/sci/ - Science & Math

cry moar, chud

>>12305974

>>12305978
I could put my dick in your ass and there is literally nothing you could do to stop it

>>12305974
>Gender is a social construct
>Race is a social construct
but this is correct. maybe step outside your /pol/ echo chamber for a bit and try challenging your understandings seriously. you might become a bit more well rounded, dare I say, more intellectual.

>>12306054
oh my sweet summer child. when your sister gets bred by a black dude while you are in the next room you'll start to think differently. or are you not even white?

>>12306063
point and case. you're no better than the npc libtards you criticize. look in the mirror maybe. also try to stop thinking about black men, that's a bit weird.

>>12306054
OP here, believe it or not my university isn't ran by pol.

>but this is correct
Show me some hard science to back this up. It's grey area, anyone who actually understand epistemology knows this.

>dare I say, more intellectual
You're a pretentious faggot, I could put my dick in your ass and there is literally nothing you could do to stop it

>>12306054
I'm not even a /pol/tard, but to deny that different races exist is just fucking retarded.
Are Somalis and Germans the same?

>>12306063
Fuck you incel coomer don't ruin my good reputation

But race is a social construct. What makes somebody white? People in the past used to not consider Italians as white and today, spics like Nick Fuentes are considered white. Its obviously a social construct

>>12306084
German or Somalian are not races they are nationalities

>>12306080
what do you mean by 'hard evidense'. the world isn't all black and white, especially when it comes to complex (societal) issues.
maybe pay attention in your course instead of shit posting and you'd know the answers

>>12306084
we're the same species whether you like it or not. the differences in our appearance and cultures evolved over thousands of years, but that doesn't make us different species.

>>12306054
Whether it is a social construct or not is inconsequential to whether or not it is a societally beneficial construct.

>>12306096
HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

>>12306100
moving the goal posts a bit.

>>12306093
>What makes somebody white?
Indo European ancestory, playing with semantics doesn't change this
>>12306097
>the world isn't all black and white
Yep that's what I said. Then it is reasonable to assume that inheritability is a factor in race/gender, and it's therefor not a social construct

>>12306101
You do realize that there are a bunch of different groups of people in Germany who are considered native Germans, right? Germany is literally full of mutts.

>>12306099
Dogs are also the same species, but that doesn't mean that there aren't many different dog breeds.

>>12306107
So do you need to be 100 percent indo European? Also, what makes you indo european? Where are the lines drawn between indo europeans and non indo europeans?

>>12306100
It worked in getting us to the moon

>>12306110
Take some time and really think why biologists dont take the dog analogy seriously

>>12306107
>Then it is reasonable to assume
why?

>>12306115
we are now a multicultural nation and our space program is far better than ever before and far outpaces any other country

>>12306114
Listen buckaroo, I'm clearly not the one to arbitrarily pick a number and state it as fact. In saying it's a social construct you are doing that

>>12306125
Multicultural in from baser culture? What indigenous/sub saharan african culture is contributing the space program?

>>12306128
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnocentrism

>>12306131
And why the hell shouldn't I? WE WON

>>12306126
>Listen buckaroo, I'm clearly not the one to arbitrarily pick a number and state it as fact.
Sounds like its a social construct then

>>12306135
because if you're going to study the differences between people you have to do it right.

>>12306122
Because it's not a hard science, it's not black and white

>>12306128
more people participating in low income jobs opens up more high paying jobs. Its good for the economy and having a strong economy allows us to pay for expensive rockets and stuff

>>12306119
Because of selective human breeding? Yeah humans don't do that within their own species.

>>12306141
well present your argumentation to an academic institution and get published somewhere. clearly you know something everyone else doesn't.

>>12306119
I hate to say this but /pol/ is actually right on this one.

>>12306108
>different groups of people in Germany who are considered native Germans, right?
Different groups that are NATIVE to Germany, and that's about 88% of the country's population, fucking retatd.
>>12306119
Not an argument.

>>12306139
No, it sounds like the goal posts can have a somewhat arbitrary border, yet describe something immutable/true

>>12305980
The head shape of these people is very unsettling. Are these real?

>itt retards with no idea of how biology, evolution, taxonomy, or anthropology work at all
janny really sleeping today.

>>12306146
40% Anthropoligists in north america belive race exists
50% in Europe
100% in mainland China

>>12306157
woah i'm convinced now. thanks anon for that epic red pill

>>12306140
How do you measure rightness? In results, we we're doing just fine before we stopped to consider the opinions of black lesbians.

>>12306152
No, you cant even describe anything about what makes someone white besides saying "indo european" and then you cant explain what that means

>>12306164
Visible european ancestry. Basically if your skin doesn't look like shit.

>>12306159
Im convinced you're all a bunch of pretentious faggots

>>12306161
https://bookauthority.org/books/beginner-anthropology-books

>>12305974
You're a fucking retard OP. You clearly don't understand the point of critical theory, which actually just demonstrates exactly why we need to teach this kind of material in universities.
It should not be hard to understand the general message. Critical theory is about saying that whiteness is not superior. Western culture is not superior. Christianity is not superior. All of these things need to be critically examined. If you do that, you will realize that western civilization isn't in any way objectively 'better'. The values and practices of western civilization are just social constructs that are used to justify imperialism, capitalism, and racism. The only reason you place so much value on western culture and western epistemology is because you were raised in a social environment that inculcated these values in you. In other words you were 'socialized', i.e. brainwashed. Western civilization is not in any way 'superior' and this idea does not hold up to scrutiny. Anyone who is familiar with history knows that western civilization has actually be the source of most of the suffering throughout history. It has produced countless wars, famine, capitalism, imperialism, racism, and patriarchy. If western culture is so superior, then why has it caused more suffering, violence, and bloodshed than any other culture?

You sound like some uneducated, working loser who is probably studying some trade at community college or something. Maybe you're professor - who probably has a PhD in sociology or political science or something - has a better understanding of culture and history then some uneducated, right wing, 19 year old loser? Your parents were probably also blue collar country losers who went to some fundamentalist church, smoked meth, voted republican, abused oxycontin, watched Jerry Springer, drank Budweiser every night, etc. Therefore as an adult, you think Jesus Christ, AR 15s, oxycontin, the GOP, and fast food are the pinnacle of human civilization.

>>12306172
This is such a terrible standard. It would mean happas would be more white than mullatos even though they would both be half "white"

>>12306180
most peoples understanding of critical theory only comes from Sargan of Akkad rants

>>12306177
how does me not agreeing with you make me a 'pretentious faggot' ?
stop taking it so personally, ok?

>>12306172
Is he white? Because this is the standard in many Latin American regions
/pol/ has melted your brain, lmao.

>>12306180
Nice gif, but you should probably learn how to spell.

>>12306193
ah yes, a few typos invalidates his whole post. classic.

>>12306195
Yup.

>>12306180
>western civilization isn't in any way objectively 'better
You don't think I've heard the subjectivist speal before? I'm willing to take some leaps of faith. Just like you're clearly willing to consider "suffering" an objective way to rank societies

My prof is a diversity hire

>>12306191
Looks fine to me, I might gas him on cultural grounds though. See I'm nuanced

>>12306114
The fact that the boundary between two classes or categories is not perfectly clear does not entail that these categories do not exist. That is literally a logical fallacy.

There is no clear cut distinction, for instance between the Sahara desert and the west African rainforests, but that does not entail that the Sahara desert does not exist. I could actually think of hundreds of examples. Actually, what you're saying would ultimately be tantamount to nominalism and it would undermine the entire enterprise of empirical science. If empirical categories do not exist unless there are entirely unambiguous criteria for differentiating between categories, then the very concept of empirical categories are invalid. Any empirical or demonstratively defined predicate is necessarily ambiguous (see the type token distinction). Everything from concept of 'yellow' to the concept of a 'living organism' to the concept of a 'historical time period' admits some degree of ambiguity, and there actually fairly well understood technical reasons in AI, statistics, and knowledge representation for why this has to be the case.

There is no clear and unambiguous definition of race but that doesn't mean that such a concept has no meaningful content. In fact, you can pick up almost any textbook or anthology on evolutionary neuroscience, anthropology, or psychology and find peer reviewed scientific research on 'race' and 'gender'.

