/lit/ - Literature

The bell curve is a well-researched and meticulously argued book, on a different order from both Jared diamond's environmentalist fairy story and Gould's semitic, libelous propaganda. Gould's name is synonymous with academic fraud, something known even to the New York Times. Diamond is Bill Bryson without the artistry. I assume you're trolling. Whatever.

>>14837337
Anything recommended by Steve Sailer. Latest is probably the new Charles Murray work

>>14837363
>The bell curve is a well-researched and meticulously argued book,
Which is extremely reductionist and presents race as little more than a signifier of technical competence á la the castes of Brave New World. Very bugman

>>14837411
It does absolutely fucking nothing of the sort. You have not read the book. It barely talks about race and when it does it mentions only averages. What is the point of blatantly lying about stuff you know nothing about when you're obviously going to be called out on it?

>>14837363
Its considered pseudo-science everywhere outside of /pol/.

>>14837517
It's considered pseudoscience by people like anthropologists and sociologists. I don't think I should have to remind you that literally the entirety of their fields are less reproducible and less predictive than IQ

>>14837411
Dude the book has ONE chapter on racial differences in IQ. Everyone who talks about the bell curve being “debunked pseudoscience” have clearly NEVER read a sentence of this book. The central thesis is that society is stratifying along lines of intelligence, and that this will cause significant changes. It only discusses race because both are products of genetics.

>>14837517
Learn to spell first before gifting us with your insectoid opinionlets, you literal bugman.

>>14837573
cope. not an argument

>>14837534
>no I have no sources but trust me, they are all wrong except this guy

>>14837589
Nobody who studies IQ finds the Bell Curve controversial.

>>14837517
Because it’s politicized and runs counter to the elites agenda of globalization. t. Kike coward.

>>14837363
IQ obsession is peak bugman. It's tantamount to nihilism.

>>14837680
I see, what if you don't obsess but merely notice it exists?

>>14837680
t. 90 IQ. Trying to understand society without IQ is like trying to understand biology without evolution.

ITT: People who have no idea what bugman means

>>14837363
Charles Murray is a BS vendor and IQ is pseudoscientific nonsense. Taleb already BTFO the quack Charles Murray.
>No measure that fails 80–95% of the time should be part of “science” (nor should psychology — owing to its sinister track record — be part of science (rather scientism), but that’s another discussion).
The quote above isn't even the worst part. Taleb literally rips apart the bell curve in a single graph; he shows that the correlation between socio-economic status and IQ is effectively zero — and with this Murray's thesis goes down the drain. This also makes Murray's thesis highly immoral because it's not right to trap people in imaginary boxes, such as IQ.
https://medium.com/incerto/iq-is-largely-a-pseudoscientific-swindle-f131c101ba39
>b-but muh studies show the correlation between IQ and wealth
Incorrect. Firstly, Taleb has access to the raw data used by those studies, and he has confirmed that there is no correlation. Secondly, IYI psychologists do not know anything about statistics — they seem to think it's about interpreting noise. With an r2 of zero, IQ correlates with socioeconomic status by exactly 0%.
>b-but muh blacks score lower
While true, it's entirely meaningless and unscientific; it is meaningless because IQ is meaningless and unscientific — it tells us exactly nothing.
>b-but muh country IQs
Those are completely BS. The fraudsters getting the data — ie Lynn — don't even go to the countries to get the data, they fabricate numbers, use unscientific measurements such as IQ, and make assumptions to get their numbers. I'd like to also point out that they always give Middle Eastern and Near Eastern countries an IQ in the 80s, but Lebanese, and a few other, diaspora have higher incomes in the US than diaspora with supposedly higher IQs, like the Chinese and Europeans; this doesn't sound right when IQ is supposed to correlate with wealth — but both you and I know the reason now.

>>14837595
Taleb does.

>>14837710
>>14837732
https://ideasanddata.wordpress.com/2019/01/08/nassim-taleb-on-iq/
Whenever talebtards post I am compelled to respond

>>14837710
Isnt taleb just a statistician? Why is he qualified to speak on biology

Why is it a bad thing to be a racist? No one has answered this question.

Why.

The fuck.

Is it.

Bad.

To.

Be.

Racist.

>>14837798
… holy shit you're right. These are the questions we should be considering.

>>14837798
Because it runs counter to the elites plan for globalization, cheap labor, consumerism, and order

>>14837798
because we wuz slaves yo

>>14837788
He's a geneticist, psychologist, and IQ researcher as well.
>>14837787
Taleb already responded, imbecile.

>>14837363
IQ is not science and has this has been known for several years already.

>>14837820
This, but unironically. Observe how they cherrypick some non-essencial points in every "criticism" against Taleb.

>>14837337
>If you're worried about being a minority in your country you're racist
Does this mean Palestinians are racist?

>it's a coincidence that every discipline associated with intelligence has a high average IQ
you guys are just retarded

>>14837841
Indeed. Last's critique is very bad. It consists of him whining that Taleb is a moron, and Last goes on to list studies, which Taleb has already disputed, as proof that he is wrong and that there is a correlation between IQ and success in life.

>>14837850
>can't define intelligence
>claims to measure
Why do iq pseudoscience lovers can't deal with reality?

>>14837861
try to teach an 85iq guy advanced physics and then get back to me about 'denying reality'

>>14837863
>try to teach a guy that did some random test-
*Yawn* Why do pseudoscience supporters keep repeating the same unscientific stuff?

>>14837850
Taleb already addressed this in his article. It completely BTFOs IQ.

>>14837877
that doesn't address that physics profs have an average iq of like 140

>>14837885
>that doesn't address that these people do well on tests
How does that even support iq stuff.

>>14837885
Did you not even read the image I posted? I did it for a reason.

>>14837889
the image you posted is about the low end. 140iq is the high end

>>14837337

So black people are racists?

I'm racist.
I'm also having my fourth child in June.

>>14837894
If you read the image, you would know that the high end is propped up by a "correlation" on the low end.

>>14837876
The scientific consensus is that IQ is a valid predictor of cognitive ability. A few high profile secular creationists with big media platforms don’t change that

>>14837902
That would not give an average IQ of 140, which is a miniscule percentage of the population, it would just shift it a bit from 100

>>14837820
>n-nuh uh he’s wrong
This is about the level of response I’d expect from an 85 IQ Arab, but hopefully the denizens of /lit/ break triple digits and can read for themselves

>>14837916
>>14837920
Both of you are hilariously stupid. One of you thinks I'm talking about physics professors, when I'm not; and the other thinks that Last's "critique" counts as one.

>>14837909
>The scientific consensus
Source?

>>14837909
>scientific consensus
the only reason a consensus exists is so it can be challenged, as Taleb says.

>>14837941
So you can't answer why the physics profs just happen to cluster around the tiny percentage of the population with extremely high iq.

>>14837953
>cluster
You are making less sense with each post you make. (lmao!)

>>14837956
Yeah cluster, as in they are clustered around 140. Im assuming at this point you're falseflagging to make anti-iq people look bad

>>14837961
>Yeah cluster
He didn't deny it!
Again, how is a random test being related to physics professors relevant to iq being accepted as an intelligence measurement?

>>14837961
Never underestimate the power of insecurity to manifest as idiocy.

>>14837941
>if you disagree with me your stoopid
Okay, you’re an Arab or something too. My point still stands

>>14837970
Do you honestly not know what the word cluster means? If you have many objects and they are all near one point then they are clustered around it.

And it's relevant because you can pick any discipline which is thought to involve intelligence and it will have an average IQ much higher than normal, which shows that IQ tests are measuring something similar to what is required to engage in activities that require high intelligence. It is at the very least a consistent correlation that you can use to predict if people will be good at things.

>>14837953
These correlations are nonsense. As Taleb already pointed out, >>14837877

>>14837982
>Do you
Do you keep constructing your babble over non-verified premises?
>IQ tests are measuring something similar
iq can't even define intelligence, and somehow claims to measure it. Why do pseudoscience supporters shill their nonsense like this?

>>14837945
The fact that you’re asking is proof that you’ve done literally 0 research on the topic. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/1e5e/d3c712d4b5ee0461de4c21b19bf956644d85.pdf?_ga=2.238569216.1629848149.1583430380-293869946.1583430380
This paper is an example but there are plenty more. Use google.
>>14837948
Oof, a creationist too. What a shame, but not a big leap from IQ denial.

>>14837983
I already explained that that only accounts for low iq. And the test if it were truly random would not correlate at all, I can't believe he even said that lol.

>Oof, a creationist too. What a shame, but not a big leap from IQ denial.

