Mesmer

omfg

Yeah most people never seriously consider anything before the "just because".

And yet it’s still what determines where we all stand on any issue, so when someone ducks and dodges to avoid talking about it I find that very telling.

Let me make this crystal clear: politics will **always** play a role, unless you dramatically change the human brain.

And let me make this crystal clear: This isn’t a campaign office, it’s a debate site. Defending your values is kind of the point.

You literally started a thread asking what should be done about race in America while refusing to talk about basic values. That’s absurd.

Race is a subcategory of humans. You do not have to break something up into irrelevant categories in order to make policy about it. This is like arguing that policy on cars must take into account different automakers otherwise it’s not really policy about cars. That’s just stupid.

Races are biologically different and require different policy. These categories are very relevant.

For example, races differ on individualism: Population Differences in Individualism – The Alternative Hypothesis .

Another example: races differ in self-control: Racial Differences in Self Control – The Alternative Hypothesis .

When Liberia had essentially the same rules as the US, Liberia didn't become a copy of the US partly because it had a very different racial population to that of the US.

[no response]

My views clearly align with the political left, that’s not what tribalism means. 

The demonstration of bias is hypocrisy. The demonstration of tribalism is overt hypocrisy.

Hypocrisy exists on both sides, but it is no where near as blatant and as absurd on the left as it is on the right. That’s why I call it out on the right but don’t bother much with the left.

Yeah dude.

55 IQ is functionally the same as 140 IQ.

Saying otherwise is a real "tenuous association" with "limited correlation".

Nice dude.

This doesn’t appear to be an argument.

Let’s ignore the name calling, for a moment let’s broadly explain the fundamental issue with your belief.

The presumption that differences between races is solely down to hereditable factors

you have to be able determine the genes that account for intelligence and how much - which we can’t

to be able to understand the impact of environment on intelligence, what environmental impacts and effects prevent or promote intelligence (so we can correct IQ for environmental factors)

to be able to assess the broad distribution of these genes across racial groups to determine whether there is an actual disadvantage - which we haven’t.

The reality is that the interaction between environment, genetics and intelligence are so complex and difficult to disentangle that it is impossible to validly assert exactly what the true impact of genetics actually is; such that the conclusion that the only valid correlating factor is race is simply an attempt assert ones own prejudice is justified; especially given that we do know there can be a massive impact on intelligence from various environmental factors. 

Can you give me examples of observations within 'race realism' and proponents of it that aren't racist?

If you try and assert broad causal relationships between race and various social factors; because there is some limited correlation between the two - then use this tenuous association to imply inferiority in order to justify the existence of broad and longstanding inequality - not so much.

Indeed; a big part of gender realism is about specifying which aspects of gender are really down to biological differences, vs a product of being taught, brought up and treated as a given gender - so appropriate allowances can be made in social, economic and educational policy to best support all black citizens meeting their potential; I think most people could buy into that - but it never is.

It’s almost invariably about justifying inaction on inequality under the pretence that current outcomes are fine because black people have some fundamental limitations. Which sure as f**k is an attack on dignity.

I think you should start by defining Race Realism.

WIKTIONARY defines

RACE REALISM

1. (euphemistic) Synonym of scientific racism
   

WIKIPEDIA defines

RACE REALISM

Scientific racism

The last guy I ran into on this site that used this "race realism" terminology used IQ to claim that the average sub-Saharan black person is mentally retarded- that is, he considered whole nations of people unable to care for themselves or perform basic life skills based on skin color- which is essentially an argument against basic human and national sovereignty based on skin color.

His sources argued that African-Americans were more functional but only because White people raped the smarts into slaves. 

I have to admit the argument bore no resemblance to my experiences with sub-Saharan Blacks and African-Americans and seemed to me inherently an argument for superiority/inferiority by phenotype even though the guy claimed to be offended by any such inference.

So before we even get into criticism of the concept, it looks to me like the concept itself is defined as racism by another name.   Do you define the term differently than the dictionaries and encyclopedias do?  Do you have some kind of established academic source that backs your definition of the term as opposed to dictionaries and encyclopedias?

