological differences". I can claim that the French and the Irish do not belong to any common group but are completely different "races". And before you say anything I can show lineage criteria that may justify my classification.


The political and sociogical effects exist because it's a social construct to begin with. We don't talk about the "sociological effects" of giving chicken rights because we don't think of them as humans at all. Which they aren't, so it's not a sociological question anymore.

Why all commies are race denialists? Do you think it's an invented concept of capitalism to alienate proletarians or what?

 

[Undervalued]

Why all commies are race denialists? Do you think it's an invented concept of capitalism to alienate proletarians or what?

Sickening to see what leftism has become in the West.

A hundred years ago progressives and leftists aspired to ban alcohol (prohibition), ban war itself (League of Nations), and even ban stupidity (eugenics).

 

[caineturbat2003]

Sickening to see what leftism has become in the West.

A hundred years ago progressives and leftists aspired to ban alcohol (prohibition), ban war itself (League of Nations), and even ban stupidity (eugenics).

Foids have hijacked leftism, honestly if it weren't so degenerate, I myself would have been drawn by it than the right (at least economically). I never liked capitalism to begin with.

 

[Caesercel]

Do you think it's an invented concept of capitalism to alienate proletarians or what?

No, in my understanding it is a social construct invented as a direct result of the conditions of colonialism. As an attempt by early colonialists who were settling on land here and driving chatter slavery there to understand the world and their place in it. (which very conveniently turned out to be at the top of the hierarchy they themselves built)

Ig the connection to capitalism would be that colonialism started the international trade networks that evolved into modern industrial capitalism. But that's not why I am like this. Infact, it has nothing to do with lefty stuff. I come from a society that was not traditionally race conscious. And I simply did not wholesale absorb the dominant western ideas of race, like some of my other countrymen did after coming to contact with them. If you looked at my parents you might as well assume they belong to different races altogether, skin color and all. But here they belong to the same social group. I did not grow up hearing and learning about these "races", so to me it's easier to imagine how it's all kind of arbitrary and shallow.

 

[Jimb0]

 

[Jaquarius1488]

Racism is natural i would always prefer my own people over anyone

 

[Caesercel]

Racism is natural i would always prefer my own people over anyone

No it's not. And there's no reason for a French to consider an Irishman or a Bantu to consider a Somalian as "my own people".

 

[Caesercel]

Saying that southern italians shouldn’t move to northern italy because subsaharan africans shouldn’t move to europe is like saying that since we’re arresting a serial killer for life we should do something similair with someone that has been on a street fight

That's a terrible analogy. I know you are trying to argue on the basis of degree of genetic differences , but it still won't change the fact that your line on when population mixing should be acceptable or not is still arbitrary.

if S Italians were really that low IQ I would suggest at them too to not go and live in mass with high Iq people since they wouldn’t understand each other well and would have difficulty living in the same society as we can see with some areas in the US today,

That is absurd. High iq and low iq people co-exist in every society.

, there are way more differences in a bigger group then in a smaller genetically also because we could make the group bigger and analyze the extremes that would give us bigger differences

Except these well divided groups that you speak of simply do not exist. There are Africans who are genetically closer to the rest of humanity than they are to other categories of Africans. The claim of race realist fraud , that it can categorise humans into neat groups that are "homogeneous within and heterogeneous outside" by some criteria is simply a lie. The video I sent you makes that point.

plus as I said there is no reason why whites should consider themselves superior in intelligence or other important traits when compared to east asians and jews so I don’t see how they could cherry pick,

Let's be frank here. No race realist ever believed that jews or chinks are superior to whites, at anything. Jews are not even a race. Plus when we talk about "supremacy" the idea is not that a certain race is better at "something", some skill or talent. No, it's complete objective supremacy. The idea that some races are simply superior and hence should be allowed to sit at the top of the social hierarchy.

This is besides the fact that these skill/talent based stereotypes are retarded in and of themselves. How does it serve anyone? A black guy can be smart. An asian guy can be a good runner. A white guy could be a total failure at everything. Why do these "averages" and "stereotypes" matter? Let me tell you why, because certain people wish to pretend that they are simply superior and "deserve" to be at the top. They'll talk about racial success despite being losers in their own individual lives. That's why people identify with such a race because they want to feel superior. Race idenitity and racial supremacy are inseparable.

