Mesmer

-->

@dfss9788

Well here's the big map of average genetic distance between populations if that's how you want to vote.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bf/Genetic_similarities_between_51_worldwide_human_populations_%28Euclidean_genetic_distance_using_289%2C160_SNPs%29.png

So, like, uh, what color box on this thing do they got to be before they're "your people" ? You're white, right? The Uyghurs aren't having a blue box. They're having a white box! Does this mean the Uyghur genocide is the real white genocide?

EDIT: Are these your people, too?

https://freebeacon.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Palestinians.jpg

They got pretty warm colors on the box map with all the other Europeans.

What you've decided to argue is the old, dumb and wrong continuum fallacy argument wherein you implicitly question the validity of races based on implying distinctions between races are sometimes too hard to see, therefore races don't exist (or in your special case, your conclusion is that Uyghurs and Palestinians are my race because to you, there aren't clear genetic distinctions between them and me).

I'll use the simple analogy first. We already recognize and use color name to describe hues and shades of colors. "Red" is distinct from "green", for example. We can sometimes find it difficult to distinguish between colors when they are close in hues when we have "red-orange" and "red", and sometimes it gets even more difficult than that. Despite the difficulty in assessing the difference between some colors, we don't throw the whole social constructed names of colors out. We don't start saying 'green color?! That's awfully close to this other shade of green that I found! I guess that's not really a green color you're referring to after all!'

For the science, races fit into distinct genetic clustered groups with virtually 100% accuracy if you use sufficient SNP or loci. Bamshad (2003) found that if you use 160 loci, you can fit the entirety of humanity into Asian, African and European and only have Asian not fit at 100% (it's 99%). PrpZbSl.png (460×611) (imgur.com) Bamshad then looked at K=4 and got results that further sorted humans into racially distinct groups with even more accuracy Human Population Genetic Structure and Inference of Group Membership (nih.gov) . Alloco (2007) looked at SNPs (up to 100) and found similar findings as to Bamshad's 100 loci results (97% overall fFYScwp.png (635×384) (imgur.com) ) 1471-2164-8-68.fm (nih.gov) . Guo (2015) used 384 SNPs in the ROOM study, and used 1,536 SNPs in the ADD study. His results echoed the other's findings Genetic Bio-Ancestry and Social Construction of Racial Classification in Social Surveys in the Contemporary United States (nih.gov) . White people matched at 99.5% and 99.4% respectively. Africans perfectly matched 100% of the time in the ADD study. So, when we use more genetic markers, the differences between races become clearer, and we have 100% distinction when you use sufficient genetic markers.

Also, I never said "genocide" lol. All I argued was that people who don't vote based on race get crushed at elections if they're up against people who do. How you twisted that into "genocide" is a modern mystery.

Created:

4 years ago

2

Posted in:

-->

@oromagi

when you consider that all the false narratives and slurs levelled against whites CANNOT be talked about whites because they would be "racist" to do so.
false. You seem to talk of nothing else.

I've already addressed above where the latter part of my sentence is correct.

The false narratives that are anti-white are all as follows, wherein anti race-realists deny human races/significance of human races. Let's walk you through the false narratives:

That human races don't exist (wrong. Dead wrong: The Existence of Race – The Alternative Hypothesis ).

That there is more genetic variation within races and between, therefore human races don't exist (wrong, but it's true for total genetic markers, but wrong for the total variance generated by markers which creates racial differences: Variation Within and Between Races – The Alternative Hypothesis )

That race is a "social construct", therefore human races are arbitrary (wrong, although human races are "social constructs" in the technical sense: https://thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/04/15/race-is-a-social-construct/ ).

That racial equality is possible (wrong. Dead wrong: The Impossibility of Equality – The Alternative Hypothesis )

That IQ is not valid (wrong. Dead wrong: https://thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/04/15/the-validity-of-iq/ )

That cultural bias skews the results of IQ tests (wrong. This doesn't happen for g loaded ones, which is where the data is derived: https://thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/04/15/cultural-bias-on-iq-tests/ )

That IQ doesn't test for all kinds of intelligence (wrong. It tests for all g loaded types: https://thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/04/15/multiple-intelligences-emotional-intelligence-creativity-and-g/ )

That low SES/poverty causes differences in racial outcomes, that biology has nothing to do with it (wrong: IQ and Socio-Economic Status – The Alternative Hypothesis https://thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/04/15/race-iq-and-poverty/ )

That lead poisoning is the only reason there is a white-black IQ/outcome gap (wrong: https://thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/12/23/race-iq-and-lead/ ).