If you believe X, then X had to come from somewhere. This isn’t complicated, unless you want it to be. Think problem of infinite regress… now imagine the point that comes right before “just because”. That’s the point we are talking about, and it’s different for each of us. Change that and you change everything after it. Understand that point in someone else and you can understand why they hold the world view that they do.

Not complicated, unless you want it to be.

You: it’s wrong to create policy without regards to politics.

Me: actually, it’s wrong to create policy on the basis of politics, that’s the very reason people hate politicians

You: well politics does play a role

No shit it does play a role, we’re talking about whether it should. Or at least we were, but this is what you do every time you get cornered… retreat back to what does happen as if there is some kind of disagreement about that. There isn’t, you just refuse to talk about anything you actually believe which really makes me wonder why you bother posting on a debate site.

Race is a subcategory of humans. You do not have to break something up into irrelevant categories in order to make policy about it. This is like arguing that policy on cars must take into account different automakers otherwise it’s not really policy about cars. That’s just stupid.

I support policy that supports my own tribal groups

Thank you for finally making your position clear. You’re not about what’s best for society, you’re about what’s best for white people.

This is the literal definition of a racist.

Not really clear what you mean by "logically" fallacious. Ad hom can be relevant when there's a relationship between the conclusion of an argument and the person (or entity, I guess) in question.

I think by now pretty much everyone is reasonably aware of scientific racism arguments

which is pretty much what's being advanced in the blog

though there are clear missing logical steps here and there where the advanced conclusion simply defaults to racist one.

For example, in their article showing that genes coding for some brain development have higher interracial variance than other genes, this is regarded as a clear mechanism for interracial IQ variance. Yet, no evidence is presented that those genes have any actual impact on IQ.

Also, in the existence of race article, a definition for race is advanced which is presented as self-evident because that's "obviously" what it is. I'm afraid it's not so obvious, and if we use that advanced definition the categories for race don't line up with Ryan and Sean's categories at all because a lot more groups of people (e.g. Okinawan, Nordic) would satisfy the definition.

Questions of causes of trends within identified groups are difficult to answer. For me, confidence in conclusions happens solemnly and reluctantly, like when you're faced with irrefutable evidence that someone you liked and trusted has betrayed you. The bloggers appear passionate and biased about this topic. It comes across as tribalist advocacy rather than something academic.

OK. Lets talk about the existence of race argument. Since I'm already reasonably familiar with it, it's not that much work for me to talk about it. Without making any counter-case, I will speak strictly as to why the argument isn't persuasive.

First, none of the links to the studies on questionnaires work. They are all broken links. For that reason, all that evidence can be disregarded.

Second, the argument is heavily based on genetics. Yet, concepts of race have existed long before genetics ever did. If we're going to try to understand what race is, then we should be looking at when and how the notion originated and how the idea has been carried forward, at least from a linguistic standpoint. So, focusing on genetics as a starting point seems a bit misplaced.

Further, the genetic evidence being presented doesn't justify the purported races advanced on the site. Populations that have been geographically separated for long periods of time are genetically distinguishable through testing, just as black, white and asian are. So, this test he is presenting  - It can also be done for groups that aren't considered races. Ancestry tests (e.g. "23 and me") have become big business these days.

I was making a subtle point in a humorous way. Ofc nobody is going to agree to that. It would be too great a sacrifice for the benefit of their race, or country or whatever. Sure, my people would be better off (probably) if everyone agreed to some optimal polygamous mating system. But I'm not going to do that because I'm going to put my interests ahead of my people's. Ah, selfishness when the interests of your people and your own conflict. Perhaps I want you to see that when you are doing what is best for your people, it can be a "cuck move", as you say. The only people when it's really not are close family, I think.

In Liberia you can't be a citizen unless you're black.

Since the election of Donald Trump, hate crimes have been on the rise. White supremeists have been emboldened. Anti-immigrant rhetoric has intensified. We condemn these awful examples of prejudice and bias and hate, but systemic racism is something different. It’s less about violence or burning crosses than it is about everyday decisions made by people who may not even think of themselves as racist. As sociologist Eduardo Bonilla-Silva has said, "The main problem nowadays is not the folks with the hoods, but the folks dressed in suits."

Systemic racism persists in our schools, offices, court system, police departments, and elsewhere. Why? Think about it: when white people occupy most positions of decision-making power, people of color have a difficult time getting a fair shake, let alone getting ahead.

