/lit/ - Literature

How many times are we going to post this thread

Probably because he revolutionized the field of linguistics, is one of the (if not the sole) most important living intellectual(s), has had a huge impact in both academia and to regular college-educated people, and has a breadth of knowledge rarely matched.

He's a jew so other jews promote him.

>>10775760
Because he's a romantic and only a soulless creature doesn't like a romantic. His vision for society is what everyone knows deep down would work if everyone began trusting each other and working towards a common goal, and if common sense and reason were the arbiters of human conflict.

>>10775760
>>10775854
>>10775859
>>10775862
The real answer is that first year English majors who LARP as communists think it makes them look smart to talk about him all the time.

>>10775854
How did he revolutionize it, again?

>>10775859
^this and
>>10776018
^this

>>10776018
Has a clumsier sentence ever been posted on this board?

>linguistic work 90% of people who "like" him don't care about but gives him clout
>muh principled rationality, muh enlightenment, fuck postmodernism sokal is a beast....
>brand of liberal politics that appeals to people who enjoy the films of oliver stone
if you come across a chomsky-homp, prepare for mid-2000s style banality...

>>10776029
How would you put it?

>>10775760
Because everyone who attempts to refute him typically betrays their ignorance and lack of understanding almost immediately.

His reasoning is usually rock solid and backed up with plenty of evidence, while his critics usually flounder around and project views on him that he doesn't have because they don't bother to actually understand the basis of his arguments.

>>10776114
The genuine rejoinder to your most confounded query is that unlearned novices posses a peculiar fondness for masquerading as learned leftist intellectuals; they presume that deliberating about an individual such as Mr.Chomsky will grant them with the same intellectual aura that was granted him; 'tis merely a sham.

>>10775760
I'm one of those people. I do it because his arguments are hard (basically impossible) to argue against and it's fun to post them on /pol/.

>>10776221
Also all you gotta do is tell someone "If you think he is wrong about anything just email him yourself. He responds to every email. Please post the response" and they stop talking.

>>10776192
>posses
Also, why are you talking like a Steampunker?

>proves that classical liberalism is an outdated position and that its original reasoning would today lead to a libertarian socialist position
>literally nobody can defeat him in a debate
>responds to everything with good arguments and plenty of sources
I'm not an anarchist personally but he's a good first step into anti-capitalism

>>10776416
You cannot enforce libertarian socialism its beyond delusional

>>10776416
>literally nobody can defeat him in a debate

>>10775760
Because most of the people who attack him are acoustic brainlets, and when they're shown how they have no idea what they're saying, they whine that Chomsky has too many fans.

>>10776452
>acoustic

>>10776447
Why?

>>10776447
As long as you dont constantly enable globalist capitalism and the police state libertarian socialism would not have to be "enforced".

>>10776503
not the guy you're replying to but I actually understand him, the idea comes from McLuhan you utter pleb

go read some more you utter brainlet pleb

>>10775760
Maybe it's because a lot of his followers are young (his work is reasonably accessible, as is the way he talks as seen on YouTube), which makes them more inclined to enthusiastically defend him. It's the same sort of reason why Peterson fans can get so worked up.

>>10777662
Tell me where he is wrong on anything. Politically.

>>10775854
>is one of the (if not the sole) most important living intellectual(s)
wew

>>10777700
I don't know anything about his works. I'm just saying that when a large portion of your "fanbase" is young, you're going to get much more energetic defenders and supporters.

>>10777662
Why shouldn't his work be accessible???? His style is intrinsically tied to his message
Any what is wrong about what he says?

>>10777703
Hope you're memeing because you sound like an utter dumb

>>10777711
You should read some of his stuff. He has never been wrong which is why I asked.

>>10775760
>as if he is a God and is right about everything.
They're just apeing Chomsky's own style

Chomsky is utterly irrelevant. The only thing that's slightly annoying about his continued existence is that at some point in the near future he's going to die, and when he does, we're going to be deluged with a solid six months of tearful encomiums saying how he was the most important intellectual since Aristotle.

>>10777728
Name a more important political intellectual.

Why does Jordan Peterson have such a cock sucking fan base? I mean everywhere I go it's just non stop dick sucking cult behavior as if he is a God and is right about everything.

Why does Slavoj Zizek have such a cock sucking fan base? I mean everywhere I go it's just non stop dick sucking cult behavior as if he is a God and is right about everything.

>>10777743
He's not even an important anarchist (yes, I mean leftist) intellectual lmao. Go back to high school, Dilbert.
>Name a more important political intellectual.
Even Robert Wolff is more important, and I think he met Chomsky once.

>>10777700
Chomsky's temparement is too mellow. We can't create Marxist death squads with that attitude. That's the only valid critique.

>>10777755
How is Robert Wolff more important? There are probably some people more important than Chomsky in terms of actually adding shit to the table but who is word for word more efficient at teaching you well rounded politics.

>>10777758
o you are part of the pro punching nazi squad.

>>10777773
>punching
Straight to the re-education camp

>>10777769
>How is Robert Wolff more important?
By actually defending anarchism academically. All Chomsky does is point out hypocrisy in events, write polemics concerning foreign policy, etc. I have barely seen Noam speak about grand political ideas, theory, or proposing any sort of utopia. Maybe he thinks it's a pitfall or something. Maybe he just wants people to decide for themselves, I think, so maybe he does have it in him.

Robert Wolff is actually a political philosophy professor, and I recommend you torrent his books if you want to learn about Kant or politics.

>>10777777

>>10777773
Yes, but trumpites need to join the working class struggle since they aren't part of the upper classes.

>>10777792
>since they aren't part of the upper classes
This is untrue. Why does everyone in America pretend Trump is only loved by white hicks?

>>10777783
>I have barely seen Noam speak about grand political ideas, theory, or proposing any sort of utopia

100%. I would suck his dick but I realize this. Still If you had to pick one person to read it would be Chomsky right? Is there anyone else like him that will give you a well rounded education? I'm curious not debating.

>>10777792
Yeah but if you bike lock them in the head why would they want to join you?

>>10777801
>pretend

>>10776159
He knows his history and philosophy, but he actually gets curbstomped by reality all the time. He keeps condoning or downplaying shit that goes down outside US control, but his supporters just seem to forget how many times he had to swallow his words when the horrible truths come out.

>>10777827
>He keeps condoning or downplaying shit that goes down outside US control, but his supporters just seem to forget how many times he had to swallow his words when the horrible truths come out.

Go on?

>>10777804
I don't know, probably not. He's a very confusing person to read from start to finish (I haven't read all too much though). But he changed his stance on positivism, linguistics, sociology and politics radically over twenty or thirty years. I read his old interviews where he spoke positively about Foucault and said sociolinguistics would be dead before it started. I even emailed him about sociolinguistics to see if it was a bad introduction into linguistics, because I was taking it as a course. He just said it was a "fine" field and one should just pick and choose. Don't blame him though, it's probably natural to backpedal on certain things over decades. It's just weird because everyone thinks he's some ironclad who never goes back on anything.

I know it's a meme but I'd probably just read Max Stirner to be honest, only because I think post-left anarchism is the way at the moment. You can insert just about anything into it, but my friend uses a Merleau-Ponty reading of Stirner.

>>10777801
You're right, I'm sure certain people enjoy the tax cuts. I still had the impression a bunch of poorer people also voted for him. The flag-waving veterans or whatever aren't actually the ruling class.

>>10777700
Khmer Rouge
Chavez
Kosovo
arab democracies
anarcho-syndicalism working (see Catalonia)

>>10777834
>>10777860

>>10777866
>>10777860
>>10777827
>He keeps condoning or downplaying shit that goes down outside US control

>Khmer Rouge
Those people that the US armed for a while?
>Chavez
Locked up one shitty judge, so what?
>Kosovo
Americans exacerbated the entire Balkan War, to begin with.
>Arab Democracies
Where have there ever been any?
>anarcho-syndicalism working (see Catalonia)
God, I hate this argument. I don't even give a shit about the CNT anymore, but they did well against two invading parties. Do you even understand how large Catalonia is? How is it supposed to fight two of the largest war economies in the world?

>>10776192
> tilts fedora

>>10777860
Quote him on all of those. People always call him out but never post quotes. Don't know why.

>>10776449
*dies of aids*
What did he mean by this?

>>10777920
Is this the only thing pseuds know about him? Did you watch that school of life vid and just think he was a gay leatherdaddy?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JNkh4pEQDLw

>>10777882
>Those people that the US armed for a while?
He argued refuges were lying or exagerating the Killing Fields and that the media wasn't being fair to the Khmer Rouge.
>Chavez
Killed and jailed bunch of labour union leaders. His policies let to the country being susceptible to the oil crash. Oil money alone didn't drive his welfare programs, he emited a lot of external debt that his still held by cronies and co.
>Kosovo
He said NATO bombings were to blame for the Serbian warcrimes, when in fact they were already underway. Downplayed Croat and Bosniak and Kosovak claims. Supported a Serbian war crimminal.
>Arab democracies
There haven't (except Tunisia, maybe, now). He blames the USA for arab dictators, used to argue that they would become more liberal if left to their own devices without the US meddling for oil, still condoned the ayatollahs and downplays the opressive nature of Sharia law.
>I'm against CNT because they lost.
How cynical do you think I am? I'm against them because they betrayed worker cooperatives in favour of central planning, took away the right to strike, introduced slave labour camps and formed lynch mobs.

>>10777933
>I'm against them because they betrayed worker cooperatives in favour of central planning, took away the right to strike, introduced slave labour camps and formed lynch mobs.
That sounds like every revolution ever.

Chomsky has been slain by Peterson's fame.

>>10777933
>they betrayed worker cooperatives in favour of central planning,

i know about the rest but do you have a source on this I can read?

Well, he is right.
Look at the Buckley, Perle, Dershowitz debates

>>10777920

>a "philosopher"
>too fucking stupid to wear a condom
>mfw

>>10777938
Yeah, most of them. It is why I don't believe in anarchism or marxism. As soon as they take power, when their utopia doesn't instantly materialize they feel compelled to take a hands-on approach to "freeing" the workers, which really curtail workers rights.

When worker's ownership of the means of production didn't work as well as intended, with factories closing, unemployment going up, and labourers keeping the surplus value to themselves instead of redistributing it, they showed themselves to be the authoritarians they were always meant to be.

>>10777948
Workers against Work by Seidman.

>>10777956
I was talking about the French Revolution, mainly lol. It's just the nature of violent upheavals. Capitalism, the nation state, and liberalism wouldn't have spread if it weren't for the guillotine.

>When worker's ownership of the means of production didn't work as well as intended, with factories closing, unemployment going up, and labourers keeping the surplus value to themselves instead of redistributing it, they showed themselves to be the authoritarians they were always meant to be.
[citation needed]

>>10777909
On Khmer Rouge:
"We do not pretend to know where the truth lies amidst these sharply conflicting assessments; rather, we again want to emphasize some crucial points. What filters through to the American public is a seriously distorted version of the evidence available, emphasizing alleged Khmer Rouge atrocities and downplaying or ignoring the crucial U.S. role, direct and indirect, in the torment that Cambodia has suffered."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idy8m5V8uLI

He actually backtracked on Chavez:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jul/03/noam-chomsky-hugo-chavez-democracy

At the height of the Arab spring, he pinned the lack of democracy on the USA: https://www.democracynow.org/2011/2/2/noam_chomsky_this_is_the_most

Direct quotations of Chomsky on the Serbian war crimes:
http://balkanwitness.glypx.com/chomskydenial.htm

The anarcho-syndicalist thing is the current he himself identifies with. I don't recall if he ever commented on Catalonia.