>>14837877
That's not a spurious correlation; without understanding the state of death, you don't know that it necessitates zero performance on IQ tests. I can't imagine the hack that promulgated this isn't being deliberately deceptive, because he's using death as an analogue for things that make his abstraction absurd. Death has an obvious, implicit correlation with performance in all fields. If you are using death as a proxy for something else, and the proxy has similarly strong correlations, that would be an important metric.

>>14837991
>is proof that
Not how it works. No wonder you are linking a psychologist non-scientist document here.
>This paper
Why do pseudoscience supporters claim iq measures intelligence when iq can't even define intelligence?

>>14837989
If you're ESL I can understand if you didn't know what the word cluster meant I guess.

You don't need to be able to define something to measure it indirectly, but it's clearly related to pattern recognition among other things. In fact if we just threw out the word intelligence and said "IQ partly measures your ability to succeed in physics, math, law, etc.'' it would be fine I guess.

>>14837993
The fact that it "necessarily correlates" on the lower end causes the whole correlation.

>>14838019
We've been through this, it would not cause a correlation with the very small percentage of people at the upper end of IQ. It would just shift it slightly above 100

>>14838017
>If you're
Are you trying to use ad hominem?
>You don't need to define something to measure it
The absolute state of pseudoscience lovers. This is literal social """science""" tier of research. (lmao!)

>>14837363
>semitic
Hmm I wonder if this poster has an agenda.

>>14838030
/pol/tards will shill racial schizoid nonsense and everything iq as their lives depended on them.

>>14838028
>it would not cause a correlation with the very small percentage of people at the upper end of IQ
Proof? Taleb already showed that it would and does.

>>14838002
>without understanding the state of death, you don't know that it necessitates zero performance on IQ tests.
Death, as you said later in the post, is just a proxy for an IQ of zero; it's just used to make an example.

>>14837900
Based.

>>14837337
>Modern scholarship views racial categories as socially constructed, that is, race is not intrinsic to human beings but rather an identity created, often by socially dominant groups, to establish meaning in a social context.
>Different cultures define different racial groups, often focused on the largest groups of social relevance, and these definitions can change over time.
And don't give me this bullshit about wolves and coyotes, if they can breed they are the same species.

>>14838042
So having IQ of zero correlates with low performance. Hence, a correlation. Why is there "necessarily a correlation at the low end"?

>>14838029
I don't think you understand what pseudoscience is. Science is about making hypotheses and testing them, seeing if the prediction was accurate.

And just admit you were wrong about cluster, this is embarrassing. It has nothing to do with ad hominem, you brought it up, and i pointed out you were retarded

>>14837607
No, because it is an arbitrary social construct. Nobody in biological sciences thinks race in humans is really real.

>>14838048
Then Polar bears and Grizzly bears are the same species too lol

>>14838048
What about animals that can breed but produce infertile offspring almost-but-not-quite always?

>>14838052
IQ is pseudoscientific: it's not falsifiable to IQtards, it's not replicable, and it cannot accurately measure what it claims to measure.

>>14838035
He did nothing of the sort, if you cut out some bottom portion of the bell curve because they're braindead and look at the rest, a random scatter would not end up on the very far right, it would just be slightly shifted from the old average.

>>14838012
>do you have proof that IQ research is considered valid by the people who research it
>no you can’t ask the people who research it they don’t know anything
lol, and an added spergout over colloquial language for good measure

>>14838058
Yes, they are bears.
>>14838061
Try being relevant instead of stupid

>>14838063
Yes it is falsifiable. If you can name something that requires intelligence then we can go and see what the average IQ of that group is going to be. If it's low then that's evidence against IQ, if it's high then it's evidence for it.

it is extremely replicable, it has been being replicated for decades now

>>14837595
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ

>>14838068
>Yes, they are bears

>>14838052
>what pseudoscience is
>"Pseudoscience consists of statements, beliefs, or practices that are claimed to be scientific and factual, in the absence of evidence gathered and constrained by appropriate scientific methods.[1][Note 1] Pseudoscience is often characterized by contradictory, exaggerated or unfalsifiable claims; reliance on confirmation bias rather than rigorous attempts at refutation; lack of openness to evaluation by other experts; and absence of systematic practices when developing theories. The term pseudoscience is often considered pejorative[4] because it suggests something is being presented as science inaccurately or even deceptively. Those described as practicing or advocating pseudoscience often dispute the characterization.[2]"
There you go, pseudoscience lover.
>And just admit
>he is still defending his made up shit based on non-verified premises
pseudoscience lovers...

>>14838066
My iq is 162 and I believe race is a pseudoscience and I do not understand how evolution is supposed to work. I'm also not gay if that helps.

>>14838071
that wiki intro says the same thing as the Bell Curve. Wikipedia is not very reliable about this stuff though

>>14838066
>let's ask the astrologists if astrology is science
Why do pseudoscience lovers lack such rigorous basis for their unscientific beliefs?

>>14838069
>something that requires intelligence >then we can go and see what the average IQ of that group is going to be
nigger what? Go read Kant until you understand what universality is.

>>14838050
>So having IQ of zero correlates with low performance
No shit. Taleb already acknowledged this: the systemic bias comes from the fact that if you hit someone on the head with a hammer, including taking tests of incompetence. However, this doesn't mean that the IQ test is measuring his incompetence, as it is merely spurious.

>>14838074
Well, they are both bears are they not? Use your words or kindly fuck off.

>>14838087
>IQ is pseudoscience because IQ researchers aren’t scientists because IQ is pseudoscience because IQ researchers aren’t scientists because... >>14838080
High IQ people can still be wrong about things

Everyone do yourself a favor and abandon this pigsty. Don't wrestle with the pig, his IQ is unknown.

>>14838069
>If you can name something that requires intelligence then we can go and see what the average IQ of that group is going to be.
This is a fallacy. See >>14837877

>>14838048
That's just the same retards arguing that race is scientific, when it's literally based on contradicting genetics research.

>>14838079
>often characterized by contradictory, exaggerated or unfalsifiable claims; reliance on confirmation bias rather than rigorous attempts at refutation; lack of openness to evaluation by other experts; and absence of systematic practices when developing theories
None of this applies to IQ. It claims to be imperfectly measure intelligence because it correlates with activities commonly associated with intelligence. This is a falsifiable claim and anyone is free to do tests showing why this might not be true.

People are continuing to do research on genes linked with IQ and looking at brain structures to better understand intelligence in general. It is obviously a new pretty new field.

Im starting to genuinely feel bad about arguing with you, it's like bullying a retard

>>14838048
>culture
>social context
Both genetic.

>>14838100
>IQ is pseudoscience because
See what pseudoscience is >>14838079, pseudoscience supporter.

>>14838104
>when it's literally based on contradicting genetics research

>>14838107
>culture is genetic
Oh no. Is it the same retard that keeps saying this?

>>14838108
Okay, none of that applies to IQ research so it’s irrelevant

>>14838104
Yeah I know, I was banned from here last week and was lurking infinity for a few days. They were getting so fucking mad at me haha

>>14838105
>None of this applies to IQ
Wrong. iq claims to be science, fails to demonstrate it's science, therefore it is pseudoscience.
>correlation in genes = causation
>ad hominem
pseudoscience supporters...

>>14837820
>mentally challenged

So, there exists an objective hierarchy of intelligence that can be measured? Intredasting.

>>14838110
Agreeing with the post you are replying to? Ok.

>>14838120
>Wrong. iq claims to be science, fails to demonstrate it's science, therefore it is pseudoscience.
do you genuinely think this sentence contains any information

>>14838105
>Genes linked with IQ
LMAO

>>14838116
False. See>>14838120

>>14838057
t. retard who makes generalized ignorant statements and expects them to be fact.

>>14838104
You can identify someone's race by genetic analysis

>>14837457
He's repeating what everyone else says about it so he thinks it's true.

>>14838125
not him but it's a fairly economical explanation of what is pseudoscience

Will anyone itt be capable of critiquing this video without resorting to memes or ad hominem? I doubt it.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jSo5v5t4OQM

>>14838126
yeah for example there are genes related to genetic diseases in Ashkenazi that strongly correlate with high IQ

>>14838127
>false, see a bunch of dumb words
lol. The research is clear. The data is there. If you don’t want to learn then nobody can save you from the prison your low IQ has put you in

>>14838117
The wave of retards that shilled for this nonsense years ago were poltards and edgy children. Now the wave of retards from this year is made of mentally ill retards who genuinely believe if they don't shill this shit 24/7 the world will be doomed.

>>14837517
Because it affects funding. In China, this is not an issue.

>>14838128
OK, so can you please show me the evidence of actual biologists that support race theory? Go on, I'm open for my mind to be changed.

>>14838139
It must suck losing the argument every single time to people you think are mentally ill retards

>>14838123
Perhaps; but IQ isn't the way to do it.
>>14838134
>If you don't buy IQ research, then you should throw away all of psychology
THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT TALEB IS SUGGESTING.