In order to discredit them.

In your opinion.

There is only one logical reason to make fun of someone.

It doesn't come close to systemic racism, either. Even if it did, it's in the past. Even if it was in the present, Ramshutu and I was talking about the US.

I thought you were interested in discussing human behavior in general terms.

Well, I'm not saying that everyone's attraction should be solely judged in terms of personality. That's not how the world works. People discriminate their preferences along racial lines. IMHO, THIS IS NOT A SOCIAL PROBLEM. Perhaps, I might agree that they are superficial, but that's about the extent of my amateur criticism.

I think there are more important priorities. For example, grief and sadness among divorced couples are often expressed in anger, which escalates violence. Now that is a SOCIAL PROBLEM. 

... would be like you marrying a horrendously overweight woman who is 3'10 and 300 lbs. Yes, she's a great cook, an esteemed mechanical engineer and has a love for knowledge, but would you really ignore her physically revolting body for the rest of your life, just because there's "not a reason to follow [the shallowness]?"

Lol. That doesn't sound too bad. Sounds really worth it for the fact that she's smart lulz. I suppose bad hygiene is a red flag. 

But if you can hold out against a woman who doesn't have a love for knowledge, but has a smoking hot body with a pleasant personality who is heavily into you, I'd be amazed.

Why not? Can't men refrain from physical attraction once in a while? Unless they're athletes who happened to have athletic wives, I think ideas of love deserve better than just "slamming-genitals". I'm pretty sure the Greeks had their own idea of sex. All things considered, their idea of love also differed from mine. 

I understand the need for couples to have problems meshing together with them, all for the sake of prolonging romantic sparks in their married life. I understand the need to prepare for the inevitable "itch" in which the novelty of love dries off. But what I don't understand is why women insist on deriding poorer men as bums and why men insist on deriding fat, unattractive women as bums. Just look at anti-feminists, they're always whining about how fat feminists tend to be. Most of the critics also happen to be men. 

In order to discredit them.

Do you think that perhaps Germans grow up exposed to stories in which Russians are commonly portrayed as venal souls ?

the first news source to be banned by Wikipedia as an unreliable source of information.

the people going onto the planes very obviously  want to leave afghanistan if they are going into the planes.... 

Yeah, anyone living in a sh*thole country would get on a plane in a heartbeat to go to a first world nation with a robust welfare state that will coddle them.

So, to deter them, it would be better to mimic the 'shithole' tendencies? 

Right, gotcha.

And I'm telling you: no, make your own damn argument lol.

False, argument from repetition (61):Saying it again doesn’t make it any less dishonest.

I am. If I provided a complete argument demonstrating systemic racism,  you’d be weighing in on my hypothesis too... just this way; you can weigh in on one thing at a time, rather than all at once.

This is his arguments on complex issues work.

You're the one who claims that systemic racism exists.

You're the one who needs to show that it does.

False, argument from repetition (62): Yes; absolutely; bingo. Let’s start by asking if you have any issues with my broad hypothesis.

My argument is asking you to weigh in on a hypothesis

If you accept my hypothesis as logically valid

Regardless, I just want to point out that I believe in assimilation, especially when it comes to immigrants.

How else can you expect Nigeria to survive other than it heavily favoring its own citizens. Imho, some levels of discrimination against foreigners are acceptable. Nigeria could be an ethnostate and I would still think it's okay. 

I just think immigrants have a duty to assimilate, or alternatively, they can always return or migrate back to their home countries. 

https://www.infomigrants.net/en/post/30964/denmark-30-limit-on-nonwesteners-in-neighboorhoods-proposed

I know the link is unrelated to the OP, but what are your thoughts on the recent Danish policy against minorities?

Arguments are bi-directional.

Are you suggesting that (in your own mind) it is impossible to sincerely misunderstand and or disagree with your claims ?

Why else would you engage in negative commentary directed at your interlocutor ?

Are you fond of engaging in rampant NON-SEQUITUR statements of pure OPINION ?

Why have the Germans and the Russians been killing each other for hundreds of years ?

I don't know lol

What's your point?

Have you considered that perhaps it's because of SYSTEMIC RACISM ?

I'm not sure your apparent confidence is warranted.