>>10777977
>>10777962
And you can look up some stuff by yourself, too, like I do. I have to go to my driving lesson now, I expect you will have better posts to offer me by then.

>>10777994
>"We do not pretend to know where the truth lies amidst these sharply conflicting assessments; rather, we again want to emphasize some crucial points. What filters through to the American public is a seriously distorted version of the evidence available, emphasizing alleged Khmer Rouge atrocities and downplaying or ignoring the crucial U.S. role, direct and indirect, in the torment that Cambodia has suffered."

"Journalist Christopher Hitchens defended Chomsky and Herman. They "were engaged in the admittedly touchy business of distinguishing evidence from interpretations." Chomsky and Herman have continued to argue that their analysis of the situation in Cambodia was reasonable based on the information available to them at the time, and a legitimate critique of the disparities in reporting atrocities committed by communist regimes relative to the atrocities committed by the U.S. and its allies. Nonetheless, in 1993, Chomsky acknowledged the massive scale of the Cambodian genocide in the documentary film Manufacturing Consent. He said, "I mean the great act of genocide in the modern period is Pol Pot, 1975 through 1978 - that atrocity - I think it would be hard to find any example of a comparable outrage and outpouring of fury."

>He actually backtracked on Chavez:
What did he backtrack on?

>At the height of the Arab spring, he pinned the lack of democracy on the USA:

I don't know about this and it's a 50 minute video. Do you have some quotes from him in the transcript you can point to?

>>10778003
>Look up some stuff by yourself
Wow... the true intellectual here. Sign of a retard going for fucking Guardian, since it's the first thing he sees.

>>10777994
>I don't recall if he ever commented on Catalonia.
Wow, you're a fucking idiot. He talks about it all the time. Even retards know to go to Chomsky dot info and search for key words in the search bar.

>We do not pretend to know where the truth lies amidst these sharply conflicting assessments; rather, we again want to emphasize some crucial points. What filters through to the American public is a seriously distorted version of the evidence available, emphasizing alleged Khmer Rouge atrocities and downplaying or ignoring the crucial U.S. role, direct and indirect, in the torment that Cambodia has suffered
Literally refute this lol. There was awful shit going on in the neighbouring countries. You just know forced memes by Zizek and any hack who tries to take down the eternal Khazar.

hope you crash your driving lesson

>>10778032
>hope you crash your driving lesson
lol

>>10775760
Honestly I hear much more criticism of Noam Chomsky (especially for his atrocities denialism.) Maybe you just live in a communist filter bubble.

>>10775760
Because he's unusually responsive (send him an email right now, he'll reply) and honest (provides citations for every belief, regularly admits he was wrong). This sort of stuff humanises him, and engenders respect even from neutrals.

>>10778276
The critiques of his denials are usually by people who don't actually read him. The quotes of his "denials" aren't really denials in anyway. Is saying we don't have the facts unreasonable?

>>10775760
>why is this person whose work is universally acclaimed and whose contributions to several fields are universally recognized for their importance and significance by both academia and professionals so universally acclaimed and well-known?

Honest, I'm not sure this question can be answered within the limitations of human cognition. We may need to unearth long dead traditions of our darker, simpler pasts, and consult the divine for guidance.

>>10775760
Idk but this quote from Chomsky always makes me laugh, it's such a perfect illustration of the mind-closing, reality-denying nature of the leftist:

Surely people differ in their biologically determined qualities. The world would be too horrible to contemplate if they did not. But discovery of a correlation between some of these qualities is of no scientific interest and of no social significance, except to racists, sexists and the like. Those who argue that there is a correlation between race and IQ and those who deny this claim are contributing to racism and other disorders, because what they are saying is based on the assumption that the answer to the question makes a difference; it does not, except to racists, sexists and the like.

>>10775760

It's like this:

He makes solid, rational arguments demonstrating the toxic, self-destructive nature of corporatism mixing with politics. He makes almost irrefutable condemnations against the corporate-backed media institutions in the US.

...but then he promotes European socialism, which, let's be honest, no matter how well argued for, just rubs most Americans the wrong way.

I am a conservative/libertarian. I have exchanged emails with Noam Chomsky. I sparked a debate with him relating to the collapse of Venezuela. He destroyed me in that debate. I did not have the facts or statistics to back up my argument. It was an honour to be crushed by the king.

And I don't particularly like Jews, but I know when I've been out-debated.

>>10778426
>I sparked a debate with him relating to the collapse of Venezuela.

Can you post it. I'm honestly curious to how he responded. Thanks.

>>10778430

I can...I hope it doesn't breach the code of a personal correspondence, but I'll post it. Give me a minute or two.

>>10778449

"...My main motivation for writing you this letter, other than the hope of receiving a reply from someone whom I greatly admire, is to ask you about Venezuela. Throughout much of the writing of yours that I’ve read, you make constant references to American and other foreign interference in Central and South American countries for the benefit of corporations, mostly in 1970s to 1990s. The involvement in those countries was characterized by financial support, military intervention, violence, undermining of those nations’ democracies, and the sycophantic support from the interfering nations’ corporate media.
Although I am not particularly well-read on the history of Venezuela in the last twenty years, my understanding of it is that Hugo Chavez, after becoming president, instituted socialistic policies designed to reduce poverty, increase quality of, and access to, health care and education, and to generally improve the quality of life of Venezuelans. He funded these reforms with natural resource revenues, with oil trading at record prices through much of the 2000s. He also appears to have done this with little interference from the US and its client states.
Over the last several months, Venezuela appears to have collapsed into chaos. I have read accounts of bread lines, an increase in murder rates in the capital (which have been among the highest in the continent for a decade or more), and even of Venezuelans hunting dogs for food in the streets.
Although some of these accounts may be taken as exaggerated, I don’t think it can be denied that Venezuela is facing serious consequences from the social programs instituted by Chavez in the last fifteen years. And though I’ve never been particularly convinced that a free market is the solution to all problems, it seems as though nationalizing those major sectors of the economy (natural resources, health care, education) require a significant and wealthy tax-base to be sustainable. I am under the impression that the great social democracies of Scandinavia are due to experience some of the similar fallout that Venezuela is experiencing now because their tax rates and social programs, which were instituted in times of plenty, can not be responsibly funded during downturns in the economy.
Am I off-base regarding this fear? Are there other factors at work in Venezuela that will not cause the same fate for the Scandinavian countries in the coming decade? Are socialist policies sustainable if the motivation for personal wealth and prosperity is erased by universal social programs? Is protectionism a more sustainable economic policy for a generally prosperous nation?"

>>10778462

"...On the Scandinavian countries, while they have their problems, they are generally the best off in the world, as you can check from OECD studies, the UN Human Development report, and other studies. They do much better than the US, even though the US has enormous advantages. To take one crucial case, consider health care. The US has about twice the pc costs of OECD countries and some of the worst outcomes, and ranks at the bottom of comparative studies. It’s also the only country that relies primarily on the private sector (the public sector components are considerably more efficient).

There have been some experiments with free markets. They have, typically, been a total disaster, which is why such efforts have been abandoned by the business classes that largely determine policy in our state capitalist societies. The clearest illustration I suppose is Chile under Pinochet, which instituted Chicago market policies under virtually perfect conditions for the experiment: there could be no protest because of the vicious military dictatorship, the planners made sure to rely on the highly profitable nationalized Codelco copper producer, they had huge support from the US and the institutions it dominates (World Bank), etc., they had the direct advice and supervision of Milton Friedman and his colleagues, etc. With a few years they had created such a disaster that the government had to take over more of the economy than it held under Allende. Some analysts described it as the Chicago road to socialism.

The great growth period of the US was under the regimented state capitalism of the 50s and 60s, also no financial crashes thanks to New Deal legislation. Things began to decline under the neoliberal programs of the next generation, as is now well known. The austerity programs imposed by the unelected Troika in Europe have been even more damaging.

The Chavez government was under US attack almost at once. A military coup in 2002, with strong US support (and lauded in the US press) overthrew the government, but was reversed by a popular uprising. There was then a capital strike by the main oil producer, compelling the government to take it over and completely reorganize it. All sorts of subversion followed. There was enormous capital flight. The government did, as you say, sharply reduced poverty, increased literacy and improved health, etc., relying on profits from oil. The term “socialist” is so obscure and misused that I would tend to avoid it. There were achievements, but also serious problems, including the corruption that is plaguing almost all of the Latin American countries (we have our own even more serious version) and failure to diversify the economy. When oil prices crashed, the economy did too. For more details, you might check the work of Marc Weisbrot, Greg Grandin, Greg Wilpert, and others who study the matter closely.

In general, there’s a good deal of complexity, no simple formulas."

>>10778462
Good on you for saying Venezuela is a social democracy not socialism. I've never heard that from a conservative.

>>10778032
You seem to hold me to a greater standard than you do yourself. I present sources you just tell me to look up things for myfelf. Well, I did what you asked, and the closest I managed to get him on Catalonia was https://chomsky.info/20020322/.. He seems always apologetic of the anarchists (blaming the communists for everything wrong in the revolution). Doesn't adress any of the problems I mentioned. Can you link me up to an article in which he talks on Catalonia besides what he read from Orwell's homage?

>refute whataboutism and appeal to ignorance
>accuses me of forcing memes, goes on to push the eternal Khazar meme
I'm interested in historical denialism in general. I do a lot of reading on Holodomor, Holocaust, Irish Potato Famine, moon landing, etc.

You didn't adress any of my other points.

I hope you have a better fate than the one you hope for me. I'm not angry or surprised, however, that your atitude to someone that politely disagrees with you is to wish death on them.

>>10778470
>state capitalism
All capitalism is state capitalism. If you don't have the law on your side to enforce your property rights, then you either got to be a thug or hire thugs to protect your stuff from other thugs.

>>10778554
I'm not him, and I'm not a conservative, but like Chomsky I avoid the term "socialist" because it is so charged and there so many opposing views on how it should play out. My own government is headed by the socialist party, but that just means they are a bit to the left of the social democrats. Both of these parties have ties to the same big labour union, and they've formed grand coalitions.

>>10778599
I personally think the two form of Socialism are worker ownership of the means of production (cooperatives) and common ownership of the means of production (Everyone collectively owns every MOP). That pretty much encompasses every socialist ideology. State capitalism is not socialism.

>>10778621
Revolutionary Catalonia did the first one, then forced the second one (by putting everything under control of central planners), because they thought the first one was too much like capitalism (not enough redistribution). Also >>10778581. State capitalism is redundant. All capitalism needs a state. Ancaps, in practice, would create a feudal society.

>>10777836
Fagggot kike

>>10778023
Sorry I missed your post, you actually put in work into it, I see. I should've replied to you rather than to that other rude anon.

Some of the points you raise have been adressed in my reply to the other anon, I feel. So I hope you won't ask me to go through it all again.

On the Khmer Rouge I add (in addition to >>10778032) that "hindsight is 20/20" isn't a very good defense.