It sounds like you just dont know how to explain your concept of white and so you are whining about how difficult it is and you shouldnt have to explain why you think what you do.

> Everything from concept of 'yellow'

Ya, yellow is not a real thing. We as humans like to categorize things and so we draw arbitrary distinctions quite often.

>>12306225
>There is no clear and unambiguous definition of race but that doesn't mean that such a concept has no meaningful content. In fact, you can pick up almost any textbook or anthology on evolutionary neuroscience, anthropology, or psychology and find peer reviewed scientific research on 'race' and 'gender'.

Why is this an argument in your favor? You basically are saying, "well anything can be real even if we dont understand it"

>>12306235
>>12306225

>>12306235
Im willing to state the baseline as European ancestry, just like Im willing to say, beyond a reasonable doubt, that we can define yellow within a certain range of wavelengths and ignore the opinions of schitzos. My yellow might stop at some one else's orange, but our yellow yellows should line up

>>12306205
Who cares if the prof is a 'diversity hire'? Thats irrelevant he still has a PhD and he still has a lot more authority, knowledge, and education that some alt-right poltard loser. I hope your professor fails your ass you stupid piece of shit. I swear Poltards and libertarians are the most annoying fucking people I have ever met in my life. I have one of you fuckers in my art history class and he always wants to chime in with his perspective and his stupid historical anecdotes.

>>12306253
I'm pulling A+s in this course. Of course he would subscribe to critical theory as a diversity hire it's what put him there in the first place.
Knowledge, schnowledge. It's obviously not a hard science, the subjective part is influenced by personal experience
see >>12306157

>>12306253
>Poltards and libertarians are the most annoying fucking people I have ever met in my life.
Agreed I'm pretending to be a good goy I don't bother anyone

>>12306238
>We as humans like to categorize things and so we draw arbitrary distinctions quite often

Yes, this is exactly my point. Any empirically defined terminology is to some extent ambiguous. You can choose to claim that means that its 'false' or that these categories don't exist, but in that case you are throwing out pretty much all of natural science as well as all 'common sense' knowledge we possess. In other words, you're position is Pyrrhonian scepticism. In other word, if you claim that the concept of race is fictitious because it is semantically ambiguous, then you are also committed to the claim that even basic concepts of science like the concept of 'species' are also meaningless because they have no non-ambiguous definition.

>>12306238
That's actually not what I'm saying you fucking retard. It has nothing to do with 'not understanding'. The point is that all empirically or demonstratively defined terms are inherently ambiguous. Its not that we don't understand them. We can understand them perfectly well, and they can still be ambiguous. There is no such thing as an 'unambiguous' empirical concept because two distinct token of the same type do not have identical properties. You should look into the 'type-token distinction', the concept of 'natural kinds', and the 'frame problem'.
Now you can still claim, that the concept of race isn't a useful concept, and that's a perfectly reasonable point to discuss, but the idea that a empirical term is meaningless just because is admits ambiguity is a position tantamount to pyrrhonian skepticism. To say that any ambiguous concept is meaningless is basically to deny the validity of all concepts in general. The only completely unambiguous concepts are abstract concepts of pure mathematics.

>>12306235
>yellow is not a real thing

If you think that yellow is 'not a real thing', that perspective is called nominalism. That's exactly what I said. I said that you are defending a nominalist position. In other words, we actually agree with each other, but you're just philosophically and scientifically illiterate so you don't understand what I'm saying. If you say that ambiguous concepts are meaningless, then you are a nominalist. If you are a nominalist, then you by definition think that science is not actually true. That's a perfectly valid perspective, but it's not really that deep or interesting. It pretty much amounts to 'you can't know nuffin'.

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

>>12306315
Nominalism? More like Im 14 and just smoked weed for the first time ism

>>12305974
nice user/post ratio in this thread

>>12305974
Nothing better than smug liberals.. Having cursory knowledge from their bachelor's in "x" qualifies them to dictate every aspect of your life to you

>>12306099
>the differences in our appearance and cultures evolved over thousands of years
so you admit that theres a distinction to be made on the basis of genetics, aka race. just because its hard to classify if some spics are white doesn't mean that its invalid to say that african americans and a northern european are vastly different.

>>12306125
kek nasa is shit these days. spacex is outperforming the government's space program and guess what races make up the vast majority of spacex?

>>12306345
there's no problem with acknowledging and quantifying the differences between human beings.
the problem is when people insert notions of superiority and inferiority into the analysis.

>>12306350
>the problem is when people insert notions of superiority and inferiority into the analysis.
>insert
you mean when people investigate and find empirical evidence of differences in metrics such as IQ?

>>12306352
like I said, there's nothing wrong with recording the differences between people.
it's what you decide to do with that data. obviously, in this case - applied with your ideological bias in mind.

>>12305987
I could spontaneously explode.

>>12306180
the irony here is you don't realize how brainwashed you are so you only "critically" examine that which is associated with "whiteness" as undesirable. you have a conditioned response to hate white collective interests while being enslaved to the collective interests of "poc". you just illustrate why critical theory is nothing but a demoralization tactic no different to nazism with their "jews be keeping the german man down" schtick. in reality western civ has done more for the development of mankind than any other civ and jes contributed a lot to it. remember it was western civ that abolished slavery which was practiced in africa before europeans set foot there. crt os nothing but pseudo intellectual garbage that has no basis in reason and evidence. instead it exists to illicit an emotional response through conditioning.

>>12306349
whites and east-asians

>>12306128
None, the answer is none

>>12306180
>The values and practices of western civilization are just social constructs that are used to justify imperialism
Why was Europe in the position to be dominant if not for it being better (for lack of a better term) to being with?

>>12305974
>gender is a social construct
>MUH CISWHITE PEOPLE
>DON'T MISGENDER ME YOU BIGOT
Is this some kind of double thinking

>>12306402
This is where a leftist would dig up some theory that the letter P was actually invented in Uganda and that western civilization would never exist without it

>>12306180
The absolute state of /sci/fags

>>12306180
how does the subversion run this deep?

>capitalism

sure thing buddy, its so bad that 95% of the world today follows this economic system, but i guess you would rather give gibs to niggers and spics.

>The values and practices of western civilization are just social constructs that are used to justify imperialism, capitalism, and racism.

the fact that people like you exist and think like this scares me, do you realise that western civ. is literally the least racist one that exists today? africans literally kill each other because of tribal differences, asians are soooo fucking racist

>>12305974
actually you can't challenge because you wouldn't have any studies or facts to back up your deranged position. Facts are facts whether you agree with them or not.

>>12305974
>Gender is a social construct
>Race is a social construct
this is way more generally accepted than critical theory. hell it's basicly accepted across science. definitely sociology and even biology

>>12306455
>there are 0 differences between a german and an abbo

ask yourself this, take the entire pop. of Germany away and replace it with somalians, do you actually believe that the quality of life would remain the same?

>>12306454
>you wouldn't have any studies or facts to back up your deranged position

and what studies back CRT?

>>12306454
The black white IQ gap is increased when questions most affected by environment/culture are factored out. Indicating inherent differences in IQ

BLACK-WHITE BIAS IN ‘CULTURAL’ AND
‘NONCULTURAL’ TEST ITEMS
ARTHUR R. JENSEN’ and FRANK C. J. MCGURK*
‘School of Education, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720 and
2Pompano Beach, Florida, U.S.A.
(Received 19 March 1986)

>>12306455
>>12306157

>>12306304
lmao OP btfo

>>12306476
This is basic epistemology nigga, I understand it
It doesn't mean that inheritability does NOT affect the way race is constructed, meaning that it is not arbitrarily constructed

I suppose we can construct a society without race or with an arbitrary definition. But if inherent group differences are true, those may be bound to fail

>>12305980
ABOMINACION

>>12306180
You're simultaneously the dumbest and most arrogant piece of shit I've seen on this website in a very long time.

>>12305974
>cant challenge
All I do is challenge. If you had strong argumentation and sound reasoning, no one would be giving you HR mob cock and ball torture.