Any (negative) commentary directed AT THE SPEAKER is quite technically an AD HOMINEM ATTACK.

RATIONAL CONVERSATION aims to address the logic of the claims presented.

Why have the Germans and the Russians been killing each other for hundreds of years ?

I’m trying to present an argument

As for demonized, you're pretty damn anti-white

Can you show me a post I have made that is anti-white? I actually am confused.

Wow, I didn't know that you had to submit a research paper to get your Grand Wizard rating.  Well, it makes sense.

Your core values are the very thing that ultimately determines your position on anything. If you believe we should raise the minimum wage, at the very least you have to believe that government has a big role to play in ensuring workers are treated fairly.

You do not need to be able to articulate your core values or even be consciously aware of them, they are there whether you know about them or not, whether you understand them or not. That’s why the whole idea of debating is to explore those values as they are tested against someone else’s. So when debating someone who refuses to discuss them, that tells me a lot about the person that I’m dealing with. 

Regarding your second paragraph, you claimed that it’s wrong to make policy without regard to politics or biology. We all know that politics plays a role in policy and as a society we damn near unanimously agree that it shouldn’t so I find this to be a very bizarre statement. The fact that politics always plays a role is the very reason people hate and do not trust politicians. When someone says “this is all about politics” they’re literally saying this policy either makes no sense or is not being enacted for valid reasons.

And as far as biology goes, If we’re talking about collective biology, as in all of our biologies then yes, of course it would. But what you’re talking about is splicing up the population along racial lines, determining what differences we can discern, and then base policy off of those differences. And setting aside the fact that you have yet to give a clear example of what that would even look like, the biological differences between us are so small that whatever differences are established would be too insignificant for any policy considerations to even make sense.

Do you support policy that is not logical? Yes or no?

What you do is dodge and demonise the opponent's way of attacking you

That's because it's Ad Hominem, you silly twit.

...

 you try your best to sledgehammer in your 'white supremacist' or 'fascist' Ad Hominems against me, don't get your panties in a bunch when you get called out on Ad Hominem and I intentionally avoid it.

I cannot find many better examples of 'case in point' with the direct reply someone gives to an accurate callout of their methods.

Have you attempted to charitably paraphrase your understanding of their position ?

Perhaps they're aiming for "comedic effect" ?

The glaring question now is, if economics do not account for the difference we see, what does?

Do you have an idea?

I presented a starting point for us to work up from - to allow honest engagement, repeatedly justified that stating point - you in response you have lied, misrepresented, name called, asserted, straw-manned, ignored everything said, and have engaged in what can only be described as systematic intellectual dishonesty; and profound bad faith. 

If you put this much effort, time and energy into arguing so dishonestly about a single, logical question that forms the starting point for an Enquirey - I shudder to think the lengths to which you will go if I present 100.

You’re clearly here in bad faith; and your inability to argue, and continued dishonesty just makes it more necessary that we start at the beginning.

Imagine, for a moment, a systemically racist system over a period of more than 100 years that puts policies in place to overtly criminalize, financially and politically disadvantage, and facilitate the social decohesion of a given race.

When those overt policies are taken away; you can replace them with policies and behaviours that maintain that criminalization, financially and politicial disadvantage, and the social de-cohesion; - identical effects on those races - and simply blame it on non race related things

Have you caused the loss of generational wealth in a race, tied schools to the local area, precipitated white flight? Will the cycle of poverty will keep that going?

Did you over police black neighbourhoods because you criminalize being black, and overtly criminalize drugs used by African Americans over those used by whites, and used it to precipitate a period of mass incarceration; that damaged the generational social fabric? Well now you don’t have to pretend that blacks are dangerous criminals; the poverty, lack of schools and break down of the social fabric of many cities - that one will keep taking care of itself too. Right?

I mean: if you overpolice where there is most crime, arrest innocent people in that area that fit a description, or fit a criminal profile, or police them in a way that is more likely to lead to a detection of a crime , force them to plea bargain because they’re poor; send them to prison, give them tough parole conditions that makes it hard to hold down regular inflexible jobs they could find as an ex-con once they leave; then throw the book at them if they then turn to crime, or violate parole; breaking up families, leading to social de-cohesion that then increases poor behaviour at school, and can increase criminality - you only have to do it for so long before you can say you’re only criminalizing them because they’re criminals - ignoring that the criminality is in part historically because they have been criminalized...