On Chavez, he went from defending Chavez as a true democratic leader and minimizing aspects of his prosecution of opposition to recognizing his dictatorial tendencies (he stresses executive overreach as the thing that put him over the edge).

On the arab spring thing, it's mostly about him sharing his view that opressive dictatorships are something forced onto MENA by the USA. I'm pretty ircked by this sort of position in general, specially when it is applied to SSA, but it is no less wrong when applied to the middle-east: people have agency, not every underdog that does something bad is being manipulated by someone evil, being a victim doesn't make you innocent.

>>10777933
>the media wasn't being fair to the Khmer Rouge.
Specifically compared to East Timor, which, since most Americans have never even heard of it, I'd say he had a point
>Chavez
He wasn't great, but he's hardly exceptional compared to other world leaders including Western ones, and he's probably one of the better South American leaders in the last century, although that's not saying much. The idea that Venezuela's shitty oil economy or corruption was all or even mostly him is totally laughable
>Kosovo
Don't split hairs, they certainly exacerbated the situation.
>Arab democracies
You're talking out of your ass, most of cold war history in the area is just the CIA funding terrorist organizations to destabilize any county that elected or might support any left leaning leaders
>CNT
>War goes to shit and it's a fucking nightmare
Ok
I think it's most telling that Chomsky is really the only public intellectual who gets held to this kind of "can never have been wrong about anything" standard, his critics actually just refuse to engage with his analyses and ideas

>>10778800
>Specifically compared to East Timor, which, since most Americans have never even heard of it, I'd say he had a point
Reminds of the Holodomor vs the Holocaust tbqh

>>10778709
you angry goy?

>>10775760
replace the name, 'Noam Chomsky" with the name of any conservative writer, and you will be face to face with the answer you seek.

>>10778800
>Specifically compared to East Timor, which, since most Americans have never even heard of it, I'd say he had a point
Most Americans can't tell me what went down in Cambodia either, and the scale of the genocide in Cambodia really turned out to be much greater. He is less stubborn about his error now, judging from his comment on the recent doc.

>Chavez
There were South American leaders with less blood in their hands, and he did make his economy ultra-dependent on oil.

>Kosovo
I'm not splitting hairs, bombing the Serbs was a good thing. The bombings killed a hundreds, but by then the Serbs had already killed 8000 males (including boys) and displaced over 20000 females, who were often subjected to rape, and there was no end in sight to the conflict, which ended soon after Noble Anvil.

>Arab democracies
Sure, the US supported dictators, the notion that they were holding back these populations from better things doesn't hold water, however. For instance, the Iranian Revolution curtailed many civil liberties, specially women's, and non-US aligned dictators did brutal stuff against US interest (Saddam invading Kuwait to steal their oil, Assad's dad butting heads with Kissinger). Chomsky doesn't touch the opressive nature of Arab nationalism or Sharia law. The US didn't support puppet authoritarains over peaceful reformers or people as such, they supported puppet authoritarians over other authoritarians.

>War goes to shit and it's a fucking nightmare
It was already bad before. Even before the revolution the killings had started, with labour unions wrecking each others' shit. Days after the revolution, you had the red scare with more than 500 clerics being killed. Because workers keept the surplus value to themselves, and many couldn't/wouldn't find jobs, you had "anarchists" in favour of central planning and slave labour. Forced conscription. You can't blame all that on the war, which a lot of the fighters didn't even want to have a part in.

>>10779041
>Because workers keept the surplus value to themselves, and many couldn't/wouldn't find jobs, you had "anarchists" in favour of central planning and slave labour. Forced conscription.

Not him but wondering if there is any actual statistics on this. There were how many millions of people in spain at the time. What percentage actually did this?

>>10776416
>libertarian
>socialism
check out this dense fuck

Chomsky to me proves I can 100% respect and like someone while 100% totally disagree with almost everything he says

Chomsky is Jordan Peterson for leftists

>>10779180
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism
literally a picture of noam chomsky

>>10778423
I like how no leftists have replied to this

>>10777758
Will they be equipped with those $400 dollar antifa jackets?

>>10779193
“It will work this time guys, this time we’ll just not call it a state.”

>>10779224
the absolute autonomous collective of socialists

>>10776192
Qbaity

>>10779229
>socialism
>autonomy
>collectivism
Tell me man do you seriously think theres gonna be the communist utopia in your lifetime. be honest with yourself

>>10779260
>not getting the joke

>>10778800
>>10777933
Chavez is easily one of the worst "leaders" in South American history.
Venezuelan economy was already crashing and suffering from shortages back in late 2013. There were even mass protests going already. Oil cashed in the 2nd half of 2014.

>>10778423
>a world-class academic doesn't buy into my "IQ is a monolith"strawman for all blacks that's basically a regurgitated /pol/ point
>why won't da leftists respond to this???
Nobody is entertaining you because you're transparent as all fuck. Nothing about this quote is incorrect. In your mind, this is important but you don't even know what a spurious correlation is. Why would he stoop to your retard level?

>>10779307
>"IQ is a monolith"strawman for all blacks
The position is that the average IQ of blacks is lower than whites, who are in turn lower than East asians.

There is a lot of data to support this, so it isn't at all the ridiculous position you're making it out to be.

>>10779307
Someones salty. Our position isnt that IQ is a monolith. You are the one strawmanning. Maybe your personal attacks and bad attitude are clouding your judgement.

>>10779187
That only makes sense if Peterson was an academic that his peers took seriously and not a literal failure that was laughed out of most intellectual circles in Canada.

>>10779312
Noam is basically saying that you are using IQ as a magic metric just to justify shitty ideas you have about minorities and that by itself, it holds no scientific value. Which is true, it doesn't. IQ isn't even a settled scientific method of gauging intelligence.

>>10779315
>Our position isnt that IQ is a monolith
It literally is, that's the only way you can formulate a premise. Otherwise who gives a fucking shit? Why bring your /pol/faggot shit here? It's going to get btfo as usual.

>>10779324
IQ predicts for things like educational achievement and levels of crime.

So the argument is that the lower IQ of blacks explains their low levels of achievement and high crime, while the high IQ of East asians explains their high achievement and low crime.

It isn't necessarily related to a final definition of intelligence.

>>10779307
>Those who argue that there is a correlation between race and IQ and those who deny this claim are contributing to racism and other disorders
>leftists will actually defend this

>>10779330
>IQ predicts for things like educational achievement and levels of crime.
Except it doesn't, that has never been proven.

>>10779335
There is a lot of evidence showing that it does actually. 'proven' doesn't mean much in the social sciences.

>>10779334
Not a single modern statistician or general scientist agrees that IQ is a perfect predictor, the model changes every decade and so to, do the parameters. You can retrofit correlations based on "race" depending on your biases and read whatever you want from it. Life as a /pol/faggot race realist must be a strange one.

I'm glad I'll never be mentally ill enough to dig up phrenology-tier bullshit and pass it off as intelligent discourse.

>>10779312
building on this
>>10779324
Point is, being so focused on the differences between races is what a bigot would do.

>>10778423
his position is basically the following:

>I know that the left has absolutely no rope in this debate, therefore it is of no "scientific interest", if you disagree that it is a scientifically meaningful you're a racist

>>10776022

Discovered universality of grammar and what year your mother will die.

>>10779343
>There is a lot of evidence showing that it does actually.
Again, it doesn't. Sure is funny how when the economic standards of a second or third world change, so do IQ distributions, regardless of "race". Gee, it's almost like intelligence is predicated on access to education and health...?

>>10779348
>Point is, being so focused on the differences between races is what a bigot would do.
Which is literally what you are doing.

>>10779348
'bigot' means 'intolerant of others' opinions' not 'racist'
>>10779347
Nobody is saying it is a perfect predictor, rather just that it predicts to some degree, that the IQ gap is likely genetic, and so explains why the races behave so differently.

What happens when a famous or well respected scientist comes out and says this is that they are forced to resign from their position, or otherwise hounded, which maintains the illusion that 'no serious scientist thinks this'.

>>10779355
The twin studies suggest that environment has little outcome on IQ, while genetics definitely accounts for a portion.

>>10779324
>IQ isnt even real anyways bro
Tactical Nihilism: The Post

>>10779360
>Nobody is saying it is a perfect predictor, rather just that it predicts to some degree
And in the real world, those differences between distributions are so insanely pointless, that it's barely worth talking about to begin with.
>that the IQ gap is likely genetic
It's both genetic and environmental, which is what most of the scientific community agrees with.
>and so explains why the races behave so differently.
They really don't "behave differently" enough to give a shit about.
>What happens when a famous or well respected scientist comes out and says this is that they are forced to resign from their position
Literally never happens, you people are professional contrarians. What happens is that someone writes an unscientific paper, or says dumb shit, the academic community calls him a retard, then his fans go "muh persecution" and pretend that he lost his job because he was speaking truth to power or some other such autistic gymnastic.

>>10779364
IQ is not considered a solid science of accurate measure of intelligence across demographics. It never has been.

>>10779369
>so insanely pointless, that it's barely worth talking about to begin with.
They are in fact very relevant and explain levels of crime and achievement in intellectually demanding fields.

The races behave enormously differently, just look up the racial makeup of murderers vs Fields medals winners. Look at east asian countries vs sub-saharan countries.

I understand it is very hard to accept that the entire community is lying about this, but remember that it wasn't so long ago when heresy was illegal.

>>10779363
You're going to have to source that, because everything you just said sounds half true or partially true.

>>10779374
>They are in fact very relevant and explain levels of crime and achievement
I'm becoming a broken record, no. You just keep saying this, no study actually agrees with it.
>The races behave enormously differently, just look up the racial makeup of murderers vs Fields medals winners
This is so retarded, it hurts.
>I understand it is very hard to accept that the entire community is lying about this
You're right, so what's more likely? That /pol/niggers are right about their magic IQ, that blacks are all stupid, violent retards (which just so happens to coincide with the beliefs of actual racists) and the entire scientific community is run by some liberal cabal that is lying about IQ for...reasons...? Or, you're just wrong and there is no evidence?

Really grinds my almonds.

>>10779358
That was my first post ITT

>>10779360
Oh ok, thanks for the clarification. A racist is usually also a bigot, I guess.
They might have slight changes in behaviour, the real changes comes from culture. An example, a black kid grows up in a white neighborhood with white friends, and watches no black rap-bullshit or that kind of racially segregating stuff, nor does he get bullied extensively for being black. Again, his friends are white. His parents are black, they all embrace it, but don't let that become a defining way to look at themselves and how they act.
Will this kid be extremely similar to his friends? Yes. Ergo, 'black culture' is holding black people down, not genetics.

>>10779392
I don't believe you're willing to look at this subject rationally, because it scares you. You fear being thought of as racist so intensely that you can't even try to approach the question honestly.

Nobody is saying anything like the strawmen you're pointing out. The results show that Ashkenazi jews and East asians have the highest IQs, hardly the old white supremacist line.

There are intelligent blacks and dumb Jews of course, this is just about average distribution, which when you look at an entire population has very important consequences.

>>10779392
lmao, imagine disintegrating like this.
>But discovery of a correlation between some of these qualities is of no scientific interest and of no social significance, except to racists, sexists and the like.
>and those who deny this claim are contributing to racism and other disorders, because what they are saying is based on the assumption that the answer to the question makes a difference; it does not, except to racists, sexists and the like.