Lmao no one has even mentioned gender yet

>>12306546
You will never get through to someone who's just at uni building a career, save it for your phd

>>12305974
>Professor calmly stated factual critical theory
>Gender is a social construct
>Race is a social construct
>Noticed a weirdo whiteboy in the back scowling (he kind of smelled bad)
>He looked angry but also like he was about to cry
>Told my gender studies advisor and we laughed about it

>>12306063
indian or asian hands typed this post

>>12306554
Nah Im hot
I also pin myself on the front of the zoom call to establish dominance

>>12306554
>factual critical theory
lmao

Sorry for shitting up the board and being a jerk, I've had way to much caffeine today

>>12306554
If bait, kek quality bait.

If not, open a genetics books or anything that is actually hard quantitative science, like biology or neuroscience.

>>12306054

>>12306054
Why is /sci/ so easy to bait?

>>12306973

>>12305974
>Cant challenge unless I want the HR mob to give me cock and ball torture

The worst part is even if you can PROVE a difference they will ignore your proof and call you a racist that deserves to have no job and be socially ridiculed and ignored.

The amount of brainwashed NPCs here trully baffles me.
Intelligent people interested in science, conflating narcisistic virtue signaling and sadistic witch hunting with justice. Not realizing that it's also at the expense of truth, and that the truth isn't unjust (as /pol/tards like to argue in a masked manner) in the first place.
Shameful and dissappointing.

>>12307040

Literally babbled and said nothing.

>>12306054
Race, there is somewhat of an argument. But not gender. You're a fucking idiot if you think gender is a social construct

>>12306119
why don't they take that analogy seriously? dogs are all the same species and can mate but there are different breeds which we have a different taxonomy rank, humans here would be a direct comparison and i think the analogy would be valid. its not like dogs have different traits but they have different degree of powers to their traits like some dogs have a better sense of smell and like humans some of tribes are taller or have better eye sight

>>12305987
Post body weak boi

>>12307614
Gender roles and linguistic gender are socially constructed, atop a foundation of biological sex differences.

>>12305974
Don't take any courses in those humanities dept you should be fine.

>>12306054
Not all the concept of gender is a social construct.
we are after all sexually dimorphic. There are certain things that are social constructs like women should only stay inside the house and all that kind of shit but that does not imply that gender is a social construct.

Good thing I could take a Cognitive Neuroeconomics course for my 'Diversity Equity Inclusion' requirement. Might as well learn something useful.

>>12305974
>le social construct meme
why do these retards fail to realize that any 'social construct' is still derived from biology, and that most societies cluster around the same values? it's insane to say something like gender is a social construct when 99.9% of societies have two genders, with overlapping roles

>>12307040
>The amount of brainwashed NPCs here trully baffles me.
This is a fanclub for IFL and main stream media science-topics. Not a place for actual scientists or actual science.

>>12306093
>What makes somebody white?
A person having overwhelming genetic origins belonging to any of the original peoples of Europe.

>>12305974
>MFW when I realize
>my face when when I realize

>>12306097
>the world isn't all black and white
yes it is. what nitwits mean by this is that instead of the intricate fractal boundary of black and white they only see gray, and that their ideas won't align with real black and white distinctions because they are nitwits.

>>12305974
>Gender is a social construct
>there are no blacks
besides, "X is a social construct" is silently followed by "... and your social constructs are inferior to ours".

>>12307666
I may look a little dyel, but I built this in MMA, pound for pound Im better at Minecraft r4pe than your average bodybuilding aesthetic fag

>>12307961
Social construct is the wrong term then.
It makes it sound like it was arbitrarily conjured up to control everyone by a couple old white dudes with cigars.

>>12305980
>if I put this quote under photos of ugly people then others will agree with me

>>12306084
This why /po/ hates social science, they don't understand a single thing about them

>>12308361
what is your criterion used to distinguish between "those subhumans don't understand it" and "it is meaningless drivel"?

I never understood why that guy was making such a face. I assumed it was frustration at the thot beside him but she is a 6.5 at best, nothing to get worked up over.

>>12305974
I’m a >95iq and even I can tell that your teacher is a retard.

>>12306084
Yes.

>>12305974
Your teacher is right and you're the retard in that class.

>>12309190
My other profs treat the subject like it is, not a hard science and not like a fact that you can just state.
Prof COULD be right, but as is it is JUST a theory.
I dont think my prof is stupid and I don't think everyone who subscribes to CRT is stupid. I just know that it's not a quantitative fact.

/thread fuck off now

>>12307614
by definition gender is a social construct you absolute fucking cretin

>gen·der
/ˈjendər/
Learn to pronounce
noun
1.
either of the two sexes (male and female), especially when considered with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones.

christ you are sub human

>>12309298
>I just know that it's not a quantitative fact.
It is.

>>12309307
Wtf are you incapable of reading? That definiton doesnt exclude the biological meaning at all. Gender isnt a social construct. The roles assisgned to it are.
>but muh 1 in a million hermaphrodite
will be born with female secondary sex features but unable to produce. Exceptions make the rule

>>12306390
>remember it was western civ that abolished slavery which was practiced in africa before europeans set foot there.
what a fucking retarded point lmao

>>12308154
cute
would rape

>>12309345
No.

/thread

>>12309350
If you are having a conversation in good faith, yes it does. If you want to speak to biology you use the word sex. So yes by definition gender is a social construct in that it is a product of and constructed by social norms.

>>12309436
People interoperate this to mean gender is arbitrary, which is annoying

/thread

>>12306328
holy that cannot be real

>>12305974
I identify as the Pope, the Bishop of Rome, Supreme Pontiff of the Catholic Church, &c.
I was elected Pope by Cardinal Mom and 6 other laymen.

My personal pronouns are "His Holiness".

There are only two genders (Genesis 1:26-28), extra ecclesiam nulla salus, Error non habet ius (error has no rights). Repent and submit to the Pope (i.e. me).

>gender is a social construct
>but being transgender is very very real
>born this way unalterably, gay conversion is impossible
>but there's no biological basis for homosexuality
>race is a construct
>but medical science regularly uses race for its diagnostic and therapeutic relevance

>>12306180
You literally only listed bad things about western civilization without giving credence to the absolutely incredible things it also accomplished (those of which allow you to post this retarded drivel on a Mongolian mushroom cooking forum). You’re a fucking limp wristed faggot and I’m glad leftists like you can’t reproduce.

>>12306180
Western Civilization is the greatest product of human endeavour in history. The Asian civilizations come in a close second, but nothing - nothing whatsoever - has created the explosion of creativity and advancement associated with the West in the past 500 years.

>>12306253
Lol are you the critical theory guy? If there's nothing superior about Western culture then why the fuck does it matter that he's an educated authority with a PhD?

>>12305974
What are you studying

>>12305978
I hope you are raped by several Somalian immigrants in an alleyway but nobody believes you

>>12306180
>It should not be hard to understand the general message. Critical theory is about saying that whiteness is not superior. Western culture is not superior. Christianity is not superior. All of these things need to be critically examined. If you do that, you will realize that western civilization isn't in any way objectively 'better'. The values and practices of western civilization are just social constructs that are used to justify imperialism, capitalism, and racism.
That's really dumb because you could easily justify those same things using critical theory. If no one is superior, why shouldn't we roll on others when we get the chance? We have as much right to rule as they do.

>>12306096
Imagine being this retarded.

>>12310103
International relations

>>12306180
>Western culture is not superior
But it is
t. Indian third generation immagrant in Britian

>>12306180
>Western culture is not superior
But it is.

>>12305980
that fuckin brainiac in the top left

>>12310103
Anthro & Bio, I try to read philosophy in my free time as well

>>12310649
SJWs:
> All morality is subjective
Also SJWs:
> White people are the most evil race to ever exist!

They never, ever see the contradiction

>>12310995
>immagrant
anon...

>>12310649
>>12310649
>If no one is superior, why shouldn't we roll on others when we get the chance?
This, people don't seem to know that most Nazis were pragmatic nihilists

>>12311685
Which is odd given the reputation of 4chan...

>>12306172
>Visible european ancestry. Basically if your skin doesn't look like shit.
So what about ashkenazi jews? they're white by your definition. Seems like most people that are as race obsessed like you don't think of them that way though

>>12312136
They are white, but they don't think of themselves as white, but rather as enemies of everyone who's white but not Ashkenazi.