, few pseudosciences are banned actually you can do researches on many dumb things they try even with bs like telepathy or knowledge through dreams but when it’s about race it becomes illegal…

Nobody takes them seriously and none of them are nearly as harmful as race pseudoscience. Race pseudoscientists are straight up liars. Let me share another video which demonstrates that

 

[ardeys]

That's a terrible analogy. I know you are trying to argue on the basis of degree of genetic differences , but it still won't change the fact that your line on when population mixing should be acceptable or not is still arbitrary.


1.That is absurd. High iq and low iq people co-exist in every society.

2.Except these well divided groups that you speak of simply do not exist. There are Africans who are genetically closer to the rest of humanity than they are to other categories of Africans. The claim of race realist fraud , that it can categorise humans into neat groups that are "homogeneous within and heterogeneous outside" by some criteria is simply a lie. The video I sent you makes that point.

3.Let's be frank here. No race realist ever believed that jews or chinks are superior to whites, at anything. Jews are not even a race. Plus when we talk about "supremacy" the idea is not that a certain race is better at "something", some skill or talent. No, it's complete objective supremacy. The idea that some races are simply superior and hence should be allowed to sit at the top of the social hierarchy.

4.This is besides the fact that these skill/talent based stereotypes are retarded in and of themselves. How does it serve anyone? A black guy can be smart. An asian guy can be a good runner. A white guy could be a total failure at everything. Why do these "averages" and "stereotypes" matter? Let me tell you why, because certain people wish to pretend that they are simply superior and "deserve" to be at the top. They'll talk about racial success despite being losers in their own individual lives. That's why people identify with such a race because they want to feel superior. Race idenitity and racial supremacy are inseparable.
Nobody takes them seriously and none of them are nearly as harmful as race pseudoscience. Race pseudoscientists are straight up liars. Let me share another video which demonstrates that

1.Not in mass and not in places in which they have almost the same political power like democracies.

2.They do exist and comparing it to the average doesn’t make differences across other groups nonexistence this is just mental gymnastics. We do it already with other species but It magically becomes impossible when we talk about humans, how convenient, the categories do not have to be perfect to still be there since we’re not analyzing mathematical concepts but complex reality, if that was the case we couldn’t do anything reguarding biology, we couldn’t identify viruses since there are mutations and subtle differences within one group.

3.I don’t care what “race realists” say I care what the topic itself and the data say, ashkenazi jews and north east asians have higher IQ averages and brain volume compared to body size than the majority of white people. Plus I never said that a race by being more intelligent therefore should be higher in hierarchy, it isn’t to be assumed.

4.Sorry bro but that’s all you have to say call it retarded? No when speaking about big masses doing averages is not retarded we’re not talking about the individuals but about the majority, obviously if I talk about this you can’t say me that there are smart blacks or fast asians too, I know there are and even many, race supremacy and genetic are logically separable there’s no need for the smarter to dominate the dumber or always lead him and as you said there are smart people among all races and there is no need for a race to be led by a majority. However sensible may one be to a topic it should still be adressed we invented the nuclear bomb we are experimenting with AI, both very more dangerous things, but knowing basic things about race which even AI is able to know through x-ray is illegal because people don’t want to deal with it.

 

[ardeys]

1.Not in mass and not in places in which they have almost the same political power like democracies.

2.They do exist and comparing it to the average doesn’t make differences across other groups nonexistence this is just mental gymnastics. We do it already with other species but It magically becomes impossible when we talk about humans, how convenient, the categories do not have to be perfect to still be there since we’re not analyzing mathematical concepts but complex reality, if that was the case we couldn’t do anything reguarding biology, we couldn’t identify viruses since there are mutations and subtle differences within one group.

3.I don’t care what “race realists” say I care what the topic itself and the data say, ashkenazi jews and north east asians have higher IQ averages and brain volume compared to body size than the majority of white people. Plus I never said that a race by being more intelligent therefore should be higher in hierarchy, it isn’t to be assumed.