This person must be fat, a woman, a teenager or the sufferer of some hormonal disorder, to flounder this hysterically, missing so fundamentally the very point of what you're trying to defend.

>>10779406
The situation you're envisioning was studied in the Minnesota twin studies and it showed that while environment seemed to ahve some impact, genes were still much stronger. Regardless of the adoptive parents chidlren with two black birth parents scored lower than half-black children, who scored lower than white children.

Holy shit, can't believe this turned into another debate on IQ while I was gone.

>>10779106
Did what? Holding profits instead of redistributing? 1. It was in Catalonia, not Spain as a whole. 2. I don't know if they kept stats, I just know that the partisans wanted 50% of the profits to redistribute, but workers raised their own share of the profits (they could set how much they could keep to themselves and how much went into the industry, since they owned their workplaces) minimizing the profit margins of their industries. This is why central planners stepped in.

>>10779410
>I don't believe you're willing to look at this subject rationally, because it scares you.
kek, that's rich. It's because there is no evidence...
>The results show that Ashkenazi jews and East asians have the highest IQs
The Ashkenazi IQ thing is a meme that nobody can seem to source, and this (again) is all predicated with the idea that "IQ actually matters and is an accurate measure of intelligence". But it isn't, nobody thinks that.
>this is just about average distribution, which when you look at an entire population has very important consequences.
The MAIN constant across all countries, "races" and cultures, is economics and access to education and proper medicine. Not how non-white you are.

>>10779417
>psh I can't even
Great argument you got there, /pol/nigger.

>>10779432
If I present evidence to you you will say that the studies were inherently flawed, I've had this conversation before.

The Ashkenazi IQ thing even has genetic evidence supporting it, namely some diseases that correlate with very high intellectual achievement that are very prevalent among them.

As for your final point anon, of course the two correlate- populations with high average IQ will build the infrastructure, have high economies, and good education. Where do you think that stuff comes from? It doesn't spring up out of the privilege aether.

>>10779421
Hmm, ok. But we're talking about the black people that live in USA here. They weren't allowed to hold a book for 100 years. Their genes are not necessarily congruent with all black people.
But anyways, there's give and take. Black people are oftentimes stronger than white people, while they're stronger than asians, who doesn't even have height. People think that intellect is so important in this world. It's partly true. Having high amounts of energy can be helpful in many cases, and not only in menial labor.

>>10779442
>namely some diseases that correlate with very high intellectual achievement that are very prevalent among them.
That is a correlation that makes no sense.
>As for your final point anon, of course the two correlate- populations with high average IQ will build the infrastructure, have high economies, and good education. Where do you think that stuff comes from? It doesn't spring up out of the privilege aether.
You're working backwards with IQ, anon. Countries with high IQ distributions have better healthcare, better access to education and better diets. Your logic pretty much just assumes blacks and non-whites are doomed to a cyclic hell since "their IQs are low and that's why the economics are bad, therefore their IQ is low". That's not a real argument.

Feel free to source any credible information though, funny how you've gone this long and you haven't sourced a single fucking study.

That sure is odd, huh? It's almost like you probably don't have any that could stand to intense criticism. I often see that race realist Wordpress, I'm sure you have those links in a folder, or there is that doctored graph about wealth levels and blacks, or maybe you will source that race realist book about "all da achievements of da white peepool" written by that actual Klansman.

>>10779466
>That's not a real argument.
that is a real argument, it's just an unpleasant one

here is an entire book about this, with lots of studies
https://lesacreduprintemps19.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/jp-rushton-race-evolution-behavior-unabridged-1997-edition.pdf

here is a study on the ashkenazi iq
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-biosocial-science/article/natural-history-of-ashkenazi-intelligence/170E96F5581A9F39524DAC717886D945

>>10779466
also I feel that you're missing the point by focusing on 'non-whites'. There are non-white groups that perform better than whites, and there is a lot of variation no matter which group we're talking about.

>>10777743
stefan molyneux

>>10779496
No, seriously.

>>10779484
The variation really isn't as pronounced as you think.

They are known as marxists.

>>10779478
>Phillip Rushton
>Rushton's controversial work was heavily criticized by the scientific community for the questionable quality of its research,[1] with many alleging that it was conducted under a racist agenda.[2] Since 2002, he was head of the Pioneer Fund, a research foundation that has been widely accused of being racist.

>In 2009 Rushton spoke at the Preserving Western Civilization conference in Baltimore. It was organized by Michael H. Hart for the stated purpose of "addressing the need" to defend "America’s Judeo-Christian heritage and European identity" from immigrants, Muslims, and African Americans. The Anti-Defamation League described the conference attendees as "racist academics, conservative pundits and anti-immigrant activists".

>In 2005, Lisa Suzuki and Joshua Aronson of New York University wrote an article for Psychology, Public Policy, and Law noting that Rushton ignored evidence that failed to support his position that IQ test score gaps represent a genetic racial hierarchy. He did not change his position on this matter for 30 years.[73] Rushton replied in the same issue of the journal

Why can you people only produced disgraced scientists who are possible racists?

>>10779527
>Why can you people only produced disgraced scientists who are possible racists?
Because anybody doing studies on racial differences becomes disgraced as a racist.

>>10779538
>>Rushton's controversial work was heavily criticized by the scientific community for the questionable quality of its research
I'm sorry that your alternative-science idols refuse to conduct their research under the same standards as everyone else, truly it's a witch hunt.

Fuck off.

>>10777954
but thats rational, male, scientific, and worst of all: utilitarian! REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

>>10779538
>it can't possibly be that his research was shitty and heavily criticized
>no, it is a conspiracy to disgrace every "scientist" who parrots my /pol/nigger beliefs

>>10779544
Anon that is a pretext with no validity. His work is much more rigorous than almost everything in the social sciences, it is hated purely because of its conclusions on racial differences.

>>10779552
Did you see that the Chomsky quote that started this debate? How can you see that and not think there is a pronounced effort to stifle any research on race differences?

>>10779324
>IQ isn't even a settled scientific method of gauging intelligence.
the state of /lit/ everyone

>>10779554
>Anon that is a pretext with no validity.
You don't even know what you are talking about now.
>His work is much more rigorous than almost everything in the social sciences
Clearly, nobody thinks that.
>it is hated purely because of its conclusions on racial differences.
Nice victim narrative you got there. Or it's just simpler than that, you want him to be some victim to avoid that maybe his research was poorly done? Anon, if they wanted to ruin him, why let him publish the book in the first place?

>>10779559
>How can you see that and not think there is a pronounced effort to stifle any research on race differences?
Because I'm not mentally ill with a persecution complex because I can't just accept that my ideas are shitty and backed by next to nothing? You people are mad that Noam thinks your ramblings about blacks hold no scientific value.

But I'm sure he's just a stupid poo poo head.

>>10779560
>>IQ isn't even a settled scientific method of gauging intelligence.
Which is true?

>>10776221
> his arguments are hard (basically impossible) to argue against
I wasn't aware Chomsky ever made any arguments, all he does is assert.

> well what they want is corporate tyranny
> well the financial crisis caused by the deregulation of the banks
> well the great depression fixed by the central bank
> well we had the name first
Does he have a blog where I can find his arguments because his interviews severely lack any indication of one?

>>10779559
>How can you see that and not think there is a pronounced effort to stifle any research on race differences?
I'm sorry, did Noam kick down the door of your favorite pseudo-intellectual race realist and burn his research in front of his very eyes? Nobody has ever stopped you people from posing theories, just don't cry when they get btfo by academia. The process is brutal, it's designed that way for a reason.

>>10779573
>>10779565
I don't think Chomsky is dumb, I think anti-racism is a religious belief for him. If it were a scientific belief he would want studies done to disprove it.

If you can look at all the evidence- IQ tests, intellectual achievements, GDP, crime rates, everything listed in that book, and you can say that there is no chance that the racists are right, then I don't believe you are thinking rationally, but rather in a religious frame of mind.

>>10776416
Where did he argue this?

is there anything more pathetic than a lefty trying to talk about adoption studies, predictive validity of IQ, population differentiation or heritability?
protip: just feign incredulity and don't talk about the specifics. it's all a conspiracy theory and you're too good of a person to even entertain the possibility. look at chomsky, he knows the rules of the game

just talk about socioeconomics and lead paint dawg

>>10779591
You will notice that Chomsky did not address the arguments though, he said 'the discussion should not take place at all'.

Which is fine for him to say, but indicates that his motivations are not pure.

>>10779593
>I think anti-racism-
oh, boy..
>he would want studies done to disprove it.
It gets disproved to death, you're like as insane as a flat earther.
>If you can look at all the evidence- IQ tests, intellectual achievements, GDP, crime rates, everything listed in that book, and you can say that there is no chance that the racists are right, then I don't believe you are thinking rationally, but rather in a religious frame of mind.
But it's just a coincidence that despite the fact that you can't produce any real research that stands up to scrutiny, you happen to parrot these beliefs, despite being FAR and away from having these ideas called "scientific fact".

But, wahh wahhh. It's the mean ebul elites I guess.

>>10775760
what's wrong with cock sucking?

>>10779597
Feel free to cite solid research that has stood up to criticism over time, faggot. Only thing linked in this entire thread was a denounced book written by a disgraced psychologist.

Occam's Razor, it's all probably not a conspiracy, you're just retarded, with dumb ideas backed by little hard science.

>>10779598
You're illiterate. He said that the discussion holds no scientific value, not that you should be denied from having it, or that he will actively stop you.

>>10779604
I gave you an entire book that does hold up to scrutiny, the criticisms of that book are very weak.

For racism to be disproved you would have to show at the very least a situation in which a group of blacks perform as well as east asians, but no such example has ever been found.

I admit that it's possible that these results are due to environment and not genes, but nobody is designing tests to show this. Rather people jsut talk about banning the entire field.

>>10779597
>muh leftie boogeywoogey, why can't everyone just blindly accept my /pol/ bullshit as scientific fact?

>>10779613
He said that the results of the discussion were only relevant to racists. This is not a statement about their scientific validity, it is a moral or religious statement about what kind of person cares about them, for Chomsky a bad person.

>>10779611
Occam's razor indicates that the wildly different levels of success by different races are due to inherent traits of those groups.

You have to construct elaborate theories to explain the discrepancies otherwise.

If I wanted to go about understanding this guy's philosophy what should I read by him?

>>10779611
I also linked a study about Ashkenazi IQ which I noticed nobody has commented on. TIME magazine even ran an article about that study.

>>10779619
>I gave you an entire book that does hold up to scrutiny
Except it literally doesn't.
>the criticisms of that book are very weak
You want that to be true because you agree with the fucking book, how can you not see this?
>For racism to be disproved you would have to show at the very least a situation in which a group of blacks perform as well as east asians, but no such example has ever been found.
This is a bizarre conditional, but it's funny how you've actually outed yourself as being okay with racism. I'm sure everything logical follows from that.
>but nobody is designing tests to show this. Rather people jsut talk about banning the entire field.
Nobody is banning anything, every year the same song and dance happens; one of these fringe "scientists" doesn't say anything different about race realism, just regurgitates the same three to four arguments, then it gets btfo, the /pol/tards cry fowl and hunker down with their persecution complex, rinse and repeat.

