/lit/ - Literature

>>16709823
you are trying too hard

>>16709860
What am I trying?

>>16709823
>marxists shouldn't disregard racial (pseudo-)science
>we should disregard contemporary racial science

if you are going to argue in bad faith at least try to get better at it

>>16709823
anti-racists are violent lunatics
anti-racism is an aggressive, virulent form of socialism
it's taking drug use and primitive, tribal practices to an extreme
the anti-racists go insane if they can't control what you think
it's a very serious mental decay

>>16709880
Except it's not psuedo science.
>>16709888
Anti racism has nothing to do with socialism.

>>16709823
Listen to "Gods Socialist" podcast by martyrmade. He goes into how the movements became conflated with eachother in the 60s and 70s.

>>16709892
You've convinced me. I apologize. If you say so then I guess it's true

>>16709860
t. Teen who hasn't lived a tough life

>>16709911
If you told me why you thought it was psuedo science I would have responded. I don't know why you think so, therefore I don't know what sort of point to being up.

>>16709935
*bring up

>>16709935
If you had told me why you thought it wasn't pseudoscience I would have responded. I don't know why you think so, therefore I don't know what sort of point to bring up.

>>16709976
I don't think it's psuedo science because there are observable differences between general groups of people.

>>16709978
I think it's pseudo science because the conclusions drawn from those observable differences between general groups of people are invariably wrong

>>16709984
>I think it's pseudo science because the conclusions drawn from those observable differences between general groups
So there are differences?

>>16709823
>if science doesn't back up my superstitions it's because of a global conspiracy
Okay OP I'm sure >>>/x/ would love to hear about it

>>16710046
>strawmanning this hard
Scientists in Russia and China don't reject racial science.

>>16709823
I'm not anti-racist due to some egalitarian ideals.

>>16710065
I'd love to see some examples

>>16710065
I'm waiting for some Russian and Chinese scientific studies on race that will prove that you aren't making this bullshit up.

>>16709990
Of course. You think you proved your point when in fact no Marxist denies that differences exist. Not even liberals do. They call it diversity. You are conflating culture with race. Science disproves the racist notion that those cultural, behavioral differences are caused by essential determining characteristics of a given individual's genetic makeup, as there isn't a gene that constitutes blackness or whiteness or whatever else. Moreover those differences cannot be hierarchized into a neat structure of power where we conveniently happen to sit at the very top, especially when power relations between ethnic groups have historically shifted over time, rendering the fairy tale of our supposed supremacy a mere narrative deployed to justify our unfair geopolitical treatment of other communities. We invent races. They don't exist.

>>16710065
I hear this point regurgitated multiple time by selfdescribed race realists but when pushed to provide evidence they always fall silent.

>>16709920
Thats 90% of 4chan.

>>16710089
They just want to invoke the fear of competition, as if falling behind in international racism is a real problem. Little do they know the Chinese have been more racist than us for thousands of years.

>>16710084
You are very confused both about what races are(genetic groupings of people) and whether they differ on average in measurable ways(they do- IQ obviously)

>>16710074
It certainly is not "settled science"