That the black-white IQ gap is closing, therefore it's not genetic (wrong: https://thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/09/10/the-flynn-effect-race-and-iq/ )

That the Black arrest rate in the US is due purely to "systemic racism" or "racial bias in policing", rather than biological differences (wrong: Race and Crime: the Causes of Black Crime Rates – The Alternative Hypothesis )

That racial diversity is a source of strength (wrong: Ethnic Diversity: Strength or Weakness? – The Alternative Hypothesis )

That American slavery and Native American genocide narratives taught in US schools is accurate (wrong: History – The Alternative Hypothesis ).

That white privilege exists (wrong: White Privilege – The Alternative Hypothesis ).

false. I did not label anybody anything. I cited SPLC's warning that Gottfredson's funding, research, and outcomes were White Supremacist in origin, among the many reasons given was that Gottfredson concludes that the average black person is naturally mentally retarded and that the only thing that accounts for higher IQs in African-Americans is from white genes. Seems pretty literally "white supremacist" to me.

You labelled the Pioneer fund, and thus everyone involved in it, as white supremacist (among other things).

If you're not interested in having a discussion about the facts, but are instead going to slander and appeal to authority every chance you get, go waste someone else's time.

Nobody is pretending that Gottfredson's IQ research is impartial. She is paid by the Pioneer Fund for the same specific outcomes shared by all research done at the Pioneer Fund's requests: that white people are superior to black people.

You called them "white supremacist" yet their findings often have Asians and Jews as superior, in regards to IQ research. Your argument is slanderous and nonsensical.

White supremacists claim overall superiority, not superiority in every trait. White supremacists cede physical superiority to blacks but claim superiority in intelligence and work ethic. Likewise, white supremacists cede intelligence and work ethic to Asians but claim physical superiority and individuality as traits that make Whites superior.

You haven't proven they're "white supremacist".

Why aren't Jews being studied as White people? Doesn't a primarily religious separation suggest that categories are really much more socially constructed than researchers acknowledge?

Because Jews and White people aren't the same race lol. They're more similar than other races for sure, but not the same.

I implied nothing. I rebutted nothing. I argued nothing. I documented the SPLC's warning regarding Gottfredson's research and financing, which you failed to do.

You called them white supremacist by quoting the SPLC and appealing to their authority.

You conceded that I correctly applied Wikipedia's definition of valid ad hom and then you lied about the nature of my argument.
I twice argued that your data was "exposed to skepticism" because of the established political agenda attached to funding which you characterize as

I conceded nothing; I noted.

Yes, you applied Wikipedia's FALSE definition correctly. No, that does not make the definition correct.

you're essentially arguing that because their conflict of interest *might* have caused the research to be biased, it *has* to be biased
I argue "exposed to skepticism" which you interpret as "*has* to be biased" (your emphasis)
Wikipedia and I are clear about the nature of ad hom, the silliness arises from your lack of comprehension.
Mulinos, et al published a series of studies in the 30's showing that the addition of diethylene-glycol made cigarette smoke less irritating to the eyes and throat,
It is a valid ad hom to point out that Phillip Morris paid for those studies and then used that data to promote Lucky Strikes as the least irritating cigarette.
The data, in isolation, is accurate enough but it is totally legit to point out that the data was purpose built and totally disinterested in the larger question of whether or not Lucky Strikes were toxic.
Likewise, it a valid ad hom to point out the Pioneer Fund provides the financing behind all of the science you cite and that
that fund was founded with an explicitly racist purpose:
"race betterment" by promoting the genetic stock of those "deemed to be descended predominantly from white persons who settled in the original thirteen states prior to the adoption of the Constitution."
I don't argue that therefore the data must be inaccurate,
In fact, I believe several follow-ups have backed The Bell Curve's stats
I do question the value of g in assessing intelligence (which we've agreed is incomplete)
I do question the value of assessing g according to skin color and religion.
I would question any public policy recommendation based on such assessments.

Again, yes, it's reasonable to assume that a study if more likely to be biased if it has a conflict of interest. No, that does not DISPROVE a study in itself. This is why Wikipedia is wrong with its interpretation of Ad Hominem: it's perfectly possible for a study to have reasons to be bias yet be accurately compiled.

Again, if a study was incorrectly formed based on this bias, you need to demonstrate where that occurred. Again, a study isn't invalided if there is a CHANCE that it is more LIKELY to be bias.

To be blunt: ad hominem is never valid and Wikipedia is wrong about it being "sometimes" valid. Again, the validity of the study isn't determined by whether there could be bias or not. You need to demonstrate that the study is wrong on something, otherwise, arguing that the study is wrong because of bias is Ad Hominem (a logical fallacy).

Instead of being caught up in your stupid slanderous game, this is the question you should be answering: are their studies wrong? You've already answered the question by saying "I don't argue that therefore the data must be inaccurate". Therefore, the bias hasn't yet manifested in inaccurate findings, and therefore hasn't yet mattered.