4.Sorry bro but that’s all you have to say call it retarded? No when speaking about big masses doing averages is not retarded we’re not talking about the individuals but about the majority, obviously if I talk about this you can’t say me that there are smart blacks or fast asians too, I know there are and even many, race supremacy and genetic are logically separable there’s no need for the smarter to dominate the dumber or always lead him and as you said there are smart people among all races and there is no need for a race to be led by a majority. However sensible may one be to a topic it should still be adressed we invented the nuclear bomb we are experimenting with AI, both very more dangerous things, but knowing basic things about race which even AI is able to know through x-ray is illegal because people don’t want to deal with it.

 

[1Disturbed]

You're right, race is not scientific.

 

[Caesercel]

1.Not in mass and not in places in which they have almost the same political power like democracies.

Uh, high iq and low iq people do co-exist in "mass" and they do have same political power. This has nothing to do with race.

2.They do exist and comparing it to the average doesn’t make differences across other groups nonexistence this is just mental gymnastics. We do it already with other species but It magically becomes impossible when we talk about humans, how convenient, the categories do not have to be perfect to still be there since we’re not analyzing mathematical concepts but complex reality, if that was the case we couldn’t do anything reguarding biology, we couldn’t identify viruses since there are mutations and subtle differences within one group.

Biological differences do exist, it's just that the retarded and hyperbolic conclusions drawn by race pseudo-scientists are wrong(I'm having to repeat myself). And so is their method of categorisation. The categories don't have to be perfect but atleast they have to make sense. But in case of race pseudo-science they don't even have a criteria to define their categories because they are not doing science. They are simply trying to justify their ass backward political beliefs and pre-concieved notions of how humans ought to be divided.

In actual taxonomy there is ATLEAST a general sense of what a "species", "group" or "family" are. But what exactly is a "Race"? The race pseudo-scientist has no answer. All of biological creed agrees that significant biological differences simply do not exist for any kind of taxonomical categorisation to be meaningful. And in this matter race realists are on the wrong side of science. No matter how much they cry about "appeal to authority".

.

3.I don’t care what “race realists” say I care what the topic itself and the data say, ashkenazi jews and north east asians have higher IQ averages and brain volume compared to body size than the majority of white people. Plus I never said that a race by being more intelligent therefore should be higher in hierarchy, it isn’t to be assumed.

There's a chance that your family's "average" iq is lower than your cousin's family. My question in my previous post was, how is any of that meaningful? It's not. The only people who regurgitate this nonsense are people who wish to use it as an excuse against immigration or race mixing.

there are smart blacks or fast asians too, I know there are and even many,

My question again is, then why do we even need to take "averages" over arbitrary made up groups and then pretend that the data says something about the "biological reality" of these groups or some such nonsense?

You are basically here trying to have your cake and eat it to. You arbitrarily declare that these are the group's humans should be divided into and then take averages of unrelated data like iq to say "look my classification was right, differences exist". But I can literally do that for any whimsical made up grouping.

, both very more dangerous things, but knowing basic things about race which even AI is able to know through x-ray is illegal because people don’t want to deal with it.

Repeating myself (again) , nobody says that biological differences do not exist. But the conclusions of race realists are unscientific and have nothing to do with the actual reality of the situation.

Otherwise a lot of medical research does exist for how different diseases affect different populations. (some of it used wrongly by race scientists to support their nonsensical theories, despite the original research not coming with any such conclusions. They really are snakes). This reasearch is done because studying the differences here is meaningful. And these smart people don't pretend that the 3-5 outdated race theory is the defining paradigm/basis on which biological differences, for medical reasons, should be studied.

That attatchement you sent me is literally addressed in the video I had already sent you. Around the 16:30 mark. Like.... watch it before sending me anymore memeographics from /pol/

 

[ardeys]

Uh, high iq and low iq people do co-exist in "mass" and they do have same political power. This has nothing to do with race.