>>12312210
>They are white, but they don't think of themselves as white, but rather as enemies of everyone who's white but not Ashkenazi.
except unlike the concept of race that can't even in principle apply to everyone of them

>>12312136
I dont know enough to have an opinion.
From what I understand Israel is a good experiment in the question. In a state where culture/religion [socially constructed identities] are supposed to take precedence over racial inheritance the Ashkenazi are still at the top of the pecking order

>>12307040
Most of these people are fucking around retard.

>>12312136
Jews literally don't think of themselves as white either. My dad was Jewish immigrant from Russia and my mom was white. Whenever I would describe my dad as Russian he would always correct me and say 'he was a Russian speaking Jew'. He didn't have any contempt for Russians or Christians or anything, it was just important for maintain our dense of identity and family history. You honestly sound like a fucking retard. I grew up in a Jewish community, and it was actually considered mildly offensive, or at least uninformed if you don't recognize Jews as a distinct race. I was in the Jewish Student Union is high school, and they would talk almost every week about the importance of remembering out Jewish heritage and national identity amongst the multitude of modern America.

Personally, I don't care what you're opinions are regarding Jews as a race or ethnicity. You can view is as white, or choose not to. Personally, I consider Ashkenazi Jews to be white but non-European. My point is just that you're a retard if you think only poltards care about Jewish racial identity. The concept of Jews as constituting a distinct racial and cultural milieu is absolutely central to how the Jewish community views itself, even amongst secular and reform Jews like myself.

It has nothing to do with racism, conservatism, nationalism, or even religion. The Jewish people have a distinct and identifiable culture, and Ashkenazi Jews even constitute their own genetic cluster on DNA tests. To deny the racial and cultural identity of the Jewish people is tantamount to brushing this history and culture under the rug.

>>12312999
they're genetically european but semitic in culture

>>12306973
everyone here is colossally retarded

>>12306084
What does it mean to be Somali?

If it means to be born into Somalian, then there are white Somalis and black Germans, and there's no genetic component. But people argue that race is genetic, so this can't be it.

If it means to have a certain DNA sequence, then there are Somalis who have never set foot in Somalia, and there are people born and raised in Somalia who aren't Somali. That tells me we should be using a different word.

If it means to have ancestors who were Somali, then you have a chicken-and-egg problem, because you can't show us the first Somalian.

If it means to practice the cultural rituals of Somalia, then anyone can become (or stop being) Somalian at any time, just by changing their behavior. Which is kind of silly.

There's no definition of "Somali" that doesn't fall apart under basic scrutiny. Apply to other nationalities as needed.

>>12314140
Try defining literally any concept (other than maybe subatomic particles). There are always some edge cases and vague boundaries. Nothing unusual about race except left wingers dislike the existence of race so they deny it.

>>12306180
this is some fuckin tasty pasta

guess what man, it is superior. You know why? Because I said so. That's how it always has worked. You can say whatever you want, but your words are worthless against pure domination.

>>12314172
That's not true at all. Mathematicians rigorously define everything they do. Physics is unambiguous from top to bottom. Likewise for computer science and chemistry. There are some grey areas in biology, but those are quickly disappearing due to organic chemistry and DNA sequencing.

Nobody ever wonders if a number is "really even" or if this atom is "really carbon." It's rare for biologists to mistake one species for another. But even people who claim expertise about a given "race" can't agree who is and isn't a member. It's too hand-wavy to be a scientific concept.

>>12315537
There are actually plenty of areas of vagueness in both physics and chemistry. For instance, the term 'particle' has many different usages that are easy to conflated. There are other areas too. For instance there is disagreement in some circles about whether talk of concept like operators in a Hilbert space or direct products of symmetry group refer to physically instantiations of these structure or simply artifacts of the modeling process. There are other areas of vagueness. For instance the concept of temperature gradients and entropy involve a lot of inherent vagueness. Work can be produced by a temperature gradient, but you need to know contextual information about a system to determine what kind of work it can perform. Namely, whether the heat energy of a system can be harnessed to do work isn't dependent on any property of the system. It is dependent on the temperature gradient between the system and its external environment. In other words, you could literally know every observable fact about the internal state of a physical system and still not know if energy can be extracted from the system to perform work. There are plenty of vague concepts, and if you actually knew what you were talking about, you would know that.

>>12315537
Mathematics is not vague by definition, and that is exactly what anons have been saying all along, so I don't know why you bring it up. See my previous posts
>>12306225
>>12306304
Mathematics is a completely different issue from the empirical sciences because it is an a priori subject that literally studies definitions and axioms, so it can't be vague.
However, vagueness and ambiguity permeate literally every single empirical subject. The concept of 'vagueness' is a central problem in AI, knowledge representation, and philosophy of science. It also crops up in a formalized manner in mathematics within the subject known as model theory, and is a central topic of discussion in several other areas like fuzzy set theory and fuzzy logic. You are completely talking out of your ass. For example, it took me two minutes to find https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9783642767043 and https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F3-540-34783-6_66
I can post more sources too, if you'd like me to find examples of vagueness in a particular subject.

Yes definitions in physics are often formalized (although this isn't even always the case), but that in no way entails that these concepts are not vague. Moreover, we're not only talking about scientific concepts. Everyday concepts are perfectly valid and useful within the context off day today life. Surely you wouldn't say that cereal doesn't exist or that tables don't exist just because there is no unambiguous definition of 'cereal'? I mean, you can choose to deny that cereal exists, but then you are just a New Agey navel gazer going
>woah man, like what if reality doesn't really exist and table s and chairs are just like a figment of your immagination, maaan
Everyday concepts have meaning and the play a functional role in human interaction.

Besides, what you are saying is actually racist.
You are trying to suggest that the only valid concepts and ideas are those of western science.

>>12305974
say less

>>12315658
Good post.

>>12306180
>If western culture is so superior, then why has it caused more suffering, violence, and bloodshed than any other culture?
objectively incorrect

aztec sacrificed 70,000 people in one day to a sun god

north african muslim slave trade

sub saharan tribal warfare

genghis khan

most of chinas history

for someone espousing the importance of being critical, you are remarkably bad at critical thinking.
your indoctrination would be laughable if it wasnt so sad.

>>12306180
This is the most retarded post I have seen in this thread.
>The values and practices of western civilization are just social constructs that are used to justify imperialism, capitalism, and racism
The values of Western civilization predate all of those things retard. Do you think the values of Western civilization exclusively built just to justify those things? Delusional.
>Anyone who is familiar with history knows that western civilization has actually be the source of most of the suffering throughout history. It has produced countless wars, famine, capitalism, imperialism, racism, and patriarchy. If western culture is so superior, then why has it caused more suffering, violence, and bloodshed than any other culture?
Quite a dishonest take. You are not only ignoring the good things that Western civilization made but you also are amplifying the bad things and ignoring the fact that many of those problems(racism, famine wars etc) were tried to be eliminated from the West. Western civilization had many of these negative aspects and was the only civilization that fought against those ideas. Most of these things aren't necessarily exclusive to the West. Do you think famine wouldn’t exist if the West didn’t exist? Racism? Sexism? Several non-western cultures still shared many of those values till today. Western civilization is objectively the best because it produced the most important forms of philosophy, science, art, architecture etc. The progress made by the West cannot be matched by any other civilization. Also:
>who probably has a PhD in sociology or political science or something
Lmao, you said this as if sociology or political sciences are serious fields. They are all garbage and I said this as an Electrical engineer. They are more a humanities field trying to act like Science. They should be looked down on all the time. I think of them as MacDonald's workers rather than actual professors.

>>12308154
god that is a disgusting hand

>>12306107
Croats and Serbs are both white, but they're definitely not considered the same race in the Balkans

>>12316058
https://gwtoday.gwu.edu/human-hands-less-evolved-chimp-hands
Liptarts fear the superior monke hand

>>12316687
>Genus
>Species
Shieeeeet mayyyyyyyyyyyyynnn some quadrilaterals are square, some are rectangles and some are rhombuses, what the fuck is that about?