>>14838145
there is one that won a nobel prize
but he got pretty much excommunicated after saying this

>>14838057
>arbitrary social construct

Just kill yourself

>>14838125
>do you genuinely think
pseudoscience supporters lacking the skill to understand what pseudoscience is (lmao!)
>>14838137
>The research
-of non-scientific stuff. So?

>>14838146
not him but I'm honestly fine with losing the argument about it, just that I have never and I've been having this argument for nigh on 25 years.
It's a matter of truth and falsehood not a matter of who is right and who is wrong.

>>14838115
How is this wrong though assuming that intelligence is genetic?

>>14838145
yeah go read the NYT of Harvard geneticist David Reich saying that people like you need to accept the genetic basis for race, specifically because you're all losing every argument about this subject to racists, and he's afraid of racists controlling the conversation because the other side is blatantly denying reality. He hastens to add that this doesn't mean that the evil racists are right about their dated stereotypes, but even the fucking NYT are now publishing articles by mainstream scientists admitting what has been obvious for decades.

This was in 2017 but you guys have somehow missed the memo

>>14838146
t. seething retard

>>14838150
Who is it anon?
>>14838154
>kys
Go take some air, get a drink, have a smoke, calm the fuck down nigger.

>>14838130
Race classification is influenced by a judgement of apparent features, implying that apparent phenotype defines genotype. This implication is completely false. Race is not scientifically based. Therefore, race is not science.

>>14838175
>implying that apparent phenotype defines genotype.
implying that it correlates with it. which it does. Which is why Pygmies look very different than Japanese people, and guess what they're genetically distinct. Who would have thought

>>14838135
>believing Pinker's lies
I thought you guys hated Jews? Taleb ripped this lie apart

>>14838183
>implying that it correlates with it
Racial classifications are not "correlating" they are defining and categorizing individuals based on a supposition of ancestry, phenotype doesn't define ancestry, genotype does. Why do you keep shilling this unscientific babble?

>>14838186
It has nothing to do with Pinker, it was Cochran

>>14838194
They are an imperfect categorization based on exterior phenotype, which aligns fairly well with genotype. This is so obvious Im not sure why I even have to say it.

>>14838163
>people like you
Tell me what kind of person am I.

>>14838183
>and guess what they're genetically distinct.
But they're not. I'm sure you've heard it before but it's true: more variation within races than between.

>>14838172
>Who is it anon?
James Watson

>>14838195
But Cochran is another fraudster. Also, Pinker has been pushing this lie since the early 2000s as far I can remember.

>>14838200
>aligns fairly well
Racial cathegorizations lack scientific rigor, and fall into the cathegory of pseudoscience. The implications of phylogenetic research having more relevance in taxonomy shows how race is an obsolete unscientific field of research.

>>14838204
>variation more within than between
Only if you pick one locus is that sometimes true. The more loci you pick the chance that it is true drops to completely negligible.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12879450

>>14838218
Racial categorizations can be falsified, hence not pseudoscience. Racial categorizations have not been contradicted by genetic research, they have been refined.

>>14838126
Funny how a bunch of SNPs associated with neuro development predict educational achievement better than family socioeconomic status.
Almost like... genes have something to do with brain development, which has something to do with thinking.

>>14838206
>>14838100
>High IQ people can still be wrong about things
And this dude is assuming two things, iq and evolution.

>>14838225
>Racial categorizations have not been contradicted by genetic research, they have been refined.
In as far as saying that black is a race and there's a gene for melanin, sure.

>>14838206
He's senile now.

>>14838259
No for example all sub-saharans used to be classed as 'black'. We know now that groups like Bantu are actually closer to Eurasians than they are to Pygmies or Bushmen. In contrast the original intuition that all Eurasians were more closely related to each other than they are to sub-saharans has been confirmed.

>>14838120
>IQ is pseudoscience

Yeah I'm out. Not sure why anyone is wasting their time with this retard.

>>14838265
This thread is making me senile. Would you like a coffee, anon?

This is the reason we don't have real research done on this subject, it's more about a feel good agenda and not the facts.
>>14838265
Well good thing he made these comments decades ago.

>>14838228
Where were you when you realized COVID-19 was engineered by the Chinese as a vector for increasing the frequency of these alleles in their population via germ cell modification?

>>14838268
does this seem to me instinctively to appear a kind of goalposts manoeuvre...

>>14838225
>hence not pseudoscience
False. See>>14838079
>>14838270
Nice ad hominem, fag.

>>14838291
are blacks better at sprints because of their genes?

>>14838222
Edwards never disagreed with Lewontin though.

>>14838273
>pseudoscience supporters using an opinion as an argument
How am I not surprised?

>>14838288
They always use deconstructionist to weasel out of racial determinism. By pointing at subsets they hope to make you forget there are supersets.

It's dishonest and they know it. They're liars. Most of all they lie to themselves.

why are blacks so dumb?

>>14838299
>[non relevant question]
[non relevant answer]
Next.

>>14838300
>denying Watson
Yeah you surely know more than a guy who spent 70 years studying the subject.

>>14838312
Watson is an imbécile.

>>14838247
yikes lol
black im guessing?

>>14838310
Why are you dodging the question?

>>14838301
That image is conflating Edwards' point that human populations are genetically distinct with some irrelevant talk about how people used to use the word race.

The fact is that human populations are genetically distinct. If you don't want to call them races absolutely nothing changes.
>the race of pygmies
>the human population of pygmies
Your call.

>>14838275
Not possible due to the high polygenicity of traits like intelligence, for now at least.
It would be simpler to have it sterilise everyone too stupid to avoid contracting it. If your government is totally inept then everyone is sterilised.

>>14838325
>The fact is that human populations are genetically distinct
How many races do you think there are then?

>>14838321
Not an argument.

has there ever been a smart full blooded abo?

>>14838270
Alfred Binet, the guy who came up with the IQ test himself stated that it merely gives the idea of a person's performance in a test from which an idea about his intellectual capacity can be formed. It can change depending on environmental factors. When Ameritards used his ideas to justify eugenics, he strongly came out against it.
>"I have not sought to sketch a method of measuring… but only a method of classification of individuals"

>>14838201
A complete obsequious retard who just agrees with anyone who is safe and has a distinction. Essentially, just what the general beliefs of academia and liberal media tells you to think

>>14838351
Race can be set anywhere from a single immediate family to the entire population. It's like asking how many branches are on a tree, when one branch contains many smaller branches. But a given twig, eg. the Japanese, will always be on a specific larger branch, the east asian, then eurasian, etc. that twig can't be found out on the Australasian or Bantu branches.

>>14837798

https://ideasanddata.wordpress.com/2019/01/08/nassim-taleb-on-iq/amp/
>this kills the talebtard

>>14838351
not him but total population minus twins, triplets etc would be a good approximation. Which brings us back to the designation of arbitrary social construct I suppose

tfw people think they're refuting race knowledge, because we can't draw genetic edges of populations with mathematical certainty

>>14838401
>racism doesn't exist
>but "antiwhite" racism does exist
american education, everybody

>>14838405
Already addressed ITT
>>14838393
So you're saying it doesn't exist scientifically? Good to hear.

>>14838424
>doesn't exist scientifically
you're dumb, bro

>>14838360
The fella that invented the electric sheep shears, celebrated by barbers and shearers the world over. Also the unknown fella that invented the woomera. Both what I'd like to call smart things.

>>14838412
Why are you cowardly avoiding the post you are refering to?

>>14838424
If you think twigs can magically jump from one branch to another of a tree, then sure, it doesn't exist scientifically.

I've already told you itt that you can look at a person's genome and tell what population they come from.

>>14838351
>How many races do you think there are then?
How many rivers, how many mountains, how many continents, how many colours, how many subspecies, how many planets, how many pebbles on a beach?
All of those things have no clear definitive line (except the arbitrary definition given by some governing body), yet they exist and we describe them with no issue.

>>14838435
>>14838431

Races don't exist scientifically; just get over it. You can still salvage the ontological status of race by arguing that it's a social construct, though.

>>14838453
>>14838299
can you answer this question please?

>>14838453
>Races don't exist scientifically
What does this mean and why do you think it helps your case?

>>14837337
Racecraft by Barbara Fields.

>>14838435
>you can look at a person's genome
You can't always though, for example a Turk and a Brazilian. That's not what you meant though, you meant that you can tell where there ancestors were probably from at the historical year x, which again is arbitrary and will not always be true either. I suppose we could go back to the Tower of Babel but that then is purely academic and although interesting I don't see how that is relevant for whatever purpose there is for racial categorization. The whole premise is rather disingenuous.