Biological differences do exist, it's just that the retarded and hyperbolic conclusions drawn by race pseudo-scientists are wrong(I'm having to repeat myself). And so is their method of categorisation. The categories don't have to be perfect but atleast they have to make sense. But in case of race pseudo-science they don't even have a criteria to define their categories because they are not doing science. They are simply trying to justify their ass backward political beliefs and pre-concieved notions of how humans ought to be divided.

In actual taxonomy there is ATLEAST a general sense of what a "species", "group" or "family" are. But what exactly is a "Race"? The race pseudo-scientist has no answer. All of biological creed agrees that significant biological differences simply do not exist for any kind of taxonomical categorisation to be meaningful. And in this matter race realists are on the wrong side of science. No matter how much they cry about "appeal to authority".


There's a chance that your family's "average" iq is lower than your cousin's family. My question in my previous post was, how is any of that meaningful? It's not. The only people who regurgitate this nonsense are people who wish to use it as an excuse against immigration or race mixing.

My question again is, then why do we even need to take "averages" over arbitrary made up groups and then pretend that the data says something about the "biological reality" of these groups or some such nonsense?

You are basically here trying to have your cake and eat it to. You arbitrarily declare that these are the group's humans should be divided into and then take averages of unrelated data like iq to say "look my classification was right, differences exist". But I can literally do that for any whimsical made up grouping.


Repeating myself (again) , nobody says that biological differences do not exist. But the conclusions of race realists are unscientific and have nothing to do with the actual reality of the situation.

Otherwise a lot of medical research does exist for how different diseases affect different populations. (some of it used wrongly by race scientists to support their nonsensical theories, despite the original research not coming with any such conclusions. They really are snakes). This reasearch is done because studying the differences here is meaningful. And these smart people don't pretend that the 3-5 outdated race theory is the defining paradigm/basis on which biological differences, for medical reasons, should be studied.

That attatchement you sent me is literally addressed in the video I had already sent you. Around the 16:30 mark. Like.... watch it before sending me anymore memeographics from /pol/

Dude I don’t understand why you don’t capture the logic either way one of us has to explain each other better, there is more diversity in bigger groups than smaller therefore the aurgument of there being more differences between members of a group than members of different groups already collapses either this or either you cannot increase diversity by importing immigrants, let alone genetically then it has been proven that there’s more difference between members of different groups and the previous study was very old, second there’s no need to group in white black etc… as I’ve said but surely there are the differences as you’ve admitted and they’re not meaningless, I would even classify southern euros a race too different and incompatible on a full level with northern euros genetically despite there being a shared culture, we can argue about the groups as I said but you don’t understand that you can be a race realist too by arguing on the data the term race realist was made because people think that discussing human similarities and differences was encouraging supremacy nobody actually gives a fuck about who is offended or not okay we’re just trying to get to a discussion if it really it’s all fake let the data speak for itself let people conduct studies otherwise you will just make them become real supremacists since they’ll think it is real in the case of it being false, I don’t understand where you think I said these are the groups and I don’t understand what is hard to understand about races being marked by regions since the studies were done on the people that have lived on that region for most of recent millennia, by changing names and terms you will not change the meaning of the thing, we don’t take averages about the group we do it about all people and then do the groups, again the existence of infinitesimals don’t disprove the numbers, of course low and high iq people coexist it’s called detroid and atlanta what a beautiful place where you risk being killed because of people ending up in criminal activity due to the system being inadequate for both, also stop attacking ad hominem or making appeals to authority it doesn’t prove the aurgument, do you have a telegram so we can talk better?

 

[ardeys]