Concerning the book:
>The book was generally received negatively, its methodology and conclusions being criticized by many experts. The aggressive marketing strategy also received a lot of criticism. The book received positive reviews by some researchers, many of whom were personally associated with Rushton and with the Pioneer Fund which funded much of Rushton's research.[2] The book has been examined as an example of Pioneer's funding of "scientific racist" research,[2][3] while psychologist Michael Howe has identified the book as part of a movement, begun in the 1990s, to promote a racial agenda in social policy

>Richard Lewontin (1996) argued that in claiming the existence of "major races", and that these categories reflected large biological differences, "Rushton moves in the opposite direction from the entire development of physical anthropology and human genetics for the last thirty years. Anthropologists no longer regard "race" as a useful concept in understanding human evolution and variation."[10] The anthropologist C. Loring Brace (1996) concurred, stating that the book was an amalgamation of bad biology and inexcusable anthropology. It is not science but advocacy, and advocacy of 'racialism'".[11] Similarly, anthropologist John Relethford (1995) criticized Rushton's model as "faulty at many points.

>>10779625
You're illiterate.

>>10779633
>Occam's razor indicates that the wildly different levels of success by different races are due to inherent traits of those groups.
You...you don't actually know what Occam's Razor means, do you?
>You have to construct elaborate theories to explain the discrepancies otherwise.
This fucking irony, you people have no self-awareness.

It's not news to me, that race realists aren't terribly bright.

>>10779646
Why do you think there is no example of a black country that isn't poor and violent? You think that it is literally impossible that this is because of genetics?

Lewontin argues that there is more difference among races than between them. This doesn't matter, all that has to happen for races to exist is that the genes present correlate with each other within a race.

The reason the book was so maligned was because racism is considered heresy. Of course the book is racist, that is literally the point of the studies- to show race differences.

Nobody has ever shown that IQ doesn't predict outcomes, or that it doesn't differ by race. Which is what you would have to do to disprove racism.

>>10779639
Because nothing in that study really helped your overall argument, so I left it out. I'm pretty positive you didn't even read it.

>>10779658
If you see that two animals behave differently the basic assumption is that they are different, not that some hidden cause is making them behave differently

>>10779676
It shows a group with higher IQ, likely due to genetics, and their success in various metrics. That would seem directly related to our discussion

>>10779669
>Why do you think there is no example of a black country that isn't poor and violent?
I'm not an absolutist, but I'm assuming it has to probably do with economic plight, constant warfare, destabilization by European powers and a history of tyrannical governments?
>You think that it is literally impossible that this is because of genetics?
I think you're under the impression that genetics when it has to do with non-whites, is some sort of magic alchemy.
>The reason the book was so maligned was because racism is considered heresy
lol right, it had nothing to do with shitty research and spurious correlations from a dubious and shady personality known for racist rhetoric against Muslims and blacks.
>Nobody has ever shown that IQ doesn't predict outcomes
You don't prove negatives, kid.
>you need to disprove racism
Do you fucking hear yourself and realize why you aren't going to be taken seriously?

>>10779611
we already have the IQ scores (uncontroversial)
we know that IQ has great predictive validity for pretty much anything we care about (uncontroversial)
we know that IQ highly heritable (uncontroversial)
adoptions studies have never been in favor of the "it's all about were you grow up" argument. not a single one.

basically, no data is in favor of your argument. feel free to make it but please preface it with "not like it matters but"

>>10779620
shut up you fucking idiot

>>10779684
>It shows a group with higher IQ, likely due to genetics, and their success in various metrics.
You need to reread it and figure out what it does and DOESN'T say, anon.

>>10779701
But why do you think there isn't a single example? All other regions on earth have experienced war, colonization, etc. but they have examples.

You need to disprove racism, or else the simplest conclusion remains that races act differently because they are different. A lot of evidence backs this up, whereas no evidence, or basically none, supports the idea that the races can act the same as each other.

>>10779704
>we already have the IQ scores (uncontroversial)
IQ models are constantly changing and their standards are changing to the point where (fifth time I've corrected you now) no modern scientist agrees it is a perfect system of measuring intelligence.
>we know that IQ has great predictive validity for pretty much anything we care about (uncontroversial)
Again, we don't know that, that's the theory, the theory that only makes sense UNDER the systematic guidelines of the IQ model itself. It's almost self-fulfilling.
>we know that IQ highly heritable (uncontroversial)
Well, yes and know. We know that there could be basic IQ-related traits that are found in distributions, but this is quite an "if", unless we can pin down the absolute method by which to accurate measure it, we don't really know for sure.
>shut up you fucking idiot waahhh wahhh wahhh
Go back to your containment you mutt retard.

>>10779711
>you need to disprove racism
>whereas no evidence, or basically none, supports the idea that the races can act the same as each other.
Does this make sense in your brain? Or have you been elaborate bait?

>>10779730
It does make sense in my brain, here:

1. Races do not act the same. Surely this is not controversial. By any metric you want you can find differences.
2. This is due either to inherent differences or to environmental factors
3. To state either of these you have to provide evidence
4. There is evidence to support that the differences are inherent, there is little evidence to support that they are environmental.

What is the problem

>>10779711
>You need to disprove racism

>>10779737
The problem is that you think slight differences in homogeneous groups somehow denotes "races" that you should treat differently or even unfairly, just because you personally think the world needs to "disprove racism". You feel like you need to outline these differences and isolate groups you probably already don't like, working backwards from your own beliefs.

You people need to learn that the logic you put forth isn't smart and nobody really takes you seriously. You aren't terribly smart.

>>10779750
But the differences are not slight, they are very important when you look at entire populations.

This has nothing to do with what we ought to do, or how I feel or if I am smart. You will note that I am the only person in this conversation who hasn't been insulting my opponents.

I am saying that racism was sort of obvious to everyone before the 20th century, the evidence gathered during it all supports racism, but that our culture is deeply and fundamentally opposed to racism and so refuses to accept this, similarly to Christians sometimes not accepting evolution.

you act like it is ridiculous that racism should be disproved. Racism is a scientific theory, science works by attempting to disprove theories. A legitimate attempt to do this, for example the Minnesota twin study, which sought to isolate nature and nurture, suggested that the racist intuition was correct, and the environmentalist one was wrong.

>differences in race denote inherent inferiority/superiority
Difference means that they're different, not that they're inherently inferior.

>>10779776
Tell that to race realists.

>>10779772
>I am saying that racism was sort of obvious to everyone before the 20th century, the evidence gathered during it all supports racism
>It's like Christians not accepting evolution
>Racism is a scientific theory
WEEEEWWWWWW LADDD....I'm done here, this is getting too ridiculous for me.

>>10779772
>racism is a scientific theory
Imagine being this mentally ill.

>>10779720
>IQ models are constantly changing
one would hope so
>Again, we don't know that,
are you fucking stupid? we're talking about correlation, it's all you can ask for in statistics. we're correlating a fucking number, it doesn't matter if it's called IQ or not, with a bunch of other things. it's highly correlated. that means that IQ is useful and that it measures something important. it doesn't have to be exact, it just has to be better than everything else, which it is
>unless we can pin down the absolute method by which to accurate measure it, we don't really know for sure.
well it's good that you're being skeptical. it's weird that you have no data that speaks in favor of your argument and all data speaks in favor of my argument but I guess that you can never be too sure. I'll get back to you when we can dissect quarks and measure them to figure out how intelligent someone is. but maybe you want me to measure space-time foam before making any rash judgements?
>mutt retard.
woah epic lefty racism, you can hang with the cool alt-right guys no doubt

>>10779794
Saying that races of humans have on average different cognitive abiltiies due time spent evolving apart is clearly a scientific theory. It is actually just normal evolutionary theory applied to humans.

>>10779803
>wahhh wahhhw ahh you a lefty racist!

>>10779803
>it's weird that you have no data that speaks in favor of your argument and all data speaks in favor of my argument
Opposite, friendo.
>are you fucking stupid? we're talking about correlation, it's all you can ask for in statistics
Then produce them, because they don't really exist.

>>10779804
Blacks and whites do not have vastly different cognitive abilities and no evolutionary biologist thinks that blacks are part of a divergent evolution, you stupid faggot. There isn't enough difference between people to denote "races". Evolution takes millions of years, anon. Blacks haven't been divergent evolving outside of the human race for millions of years....

Jesus Christ, where do you people come from?

>>10779824
Divergent evolution starts immediately when two populations separate, that is why blacks have black skin, and Eurasians don't.

The only question is if changes relevant to cognition took place as well, and there is lots of evidence to suggest that they did.

>>10779829
>Divergent evolution starts immediately when two populations separate, that is why blacks have black skin, and Eurasians don't.
You are seriously retarded.
>The only question is if changes relevant to cognition took place as well, and there is lots of evidence to suggest that they did.
Except there isn't...

I'm gonna laugh my ass off if you aren't actually white.

>>10779834
here is some of the evidence
>>10779478

And you are welcome to explain why skin color, face shape, skull size, etc. can change in that timeframe but it is entirely impossible for cognition to change even a little bit.

>>10779814
what data are you talking about?

https://www.gwern.net/docs/iq/2007-strenze.pdf
http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/40/3/626.short
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289615001269

>>10779839
>here is some of the evidence
lol that was already debunked, try again. Give me something else retard.
>And you are welcome to explain why skin color, face shape, skull size, etc. can change in that timeframe but it is entirely impossible for cognition to change even a little bit.
Because cognition is a MASSIVE thing and not a cosmetic pigmentation, that requires a long and gradual adjustment over time. Not just "it is sunny out, so my skin is darker" which you get in a handful of successive generations.

>>10779841
You read any of these? At all? I'd like for you to compare their studies with your earlier statements.

>>10779849
This person is either a totally immature, ideologically posessed leftist zealot, or someone trolling and arguing in bad faith to begin with. If you arent being ironic, you should at least take away from this debate some self awareness.

>>10779829
>Divergent evolution starts immediately when two populations separate, that is why blacks have black skin, and Eurasians don't
You aren't wrong, but it's a pointless factoid. Evolution is not just one sweeping movement, there are things that take longer than others. Skin color is very different from brain function.

You are outside continuously and exposed to harmful UV rays. However, if your friend is only slightly smarter than you the actual difference or benefit is not even certain. A smart person can still get eaten by a tiger.

>>10779849
If you accept that intelligence is controlled by many genes, than a simple shift in the prevalence of a few genes in a population will impact their average intelligence.

Why do you think that is impossible?

And those claims were not debunked, there was barely even an attempt to argue against them. Your hostility shows that you don't consider this a simple scientific question but rather an intense religious or moral debate, and there is likely no point engaging with you.

For anybody with intellectual integrity who cares about truth I recommend the Rushton book, you don't have to agree with it, but it presents a convincing case. The 10 000 year explosion is another good one, discusses evolution on short timeframes:

https://lesacreduprintemps19.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/the-10000-year-explosion-how-civilization-accelerated-human-evolution-2009-by-gregory-cochran-henry-harpending.pdf

>>10779870
>the irony from people who have literally claimed "Racism is scientific", and "you have to disprove racism".
You have to be on the spectrum to defend those points. But please, keep defaulting to crying about "leftists" because when in doubt, cry about an ideological boogeyman.