>>12305974
Trannies will never be women
They kill themselves at 50% rates, let’s make it 100%!

>>12306096
We’re gonna genocide you
Your freedom is over

>>12316821
Does very conservative includes groups as Catholics Hispanics, Muslims, and other low IQ minorities that are really conservative? Makes sense

>>12316821
>He thinks politics are binary
Yes that midwit 106iq sounds about right

>>12306054
>>Gender is a social construct
>>Race is a social construct
>but this is correct.

Prove it. Right here.

>>12306253
>hurr durr Western civ bad!
>hurr durr he got PhD so much smarter than you alt right!
>PhD by 'university' which is originated by 'Western civilization'

WTF is wrong with Leftoids?

>>12312999
That I honestely don't understand. How aren't western jews white?
Italians and greeks are considered white and they are darker.

Tangent:There's a span of skin color along the world and its easy to see if you run across the mediterranium, so all of this black and white shit makes no sense to me desu. Usually sjws refer to "white" as the anglo-saxon type and villify them but that seems just a far fetched argument to live in a us vs them. Just like the term "black people" makes no sense, even with the cultural implications. For instance, in my experience: all guinea naturals, i came accross, all of them are thugs and morons, as opposed to mozambique naturals which are cool.

>>12305974
Just kindly point everyone to the John Money wikipedia page, the John/Joan Case chapter.
"let's discuss about that controversy to bury it"

>>12306054
If you can differentiate with an x-ray it’s not socially constructed

White-Shaming is Racism

>>12317043
Jews are a closed society who hate all non-Jews, so they don't want to be placed in with any wider political group such as whites. But obviously Ashkenazi Jews are as white as Balts.

>>12317231
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8s8_zUyESlE&ab_channel=CalvinWinestead
This is good too, and has the added effect of showing how batshit modern universities are

>>12306180
>western civilisation is not in any way superior
Sure. There's no objective difference between living in a Western liberal democracy where your human rights are respected, building a solid civil society, fighting against climate change and GLOBAL poverty, advancing scientific knowledge, building welfare systems so that even your poorest citizens can live with dignity, and living in a fucking shithole like India, where you have little to no sanitary infrastructure, rape is normalised, most of your population lives in subhuman conditions, you and your people contribute severely to the degradation of the environment, your people can barely read and none of your human rights are guranteed.

No, I'm seeing this through my biased Western lenses. There's no objective difference between the two! This whole thing about civilisatory processes is just the result of me being indoctrinated by Western values since when I was born, right?

>>12305974
Your professor is correct you retard. Both race and gender have no scientific definitions. 200 years ago most Europeans weren't even considered white. Nowadays we define white as people from Europe but "Europe" is a social construct with arbitrary borders.

Same goes for gender. Sex is scientifically defined but not gender.

>>12306180
>Critical theory is about saying that whiteness is not superior. Western culture is not superior. Christianity is not superior

if your theory start with false assumptions , your theory is useless at best.

>>12306054
Nice bait. Here's your (you)

>>12306180
>whites aren't superior
>literally every third world shit hole are brown or black

Oh honey...

>>12318484
A theory doesn't mean it's true, you absolute fucking mongoloid. I can theorize whatever, but if there's no hard evidence to support anything how can you expect people to take it seriously?

>>12318484
The sex vs gender thing is just a semantic trick, it implies that gender is arbitrary, when in reality biological sex comes first and dictates the frame of gender.
>>12315658

>>12306054

>>12305974
Sounds like your professor is a communist agent

>>12305974
when they say gender is a social construct they don't mean biological gender. As for the race. Yeah it's totally not a social construct but if you're white and have black hair, brown eyes or stein in your last name then you're not white. Have sex.

>>12318822
Gender is meaningless. If you disagree, give a precise definition of what gender is, how many genders there are, what defines them, how you know which one you are, and what the difference is.

>>12318857
wat. I'm only saying there are biological genders and that's one thing and the other is let's call it social genders which means things that are associated with men and women in society. Football is a typically male sport in almost every country in the world but in the USA it is more female (it changes slowly). You can name million things that are considered masculine or feminine by society. Even /pol/acks use it a lot. They will say a woman who is feminist is not a real woman. Or that, idk, basedbois are not real men or whatever. This is what is meant by "gender is a social construct". And i don't know how can anyone argue with that.

>>12305978
get a job nigger

>>12318900
you can say the similar about race. What people associate with race is derived from how each race is perceived in society, not how it really is on biological level. On biological level are there any group of genes that all blacks have? Or all asians have?

>>12318900
>Football is a typically male sport in almost every country in the world but in the USA it is more female (it changes slowly).

Football is not a male sport. Football does not have a penis or make sperm. It is a masculine sport because it is associated with men while not defining men. There is a difference between male and masculine.

You've just claimed that "gender" is a sexist idea about stereotypes, so why bother with it at all? Imagine doing this for race. You could say that your "render" is a stereotypical idea about what your race is like, and therefore, white people who like watermelon are somehow black.

>>12318900
>I'm only saying there are biological genders and that's one thing and the other is let's call it social genders
For fuck's sake, Americans are actually retarded, they simply cannot understand or use the word sex.

>>12318939
i had a suspicion you might be retarded from your previous post. Thanks for confirmation.

>>12318943
i'm not an american.

>>12306180
If western civilization is not superior how come all you shitskins come here for better opportunities? I am sure the spear chuckers would've made a better civilization than the anglos too. The fact you can sit here and shitpost on a underwater basketweaving forum is thanks to white people too.

>>12318952
Not an argument.

>>12306180
>It has produced countless wars, famine, capitalism, imperialism, racism, and patriarchy
its also the only civilization that has produced periods where these things didnt exist.

>>12306180
>you will realize that western civilization isn't in any way objectively 'better'.
We've been to the moon. Therefore, we're better.

>>12306180
You are the quintessential midwit. Try studying history.

>>12305987
holy fuck i lol'd

>>12307666

>>12307614
The issue is that since the '60s the social ""scientists""" have been trying to get gender and sex to be different terms. Despite the fact that everyone uses them as synonyms.

>>12319388
i use your mom as cinnamon

>>12316880
Are you retarded? Americans see them as the same race, they see each other as different races
Ergo, the meaning of the word race depends on the societal context you're saying it in, and is thus a social construct

>>12319443
Wrong.

>>12319443
Just because people use a colloquial definition doesn't invalidate the use of the scientific definition.
Compare the colloquial usage of theory with the scientific differentiation between hypothesis and theory.

>>12319443
The Australian abos have three genders. Does that imply we have three sex chromosomes?

>>12319460
White isn't a scientific definition lmao

>>12319461
You're 90% of the way there bud, keep thinking and maybe you can figure out why people also differentiate sex and gender, with gender being a social construct

>>12319479
I never said it was. Caucasian, negroid, and mongoloid are, however.

>>12319481
Yes they do. Gender is defined by self-id, yet this explains nothing of the underlying biology related to this self-id. Gender correlates with sex, and sex is biological.

The same is true of race. You have colloquial "race", but colloquial race is defined as such only in contrast with underlying biological race.

>>12319494
> Gender is defined by self-id
It absolutely is not.

Even SJWs don't think it is. They wouldn't accept someone who looked entirely like a typical male who just claimed to be a woman and did nothing.

Just because SJWs claim something is true does not make it true.

>>12319510
No, in this case it is. I mean, I guess I overreached, in that the common academic conception of gender is actually "presentation" and not self-id, but these two overlap a lot. But it does make it true in the sense that it is a definition. This definition correlates with the biology either way though. So you're right, but realistically self-id is a proxy for expression/presentation.

>>12319491
As far as I understand, those classifications are outdated, in that they do not correspond with race as it is understood in other animal species

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3737365/

While this doesn't touch on the issue directly, it does address the non-existence of biological race in humans

>>12319523
>, those classifications are outdated,
They're still used in forensic anthropology, and occasionally with physical anthropologists in general.
Mostly because we haven't picked new terminology.
> it does address the non-existence of biological race in humans
Race is real. A $50 home DNA kit can correctly determine your race with high levels of accuracy. That means it's real, in a sense.
The biggest reason people claim race isn't real is because they have constructed their own definition in their heads, and they load it with political baggage. But that doesn't change the fact that it's real, it just exposes your own biases.