>>14838453
How can you determine the population someone comes from by their genome if it isn't a valid scientific category?

If it were arbitrary then sometimes you'd test a Japanese guy and he'd show up as an Irish. But this doesn't happen.

>>14838324
Why are you using an irrelevant question as a tool to accuse me of "dodging" a question?

>>14838469
>you meant that you can tell where there ancestors were probably from at the historical year x,
Yes because that is how races are formed, by your ancestors having been separate from other peoples ancestors and evolving to be different during that separation.

>>14838312
>know
Explain the facts. Race is pseudoscience and you shills have tried to avoid this fact ITT for hours, this fault of your pseudoscientific argument won't ever go away.

>>14838477
Just answer it lol

>>14838477
Because you know there is a genetic component to their(certain African populations) sprinting ability and you really, really don't want to talk about that in this thread.

>>14838480
Evolution takes a long time especially in complex organisms like humans.

>>14838464
They can't be defined scientifically because there is too much variation within than out. And it is pretty clear to recognize that modern racial categories were invented with zero knowledge of biology.
>>14838451
>All of those things have no clear definitive line (except the arbitrary definition given by some governing body), yet they exist and we describe them with no issue.
This sounds similar to an argument Dawkins made.

>>14837337
What do /pol/tards think about the fact that ashkenazim have an average IQ of 115? Or how about the asian population in the USA also being a whole deviation above the white population?

>>14838480
Don't ignore The Tower of Babel reference. That's where you want to go back to then it isn't arbitrary.

>>14838487
It absolutely is a pseudoscience, and the way we think about it in the US is not the way the rest of the world thinks about it.
Not to say the US is wrong or the rest of the world is right, but rather it's a contextual bullshit thing, used for political gains by whoever has the gumption to grab it.
People arguing for "black power" or "white power" never fucking define who exactly is black or white, it's always a lived experience bullshit qualitiative thing or it's something that's autistically quantitative like Lyin' Liz's Trump baited genetic test.
There's no meaningful anything in race, it's a rhetorical tool. From "just a drop" in the antebellum days to "POC/latinx/WOC" shit today, it's ALWAYS used to get poor people to not beat down and hang the soft faggots in the mansion down the street.

>>14838512
Well, races don't exist, so why would I care? :)

>>14838487
Races are genetically distinct populations who became so because they were separated historically and evolved differences without interbreeding, while also sometimes picking up outside genes(eg. Neanderthal, Denisovan, the archaic group in West Africa). You can look at a genome and tell which of these groups a person came from, it is not arbitrary.

You can continue to blabber that it's pseudoscience like an idiot but anyone reading the thread will be able to see that you're grasping at straws.

>>14838511
>They can't be defined scientifically
What does this mean?

>>14838494
See.>>14838310
>>14838498
>difference between individuals demonstrate race
Yeah the lactose intolerant race, the high skull race, the squatting race...(lmao!)

Why do pseudoscience supporters lack such scientific rigor in their arguments?

>>14838505
Evolution never stops, it doesnt take any set amount of time. You isolate two populations and they will immediately start diverging.
>>14838512
It doesn't bother me in the slightest.

>>14838519
So you ARE a /pol/tard?

>>14837457
If you mention the averages as even a fraction of your
>Some rac- I MEAN CULTURES... cultures... are better than others
we all know which end of any bell curve you sit at.

>>14838523
>not the brainerino
Pathetic excuses.

>>14838512
My personal theory is that any racial difference is driven by child abuse.
Black kid becomes great athlete. Why? Dad beat him with a belt when he fucked up in a basketball game.
Asian kid becomes great mathematician. Why? Dad smacked him with stick if he got less than 100% and mom socially shamed him in front of her friends for missing a question on his test.
White person becomes simpering libtard. Why? Mom emotionally abused him into apologizing for his very existence and dad never bothered to show up emotionally for his upbringing, teach hard lessons, or enforce boundaries.
The pendulums will keep swinging. Maybe in fifty years smacking your kid will come back into vogue for whites and asians will be filling the offices of feminist child psychologists with their offspring.

>>14838498
American sprinters from America aren't African though.
Tell me why are Australians so dominant in the sport of Australian Rules Football?

>>14838520
>Races are
Wrong. Race classification is influenced by a judgement of apparent features, implying that apparent phenotype defines genotype. This implication is completely false. Race is not scientifically based. Therefore, race is not science.
>You can continue
You can continue shilling for a device that uses unscientific premises.

>>14837337
>Bell Curve
>Immigration

try education spending

>>14838523
The african population in question have a number of genes that make them good at sprinting. Their race itself is not defined by this set of genes alone, but by their entire gene pool, within which will be a correlated set of genes that distinguish them from other human populations, which is how groups are differentiated between each other in the first place.

>>14838533
>excuses
Is that all?

>>14838533
>muh evolution stops at the brain strawmam

>>14838535
They're fucking descendants of criminals is why.

>>14838526
That isn't evolution though, at least not as I understand evolution.

>>14838539
>Their race itself is
Wrong. Their "race" is defined by a judgement of apparent features, implying that apparent phenotype defines genotype. This is completely false, as genotype defines phenotype not the opposite. Pseudoscience.

>>14838537
The popular conception of race doesnt change the genetic reality anymore than the popular conception of physics changing the accurate picture.

This is a hilariously weak rhetorical tactic you have tried to use maybe 10 times in this thread. Then again im not surprised since you got it from that image criticizing Edwards that you love to post, and I can tell you can't actually make your own arguments, you can just(poorly) parrot things.

>>14838522
It means that the current and any future classifications of races are not scientifically valid.

>>14837798
Because generalisation is bad. You've predetermined everything about a person on the basis of a small subset of characteristics. Normally, such generalisations stem from the generaliser's own inadequacy and a desire to affiliate themselves with superiors, alla
>I'm retarded, lazy, jobless, unfit, unattractive, and talentless
>But white people had empires and more nobel prizes and culture
>Guess that automatically makes me better than all these subhuman darkies, regardless of what they're actually doing with their lives
Other races do this too, btw. Nobody's racism is exempt from this scrutiny. On 4chan, pro-white racism is dominant, so I'm addressing that to reach the largest audience.

>>14838551
>that you love to post
Jesus, this schizo thinks I'm everyone.
>The popular conception
So you are not even denying how race is pseudoscience?
>you can just
You haven't even addressed anything of my post. Pseudoscience supporters...

>>14838554
>ignore the problems and deny reality because it makes some losers feel good
Fantastic argument.

>>14838548
Evolution is just the changing of gene pools(or for asexually reproducing organism genomes, but this is a subtle concept) due to mutations and selections. That never stops, that happens between every generation.

>>14838546
Not all of them are. I don't know exactly who their top players are but I can find out and I'd be surprised if there weren't any Abos or Wogs in the top 50

>>14838558
Yeah just like physics is pseudoscience because laymen are wrong about how gravity works. Good job lmao

>race doesn't exi-

>>14838563
>ill just group people into unscientific classifications and make generalizations based off of these unscientific classifications

>>14838563
Elaborate. Not everyone shares your mental schemata. Idk what point you're trying to make.

>>14838564
The evolution that leads to formation of distinct characteristics.

>>14838512
>What do /pol/tards think about the fact that ashkenazim have an average IQ of 115?
It only annoys me that they are so stridently opposed to eugenics (particularly personal, positive eugenics) being applied to us inferior races to allow us to catch up, and so insistent on importing low IQ menial labor. Secular Jews as a whole are out marrying at around 50% per generation so will cease to exist as a political block in a few generations. Religious Jews are annoying but keep to themselves mostly.
>Or how about the asian population in the USA also being a whole deviation above the white population?
They're around 105, which is enough to lead to significant overrepresentation at elite colleges. Luckily east Asian personalities are not particular adept at social manipulation and they haven't used their outsized education and wealth advantage to manipulate the political system like Jews. However, I'm generally against importing a racially distinct uber caste because that shit leads to genocides.

>>14838553
>not scientifically valid
What does that mean?

>>14838572
>are wrong about how gravity works
Pseudoscience lovers missing the point again...

>>14838453
You are fucking stupid. Races exist. Get the fuck over it.

>>14838580
>distinct
This doesn't mean anything really. There is no line at which distinctness happens, populations just diverge more the longer they're apart and the more selection pressures are on them.

Although if you're looking at humans there are many 'distinct' features you could pick out if you wanted.

>>14838582
Unscientific, pseudoscientific

>>14838588
>Get over it, I'm just right #triggered
Brilliant argument.
This is why we just need to end the working classes. You know they don't even appreciate literature, right?

>>14838588
Proofs?

>>14837337
Can somebody please tell me what that chick in OP pic means?

>>14838574
>I'll just ignore what I see in real life around me because "Science" told me we are all equal.