>>10779878
It was explained to you why Rushton's book wasn't a reliable source, how it was faulty research and heavily criticized and dismissed. Why can't you accept that?

>>10779878
>Why do you think that is impossible?
Because "smart genes" have been quite literally the white whale of genomics. I've read that smart parents don't just have smarter children outright, they tend to deviate back towards the mean. And dumb parents often get kids smarter than them. It's much to complex to know which genes are doing what.

>>10779889
>You have to be on the spectrum
Please don't associate us with those bafoons.

t. /sci/ assburgers man

>>10779864
yea uh. I said that "IQ has great predictive validity for pretty much anything we care about"

>Looking at the “best studies”, we can observe the
corrected sample size weighted correlations of .56, .45,
and .23 between intelligence and education, occupation,
and income, respectively.

>A 1-standard deviation (SD) advantage in cognitive test scores was associated with a 24% (95% confidence interval 23–25) lower risk of death, during a 17- to 69-year follow-up.

>Intelligence is considered as the strongest predictor of scholastic achievement. Research as well as educational policy and the society as a whole are deeply interested in its role as a prerequisite for scholastic success. The present study investigated the population correlation between standardized intelligence tests and school grades employing psychometric meta-analysis (Hunter & Schmidt, 2004). The analyses involved 240 independent samples with 105,185 participants overall. After correcting for sampling error, error of measurement, and range restriction in the independent variable, we found a population correlation of ρ = .54.

>>10779889
1. I did not say that, 2. I did not make a bogeyman from your ideology by saying you are wrong because you are a leftist. I am saying that you are so devoted to your ideology, or it is hampering your ability to argue in good faith or observe the world/ debate with any genuine motives.

>>10779905
>I said that "IQ has great predictive validity for pretty much anything we care about"
Which wasn't really backed up by any of the links you posted, anon. "Strongest predictor of scholastic achievement" is a far cry from "everything".

>>10779907
If you want to debate in good faith, then you have to come to terms with the actual fact that Rushton's book is not scientific. Otherwise, we aren't going to get anywhere and I'm done. Also, is this not you: >>10779772

>>10779913
No, that wasnt me. Im a different anon who was lurking before seeing your behavior in this debate. I should have made that clear

>>10779910
I don't even know what to say. it's all we talk about, how certain groups are falling behind in education and employment and how it's destroying entire communities and how it eventually leads to crime and dysfunction. but yea, you got me, there's more to life. gotta cook food and dance and stuff. good talk

>>10779921
My behavior? I'm literally correct about almost everything I've discussed, I've heard the same race realist arguments over and over, they never change. Rushton is not a scientist and his book couldn't survive under intense scrutiny. It's all just a front to justify this pseudo-intellectual "scientific racism" that's popular with /pol/types and strings along pieces of actual science, while at the same time making these grandiose conclusions that no modern geneticist or biologist does. I'm sick of engaging with these faggots as if that alone makes their position validated. It's the same way how you can't win with holohoaxers or flat earthers, they just double down.

hide the thread and move on.

>>10779926
It's almost like economic status is the main predictor for crime...? Not magic D&D race stats.

>>10779927
How do you know the earth is round if youve never been to space

>>10779932
I'm not doing that autistic bullshit with you.

>>10779935
spherecucks BTFO

>>10779927
Specifically what do you take issue with in Rushton's book? What is your alternate explanation of the IQ gap? What is your example of even a single high functioning black country?

For those of us who aren't in danger of being attacked socially, the answers are so incredibly obvious that Western academics appear like Puritan lunatics from the outside

>>10779930
no actually, intelligence is a better predictor. it says so in the studies if you cared to look

>>10779927
>>10779927
here's a quote from my favorite /pol/-posting flat earther james watson, nobel prize winning geneticist and discoverer of DNA

>there is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so

>>10779948
>it says so in the studies
Except it really doesn't.

>>10779948
Why is it beyond your comprehension that being poor matters more to criminality than being stupid?

>>10779947
>the answers are so incredibly obvious that Western academics appear like Puritan lunatics from the outside

>>10779957
>>10779960
>>10779957
please I don't want to do this whole song and dance about SES. affluent blacks score lower than poor asians and whites on every level. just take the discussion someplace else, how about "how do you even define race?"

>>10779975
>affluent blacks score lower than poor asians and whites on every level.
They don't, you are referring to a small study done in one town that had a small sample.
>just take the discussion someplace else
You could take your race realism horseshit to /pol/ where it belongs, faggot. I'm literally the only one left who is engaging with you.

Cut your losses and go.

>>10779985
Race realism accurately describes the world and predicts for how populations will behave.

You guys on the other hand literally don,t even have a competing explanation. You have some incredibly vague nonsense about 'colonialism and institutional racism' that doesn,t even assert anything that can be tested.

What I find most hilarious about all this is that you'll spend all this time arguing this stuff online but never in a million years will you choose to live among black people, because you don't actually believe they're the same as you. The closest you'd ever come is some highly selected elite group of blacks living in a western society.

>>10779985
https://lesacreduprintemps19.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/why-ses-does-not-explain.pdf
http://www.jbhe.com/latest/index012209_p.html
http://www.jbhe.com/features/49_college_admissions-test.html
http://arthurjensen.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Interaction-of-Level-I-and-Level-II-Abilities-with-Race-and-Socioeconomic-Status-1974-by-Arthur-Robert-Jensen.pdf
also read the bell curve if you want to *know more*

>I'm literally the only one left who is engaging with you.
aren't you brave

>>10780000
>Race realism accurately describes the world and predicts for how populations will behave.
It doesn't, and this is why nobody takes you people seriously. Fuck off already, you shat up a /lit/ thread enough.
>What I find most hilarious about all this is that you'll spend all this time arguing this stuff online but never in a million years will you choose to live among black people, because you don't actually believe they're the same as you.
Not everyone is a racist bugman like you. My fiance was black.

>>10780009
get back to me when you moved to Kenya

>>10780013
>you won't move to Kenya so that makes you just like me ;)
I want you to unironically kill yourself

>>10780020
if you were like me you would be able to draw basic conclusions. As it stands a repressed instinct of self-preservation prevents you from doing anything as stupid as actually walking through black neighborhoods or visiting Liberia, but you refuse to bring this up to your mind and think about the implications.

>>10780004
>The JBHE information literally talks about how economics effects performance on the SATs
>but muh Bell Curve info taken during a time when schools were literally segregated

>>10780028
you caught me, anon. Racism is cool, and blacks are all terrible. That what you want to hear? That what you want? For everyone to conform to your phrenology-tier race realism and hate minorities with you?

>>10780036
>blacks are all terrible.
I see the concept of averages still eludes you

>>10780028
>muh basic conclusions that I formulated from disgraced psychologists, wordpress blogs, my own opinions on minorities because I dislike them, and thinking IQ is a magic monolith that is a sacred calf for how I judge blacks

>>10780049
and yet you won't go live in a black country either because Im right

>>10780046
>oh no, I only passionately dislike an average statistic of blacks

>>10780051
But that isn't an argument, I don't want to go to those countries not because they are black, but because they are politically unstable, and economic hellholes with no stable leadership. There are majority white countries in the world that share similar issues, anon.

Maybe you're just obsessed?

>>10780033
with a title like
>"Family Income Differences Explain Only a Small Part of the SAT Racial Scoring Gap"?
they're talking about family educational heritage, so talk about that instead

>but muh Bell Curve info taken during a time when schools were literally segregated
yea right, keep fighting that gap. maybe it has something to do with *spins wheel* harmful chemicals in laundry-deterrents preferred by black families?

> School desegregation may have played some role in reducing the black-white test score gap in the South, but school desegregation also seems to have costs for blacks, and when we compare initially similar students in today’s schools, those who attend desegregated schools learn only slightly more than those in segregated schools.

>>10780060
>not because they are black, but because they are politically unstable, and economic hellholes with no stable leadership.
Yeah no possible connection there. Oh and there are white countries that are poor, imagine if we were to make some kind of...study...gathering all this data? Like...the ones Rushton did?

>>10780028
but you could take 3 high iq blacks with training in engineering and leadership, and put them in a neighborhood and crime rates won't go up nor will anyone lose property values because of it assuming they're not racist. How does race realism help me predict these people's behavior? I don't get how discrimination+biodeterminism has any truth value when its all based on statistical epistemology. Yes blacks are on average less intelligent and this is largely due to the environment they evolved within in Africa which did not put the correct pressures on them to develop high iq, but there are still large (though minority) populations of blacks globally who have 100+ iq's, high enough C not to be bothersome, who are not compulsively violent and will not steal from you unless they are starving in a survival situation like a natural disaster where even whites will behave like savages. So, how does it help me predict their behavior? If you say, "well you'll be able to predict their physiognomy, their proclivities, their tastes etc" that's not real predictive power that's useful to me like a circuit diagram or an algo that accurately predicts voltage spikes in an electrical grid. I'm not being benefited significantly by adhering to it, but it would be politically beneficial if my entire impetus for seizing power was that race is the ultimate predictor of behavior (its not) and if authority was absolutely necessary to organize all levels of society (its not). So, unless you are just a political propagandist trying to seize undue power over society, and namely power over the nuclear and bioweapons arsenals (which you are), then why the fuck should I listen to what you have to say? I can be a biological realist without being a horrid racist and without wanting to exterminate other races or even totally segregate from them. you can't deal with this, your ideology does not permit subtlety and is thus useless, and more importantly its barbaric stupidity. Its antihuman, not in a humanist sense, but in the highest noblest sense it is base behavior. I could never bring myself to condemn some average iq Arab or Blaq to death, ignomy or poverty purely because many, even most, members of their race are awful retards who are a danger to me. Its not right, it is not efficacious, its not fair, its not pure, its ignoble

>>10778423
This is one of the few times where he is genuinely using weasel words to get out of addressing something. Recognizing the statistical mental differences between populations that may be influenced be genetic factors may very well end up being a positive development, as knowledge of this may allow us to tackle problems in ways that we wouldn't if we simply assumed that a population would develop the same if given the same environment and culture. This doens't have to simply result in discrimination.

>>10780070
There are connections between income, economic prosperity and crime, yeah. Absolutely. You think race is some sort of magical magnet for bad things.

>>10780067
you should finish reading your own links.

>>10775854
I-is this a joke? Not only do even some leftists-- most of them that are worth their salt-- recognize that his theory is shit, but linguists don't take him seriously, either. He's not regarded as significant AT ALL in any sector of academia, or by anyone with intellectual experience, besides ‘smart’ teenager communists.
Has /lit/ really succumbed to the point of letting people post this type of shit? There was a time when the average poster here would be suprisingly trustworthy as a source of information, relative to you average 4chan user. This is embarrassing. Log off.

>>10780070
Why is your brain programmed to FIRST go to the person's skill and not their economic position, history with crime or real economic factors involving what makes a criminal?

>>10776029
Yes? How is that sentence hard to parse? Are you illiterate?