When the policies get presented to the public, they'll filter it through their tribal biases, primarily their race. 

This always happens.

Which is completely irrelevant to the question of what government policy should be. But I at least thank you for making it crystal clear that you have no philosophical grounding to anything you argue.

It's an irrelevant tangent to talk about purely theoretical questions involving systemic racism, so your question isn't worth answering. There is a multitude of data/research/studies that you could reference to make the case that the past has impacted the future, in regards to policy involving race, but you've decided to ignore all of it and post a 'what if?' question that doesn't prove your case.

Fyi "whether race should play a role in government policy" isn't "primarily a philosophical debate". It's actually a primarily debate about whether you recognize human biology or not, and only becomes a primarily philosophical debate if you choose/accidentally ignore that.

And proven yet again.

It’s not possible to have a conversation about what anything should be without relying on your core values to ground your position, so it’s awfully telling when someone refuses to discuss their core values.

You don’t really believe your own BS and/or you are not secure enough in them to put them out there. You want to argue your beliefs but you don’t want to defend them.

Again, provide an argument proving that systemic racism exists, or else you don't have one lol.

That’s not the topic of our conversation genius.

What you do is dodge and demonise the opponent's way of attacking you

Let’s start by building up a common set of assumptions that we can work up from

because your approach is not capable of generating a valid discussion due to all the reasons I just said.

Ram is a debate board alum. Their focus is to win debates, not win arguments by sound logic. So they will try to bog you down with semantics and defining your argument for you, and then insist that their definition is your argument.

He cares nothing about the rationality of the arguments, his eye is on the "voters" who will "hand" him a win with their clique votes. He's not in formal debate, but he's unable to come out of DDO's shifty debate mode.

If you beat him bad enough, one of his clique will chime in with a post that serves as a "vote" against you and for him. And both of them will claim you are wrong, and he's won.

I have offered a starting point argument...

A "starting point" argument. Lol.

I have offered a starting point argument; which you have refused to consider, which will then be used to build a case for systematic racism after building up a common set of agreed principles. You have refused to argue.

I am awaiting your response to the initial argument; you have spend dozens of posts trying to evade answering, and launching into an ever decreasing tailspin of angry assertions about why you don’t want to respond to valid arguments.

name calling isn't a substitute for an argument.

At some point, you may want to consider actually providing a response to actual arguments

you have simply restated your arguments from the last post.

Who do you think the policy is for? Rocks? Aliens on Mars? Imaginary ghosts?

I'm talking about policy for humans. Therefore, that policy needs to take into account human nature.

There's no point in getting hyper-cerebral and developing policy that isn't for humans.

Policies take into account that which is relevant to the policy itself. Please provide one example of a policy in which an individual’s race should play a role in how the policy applies to them.

What annoys me is that your entire claim to fame here and rebuttal to charges of being a racist is that race should play a role in government policy, yet you absolutely refuse to talk about government policy. That’s absurd.

"Racist" is a nonsense, malicious term, so that's a non-starter: Racism is a nonsense, malicious term v2.0 (debateart.com) .

What a ridiculous response.

You got so triggered by the word racist that you completely ignored the point I was making and linked to a whole discussion about the word racist, even though I used the word in the context to explain what others are calling you to criticize your response to it.

Wow.

Facts and data are not arguments and cannot form conclusions, that requires logic. So it’s pointless to go back and forth with someone on the facts when that person cannot even answer a question so simple as “do you believe the past impacts the present?”. 

All you're doing is proving that your argument doesn't have any facts or data.

Provide them or concede the point.

I talked about why it’s pointless to go back and forth with you about facts in response to your ask that I provide them to prove systemic racism, something I have not alleged here because it is not the topic of our conversation.

The conversation we are and have been having is whether race should play a role in government policy. That’s primarily a philosophical debate, and one we need to have before we can get into a fact battle regarding systemic racism. Why? Because our philosophical positions will determine how we interpret the facts so it’s pointless to move on without  resolving our differences there.

Uh……. God one?

Everyone can see your pattern by reviewing the threads you've made and posts you've made across your accounts.