>>14838599
>>14838573

>>14837798
Because knowing someones race gives little to no information about their merit. Instead, it provides an illusory picture of the man which is easily acted upon by the simple minded with often disastrous consequences.

>>14838606
>muh ghost DNA
having different descendants doesn't mean races exist ...

>>14838598
>>14838599

Any Proof races aren’t real you dumb fucks?

Niggers and whites are clearly equal even though their bone structures are different, and genetic make up contain entirely different DNA.

>>14838617
More variation within than out. There's your proof, nigger.

>>14838553
>>14838590
Are you unable or unwilling to explain?

How is testing two groups of people (using whatever arbitrary criteria to put them into those groups) not scientifically valid?

>>14838609
IQ is genetic, so yes it does give a picture of a persons potential merit.

>>14838609
>gives little to no information
Depends on what info you're looking for.
But any info is better than nothing.

>>14838600
Seconded, wtf does that mean?

>>14838627
That by no means proves races don’t exist.

It just means you are a nigger loving cock sucking Jew.

>>14838627
That is a list of groups of individual genes. If you take all of the genes a person has and compare it to all the genes another person has then they will always be closer to someone within their race than someone outside it.

I forgive you for posting this dumb image all the time because Im fairly sure you actually too stupid to understand what Im saying here but people reading it should get it.

>>14838617
This >>14838627
Also if you propose a hypothesis, you have to rigorously prove it.
Individuals' bone structures are different. Our DNA is almost completely identical, both intratranscriptome and intertranscriptome.

>>14838652
Our DNA is not at all completely identical.

Race can be determined through forensic evidence in crime cases through DNA alone.

You are a fucking liar.

>>14838652
>Individuals' bone structures are different.
must be completely random and- oh what's that it correlates exactly with their genomes, those same genomes we were just saying could place in them different ancestral populations? Would you look at that

So was my ancestry test lieing and I could be way more african potentially? Could I be a brotha?

>>14838674
Ancestry tests are shit to begin with

>>14838564
We have redheaded people here in Ireland because they are only allowed to marry their own kind.

>>14838674
yeah you could actually have been switched at birth with baby of a Bushman. It's completely arbitrary what your genes and ancestry are, just a social construct

>>14838674
we are all the same haha my fellow romanian prussian nubian poo

>>14838666
>Our DNA is not at all completely identical.
Someone hasn't taken EvoBio 101 at any university. Everyone knows how limited genetic differences are between humans.
inb4 but universities lie about literal genetic code for the feminism.
>Race can be determined through forensic evidence in crime cases through DNA alone.
Haplotypes can. We in the medical business dumb everything the fuck down for laymen.
>You are a fucking liar.
You are a fucking retard.

Redditspace for you.
>>14838667
You mean. Y-you mean... People inherit their genes from their parents?! I'd have never have fucking guessed!
And of course, if you share a similar bone structure from those who inherited similar genes to you, that means being white automatically means you inherited the optimal balance of intelligence and artistry. It's

>>14838744
>Everyone knows how limited genetic differences are between humans.
>>14838573

>>14838755
Wow. An uncited group of charts lacking legends or captions...
Lemme guess, all those "genes" are actually in the untranscribed regions that are probably viruses and deadgenes from ancestors.

>>14838744
>Haplotypes can. We in the medical business dumb everything the fuck down for laymen.
Do you honestly think this is going to confuse anyone? Using a technical term to mean 'we look at sets of genes to see what race they come from'.
>People inherit their genes from their parents?
Yeah they do, and their parents inherit from their parents and so on backwards until you reach the main populations of humans which are genetically distinct from each other and commonly referred to as races.

Extremely hard concept for you to grasp I can see

>>14838771
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-51508616
was it so hard to google "ghost dna"?

>>14838781
Genes correlate to a phenotype, which is associated with a geographical origin.
Sure, you could summarise that all with a "race"; I don't believe in all the 'social construct patriarchy' bullshit, but it's definitely an intangible term to summarise some associated features. I just don't see how race is relevant outside
>well X is genetically related to Y
>X is more predisposed to Z while A is more predisposed to B
when you can just judge a person's character by the content of said character much more accurately and with less generalisation that stems from one's own inadequacy.

>>14838809
Actually that explains a fucking lot about Africa versus everywhere else.

Race isn't even real lmfao

>>14838828
Nevermind you are not the person ive been arguing with forever itt. He wouldn't admit it existed at all. I also don't care if you call it race, 'human populations are genetically distinct' is fine with me.

As to judging individuals that is an entirely different topic and sure Ill agree with you in general. Although in practice we do stereotype people based on a number of things, including race. But we update our model of the person after seeing how they act.

>>14838511
>i can reduce X to component parts therefore X doesn't exist
Racial deconstructionist bullshit strikes again.

>>14838883
I'm am by no means an eliminativist, and I'm not too fond of reductionism either.

>>14838893
And yet that's exactly what you're doing.

>>14837337
>meanwhile, in the murder and rape capital of the world

>>14838902
I never argued for the elimination of racial categories; I am merely saying that they are unscientific.

>>14838554
>Because generalisation is bad. You've predetermined everything about a person on the basis of a small subset of characteristics.
Why is this bad though? For a counter example, the crime rate in NYC dropped dramatically during years of racial profiling policies by the police, and has in turned gone up as the policies were dropped following scrutiny. How do you explain that?

>>14838915
This is a political battle. If you don't qualify "unscientific" with "real nonetheless" you are supporting the wrong side.

If you don't want to be part of the fight don't remark on the topic.

You're part of the fight anyway.

>>14837819
We are all slaves, yo

>>14838915
By stating that race is unscientific, you are pushing for the elimination of racial categories.

You are a liar.

>>14838926
>look this up
>shooting incidents are already at 70 for this year compared to last year 59 overall

The fuck... i gotta get put of this shithole

>>14838554
Oh the irony of that post.

>>14838781
>until you reach the main populations of humans
cited for arbitrariness

>>14839042
Elaborate?

>>14838931
He doesn't have to qualify what he means by unscientific.
>>14838999
No he's not, he's simply stating that it's unscientific.

>>14839064
You're a fat virgin cuck

>>14839064
>Because generalisation is bad.
>proceed to generalize racists
Very common thing among anti-racists.

>>14839086
Race can be determined through forensic DNA evidence alone.

Therefore race is scientific and real.

That also means you are a fucking idiot and a liar.

>>14839093
Racism is an ideology which stems from a mindset. It isn't comparable to a skin colour or something like that, which does not inherently induce or stem from a mindset. The ideology has to come from somewhere.

>>14839136
Why is it bad to generalize biological features but not mindsets?

>>14839136
Ok but saying theyre all dumb poor neets is generalizing when if it really is systemic obviously people like that would have no power

>>14837798
based and dare I say it redpilled

>>14839136
>Racism is an ideology which stems from a mindset.
Yeah, the mindset is called "observing groups and noticing patterns".

>>14839136
Raycim is inherited though
>your baby is racist and here's why that ebin

>>14839136
>You've predetermined everything about a person on the basis of a small subset of characteristics.
This is exactly what you are doing yourself right now.

It happen all the times with you progressives, you set the rules and the moment someone point to you that you guys are infringing them, you come up with some new sub-rule to allow you to break the first rule you yourselves established before.

>>14839147
Because an ideology
>is malleable and changeable
>can have negative consequences for others, especially with non-modifiable characteristics
>isn't inherent - it is learned
Effectively, you're asking why your opinions aren't held on the same level of respect as the way someone is born. Are you not open to discussing your opinions or accepting that they could ever be changed?
>>14839150
Note that they have no power, at least not politically. They can still be violent and band together to riot etc. though.
>>14839160
And then applying those patterns to everyone regardless of what you later find out about the people. How many racists do you know who are actually OK with many known non-"desirable-race" individuals because they don't fit the patterns?
Accepting most crimes are committed by blacks but that individual blacks may be brilliant people isn't racist. The term "racist" specifically applies to the people who believe that a high-earning, moral, professional family man is still bad for society because he isn't X race, while a thuggish, illiterate hooligan who grew up in a land of opportunity is just disenfranchised and misunderstood because he is X race.

>>14839199
>you progressives
I'm a transhumanist eugenicist (I just don't see "race" as relevant to my goals), so you're guilty of finger-pointing if I am.

>>14839221
I'm not the one who oppose generalizations.

>>14838627
>people still propagate the Lewontin meme
amazing how much damage poor math education can do to the discourse

>>14839242
>>14839199
To address your actual point, I generalised the ideology of racism and its root cause, not the person. Note the difference
>X race is violent and amoral
>Y belief likely stems from Z pattern of thinking

Why anyone would trust people who value an out-group over their in-group is beyond me

>>14839213
>How many racists do you know
Stop speaking of racists in the third person. Literally every person is a racist.
You can't look at two different groups of people and not have even the slightest preference towards one or the other group.
You can certainly say you don't have a preference, because that's a PC/polite thing to do, but you don't really believe it.