>>12306253
you sure always want to chime in to say your obnoxious piece so idk why anyone else doing the same gets your goat so bad, brainlet

>>12319529
Sure, but that meaning of race does not correspond to the some standard definitions of race when talking about other species. While I'm not surprised a DNA test can detect some meaning of race genetically, I'm not sure that those are the only categorizations of 'race' that we would be able to detect in such a way, so they seem somewhat arbitrary (They may very well be meaningful in a historical or anthropological perspective, I'm not well versed)

People are just repeating the same bullshit over again at this point.

Threads over.

>>12319443
Their beef is ethnic/national, they are using the word race wrong. End of discussion.

>>12319523
That study isn't particularly convincing for 10 dozen reasons. One being that FST distance averages have long shown that human races are well within the divergence required of chimp subspecies. This study:
"The most comprehensive study of chimpanzees to date—including multiple loci and samples from western, central, and eastern chimpanzees and bonobos—found few fixed genetic differences among chimpanzee populations and estimated autosomal FST values between populations of 0.09–0.32"
https://reich.hms.harvard.edu/sites/reich.hms.harvar.edu/files/inlinefiles/2007_PLoS_Genetics_chimpanzees_0.pdf
Tells you that human FST is within the chimp range. Wikipedia says the average estimate for human FST is 0.125. This suggests that your one study might be an outlier, a-priori. (I don't wanna attack the study in particular bc no time).

Secondly, FST distances aren't even a necessary requirement for our modern conception of race. Races present gene variation regardless.

>>12319546
>some standard definitions of race when talking about other species.
Because social scientists are cunts who pervert anything they have to in order to support their preconceived notions.

Are you familiar with FST and genetic distancing at all?
Notice how modern science directly correlates with traditional classifications.

>>12319522
>the common academic conception of gender is actually "presentation"
please define presentation
are you using the word gender in the sense of "the hypernym of man and woman"?
are you saying that if a woman wears trousers she is actually a man?

>>12319565
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3737365/

Ah yes, biology, the queen of the social sciences
Read the damn paper bruh, or at least find some other one criticizing it

>>12319571
https://equityhealthj.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1475-9276-4-11
"while gender refers to the roles and expectations attributed to men and women in a given society, roles which change over time, place, and life stage"
Presentation as in "the societal gender role on chooses to assume".

>>12319585
This makes no sense.

How can you define "man" and "woman" as "genders" if "gender" refers to the "role and expectations of men and women"?

How do they know which people are men and women in the first place?

It's completely circular.

Besides that, it's also extremely sexist. You're saying that men and women who don't uphold some expectations of other people aren't really men and women. How is that acceptable?

>>12319595
I'm not saying anything. This is the academic definition of "gender". Its not circular because it is based on the historical characteristics of either gender and environs. For example, if it is held that "only men piss whilst standing" for whatever reason, then someone who pisses whilst standing is seen to be "presenting as a man". So the societal consensus is prior to the gender role.

Is it sexist? Its postive and not normative, so hardly so. Does it make sense? Well its a contrived definition we have chosen to adopt, so judge that as you will. Should we have adopted it? Probably not.

>>12319582
I don't want to.

>>12319607
> This is the academic definition of "gender".
It's a claim made by an academic, but to say it's "the academic definition" you'd need a lot more evidence than that.

> Its not circular because it is based on the historical characteristics of either gender and environs.
It's circular because there's no objective definition for man or woman in it, and because it defines gender in terms of men and women, and then men and women in terms of gender. If you came across another tribe of people where you didn't know the language, how would you know which of them were men or women?

> So the societal consensus is prior to the gender role.

Traditionally, women wear skirts and men wear pants. So you've now defined everyone who wears pants as a man.

> For example, if it is held that "only men piss whilst standing" for whatever reason, then someone who pisses whilst standing is seen to be "presenting as a man".
What would make them men in the first place? Again, this is nonsense. You're relying on a second definition of man and woman which you're simply not uttering aloud.

> Is it sexist? Its postive and not normative, so hardly so.
It's extremely sexist to say that a man who puts on a skirt suddenly becomes a woman.

>wah science does this thing I don't agree with
>refuses to read real science

Why do you think your opinion matters?

>>12305974
Race is mostly sociologically-derived. Whatever bits are biologically-derived are ad hoc applied and are very derivative. There's no material racial causation so to call it science is miserable.
Tldr your teacher and you are dumbasses for appealing to sociologically-derived truths/solutions.

>>12319617
>academic definition
If you're not convinced that this is the academic definition then look into it yourself, because as you say, this claim requires consensus evidence.
>circularity
It defines gender in terms of reaction to societal consensus. This is not circular, because societal consensus can arise from a myriad factors. The tribe question is ill-posed.
>skirts
Yes, that is what you're doing. You're saying that those who wear skirts and such are women in gender, while male in sex. That's the whole point.
>pissing
Biology makes man piss standing up. But this is secondary, because what matters is the societal consensus on this behaviour. Men grill meat more too, and what matters is that this behaviour is considered manly, and not why this is the case (for gender purposes). Of course, what underlies it is usually biology, but that's precisely the point.
>sexism
Whatever, this is subjective.

>>12319633
You are now breathing manually.
>>12306469

>>12306054
Your ass is a social construct. So is Harvard accepting failed black students into their campus and rejecting passing asian/white students just to make their statistics look more diverse in order to save their campus from being arsoned by crying angry libtards.

>>12319657
There's no material causation mechanism for race. It is definitionally not science

>>12319660
>>12319642
What does this even mean, what is "material" causation? Like, as opposed to spiritual causation?

>>12319660
I agree that its not a pure quantitative science I've been saying this the entire godamn thread

>>12305974
American universities aren't so smart after all. That's noted

>>12319668
Prove it. What facet of genetics is not purely quantative? What about GWAS?

>>12319665
Like mathematical/logical/ontological/truth causation or some other abstract/universal one as cf sociological causation which is what race really is.

>>12319673
Genetics accounts for genes. It doesn't account for race as theorized. Even still a genetic determinism is ass without other determinant factors which minimizes even a potentially perfect race science to deficient levels. A pure genetic determinism would have zero progress in technology/culture etc

>>12319660
>No material causation mechanism for race
Are you in the same universe? Do you spur out random words to sound smart?

>>12319679
Oh. Sociology never really proves deterministic causation anyway. And there is "logical" causation in race science, like the fact that certain genes objectively cause statistical variation among races.
>>12319682
Well, yeah, but this applies to every science. Determinism based upon the physics or chemistry of your brain is about as ass as genetic determinism, which is as retarded as economic, sociological, historical determinism or what have you. That doesn't say anything about the validity of race science as science, since the object is predictive validity and not a theory of everything. Also, race as theorized by who? It accords well with common conceptions of race, like black/white/asian.

>>12319696
Then why do you use statistics? There's probably nothing you can say that is tautological in race except that your sociological opinion of race is similar to your sociological opinion of race.
I'm willing to be convinced, name one material causation in regards to "race". Very open.

>>12319679
Environmental and biological factors which triggers the physical and psychological changes in a ethnicity.

>>12319703
Wait so you want a syllogism or something? Do you not trust empirical evidence?

>>12319657
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5299519/ Table 2

Consensus has changed since 1984

>>12306156
What, you think smart people are on /sci/, let alone 4chan?

>>12319712
Yeah, in Western countries. Now go look at the statistics in China.

>>12319697
Genes causing something is material causation. The issue in that is I've seen no genes which cause anything.
It's not that genetic determinism is completely false just very irrelevant but the basis of each field determines the relevancy of the field as a determinism (as if the field doesn't determine truth at any point, let alone a length of time, then what's the point of it anyways).
Saying that, I don't see race as biologically-based either just ad hoc supported. So it wouldn't even get the benefit of genetic determinism

>>12319703
Neoteny. East asians are shown to be a more neotenized race. That is a dinstict feature of theirs. It can also explain why they can lack body odor and have larger cranium capacities. Also explains their sexual dymorphism.