>>10779637
attend a bernie rally

>>10776221
poltards trolled le epic and destroyed by intellectual

>>10780092
*skin

>>10780087
what are you even saying? what are you even arguing for? I'm telling you that intelligence is a better predictor of success than SES. I'm telling you that affluent blacks do worse than poor whites. I'm telling you that the SES argument is demonstrably weak

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/03/120329142035.htm

>>10780071
I only care about this stuff because it means that there will be ethnic stratification. ethnic stratification doesn't have to mean ethnic conflict but it seems likely. I'm just trying to predict what will happen when whites are a minority in their own nations. it could get interesting

>>10780115
>'m just trying to predict what will happen when whites are a minority in their own nations. i
South Africa. As it stands the government is currently planning to take the whites' farms from them and then rent them back to said whites.

>>10780009
not him but, I found some interesting blog posts from a scientist, which goes at it neutrally pretty much

http://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/?tag=race

>>10780115
>I'm just trying to predict what will happen when whites are a minority in their own nations
outside of neckbeards crying? Nothing. Do you people think that, blacks are going to round up whites and shoot you or something?

>>10780119
is that part of le white genocide???

>>10780124
black people are already raping and murdering and robbing whites in high numbers as a minority so that isn't exactly a ridiculous assumption.

Also see>>10780119 as well as 'farm murders' which the government, while singing 'kill the Boer' maintains are not racially motivated in the least

>>10780122
>Emil Ole William Kirkegaard (online aliases: Deleet,[1] Deleetdk,[2] EmilOWK) is a Danish paedophilia apologist
ahahahahaha this has got to be bait

>black people are already raping and murdering and robbing whites in high numbers
Which reactionary Breitbart article is that from? Is the white genocide happening already? Did the white Holocaust begin?

>>10780147
from the FBI crime stats

and this rhetorical tactic of strawmanning my position as claiming a genocide is ongoing is very lame

>>10780151
>BBBBUUTT DA FBI STATS ARE PROVING THAT THE END OF WHITE AMERICA IS HAPPENING REEEEEEE GENOCIDES AREN'T ALWAYS ONGOING SAVE THE WHITE RACE REE REE REEE RE

>>10780119
well that's a special case. they really really want that land

>>10780124
I'm using black people as an extreme example of ethnic stratification and why it might be difficult to fix. I don't think "blacks" will do stuff differently when mexicans are a majority or whatever

>>10780135
no, a brazil situation is more likely. widespread corruption, low social cohesion, a non-existent political project. there will be more death and stuff but other than that I'm sure the jews and the chinese and some of the whites will do okay in gated communities

>>10780151
>actually thinks a white genocide is happening

>>10780162
>>10780156
...I said my position was not that a genocide is ongoing.

>>10780159
>muh social cohesion can't happen between whites or blacks ever because /pol/ said we are in crisis mode and society is going to collapse
>something about Jews here

>>10780159
>brazil situation
yeah brazil is like it is because of skin color, not because it's a highly unequal society that would rather grind the poor into soylent green than give them some semblance of comfort

>>10780165
I like how you keep weaseling out of saying that you actually don't agree with the white genocide, but you conditionally think that meme is happening

Why are there still anti-white jews and non-whites posting on this board? This is a literature, i.e., a white culture, board. If you are not white or hold views hostile to whites (while assumedly squatting in a white nation) you need to get the fuck out of here. This place is not for you.

>>10780172
i literally don't think there is a genocide happening and didn't say I did. I said the SOuth African government are taking the whites' land and that there is a shitload of black on white violence there as well.

>>10780166
>In recent years, Putnam has been engaged in a comprehensive study of the relationship between trust within communities and their ethnic diversity. His conclusion based on over 40 cases and 30,000 people within the United States is that, other things being equal, more diversity in a community is associated with less trust both between and within ethnic groups. Although limited to American data, it puts into question both the contact hypothesis and conflict theory in inter-ethnic relations. According to conflict theory, distrust between the ethnic groups will rise with diversity, but not within a group. In contrast, contact theory proposes that distrust will decline as members of different ethnic groups get to know and interact with each other. Putnam describes people of all races, sex, socioeconomic statuses, and ages as "hunkering down," avoiding engagement with their local community—both among different ethnic groups and within their own ethnic group. Even when controlling for income inequality and crime rates, two factors which conflict theory states should be the prime causal factors in declining inter-ethnic group trust, more diversity is still associated with less communal trust.

>Lowered trust in areas with high diversity is also associated with:
>Lower confidence in local government, local leaders and the local news media.
>Lower political efficacy – that is, confidence in one's own influence.
>Lower frequency of registering to vote, but more interest and knowledge about politics and more participation in protest marches and social reform groups.
>Higher political advocacy, but lower expectations that it will bring about a desirable result.
>Less expectation that others will cooperate to solve dilemmas of collective action (e.g., voluntary conservation to ease a water or energy shortage).
>Less likelihood of working on a community project.

I'm not saying it "can't happen", I'm saying that things are likely to get worse

>>10780178
>/pol/ thinks they own a literature board

>>10780181
>that there is a shitload of black on white violence there as well.
Still waiting on sources for that.

>>10780185
>I call them niggers, cry every day that they are destroying white society and how I want a Day of the Rope, how Racism is a science
>why isn't cohesion working!? How could this happen?

>>10780203
>my completely unproven theory about white racism preventing social cohesion is Gospel and you are ridiculous for not believing it
thanks for your input

>>10780203
>ctrl f "nigger"
>the only one who has said nigger is some histrionic leftoid screaming about racism
but that's sounds like a solid political vision my dude, "just be nicer". I'm sure it'll work out

>>10780203
it's the same shit retards screaming "abomination!" do when they're suddenly concern trolling about the rates of suicide of gays and transsexuals

>>10779307
>denying iq and racial differences in intelligence

okay you proved yourself a retarded leftist

>>10776018
Correct.

>>10779324
You fucking idiot

>>10780211
>>my completely unproven theory about white racism

>>10780124
if i destroy my racial identity and lose my nation to hordes of barbaric idiot savages the neckbeards will be TRIGGERED, the dudebro racists will be mad as fuck and the chuds will shit their diapers. so fucking epic

>>10780219
>da leftists wahhh wahhh wahhh
>I didn't actually read this thread at all
>he is a leftist in my headcanon, so I hate him
Was it autism?

>>10780229
about white racism preventing social cohesion*

And yeah it's unproven, there isn't a shred of evidence for it. Whenever a race problem exists the cause is just assumed to be white racism

>>10780233
Who are you quoting?

>>10780213
>spend entire thread ranting about how racism is "scientific"
>posting denounced social psychologists, wordpress blogs and literal whos about race realism
>spending hours crying about blacks
>"why don't they like me? Why are they so hostile???"

>>10780242
>haha all ur examples of anti-Christians were denounced by the church, only idiots aren't christians

This is you, this is all leftists ever when talking about race, it is actually comical

>>10780234
>there is no proof that racism geared towards blacks over time has made social cohesion difficult in the United States
You have to be unironically mentally ill...

>>10779619
>I admit that it's possible that these results are due to environment and not genes, but nobody is designing tests to show this. Rather people just talk about banning the entire field.

I agree with you on this. The evidence so far isn't entirely conclusive, but it may well be the case that ethnic mental differences are significant, and that this has a meaningful impact on their cultural makeup, and many people are ideologically afraid of studies potentially showing this to be the case.

>>10780249
so show a study where white people became less racist and then social cohesion rose and or blacks started performing better.

>>10780247
What sort of fucking example is this?

>>10779370
It absolutely is.

>>10780254
you're a bunch of religious lunatics except your religion is 'all men were created equal, and no there is no way this is descended directly from Chistianity'

>Only studies that say what I want them to say are real and if peer review shits on them it's because there is a conspiracy
To race realists science is nothing more than a buzzword.

>>10780254
How fucking stupid are you?

>>10780242
I've never talked about race because I don't have some mythological conception of race. however I do believe there's a biological basis for intelligence and that population differentiation has made us different. if the difference is big enough between certain perceived "dumb" groups (whites, blacks, asians) to cause ethnic stratification it also means that there will be conflict, especially if we can't fix these inequalities.

I haven't posted anything that has been denounced because I've basically posted nothing but data and statistical analysis.

>>10780263
science is reproucing the studies. you will note that peer review doesn't actually reproduce anything. Peer review is just people sitting around criticizing the study.

>>10780260
Your retarded "studies" are all shit on by actual scientists and your only answer is "it's a conspiracy" and you have the balls to compare someone else to a religious lunatic?

>>10780260
Nope, no way at all...

>>10780252
>the country that had blacks as a slave class for a century
>segregated their schools
>purposefully divided their community districts away from whites to devalue their property and force businesses out
>target poor minorities during the Nixon administration by deliberately pouring in drugs
>never really proposing any federal revitalization of black communities
>the country that literally had Jim Crow laws
>none of this would effect social cohesion and let me go on to tell you why blacks are genetically stupid and violent and racism is cool

>>10780247
>Compares discredited scientists to denounced members of a faith
I know you thought this was clever, but it really says a lot more about your neuroses than anything else

>>10780279
nice study man thanks.

>>10780270
It's called quality control you absolute moron.

>>10780279

How can you deny studies, such as the Minnesota transracial adoption study?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Transracial_Adoption_Study

This disproves that IQ is the same regardless of environmental differences, combine this with the fact that IQ measures income, well being and standard of living, it only makes sense that there is racial differences in intelligence that cannot be overcome.

>>10780287
>This disproves that IQ is the same regardless of environmental differences, combine this with the fact that IQ measures income, well being and standard of living, it only makes sense that there is racial differences in intelligence that cannot be overcome.
How can people like you not see that this is working backwards from a claim...?

>>10780284
it's called groupthink

Reproduce or gtfo

>>10780282
your requirements were autistic as all fuck. Do you honestly believe that the way minorities have been treated in the US, has no effect on social cohesion?

>>10780292
When then you should be able to easily prove this, simply claiming somebody is stupid or cannot understand something doesn't prove you right. The Minnesota transracial adoption study, was done by liberal expecting to prove that race has no biological meaning, and they were proven wrong, since then no studies like this have been done for fear of the same occurring.

>>10780294
>If I don't like cross-secitonal and corroborating evidence, I'll just call it groupthink and pretend to win
You people are literally hopeless. It's headache inducing.

>>10780299
>since then no studies like this have been done for fear of the same occurring.
Are we just making shit up now?

>>10780307
I like how you ignored everything else that was said. You are a very poor debater who tries to shift the goalposts, focus of specific perceived weak points, ad hominem and generally stagnate the debate to avoid having to admit the truth.

But I would like you to find an example of a transracial twin study or adoption study done recently. I think it is very easy to deduct why none have occurred because the group involved are afraid of what they will find.

>>10780287
>Scarr & Weinberg (1976) interpreted the results from age 7 suggesting that racial group differences in IQ are inconclusive because of confounding of the study. They noted, however, that the study indicated that cross-racial adoption had a positive effect on black adopted children. In support of this interpretation, they drew special attention to the finding that the average IQ of "socially classified" black children was greater than that of the U.S. white mean. The follow-up data were collected in 1986 and Weinberg et al. published their findings in 1992; they interpreted their results as still supporting the original conclusions.

>Both Levin[7] and Lynn [8] argued that the data clearly support a hereditarian alternative: that the mean IQ scores and school achievement of each group reflected their degree of African ancestry. For all measures, the children with two black parents scored lower than the children with one black and white parent, who in turn scored lower than the adopted children with two white parents. Both omitted discussion of Asian adoptees.