>>14839252
>a racist is likely to be blah blah
>a person of x race is likely to be blah blah
Seems like the same thing to me. What's important anyway is whether the statements are true or not

>>14839136
>The ideology has to come from somewhere.
Try living with other racial groups for awhile, particularly when you are a minority and you'll learn quickly.

>>14839252
You can't say that racists are
>retarded, lazy, jobless, unfit, unattractive, and talentless
and then pretend that you aren't (negatively) generalizing them.

>>14839261
>No! You can't exist without my biases!
I'll admit in that regard that I'm a "sexist" (men>women) and a "classist" (upper strata>lower strata), but race never played into it for me.
Even still, I wouldn't call you a racist for having an inherent bias based on race and race alone if you still made an effort to be unbiased towards the individual long enough to make a character judgement - the sentiment applies to those who consciously and openly follow a racial bias prior to knowing the individual. Implicit racism is bullshit guilt-tripping.
>>14839273
So you believe that your racism is an independent and inherent characteristic and that all people of such-and-such race are a certain way?

>this whole thread

>>14839306
You could probably make some correlations between people with racist beliefs and other traits. Although there would likely be different types of racists, due to the reasons they decided that races were different.

And you can do the same thing with races, you can make correlations with various characteristics.

>>14839277
I already have.
>>14839286
Tell me the mechanism by which a high-IQ, hardworking, high-earning, educated, healthy, attractive, and talented person would come to negative conclusions about people based on features of their birth that are not inherently logically linked to positive/negative features of their behaviour and character.
Ideology comes from some experience or thought process. Haplotype just comes from gametes.

>>14839322
you're pulling a bait and switch. Almost everybody in society would apply the word racist to someone who believes races have average differences.

Youre trying to say racists are only this strawman of someone who thinks every single person of the race is identical

>>14839315
Perhaps I'm generalising to my least favourite type - the Gazza from Greggs trope. I just really dislike this sort of person whose entire personality is
>Fook pakis
>Love brexit
>Love footie
>Simple as
>*Partake in british alcoholism and vandalise things*
There may be other kinds of racists out there, but I struggle to see how their conclusions could come from any logical thought process that recognises individuals outside of averages.
>And you can do the same thing with races, you can make correlations with various characteristics.
That doesn't mean it's right. Again, you are trying to hold animosity towards the way someone is born on the same level of respect as the way someone is born.

>>14839346
>Almost everybody in society would apply the word racist to someone who believes races have average differences.
Maybe in your echochamber

Redditspace.

Some may believe they are all identical. Some may not, but may project this sentiment for an ulterior motive of treating them all as inferior using the average as a justification (and thus implying they are all the average).

>>14839348
The chav can be both a retard and correct that Pakis are more likely to be violent rapists.

Do you just not understand the concept of statistics or what. There is nothing logically wrong with saying that someone is more likely to be some thing because of their genes

>>14838123
>So, there exists an objective hierarchy of intelligence that can be measured? Intredasting.
Yes, but it's not IQ, which is a measure of domesticated niggercattle pseudo-intellectualism.

>>14839322
>I already have.
I don't believe you because then you would have learned in-group, out-group preferences. It's possible your family is consumer based without any real traditions, in which case it's understandable you lack group awareness to begin with.
>based on features of their birth that are not inherently logically linked to positive/negative features of their behaviour and character.
This is first of all a complete lie but to play with your concept for just a moment you are arguing in very poor faith by suggesting that race is something that only poor people see, yet this is completely untrue and history debunks your concept to begin with. Beyond all the factual statistics, a large bulk of out-group people settling down in the place of your in-group destroys your in-group completely and irreparably. That's why I mentioned you must have come from a very low awareness family background that didn't really instill any actual traditions into you. I imagine you are a heavy consumer.

>>14839356
Yeah buddy try and tell anyone in public that blacks are on average dumber than whites and see if you arent called racist. A statement which is completely plausible and backed up by evidence.

>>14839361
Well when you figure out a test for it that replicates and is predictive we can see how the various populations on earth perform on average.

>>14839356
Inferiority has little to nothing to do with racism. For example, I simply despise blacks. Their behavior is abhorrent, I find their culture repulsive, I find their language annoying, and I have nothing in common with the average black from the USA. Really, nothing. There is no real benefit in me assimilating with them nor is there any real benefit in adapting to them. Why would you settle for a worse position in life just because it would require some hardness in life? See, I simply don't get how modern people are so frail. The thing I noticed about self-proclaimed "anti-racists" is that they always get so hung up over the idea of "superiority" vs. "inferiority" and at the end of the day it really has nothing to do with this.

>>14839358
>Pakis are more likely to be rapists statistically
>Pakis are genetically more likely to be rapists
False conclusion from a correlation = causality fallacy.
The statistic means that, if you pick out a random pakistani and a random white brit from two racially selected pools of equal size, the pakistani is more likely to be a rapist. Don't forget that this is still the vast minority of pakistanis who are rapists, and you're far more likely to pick out a law-abiding citizen than anything else.

>>14839086
Yes. He does.

>>14839376
>Their behavior is abhorrent
They all behave the same way? You've met every single black and can confirm that?
>I find their language annoying
They all speak AAVE? You've met every single black and can confirm that?
>I have nothing in common with the average black from the USA
So that means you'll never have anything in common with any black person
>There is no real benefit in me assimilating with them nor is there any real benefit in adapting to them
So all blacks should just be segregated from you because you've met a few and didn't like them? You're 100% sure the rest are exactly the same?

>>14839383
But what is the real benefit from existing in this multi-racial space? For example, statistically Pakistani's have a higher percentage of rape. They also have an alien culture that is proven to be hostile to the traditional British one. Thus, they work alongside other elements to undermine the pre-existing cultural fabric in order to advance their own group. It seems illogical to try and say it's worth all this headache just for feel good points, and I don't see how you could even feel good about that kind of situation to begin with.

>>14839395
I'm not an individualist because humans are colony animals at the best of times. However, I take individuals as they approach me in life as individuals but trying to suggest that large cultural units don't exist because outliers exist is just dishonest. We know from basic group concepts that the majority of blacks have certain behavioral traits, allegiances, tastes, etc and thus represent a cultural unit. Therefore, the racial-cultural unit of african-americans is something I'm not interested in co-existing with because it is both hostile and unnecessary for my own development and group development.

And yes segregation is a good idea. Integration has proven to be a very big failure (e.g. "White Identity" by Jared Taylor provides a lot of data) and is just overall unnecessary and dishonest. Why do we have to live in this falsified "integrated" society of multi-racialism when people largely aren't interested in it? In-groups tend to stick with in-groups and I don't have a problem with this. Everyone has a race and everyone has a racial-culture they prefer. Why live life denying this and being generally unhappy? America is really an unhappy place, and I think largely because of this hyper-individualist meme that is really just super marketed consumerism. I don't see the point.

>>14839399
Because they're already here. Your solution of
>Just deport/segregate people based on skin colour
is at this point moot and retarded.
What happens to the mixed-race kids? What happens to the naturalised/britishised pakistanis who you now want to shove into an alien culture? What about the partly-naturalised ones who publically integrate into british culture (therefore could not live in a pakistani one) but maintain some pakistani/muslim traditions at home (e.g. still need access to halal meat)? You just want to sweep these people under the rug because the mere presence of pakistani culture in towns you probably never visit (and leaving Luton and Bradford isn't exactly the hardest thing in the world if you are there) is such an inconvenience to you specifically.

>>14839423
It should be noted that racial-cultural groups self-segregate and this has been one of the major problems with pro-Integration groups in the USA. Because integration usually just winds up leading to even more hostile segregation down the line.

>>14839423
>trying to suggest that large cultural units don't exist because outliers exist is just dishonest
Sorry you took it that way. You do deny individuals though and tl;dr. Summarise, faggit.

>>14839428
They're not "already here" and that's not really an interesting excuse for me. Suggesting we all continue to live in a sinking ship because we just happen to occupy the same space is not a convincing argument for me for enforced integration when it's not working even during a time of abundance and peace. What is going to happen as the economy continues to worsen and social tensions continue to rise? America was an interesting experiment to see if integration would work and it simply did not. I'm not interested in continuing to drag this dying animal. Mixed-race kids are such a minority and by the way there is a lot of research done into mixed-race kids and they are absolutely miserable. Of course this is logical, they have no actual racial-culture to root themselves to. They're perfect market consumers though, which is probably why so many companies make propaganda encouraging people to do this (despite this people still aren't and every single racial group is hostile towards mixed-race pairs).