https://anthrosource.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1548-1433.2009.01076.x
>The professional anthropologists we polled were mostly physical anthropologists, and the biological aspect was expressed in the survey questions. It is, therefore, all the more remarkable that the conviction about the “objective” existence of human races was still prevalent among a significant number of these respondents. We have tried to indicate some of the reasons for this outcome. In this article, we clearly show that the views of anthropologists on race are sociopolitically (ideologically) influenced and highly dependent on education. It would be beneficial, therefore, if awareness of this fact is accentuated, at least among specialists, as they, in turn, influence the opinion of the educated portion of society.
>Another of our findings is that a considerable number of those who accept race regard it as other than in the taxonomic sense. Certainly, there might not be anything wrong with employing the term race in the populational sense (as a substitute for local population); by the same token, there would seem nothing wrong with employing the term race in social terms. But to what end? Kaszycka and Strzałko (2003b:34) highlighted the risks associated with any “metaphorical” use of the term: first, it relativizes the essential error of perceiving the existence of subspecific taxa within our species; second, it adversely affects the awareness of people who do not deal with anthropology professionally. Everyone should answer for themselves the questions asked by Harry Nelson and Robert Jurmain: “What, then, are we to do about the concept of race? >Is race a reality? ... Is it even possible to study races? Is the word “race” so loaded with misconceptions, misunderstanding, fallacy, prejudice, and bigotry that the term itself should be changed and its study limited?” (1991:195). We are well aware that dispens-ing with the term altogether has proved difficult. One of the reasons is an attachment to paradigms (we might call it “tradition”), but there is also a second factor: convenience. Hence, the struggle against the concept of “race”—in all of its connotations—is bound still to be long and arduous. Nonetheless, it is one eminently worthwhile to continue to undertake.
>>16710076
>>16710089
https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/374899?origin=JSTOR-pdf
>When we applied Cartmill’s approach to the Chinese sample we found that all of the articles used the race concept and none of them questioned its value. Since these active researchers are also members of the teaching staffs at various educational institutions, it is very likely that this attitude will be transmitted to the next generation of Chinese scientists.
>>16710084
Let me reiterate myself, the differences between people groups are biological rather than social in origin.

There is no "tabula rosa".

>>16710135
Sigh. Alright. Sure thing, buddy. Despite the fact that there aren't pure genetic groupings and that genes vary widely among people that happen to be considered of the same race and that IQ, a flawed category in itself, is more likely influenced by environment, I am confused. Let's leave it at that.

>>16710155
tabula rosa lmao

>>16710155
>claims it is biological
>cites anthropological surveys as evidence
You can go now, thanks.

>>16710159
You can literally go right now and have your genes tested and it will tell you your racial makeup. IQ may be flawed, but if you knew the first thing about it you wouldn't say it is 'more likely influenced by environment', it is not, there is a genetic component and everyone who studies it pretty much accepts that different human populations are on average genetically different wrt intelligence as measured by IQ.

All of this is very obvious and simple and hiding from the truth doesn't make you morally superior.

>>16710165
Honest mistake
>>16710166
>what is biological anthropology

>>16710174
Dude, calm down. I don't care for optics. I don't even believe that my position should signal moral superiority. My view is based on my attempts to understand the possible legitimacy of the category. I am not even denying that genes and biology can influence behavior. What I don't see however is how those differences are so broad and marked among peoples as to legitimate race as a descriptive category, especially when, as i said, differences between in-groups are sometimes as broad.

>>16710174
>You can literally go right now and have your genes tested and it will tell you your racial makeup
No, you can't. If you're thinking of the percentages given to you by something like 23andme those aren't percentages of your genetic makeup, those are rough likelihoods that you have an ancestor from that region

>>16710174
Good Goyims defend the superior (((IQ))) of their Ashkenazi overlords

>>16710211
You are not so stupid that you can't understand the concept of overlapping bell curves so you must be being dishonest.

>>16710234
High IQ means fuck all if you are morally bankrupt.
Hitler didn't believe in IQ because he thought they were "jooish" because rural prussian children scored lower than other groups.

>>16710234
Based schizo poster

>>16710185
>fast medium is the same as fast

>>16710260
Biology and anthropology don't conflict with eachother

>>16710239
>bell curves
lmao alright. here we are, with a presumption of dishonesty moreover. i am not going to get into how that book is a work of pure ideology that has been debunked numerous times by actual scientists. have a good day

>>16710275
You don't know cricket.

>>16710276
You can't be this dumb, IQ follows a normal distribution, hence bell curves. Different averages, not a hard concept. But yes leave because you know you have zero argument.