Dude I don’t understand why you don’t capture the logic either way one of us has to explain each other better, there is more diversity in bigger groups than smaller therefore the aurgument of there being more differences between members of a group than members of different groups already collapses either this or either you cannot increase diversity by importing immigrants, let alone genetically then it has been proven that there’s more difference between members of different groups and the previous study was very old, second there’s no need to group in white black etc… as I’ve said but surely there are the differences as you’ve admitted and they’re not meaningless, I would even classify southern euros a race too different and incompatible on a full level with northern euros genetically despite there being a shared culture, we can argue about the groups as I said but you don’t understand that you can be a race realist too by arguing on the data the term race realist was made because people think that discussing human similarities and differences was encouraging supremacy nobody actually gives a fuck about who is offended or not okay we’re just trying to get to a discussion if it really it’s all fake let the data speak for itself let people conduct studies otherwise you will just make them become real supremacists since they’ll think it is real in the case of it being false, I don’t understand where you think I said these are the groups and I don’t understand what is hard to understand about races being marked by regions since the studies were done on the people that have lived on that region for most of recent millennia, by changing names and terms you will not change the meaning of the thing, we don’t take averages about the group we do it about all people and then do the groups, again the existence of infinitesimals don’t disprove the numbers, of course low and high iq people coexist it’s called detroid and atlanta what a beautiful place where you risk being killed because of people ending up in criminal activity due to the system being inadequate for both, also stop attacking ad hominem or making appeals to authority it doesn’t prove the aurgument, do you have a telegram so we can talk better?

Other questions like what is race? Race is just the subspecies composing a species we can give it another name the concept is still there it doesn’t really matter what name we give to things groups are still there as you already have said, it doesn’t matter if I call it rain or some other word I’m still getting my head wet if I stay under it

 

[Hoodpreet]

The British made it up. And why are the British so obsessed with classification? Even the Ancient Egyptians classified Asiatics and others.

What creates social hierarchy without aesthetic differences? Also, capitalism naturally pools intelligent people together and they become aesthetically similar.

Anti-British seething is more proof of you being a jeet, on top of you calling curry hate a psyop and posting IR cuck shit in the past.

Do know that you aren’t flying under the radar. Your LARP is being noticed

 

[Caesercel]

therefore the aurgument of there being more differences between members of a group than members of different groups already collapses

I never made that argument in any of my posts to begin with. I guess people who make that argument are alluding to the fact that there are far more differentiating factors between members of a population than the differentiating factors between two different populations. And this is a biological fact.

There are far more things differentiating you genetically from your brother than there are things differentiating white population AS A WHOLE from black population AS A WHOLE. Because the sheer genetic diversity within a single race, and all the common genes shared between races, ensures that the differentiating factors between different races are very limited. That of course does not mean that you are genetically closer to an African than to your brother. But the sheer number of distinctions between you and your brother are large. And the number of supposed distinctions between white and black populations AS A WHOLE are relatively small. Because both are such diverse groups within themselves that there are more commonalities than differences, genetically speaking when comparing races. This is a sheer result of statistics.

Basically how do you even defines a "white" gene or a "black" gene? When you look for genes that are ONLY present among whites and then look for genes that are ONLY present among blacks, there aren't very many of them. Meanwhile when you look for genes that seperate you from your brother, there are A LOT. This is what scientists mean when they say that there is more intra group diversity than inter group diversity. There are billions of white people and billions of black people and because of these huge number there are way more genes that are shared commonly between those groups than there are genes that differentiate those groups. But when you compare yourself to your brother, just two individuals with limited genes, there are relatively more differentiating genes compared to common genes.

Frankly I didn't think you or most race realists are intellectually capable of following this line of reasoning. It's almost too much to expect. That's why I never made this argument. Instead my argument was that even if what you are saying is true and white people and black people are very genetically distinct as you claim, even then you drawing the line here instead of considering further divisions is arbitrary and random. And of course the fact that certain Africans are closer to Asians/whites/curries than they are to other blacks (say pygmies) dismantles the whole white/black dichotomy.

This man pictured above is racially closer to me than he is to this man pictured below. And I am neither black nor from Africa.

Yet race realists would claim that these two belong to the same category as "black" and I am a seperate race from them. Even though me and the guy in the red coat are far closer anthropolgy wise than the other guy. Race realism is unscientific.