Also the argument of "naturalised" vs. non-naturalised is just not convicing for me either. If a large enough percentage of Pakistani people move into an area, the area simply ceases to be British and radically changes. Why is this a good thing? OR at least, why should anyone accept it? Just because people moved there? Is that all human cultures should do, just stand aside when a migration happens? Eventually all cultures should accept their fate living like the Natives in the US on reservations? Seems like the whole concept is rooted in some kind of denial that I've never been able to logically follow.

>>14839306
>race never played into it for me
That's probably because you haven't spent much time traveling and/or interacting with various groups. It's ok, most people haven't either.
>Even still, I wouldn't call you a racist
It doesn't matter what YOU would call me. Having racial preferences gets one labeled a racist by society at large and that's what matters, because labels are a social construct.
>openly follow a racial bias prior to knowing the individual
You're god damn right I follow a racial bias. It doesn't mean I stick to it religiously, but I do assign probabilities based on the data I have.
The thing is, judgements about groups are even more important than judgements about individuals. This world of individuals scattered randomly all over the world, which you seem to imagine, doesn't actually exist.

>>14839437
But I don't "deny individuals" by accepting racial-cultural groups as being realities. Denying an individual is simply dismissing somebody outright. Of course during high pressure times where survival is at stake then by all means it's logical to not care about individuals because there's a larger goal to meet. But anyway, that's another topic altogether. Basically to refute you: I don't deny individuals because I accept racial-cultural realities. This simply readies me for what I am about to encounter, and chances are I'm right because I understand cultural units and know their basic tenets and behaviors. This doesn't mean that if say some black strikes up a conversation with me I'm going to deny his existence. That's ridiculous. But suggesting I should tolerate and co-exist with their cultural group behavior which naturally falls at the EXPENSE of my in-group culture is illogical. They have undoubtedly a similar mentality.

>>14839461
>This world of individuals scattered randomly all over the world, which you seem to imagine, doesn't actually exist.
Well put.

>>14839423
>Why do we have to live in this falsified "integrated" society of multi-racialism when people largely aren't interested in it?
Notice the dishonest reversal, barring other people from entering the country is presented as "why should we be forced to do something we don't want to?". Nice try though, too bad not everyone is dumb enough to fall for Jared Taylor's weasely bullshit.

>>14839460
>there is a lot of research done into mixed-race kids and they are absolutely miserable
I'm one and I feel fucking great. "They am miserable trust me" is such a fucking cope by ideologues that think it's the fault of a culture clash and not a lack of acceptance by intolerant and racist cultures that leads to greater rates of depression
>tl;dr yeah, if you and everyone else keeps hating them, they're gonna be depressed. Go fucking figure.
"They feel miserable" also doesn't tell me if I get deported to a country I've never visited, don't speak the language of, don't follow the state-mandated religion of (I'm agnostic/atheist and culturally catholic), and don't understand the culture of, or if I get stuck in the UK with people in the post-segregated era wondering why I'm still here, with no access to the ingredients I've grown up with (and Patak's tastes like shit btw - I need the raw spices and fresh meat/veggies since the collapse of british greengrocers and butchers).
It's already happened. Pakistani people are already here. I'm not saying bring more over; I'm asking what your honest-to-god realistic solution for a "perfect britain" is that's not just going to sweep people under the rug.

>>14838204
Ok this is a troll

>>14839528
But it's logical. As racial demographic spreads in the US prove everyone tends to stick to their own racial-cultural group. Even schools that push for integration largely wind up becoming segregated or mono-race. Violent clashes between Hispanic and Black students is common in California school systems.


>I'm one and I feel fucking great.
Of course because the current tone of society is largely cultureless and based mostly on economic transactions. There is no real unified sense in multi-cultural/racial society. So a mixed race individual would feel at home because there is no actual home for anybody. The society is constructed on a market that exchanges goods, and people simply live their lives within this framework without any metaphysical realities. But suggesting your concept of culture should be the dominant one is rather a "racist" statement to make, so by your logic this is form of supremacy.

>intolerant and racist cultures
But in order for you to recognize so called "intolerance" of "racist cultures" you would have to form racial reasons to be opposed to them. As someone who is mixed-race, it is only natural you would be against a largely racially homogeneous society (e.g. I imagine you would be very uncomfortable in countries like Poland or Japan) because this would immediately make you recognized as an outlier who is also an alien. Also, and not to use those 2 countries any further than I need too because they're just 2 representations of larger pieces, you are probably naturally inclined to view concepts of tradition as hostile simply due to the fact you wouldn't be able to participate on the same metaphysical level of those with an actual racial-cultural connection. For example, it would be shallow to half-practice the cultural traditions of your respective interracial parents because it's more or less just a consumer mockery of it (e.g. similar to contemporary American "Christmas" which is based solely on market consumerism).

>Pakistani people are already here.
Poor excuse and not something that you should use as an argument because it has violent connotations. Essentially, you are saying that we must tolerate a foreign culture with no traditional root in Britain simply because they mass migrated there. This is a dangerous line of thinking.

>Perfect Britain
Perfection doesn't exist and I wasn't talking about this. Yet, striving towards perfection is noteworthy and heroic. When we cease this action and live solely in this multi-cultural/racial consumer society we lose our humanity. It's already happening.

>>14839588
You are replying to my post yet all the sentances you are quoting aren't mine, did you fuck up the quotations or what

>>14839588
You aren't answering my question. You're sidestepping. I disagree with mass migration.
I'm asking what your plan is and how it will account for
>Mixed-race individuals
>Culturally british pakistanis
>Socially culturally british and at-home culturally pakistani individuals
Why aren't you just saying what that plan actually is?

>>14839616
Probably, it's late and I'm ready for bed.

>>14839621
I don't have a clear solution, just the framework of an idea that the current states of things is simply unreasonable. I am largely unconvinced that Pakistani's can fully integrate and become "Culturally British" the same way that a Polish migrant in the UK can never become "Culturally British". Perhaps after several generations of pure rejection of all Pakistani culture and associations it would be possible, but how many people are actually doing this and if it would: A. be worth it and B. even produce the expected outcome, is something highly debatable.

Regardless, the "plan" I think ultimately would be re-settlement. I think a lot of people are already considering this. The UK is slowly, but surely, realising the great mistakes it has made socially. But subjectivity aside, re-settlements are nothing new in human history and have objectively worked in the past. Great Migrations have started and Great Migrations have ended. It doesn't have to necessarily end with ethnic Britons going to prison for wrongthink and the UK plunging into the same kind of consumerist despotism of multi-national corporations - which is the reality of so called multi-cultural societies.

>>14839588
>Of course because the current tone of society is largely cultureless and based mostly on economic transactions. There is no real unified sense in multi-cultural/racial society. So a mixed race individual would feel at home because there is no actual home for anybody. The society is constructed on a market that exchanges goods, and people simply live their lives within this framework without any metaphysical realities. But suggesting your concept of culture should be the dominant one is rather a "racist" statement to make, so by your logic this is form of supremacy.
As a second point, insisting that I'm some sort of culturally-devoid nothingperson is a false assumption. I'm very tied to my catholic traditions and have a massive gothic architecture boner near constantly.
Please tell me about the great British culture that has been completely lost, though. Regale me with tales of how England was in the peak of its culture, and how enveloped in its fine cuisine, dance, theatre, and literary history every member of the society was before we, the evil multiracials, took it all away from you. Tell me what has been lost as a result of my birth.

>>14839657
Catholic isn't a culture it's a religion. In Europe where Catholicism dominated every nation had a unique strand of Catholicism (e.g. Anglicism, Protestantism in Germany, Polish Catholicism is very unique combining many elements of Eastern Rite traditions with Latin Rite, etc etc etc) so usually these religious tendencies also play upon the racial-cultural unit of the people. They are spiritual extensions of the culture. Sure, there is a loose binding element in that one worships the same God, but in practice, lingo, and understanding the whole thing is remarkably unique and difference in each case. Unfortunately, erosion of uniqueness is a common occurrence in our "global" world.

>culturally-devoid nothingperson
I don't even mean to suggest this. Rather, the culture in which you could thrive in most successfully would be current ultra-consumer based one, where interactions are largely economic and minimal worth is placed on pre-established cultural conditions. How could Britain reconcile the sweeping amounts of new "traditions" that have set foot in the UK in the last decade while preserving their own? It's a fallacy, of course they couldn't and it has been this way in the UK since mass immigration spiked.

>Regale me with tales of how England was in the peak of its culture
You do project the expected kind of apathetic nihilism I imagine from mixed-race people. It's a kind of dark, mocking cynicism that tries to negate a racial-cultural groups existence solely because you are an outsider to it and need to support a position to ensure that the racial-cultural host country does not start to get annoyed of the economic migrants that have settled in its space.