>>12319712
Only in the west,

And we're the one's in decline....hmmmm

>>12319707
How do you account for the dark ages by that? The race is the same and the environment is. Also, if separating civil from geographic in environment, many people of similar genes, say siblings, parents or twins, easily have disasters happen to their family, political group, etc, and have different outcomes.

>>12319728
Yeah, I don't know about you, but living in the West seems significantly nicer than living in China

That is pretty interesting though

>>12319721
https://www.cambridgebrainsciences.com/more/articles/22-genes-have-been-linked-to-intelligence
If you want 100% determinism then there are countless genes that solely and directly cause deformities of every kind. Genetic influence is extremely important in the development of almost anything you can think of, read up on it.

>>12319728
Proof of liberal agendas. They call race realism a social construct not knowing that their line of thinking is not so different.

>>12319738
Whoops I'm retarded, Easter Europe not China
My point still stands tho lol

>>12319710
A syllogism? No I want to show how philosophical developments influence the mathematical which inform the civil and technological. I want something more causative universally instead of physically.

>>12319738
For now atleast

>>12319725
>are shown
That's not causative. That's putting a bunch of variables together, determined sociologically, then putting a random box around it. That would get me laughed out of a mathematical proof conjecture. Science, if it's not entierly pozzed, would do the same or at least it did the first half of the 20th century.

>>12319745
Ok. So, the philosophy of empiricism has influenced how mathematics and science have developed. This development has lead to the technology we now have, which is able to read genomes. This technology has revealed that the genomes of different races differ. It has also revealed how empirically this influences the lives of members of these races.

>>12319740
That's fine but genes account for more than a supposed race so it would be derivative in that as well.

>>12319736
How long are you going to stretch your argument? How does your reply even add to the discussion?
Put a pitch dark skinned african in the nordic cold and he'll be more likely to get vitamin defficiency.
Put a blonde white north european in the scorching hot plains of africa and he'll be more likely to have skin cancer.

>>12319753
This is how science is done though. Empiricism isn't logic, thats the whole point. Do you reject all science or something? Like what is this pure logic autism?

>>12305974
Your existence is socially constructed by me. Do not make me deconstruct it.

>>12319755
No that's a conjecture. Positive Empiricism is particularly interested in material causation. Race isn't materially-causated. Sociologically-derived truths about as useful as polling, in fact polling is that.

>>12319764
Biological race is. That's what we're talking about here.

>>12319719
>One of the most xenophobic cultures that exists believes in race
Color me shocked

>>12319759
My point is it's not causative. You keep saying "more likely". That's hardly a good means to judge anything and in most fields that's just a last resort.

>>12319768
>One of the least xenophobic cultures in existence, wherein there objectively exist incentive structures to deny biological race does not believe in biological race.
Color me shocked.

>>12319761
Science that deals in statistics is as a last resort. The point of science is to find out what evolution is or how to stop a virus. When you can't figure it out you show your best effort with an addendum. String theory, Newtonian mechanics etc aren't trying to not prove them.

>>12319753
Holy fuck you are dense. Did darwin have dna testing of remains to come up with the concept of evolution? He used his brain and logic. It's time for you to use it too. There'd even a video talking about asian neoteny somewhere in youtube. If you really ask for "material causation" then ask that to every anthropologist who makes claim of things in their papers. They'll be having the same hard time with someone as dense as you

>>12319782
Sure, but there are non-statistical, genetic analyses of race. Like that "22 IQ genes" thing. Its also a matter of the most probable hypothesis. Given we have nothing to go one other than the current science, we have to see where that poitns.

>>12319766
Yes there's no biological race, there's only sociological race. Whatever real biological race would be would be extraordinary derivative and look nothing like what you're proposing. Those images of animals that look close to each other but are a different specie placed next to humans is the issue with race as imagines right now. It's not based in biology at all. It's defined sociologically then addendumed biological features and statistical correlation. That's not science.

>>12319782
Not really, science is about creating predictive models about the world, and statistics does the job as long as you actually understand how it works
Scientists (especially social scientists) by and large don't, but that's a different issue

>>12319791
He used the scientific method and it was confirmed in many fields as materially-causative theory. That is, it doesn't say there's a 52% chance species may evolve, it states all species evolve. The most racially-dense truth I've heard is purely statistics which can be entierly irrelevant for almost any negative/positive trait given in 100 years due to other causative factors.

>>12319769
BECAUSE IT IS MORE LIKELY. THERE IS WEIGHT IN THAT STATEMENT. Are you my research teacher that doesn't care about the objective of a paper just because "Nooooo ur not suppose to use this X word on a X thesis therefore you basically just wrote something else". If you get my point then you get my point. Stop bullshitting.

>>12319792
Yeah that last point is fair but until a grouping of genes deemed race has more causative power than any other grouping of genes it'll necessarily be irrelevant.

>>12319793
>Would be extraordinarily derivative
I don’t know precisely what you mean, but prove it.
>Race is currently defined sociologically and the biological features aren’t ontologically necessary
Well ... that’s the problem. The whole point is that race should be a statistical agglomeration of biological features with explanatory power. Yes, it’s arbitrary in the sense that any variable is metaphysically arbitrary ... so what?

>>12319798
Yes I agree but it's a predicative model in matter, or its particular sub-section of matter. The predicative model is meant to imply a causative prediction, or that's the goal. Any statistical model is meant to be avoided unless someone is being a psychopath with say vaccines.

>>12319804
And please enlighten how this is any different from his method? Don't just use fancy words and make it concise.

>>12319805
Do you decide anything by based on whether it's more likely? Do you go brush your teeth based on whether it's likely an orangutan will pop in? No you brush your teeth to clean them and in the off-chance you have to contend with an orangutan, you determine if it's safe to do it not if there's a possibility it will happen.
Causation and correlation are extraordinarily different. If race science is to be taken seriously it won't be on correlation grounds. I don't poll 1000 people to decide if 1+1=2.

>>12319807
It already does for a lot of things. Race is the single best predictor of a bunch of things (in relation to other common variables), and it’s a better predictor of almost anything than any given random cluster of genes. That’s why it’s not currently irrelevant in the social sciences, medicine, genetics, etc...

>>12319813
If it predicts well, it's irrelevant as to whether not it's causative (depending on application)
But human psychology and sociology are significantly harder to predict than anything you see in physics, making deterministic models in those fields is never going to work

>>12319819
Yes? People make decisions based on probabilities all the time

>>12319510
>Even SJWs don't think it is. They wouldn't accept someone who looked entirely like a typical male who just claimed to be a woman and did nothing.
Yes they would and yes they do. You haven't been keeping up. It's getting more and more surreal.

>>12319819
Yeah this is stupid because it is the whole point of race science. The correlation/causation thing is considered in every single paper on the matter, and many prove causation via statistical methods. You don’t go around economics departments nowadays saying “but have you considered that correlation is not causation” because the reply is “yes, that is our job”. Same here.

>>12319809
Sure in proving it, we acknowledge race, if it's biological, will be determined by genes. We can also assert that genes account for more than race, say differences between siblings or similarities in species. We can, taking those two axioms, account for all genes and separate whichever ones are deemed race. Having done that, we can look for the causative power of race in the determination factors of a human (universally, or every step necessarily). Seeing as birth isn't better accounted by any genes other than some shared human ones, we can see it as derivative in that sense. I can handle a counter-example.
This example isn't arbitrary.

>>12319818
Darwin observed changes in species. He noted they all had this and evolution is universally imparted on biological creatures. It didn't occur to him that it could be limited to some and not the other. If it's limited to some and not the other then it's accounted for more fully in a different causative mechanism. That not all x race does y thing shows that there is no causative principle in it. That it's so particular means the causative mechanism isn't universal enough.

>>12319819
Take a mass of 50 thousand as an example.
There is a 30% chance of skin cancer and heat stroke if someone who is genetically paired to living in a cold enviornment starts living in a hotter environment. 30% tells us that it is more LIKELY for a nordic native to get cancer and heatstroke than the 1% ethnic central africans who are used to the heat due to being GENETICALLY adept to it. This proves the more likeliness of it. If you still try to fancy your way out of this then you are dense beyond repaire.

>>12319821
It's not entierly irrelevant but it just by chance is correct. Those feature groups could've been grouped differently (people who are grouped by altitude for example) and had overlap. It's biological foundations it needs, not sociologically-derived factors.