>>16710276
>i am not going to get into how that book is a work of pure ideology that has been debunked numerous times by actual scientists.
That book is newrly 3 decades old.
He wrote another

>>16710279
No u

Race realism/iq determinism are psyops to destroy social programs and keep people from unifying. Just look its main proponents and followers: conservative think tanks and white bourgeois incels filled with resentment.

>>16710292
That doesn't address the fact that IQ predicts for outcomes/abilities and is partially heritable. You have to actually make an argument against that, not insult the people who you think believe it.

>>16710276
As opposed to the ideology-free hypothesis that there are no measurable differences between any groups ayyy lmfao.
>DEBUNKED!!!! WIKIPEDIA TOLD ME SO!!! that means I don't have to inspect my idiotic premise that everyone be equal n sheeeit, go back to /pol/ racist!
pffft haaha

>>16710292
Conservatives are literally liberals and they think that "everyone can make it". They are one of the most fervent denyers of race realism.
Social programs are shit anyway and are the only way capitalist societies can function while simultaneously fucking you in the ass. Full socialism would be better.
IQ determinism != Race realism because there is little correlation between IQ and wealth.

>>16710292
No sweatie, 'unifying all da ppl' is a psyop.

>>16710292
>>16710296
>>16710306
>>16710311
They're both psyops. You'll never win against "them", give up.

>>16710317
I don't care that the kneegroes are dumb I just want to kill bankers.

>>16710323
You never will. It's over. The entire world is in (((their))) control and there's nothing you can do about it. They will leave this planet and leave us all to rot.

>>16710330
They're not all joos.
And you should pay attention to that fact.
Always kill a traitor before an enemy.

>>16710330
Do we wish to discuss the literary endeavours of the footballer David Icke?

>>16710089
That's true, we have race study lab in MSU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1G9RlPq6s0
>Stanislav Drobyshevsky: In fact, now the main problem is to preserve racial studies as a scientific discipline, because, on the one hand, it is recognized that there are races, and on the other, due to the existence of racism and Nazism of the Second World War, there was a "throwback" in the opposite direction , and in the West, racialism is now practically prohibited. The task of race science is to survive as a science and not to lose what has been achieved, and now it is trying to be replaced by genetics.
>Racial differences are traits of genes. In an amicable way, race should converge in genetics. But modern geneticists, as a rule, do not know anything about race and about races, they have very strange ideas about this, many of them believe that there are no races initially.
>The problem is that a true racialist cannot always proudly declare this, because they will start to "kick" him from all sides. Many do not differentiate between racialism and racism. But there is also racism disguised as science. Moreover, they can even use scientific data.

>>16710358
"Racist" is the 21st century version of "blasphemer", "heretic" , "counter-revolutionary" , "communist"

It's an empty word that means nothing.

>>16710375
Based

The irony. /pol/ has really poisoned the well on this site, just like the jews they hate. The question, "Why is a system of economics so heavily conflated with leftist ideology, antiracism, etc?" To me, that's a fair question, with some interesting potential avenues of discussion. The road from Marxism (workers are being exploited) to leftism (minorities are being exploited) seems simple enough. A decent thread.

But you're all so scared of big bad /pol/ that you'll preemptively pants-shit at the possibility that the question is actually being asked by a dogwhistling nazi chud. Another thread aborted before it even began, another day wasted arguing with people who don't even inhabit the same plane of reality as you.

>>16710606
>you'll preemptively pants-shit at the possibility that the question is actually being asked by a dogwhistling nazi chud.
It evidently was.

>>16709823
White settlers and labor aristokkkracy are not workers.

>>16710343
Yep. Half the board members of the Fed reserve are white. Trump is white. Most of wall Street is white.

>>16709823
They shouldnt, Marx explicitely told them to fuck off.

>>16710620
>it evidently was
I'm a fabulous fascist.

>>16710718
>balding manlet slayed royal italian pussy
Is there hope bros?

>>16709920
is this the new meme phrase?

>>16710065
At what points were Russia and China following Marxism?