>>14839657
BTW you are also strawmanning here. I didnt' blame the situation on multi-racials. It's too complicated to play a "black and white" blame game. However, you are more of a symptom than a problem if you wanted my personal opinion on the subject.

>>14839650
Re-settlement would fail. I already pointed out the problems with it for those of us who aren't culturally one or the other.
I do agree that Pakistani culture is incompatible with British culture and that naturalisation is needed. Culture shifts though, and British culture has been desified since the start of the empire.Kedgeree? You mean Khichri - an indian breakfast incorporated into upper-class Victorian Britain. And how about traditional british curry? Yeah - that's a fucking thing that came from India over 100 years ago (it's halfway between indian and japanese curry).
While pakistanis naturalise to british culture, brits will also continue to take on aspects of pakistani culture, many of which are good for the UK
>The food - almost everyone likes the food, and modern day british indian food as consumed by the diaspora aren't even that reminiscent of their south-asian counterparts
>Family ties and values - kicking your kids out at 18 is a big no-no, grandparents are involved in childcare roles to allow parents to focus more on careers, and the nuclear family is highly valued (a british tradition that has been lost but could be reinstated)
>Reduced alcoholism - Alcohol is a major problem in the UK (I'm medical so trust me, it is); it tastes great, has a rich history dating back to the first civilisations, and is a good social lubricant, but it really should be more a weekly/occasional thing
and the UK taking on asian cultural traits is something that's been happening for hundreds of years.
Focus on the common enemies to the naturalisation of current nationals/citizens who aren't quite there - Islam and Chavs. Restricted immigration is also a good idea, since that part of the world has undergone very negative cultural shifts over a couple of generations (e.g. my pakistani grandma abhors what pakistan has become - culturally decimated by extreme islamism in some regions, and culturally disintegrated by underground drug trades and prostitution in others). Just taking all them funneh lookin people wot r brown and shoving them elsewhere causes too many problems for those of us who already are british and haven't the foggiest what pakistani culture/life is actually like.

>>14839737
Well I am not really a fanatic, but overall most people are not mixed and I have no problems with minorities existing. However, thresholds are thresholds and once crossed they become more than minority groups co-existing, they become forces that want to advance their own interests. Pakistani's in UK are a great example of that. So, to summarize this topic I am not fanatical enough to go for a kind of "purge" of the country, rounding every non-Briton up and sending them away. But the majority of them could reasonably be deported back to their original countries with little issues in terms of bureaucracy that it would require. Of course this is an ideal scenario where we ignore international pressure for UK not playing along with the global marketing culture, so presumably there would be larger difficulties and consequences worth considering and exploring, but to be honest with you I'm exhausted and just want to get to bed after I write this, or shortly thereafter anyway.

>Traditional British Curry
An import from the expansive Empire isn't really a sign of a major "cultural shift". They were importing foodstuffs from conquered nations, not racial-cultures themselves. And certainly they would have never imagined the kind of scale that exists in contemporary UK where Britons make up minorities in some areas.

Also yes, cultures are indeed fluid things but fluidity has pre-connections. The Imperial mentality of Britons enjoying conquered and acquired spices from India has roots centuries earlier, there is a direct cultural connection to the overall mentality that strikingly clear.

>Pakistanis naturalise to british culture
They aren't doing this and it's not "British culture" any more if it's incorporating large hosts of foreigners. It's simply a diluted form at the best of times, and normally it's just based solely for economic opportunity not from an actual interest. For example, Pakistani's are only in the UK to begin with for economic opportunity, the culture had nothing to do with it.

>take on aspects of pakistani culture
I am skeptical that enjoying varied "cuisines" is really taking on another culture, but I do think it has undermined the traditional British cuisines and its ability to create new forms locally. Once more, the "new" culture that manifested is just consumerism and continues to degrade the native racial-culture the longer it continues to grow.

>Family ties and values
This isn't a Pakistani cultural element and traditional British family ties have shifted continually. The contemporary concept of "kicking the kids out at 18" is also not necessarily a "British" concept, but it does have its roots in the kind of idealistic individualistic "DIY" spirit that made the British such formidable colonizers, able to adapt to a variety of climates and localities and triumphing.

>>14839692
Fine, roman catholicism, jeez. I like a big christmas and confessing my guilt, OK? And I can't pronounce Arabic.
>the expected kind of apathetic nihilism I imagine from mixed-race people
That's mainly born from seeing UK culture for what it is. When I look at it, it's a bunch of obese underclasses without education living in high-rise flats or depressing samey villages. Families are fractured - single mothers to masses of children with absent fathers. Grime music is rampant, education is mocked and shunned. People hardly even speak their own language, struggling to read or even articulate themselves eloquently and with unambiguous vocabulary. What few who do work engage in soulless manufacturing and office work without artistic ambition. At any point they aren't working, they drink. Beer after beer, maybe the occasional illegal drug, while they slur and chant to the point of drug-induced inebriation or an unprovoked bar fight in a piss-scented pub to the sight of some people playing football on a crappy screen in the corner. Their children will never be any better, unable to focus at school and failing even the most basic of exams. They never make art or appreciate cinematography, and every spare penny not poured into booze or frozen foods is used for pointless spray tans, jewelry, phones, tattoos, piercings, and the like.
This is the british culture I see, and it's fucking disgusting.
>>14839707
>you're a symptom
When UK culture is this detrimental, it needs something. Changing? Enriching? Restoring? Replacing? Anything. European cultures are excellent - I want to try instating something like that over here. You're a symptom of what's wrong with the UK - you lack any cultural appreciation for the truly beautiful; a lord of the trash and king of the bland. You think there's any culture left to save in this shithole.

>>14839737
But anyway, the greatest solution would be a mass deportation but this would require an actual interest in continuing the long established legacy of British culture. Whether or not the British people are interested in their own continued existence is another question. But suggesting that people who aren't interested in the current status quo as being stupid, or poor is at least an ignorant knee jerk reaction to a hostile out-group. And I understand this, because the existence of my in-group is a threat to your life. In order for you to succeed, you have to ensure that my in-group does not suddenly get any funny idea's like expelling many migrants and pushing for new cultural foundational directions. Thus, we are simply natural enemies I am afraid. But this I guess is the nature of mankind. May the best man win, goodnight.

>>14839794
>Lol let's just genocide you because you probably want to genocide me and are a threat
Ah, and the /pol/ comes out again. You had a good fight but you aren't very good at witholding your ulterior motives.

>>14839792
I agree with your critique of contemporary UK society, but you aren't at all curious as to how it has devolved to this state? Particularly at a similar time when there is a noted rise of mass foreign immigration, anti-British sentiment, and huge penalties for even considering things like "mass deportations". I could quite seriously face potential prison time if I was reported for the things I've posted here. You cannot expect health to breed from this kind of atmosphere.

>and it's fucking disgusting
Which again, I agree with. But suggesting that British culture has always been this and always will be this ridiculous. It's just as ridiculous to suggest that PAkistani's are "helping British culture" particularly when they are actively benefitting from the fact British culture has fallen to this level.

>You think there's any culture left to save in this shithole.
Precisely why we are natural enemies. I do, and I live my life in a way to promote it. I'll probably die in vain, but it doesn't matter to me I accepted that a few years ago. There is a great wind blowing in the UK, Brexit I think was only the start of it. The mass consumer based society of drugs, alcohol, and all the negatives you mentioned will not last. I've seen a growing amount of violence, and I don't think that's to be unexpected either. Presumably we will be on opposite sides of the battlefield, maybe we already have been. As I've stated before, may the best side win.

>>14839812
>But suggesting that British culture has always been this and always will be this ridiculous
You don't even know what it was like. It was basically just extreme poverty and then this. We had no real rennaisance.
>just as ridiculous to suggest that PAkistani's are "helping British culture"
Twisting words. Pakistani culture will seep into UK culture and its desirable aspects will be selected for. This is inevitable and beneficial.
>I do, and I live my life in a way to promote it
In filth?
>Presumably we will be on opposite sides of the battlefield
There will be a 3rd side, for the anti-pakistani and the anti-brit. My solution is to end the working classes, thus performing a mass population reduction and not being afraid to automate their roles. The educated and creative, regardless of race, will build a new and better way of life once we clear out the trash.

>>14837798
>The United Nations convention on racial discrimination concludes that superiority based on racial differentiation is scientifically false, morally condemnable, socially unjust and dangerous. The Convention also declared that there is no justification for racial discrimination, anywhere, in theory or in practice.
Source: https://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CERD.aspx

White Identity by Jared Taylor. Best book on this subject.