 

[Caesercel]

Dude I don’t understand why you don’t capture the logic either way one of us has to explain each other better, there is more diversity in bigger groups than smaller therefore the aurgument of there being more differences between members of a group than members of different groups already collapses either this or either you cannot increase diversity by importing immigrants, let alone genetically then it has been proven that there’s more difference between members of different groups and the previous study was very old, second there’s no need to group in white black etc… as I’ve said but surely there are the differences as you’ve admitted and they’re not meaningless, I would even classify southern euros a race too different and incompatible on a full level with northern euros genetically despite there being a shared culture, we can argue about the groups as I said but you don’t understand that you can be a race realist too by arguing on the data the term race realist was made because people think that discussing human similarities and differences was encouraging supremacy nobody actually gives a fuck about who is offended or not okay we’re just trying to get to a discussion if it really it’s all fake let the data speak for itself let people conduct studies otherwise you will just make them become real supremacists since they’ll think it is real in the case of it being false, I don’t understand where you think I said these are the groups and I don’t understand what is hard to understand about races being marked by regions since the studies were done on the people that have lived on that region for most of recent millennia, by changing names and terms you will not change the meaning of the thing, we don’t take averages about the group we do it about all people and then do the groups, again the existence of infinitesimals don’t disprove the numbers, of course low and high iq people coexist it’s called detroid and atlanta what a beautiful place where you risk being killed because of people ending up in criminal activity due to the system being inadequate for both, also stop attacking ad hominem or making appeals to authority it doesn’t prove the aurgument, do you have a telegram so we can talk better?

I never made that argument in any of my posts to begin with. I guess people who make that argument are alluding to the fact that there are far more differentiating factors between members of a population than the differentiating factors between two different populations. And this is a biological fact.

There are far more things differentiating you genetically from your brother than there are things differentiating white population AS A WHOLE from black population AS A WHOLE. Because the sheer genetic diversity within a single race, and all the common genes shared between races, ensures that the differentiating factors between different races are very limited. That of course does not mean that you are genetically closer to an African than to your brother. But the sheer number of distinctions between you and your brother are large. And the number of supposed distinctions between white and black populations AS A WHOLE are relatively small. Because both are such diverse groups within themselves that there are more commonalities than differences, genetically speaking when comparing races. This is a sheer result of statistics.

Basically how do you even defines a "white" gene or a "black" gene? When you look for genes that are ONLY present among whites and then look for genes that are ONLY present among blacks, there aren't very many of them. Meanwhile when you look for genes that seperate you from your brother, there are A LOT. This is what scientists mean when they say that there is more intra group diversity than inter group diversity. There are billions of white people and billions of black people and because of these huge number there are way more genes that are shared commonly between those groups than there are genes that differentiate those groups. But when you compare yourself to your brother, just two individuals with limited genes, there are relatively more differentiating genes compared to common genes.

Frankly I didn't think you or most race realists are intellectually capable of following this line of reasoning. It's almost too much to expect. That's why I never made this argument. Instead my argument was that even if what you are saying is true and white people and black people are very genetically distinct as you claim, even then you drawing the line here instead of considering further divisions is arbitrary and random. And of course the fact that certain Africans are closer to Asians/whites/curries than they are to other blacks (say pygmies) dismantles the whole white/black dichotomy.

View attachment 1616427


This man pictured above is racially closer to me than he is to this man pictured below. And I am neither black nor from Africa.

View attachment 1616428
Yet race realists would claim that these two belong to the same category as "black" and I am a seperate race from them. Even though me and the guy in the red coat are far closer anthropolgy wise than the other guy. Race realism is unscientific.

As an example, for the sake of simplicity let's assume that that there is a single tall gene that makes people tall and a single short gene that makes people short. Now imagine that you got the tall gene and grew up to be tall but your brother was not so lucky, he got the short gene. So here, this height gene can be used to differentiate you from your brother. Proving there is genetic diversity among you.

Now let's imagine that both the tall/short genes are found in both white and black people. So this gene is not race specific and hence cannot be used to differentiate between these races. This goes for most genes.

You see what's happening here? A gene that conveys genetic diversity between you and your brother does not convey genetic diversity between white race and black race. So the white race and black race (as a whole, not individuals) are closer than you are to your brother.

 

[1Disturbed]

View attachment 1616427


This man pictured above is racially closer to me than he is to this man pictured below. And I am neither black nor from Africa.

View attachment 1616428
Yet race realists would claim that these two belong to the same category as "black" and I am a seperate race from them. Even though me and the guy in the red coat are far closer anthropolgy wise than the other guy. Race realism is unscientific.