>Waldman, Weinberg, and Scarr [9] responded to Levin [7] and Lynn.[8] They noted that the data taken of adoption placement effects can explain the observed differences; but that they cannot make that claim firmly because the pre-adoption factors confounded racial ancestry, preventing an unambiguous interpretation of the results. They also note that Asian data fit that hypothesis while being omitted by both Levin and Lynn. They argued that, "contrary to Levin's and Lynn's assertions, results from the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study provide little or no conclusive evidence for genetic influences underlying racial differences in intelligence and achievement, " and note that "We think that it is exceedingly implausible that these differences are either entirely genetically based or entirely environmentally based. The true causes of racial-group differences in IQ, or in any other characteristic, are likely to be too complex to be captured by locating them on a single hereditarianism-environmentalism dimension."[9]

>In a 1998 article, Scarr wrote: "The test performance of the Black/Black adoptees [in the study] was not different from that of ordinary Black children reared by their own families in the same area of the country. My colleagues and I reported the data accurately and as fully as possible, and then tried to make the results palatable to environmentally committed colleagues.

>>10780300
see this guy's post>>10780299

If they had even the remotest of intentions of getting the truth on this topic they would have done a shitload of follow up studies to the Minnesota twin one, because that is the best way to get to them bottom of the question.

Hence 'reproduce', not 'sit around and complain that the study is wrong'

>>10780315
>I think it is very easy to deduct why none have occurred because the group involved are afraid of what they will find.
You desperately want this to be true, eh? Also, I was greentexting the conclusion of the study for you, since you seemed to have reading trouble: >>10780319

>>10780300
yeah dude it doesnt make sense that the ideology held by the masses during any particular era would influence the academic and intellectual canon, all the way down to the supposed ‘hard’ sciences. science is completely divorced from culture always. youve definitely read a lot of books & are a regular here, noam chomsky fan.

>>10780307
Hey fucking moron, if you want a post discrediting something to hold more weight than a post asserting something you need to link a source. Are you brain damaged?

>>10780326
Or maybe, as was the case with this test and with almost every critcism of Rushton's retardo book, the results never even remotely defend their hypothesis? It's always some elaborate conspiracy with you "people", and not that the science just isn't there.

>>10780328
m8 did you even read what you quoted there? It shows that the differences very well could be genetic but throws in some 'well it's complex and hard to say' equivocation

>>10780319
So, two liberals attempted to debunk it and failed, I don't see you're reasoning? But I understand because this is probably the first time you have ever read about it. What Scarr and Weinberg are trying to conflate is that evidence that was found that the black children's IQ slightly increased at the young ages, but by adolescence had returned to the normal black IQ. This is likely to do with black children developing earlier, then white children.

>>10780331
>the reason that almost all of science doesn't reflect my /pol/nigger, race realist sensibilities, is that everyone is out to silence my side, discredit my "research" and are in on an elaborate plot to make racists look bad.
>people actually believe this.

>>10780328
Yes you obviously havn't ever come across this before and don't understand it.

>>10780340
But the results were plain as day, the same pattern appeared no matter the adoptive parents.

>>10780353
What the fuck are you on about? Where was that said? Who are you rooting?

>>10780348
>everyone who disagrees with me is a liberal and that's a bad thing
I don't know why you bugmen do this.

>>10780355
>>10780357
>>10780345
>being illiterate about your own sources

>>10780360
*Quoting

>>10780362
hijacked the alt RIECH racist term epic style. its really cool like when liberals call themselves proud snowflake. owned epic

>>10780362
Uh? The two professors are liberals, why does this anger you? Besides the fact that you have completely dodged the evidence yet again and repeated exactly what I said you do in a previous post.

>>10780365
see
>>10780368

>>10780367
>hijacked the alt RIECH racist term epic style. its really cool like when liberals call themselves proud snowflake. owned epic
We still doing the "everyone who disagrees with me is a liberal cartoon" thing?

>>10780365
cmon dude. I like you better when you're being all like "aw man what even is white?? did you know that the irish weren't white??" or "there might be differences but we're all human and that's all that matters! I like hiphop!"

>>10780376
I'm sorry I'm not a cool scientific racist like you are.

>>10780373
>>10780381
Care to respond to what I said?

>>10780368

to the epic defeners of le black man in here, why do you think that Western society was generally extremely racist until about the 1920s and then suddenly shifted over the next few decades?

It,s not like anybody found any sort of evidence that racism was definitely wrong in the 1920s and yet that,s when we see intense movements like Boasian anthropology spring up with extreme anti-racist dogma

>>10780386
>anti-racist dogma

>>10780373
hey yeah i didnt post any cartoon so i dont know what youre talking about, might want to get help w that schizophrenia there, might wanna see a shrink okay pal?

>>10780388
yeah 'dogma stating that all races are identical in cognitive abilities'. Some of it even stated that the physical differences were largely environmental, but those parts have been rolled back as they were plainly absurd

>>10780386
Western society was racist up until, well the end of World War 2, scientific racism was still alive well in the 50s. This is due to two factors, Nazi Germany, which has largely discredited the idea of race or scientific racism and Neo-Marxism/Postmodernism , which both stem from pure Marxist thought. These ideologies of Neo-Marxism and Postmodernism largely dominate western philosophy, academia and media and were funded and supported by the Soviet Union, MLK for instance was funded by the Soviet Union for a time.

>>10780373
the entire story about the study is interesting because they were "liberals" and their mission was politically motivated. they wanted to prove the opposite of what the study showed. the same with robert putnam quoted above, he waited 6 years before publishing his findings on diversity because he felt some way about it, he was also criticized for waiting so long

>>10780381
I accept it as a viable explanation for ethnic stratification. that doesn't mean I'd like to find methods for equalizing things or helping people

>>10780406
>Neo-Marxism/Postmodernism , which both stem from pure Marxist thought

>>10780416
>that doesn't mean I'd like to find methods for equalizing things or helping people
You sure do sound like an upstanding guy!

>>10780421
Why are you in denial? would you care to debunk this?

God why couldnt you southern faggots just pick your own crops...

>>10780416
>that doesn't mean I'd like to find methods for equalizing things or helping people

>>10780424
>>10780433
I don't think a globalized economy and free immigration is a good way to combat these inequalities. it requires very conscious political initiatives and for that you need strong nation states. there can be no strong nation states when there's interethnic conflict and a political tug-of-war between different groups of people. you get populists. the left's unholy alliance with neoliberal interests will drag us down to hell

>>10780457
>I don't think a globalized economy and free immigration is a good way to combat these inequalities
Despite how a global marketplace has decreased worldwide poverty by over 45 percent in a few decades?

>>10780457
>there can be no strong nation states when there's interethnic conflict
I mean, would it kill you to look past the color of a citizen's skin and cohesively bond over actual values instead of letting Breitbart-tier race baiters to play on your insecurities and make you hate blacks?

>>10780463
>Despite how a global marketplace has decreased worldwide poverty by over 45 percent in a few decades?
not him, but isn't it widely known that these numbers are just playing around with statistics to make things look better
https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2014/08/exposing-great-poverty-reductio-201481211590729809.html

>>10780427
You really are being stupid here. How much of Marx have you read?

>>10780480
>but isn't it widely known that these numbers are just playing around with statistics to make things look better
No, that's just a contrarian meme.

>>10780463
Technology did that my friend. Globalization has actually destroyed that which a civilization is built a upon. A sense of nationhood and belonging, religion, morality and a homogeneous society. This all creates a skeptical Nihilism and a critical approach of ones nation, a people who will not up hold their values and nation, will inventively collapse, whether through their own laziness or a stronger force coming to claim it, as is happening today.

>>10780493
okay, /pol//. Whatever you say.

>>10780463
I don't deny that neoliberalism can create wealth but it also eats away at the cohesion of the nations who could do more good if they had a strong political mission. china's exploits in africa for example, a more "moral" people could do more for africa than extracting resources and building infrastructure in service of this extraction and little more

>>10780481
Again ad hominem and refusal to rebuttal a point. I'm not even going to attempt to explain why Neo-Marxism is Marxist in origin, only a complete imbecile would deny that. Postmodernism of course is different to original Marxism just how Neo-Marxism is, that doesn't change the fact it's greatest ideologues were heavily influenced by Marxism, and it retained many Marxist qualities. Why anybody would deny this I don't understand.

>>10780495
More mocking without any substance. Do you deny that a nation cannot survive if it's people have no interest in ensuring that nation can survive?

>>10780502
there never was a "more moral people"
even before neoliberalism (and capitalism) this:
>extracting resources and building infrastructure in service of this extraction and little more
was done by euros
we need to look forward, not backward

>>10780474
you can ask me nicely but you wont be able to convince lower-class people who can't afford to white flight. they'll listen to the trumps if they feel like they're being shunned and victimized

>>10780510
I don't really disagree with your statement, but your original seemed to imply that all of these schools and their offshoots arose 'naturally' out of Marxist thought, in the sense that Marx's writings contain things that would of course lead to them only given the right intellectual conditions.

Of course these people were heavily influenced by Marxism, but Marxist dialectic alone will hardly lead to them.

>>10780502
You'd have to make a truly empathetic and globally altruistic society which I doubt is doable. Especially if they have their own families to worry about.

>>10780539
So then, we can agree they stem from Marxist thought? That they would not exist if not for Marxism?

>>10780519
>there never was a "more moral people"
of course there's a more moral people. it's more moral not to stone gays. it's more moral to outlaw slavery. it's more moral not to beat your children. it's more moral to have free elections. it's more moral to have trade unions and a minimum wage. I don't care where this morality comes from but I think you have a better chance of finding it in a high-trust people living in a strong nation state than in a weak nation state rife with ethnic conflict.

>>10780541
this is what the left is pulling for right now and I fucking hate them for it

>>10780562
>of course there's a more moral people.
you're doing a bait and switch now, don't fucking try to con me. I was clearly talking about your example of the chinese in africa. it's the same thing anyone else is doing/has done/wants to do, your dream of a "more moral people" who would go there with good intentions has never existed.

>>10780546
>we can agree they stem from Marxist thought?

But no more than many other schools of thought. Marx was concerned with the structural properties of capitalism and how it might be possible to overcome their flaws. This tangentially relates to things like colonialism, but a large portion of the writings of say, Derrida, are not related to or derived from Marx's thoughts, though he was clearly influenced by him. It makes little sense at least to 'blame' Marx for everyone who decided to read him.

>>10780576
>I was clearly talking about your example of the chinese in africa. it's the same thing anyone else is doing/has done/wants to do
no, not every form of geopolitical interaction is the same. perhaps in some banal poetical sense they're the same but saudi arabia is not same actor as denmark. you can't spout steven pinker-esque happy numbers and then go back to "oh everything is the same"

there's always a more/less moral people. zimbabweans are happy that white farmers are returning, for example
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-zimbabwe-politics-farmer/ululations-tears-as-white-zimbabwean-farmer-returns-to-seized-land-idUSKBN1EF2US

>>10780630
>you can't spout steven pinker-esque happy numbers and then go back to "oh everything is the same"
well good thing I never did either of those???
>no, not every form of geopolitical interaction is the same.
yes, this is trivially true and as such is completely unimportant

>>10777949
handsome desu

>>10780562
>this is what the left is pulling for right now and I fucking hate them for it
why? are you retarded?

>>10781176
Because it's not working, genius.