>>16710606
That isn't /pol/'s fault. "Poisoning the well", lmao. I think it's the absolute lack of decent fucking arguments from the other side that's the problem.

>>16710606

Minorities arent being exploited, they're just often very dumb. Integrating genuinely incompetent people in society, and doing so in earnest with the best of intentions, will have the appearance of exploitation because the victor always gets the spoils. Like how strangers are liable to manage your money worse than you do. We are forced to manage the lives of retards on our terms and seeming exploitation is the best we can do

>>16710863

*Because their livelihood is entirely dependent upon competent members of society

>>16710833
The OP is a strawman

>>16710906
I have never met a self proclaimed marxist who isn't also a self proclaimed "anti racist"
Evidently most people are casuals who adopt labels without an actual understanding of the source material.

>>16710919
Stop being slippery.

This is in the OP
>why do "anti-racists" and other egalitarians adopt Marxism as a way to express their beliefs?
This is the strawman, namely that anti-racists and egalitarians adopt Marxism. And you are reversing the assumption with an anecdote as your sole evidence. You commit a disservice to civilization, in my presence and I will not stand for it.

>>16710942
Neither I or the OP were making logical statements we are just talking about of trend.
>What's with kids these days wearing X brand?

>This is the strawman, namely that kids and teens wear BRAND. And you are reversing the assumption with an anecdote as your sole evidence. You commit a disservice to civilization, in my presence and I will not stand for it.
This is how you sound

>>16710949
What's the point of this thread?

>>16710084
>as there isn't a gene that constitutes blackness or whiteness or whatever
sometimes black couples have yellow mongolian babies

>>16710981
Why are some, many, or few (you can let your autism decide to which degree) Marxists hostile to racial science?

>>16709823
Capitalists don't give enough of a shit to fund research about anything race related except for the shit different races will buy and the messaging that works on them.

>>16709823
Well, naturalism is always a compelling argument, but in reality if you scrutinize naturalist claims, you always find a circular argument that the reason why a thing is right is because that thing is natural, because it is my opinion that it is natural, therefore it is right.

So this is just the problem with democracy right? I mean all party-politics is BS circular reasoning made to look important. All that democracy has ever meant is not that people control the state, it has simply been that a state that adheres to due process of law is a state in which long-term investments are possible.

>>16710990
>racial science
>>>/x/

Allowing your audience to determine your question is a bit silly, but calling someone autistic because they correctly point out that your OP is predicted on a strawman not to mention disingenuous and in bad faith is quite plainly uncouth.

I know what you actually want to discuss, and I'll talk to you about it if you will speak plainly although I'm not sure it belongs on the literature board.

>>16711045
This smells like moral relativism.

>>16710982
yeah, you clearly dont understand what race is or how it works

>>16711063
it's not a strawman because it isn't an argument

>>16711130
He's right lmao, you guys pretend race is totally not real, socially constructed, but you know damn well two black people can't have a chinese kid.

>>16711190
that doesn't matter
>>16711201
>two black people can't have a chinese kid
You consider this as sufficient evidence to disprove the assertion that race is a pseudoscience?

>>16711333
yeah I really do. If race were socially constructed then two black people could in fact have a chinese kid if society viewed their kid as chinese.

>>16709823
>science should only be accepted if its communist
They literally tried this multiple times. It's literally the stupidest conclusion you can draw from Marxism (good job, Stalinists).

>>16711333
>You consider this as sufficient evidence to disprove the assertion that race is a pseudoscience?
Uh no, stupid bitch???? An ethnic group have white skin and another ethnic group have black skin. They're a different race.

>>16711339
social construct is not a synonymous term for pseudoscience. How 'society' views something does not matter regardless.
>>16711883
If a race is an ethnic group and those terms are to be used interchangeably and there is no difference between the two then it does not matter which term you use, but that's bullshit as those terms are actually seperate in meaning. They mean different things.