>>12319819
>Do you go brush your teeth based on whether it's likely
Obviously.
I brush my teeth based on whether its likely that i will get cavities.

>>12319832
Nope. Find me one tranny like that. There aren't any. You have to do something "feminine". It's mind-blowingly sexist, but it's something.

>>12319825
I wrote this >>12319852
Also I don't think it predicts anything well without overlap from a better sociologically-derived factor. Can you give an example?

>>12319848
>Darwin observed changes in species.
Well we observe the physical differences in race using skeletal structures and DNA which is more concise than just observation.
You are making a complete fool of yourself.

>>12319831
Not fundamentally just derivatively. People can't operate at all by that. It's just that separate from truth in human action.

>>12319649
To define what "masculine" behaviour is, requires you to know who a man is.

You can't define men in terms of masculinity because that begs the question of who your referent group of men are for masculinity.

Please define what the word "man" means according to this retarded gender ideology.

>>12319833
Yes but I'm saying race has no causative factors and I'm looking for them.

>>12319837
Oh, I understand your reasoning better now. The step that doesn't hold is the "separate each gene into race or not race part". This is for many reasons.
1) A gene can cause race as well as something else, or can cause something through race. For example, the "a lot of melanin" gene can cause resistance to sun tan as well as blackness, but can also cause resistance to suntan through blackness. I.e. "Why does he not burn" - "because he is black", blackness is defined by resistance to suntan, and this itself is caused by the gene.
2) Many characteristics arise probabilistically through the agglomeration of many genes. Enough said.
3) Biological race still has causative power as a construct, regardless. Being black (the thing that arises) has properties beyond the sum of the genes.
And so on. So, yeah, we can say that the causation comes from specific genes, and not "race", but this is actually less accurate than just ascribing causality to race.

>>12319851
That's still statistics. It's not causative and, even more so, 30% of what? The number of people with skin cancer is low and telling white people to avoid the sun doesn't solve skin cancer. The point of science is to determine the causative factors of skin cancer to prevent it.

>>12319857
IQ is your example, also several diseases like sickle cell, if you want something that is clearly not societal.

>>12319865
The first premise is rejected. To define masculinity, you do not need to know who a man is. You observe the society, and they inform what your concept of masculinity is. That's the point.

>>12319855
No you don't friend.

>>12319861
That's not enough. I can look at an animal and determine it will eat food given x environmental factors. This doesn't mean all of that animal will eat food given x. That's the difference between race and evolution.

>>12319869
Now I certainly agree but in that genes aren't neatly separated by genes into race, I ask what field can properly account for race.

>>12319865
A "man" is hardwired into a person's brain. It is from simple evolution. Men are more physically stronger than females therefore they partake in specific tasks that they are more adept to. Gradually, they evolve psychologically because of their roles due to the inevitability of biological differences. Men are stoic, they have a tendency to strive in something, they are by far more comptetitive and aggresive in nature compared to females. That is due to evolutionary factors carried by biology. This is so simple and basic. I don't know how much your non-binary gender fluid martian liberal university professor brainwashed you but holy shit.

>>12319874
IQ changes based on many factors. Looking at Africa, their population is growing so much that they have a lot of people in the higher end of the spectrum. After the cooling of the economy in a service economy, like the west, the population with the highest iq gets selected to produce offspring. This would eliminate the gap or make them not black, if iq is a racial variable. I'm not denying those examples, I just think other groupings are more accurate with better overlap.

>>12319871
Get help. You are cognitively impaired at this point.

>>12319883
What field, as in what variable? This is tricky, but probably the following:
Race is the numerical value 0, 1 or 2 (if we suppose there are 3 races) assigned to any given person based upon which group's representative genome aligns most closely with their own. This alignment is a measured as a function of genome similarity, whichever metric you prefer here.

>>12319862
The fuck are you talking about dude? The decision to trust scientific consensus is purely statistical. The decision of what roads to go on to avoid traffic and what kind of education you should attain to get a good job is purely statistical. Pure deductive logic doesn't really get you far in a world with as many interrelated variables as the one we live in

>>12319897
I'm repairing the west, and earth, more than you are. Find better variables find a better field.

>>12319871
Literally nothing satisfies you even with consice reasoning, logic, and numbers.
They say you can never win an argument with a fool, yet alone someone who's dense.

>>12319894
The existence of more accurate groupings given specific examples isn't a counterpoint though. The point of race is to be a very broad variable. For any given Y you can always find an X that predicts Y better than race, but the point is precisely what you acknowledge, that race qua biology seems to predict Y well for many Y.

>>12319867
>race has no causative factors
Do you think the same about subspecies or closely related species ?

>>12319902
You are delusional. It's saddening at best.

>>12319898
Yes but 0, 1, 2 doesn't have to be race and may even be more accountable in say urban vs rural people.

>>12319901
>the decision to trust science is statistically consensual
What's the parameters of trust I should trust that statement that you'll give me.

>>12319904
It's simple. Causation factors are more predictive than correlation ones. Feed me causation variables

>>12319913
>Yes but 0, 1, 2 doesn't have to be race and may even be more accountable in say urban vs rural people.
So what? Race predicts things well, that's why we pick race as an explanatory variable.

>>12319905
Sure but when they start contradicting, say, a 3 race variable, then why call it race anymore

>>12319907
If it's biologically-determined I think it's materially-causative. I prefer a more universal foundation but for science it's what you get.

>>12319917
>Causation variables are more predictive than correlation ones
Holy shit, who would've thought? What's your IQ?

>>12319867
You want causative and we give you the reasoning and proof on why physical differences exist and how it came to be. Want concise proof? Genetical differences. DNA.
You already reached a dead end yet you keep going as if there is weight in what you say anymore.

>>12319909

>>12319921
If it doesn't predict it best then why care about it? Nothing works this way unless we're trying to assert something else.

>>12319926

>>12319928
No I put out an analytic basis to go from. >>12319837

>>12319917
I am literally itching my head on how dumb you can be. Are you REALLY not able to add one to one? We gave you the causes yet you fucking fail at correlated them to the topic. Science is all about correlation. Stop with this.

I'm leaving the thread. If you find a causative mechanism of race that works better than any other arbitrary grouping then tag yourself

>>12319944
In that I leave. Go back to /pol/

>>12319913
did you intentionally butcher the quote, or is your brain malfunctioning?
If you only reason deductively, caring about the qualifications of someone when evaluation whether or not their statement is true is a fallacy

>>12319934
>If it doesn't predict it best then why care about it? Nothing works this way unless we're trying to assert something else.
Because it predicts it best for things like IQ, SES and so on. Also read a scientific paper, we're looking for all the variables involved, not just the single best one.

>>12319951
>>12319945
Man you really are retarded. This is why race denialists will always be brainlets.

>>12319940
You set up your basis yet you are so shit at standing by it. ANY genetical difference MANIFESTS into RACIAL difference. That's how it works in the long run you dumbass. Differences by factors be it enviromental or whatnot stack up to other differences and that's ultimately why we have different speciess omfgggggg. And a line from what makes a different species is how we cant breed with them. But we are talking about race, which is in the grey area.

>>12319945
>arbitrary groupings
Holy shiittt so that's why youre so dumb. You find simple groupings and correlations "Arbritary". Fuck i don't know whether to laugh or pity you

>>12306243
The electromagnetic spectrum is a racist construct. All wavelengths are equal.

All of society fall into one of three categories.

Those who seek to advance for altruistic reasons. Those who seek to gain leverage over others. Those who are manipulated.

>>12320632
Cope faggot. I'm always right and your side losing isn't indicative of my beliefs

>>12320632
You are a nobody and nobody gaf what you do. I shit ppl move. Fuck your faggot ass wn or bn i will tear that shit up and the best posturing you can do I'm going to make you look extra stupid when you realize your mob is full of a bunch of idiots without any truth

>>12320632
That's why y'all's leaders are scared to talk to me or debate me and send your bitch minions at me. You're a nobody bitch

>>12305974
>>12305974
push it too da limit!!

>>12319349
and who invented civilization?

>>12319887
Define "man".