Also, I never agreed that "g" is "incomplete". I argued that it's difficult to capture it fully through proxy of IQ.

Furthermore, we're not assessing "g" based on "skin color". It's based on human races which are FAR MORE than mere skin color. These are biologically distinct groups down to DNA.

That is my evaluation and we've already agreed on sources here.
Bell Curvers (incl. Gottfredson) state that average IQ of sub-Saharan Africans is 71 and
that the 70-75 range is threshold for mental retardation.
Therefore, the average Black African is disabled, limited in ability to communicate, self-care, self-direct, work, etc.
Bell Curvers (incl. Gottfredson) state that average IQ of Black Africans is 85 and
this is not due to environment or education as much as because "Almost all Americans who identify themselves as black have white ancestors" (Gottfredson, Mainstream Science)
The validity of the data is totally irrelevant to the assertion of racial supremacy here. Bell Curvers (incl. Gottfredson) are unequivocally asserting white superiority if the average, unadulterated black person's natural genetic outcome is defined as limited in their ability to even take care of their own affairs.

So if you don't believe the data is wrong, what is the problem with it? Why do you feel the need to racially slur white people because the data they collected accurately captures the cognitive abilities of these sub-Saharan Africans? Unless you can disprove the data, you're racially slurring scientific fact. Do you understand how damaging you're being? Let's just make it plainly clear what you believe:

(1) The data in the Bell Curve is accurate (at least to a large extent)

(2) The data in the Bell Curve is "white supremacist"

Again, you are attempting to slur genuine scientific enquiry with a nasty label.

No. The crux of my stance is that making up fake "non-literal" interpretations of words is special pleading and so your false claim of injury lacks any credibility. Your hurt feelings arise from your unique interpretation of the term which has no semantic basis in works of reference. If you are going to base arguments on sources that are deemed extreme by this site's standards, by SPLC's standards, by Wikipedia's standards, etc., then you must expect those sources will be sometimes challenged as extreme beliefs unsupported by the scientific consensus.

You've been documented in applying this "non-literal" interpretation yourself -- you're living proof that your argument is wrong. Either you're applying a false definition (wtf), or the definition you're applying is true AND I'M RIGHT in pointing it out as a non-literal definition. You can't appeal to authority saying that the definition doesn't exist, but then apply the definition in your own writing LOL.

Created:

4 years ago

2

Posted in:

-->

@Double_R

The topic of this conversation has been whether race realism *should* play any role on government policy, so unfortunately almost nothing you argued addresses anything I’ve said.

Race will always play a role, there is no getting around that. But we can’t evaluate whether that’s a good thing without a standard to hold it against. If we begin with the position that race shouldn’t play a role, only then can we criticize those who invoke it. But your position as far as I understand is that race should, so I’m not sure exactly what you’re criticizing.

To the extent that I believe race should play a role in government policy it’s in regards to dealing with injustices that occurred because of a wrongful focus on race. That however is a very different thing than grouping individuals by race and using some kind of genetic “realism” to determine what our policies should be.

If humans didn't have such a pronounced racial bias, yeah it shouldn't. If we were race blind and voted based on policy instead of racial in-group biases, yeah it shouldn't.

However, what I've demonstrated is that your fantasy world of racial blindness DOESN'T EXIST. You agree with the notion that race will always play a role, and that "there is no getting around that". You understand what you are arguing for is pure fantasy, a true impossibility, yet you continue to posit that's what we should strive for.

So, because what you argue for *can't* exist, we should then focus on race-based policies that help the most amount of people. In China, if your platform is to help "the most amount of people, regardless of race", and another candidate runs for office based on "lactose intolerance affects most Chinese people. We need to resolve this issue to help Chinese people", YOU LOSE 100% of the time because Chinese people have racial in-group bias which is more pronounced than their belief in policy. Again, we saw this with my US election examples wherein African Americans agreed with conservatives, sometimes even "strongly", and yet still voted for Barrack Obama anyway -- race trumps policy.

If you don't vote based on your race, if you're so high-minded that you vote based on 'principles' or 'Libertarian based philosophy', you get smacked around by the other racial groups WHO DO vote based on their race. If you sit around and "criticize" those who act based on race-based policy, your voice doesn't count because they are in power, not you. Your argument isn't only (by your own words) something where "there is no getting around [race]" (you know, self-defeated from the get-go), but it's a cuck stance wherein you will always eventually get steamrolled by those playing the race-based political game.

That's why we should vote based on genetic realism.

Created:

4 years ago

2

Posted in:

-->

@oromagi

[Quoting Wiktionary and other definitions. Also demonstrating that dictionaries will sometimes account for figurative definitions.]

If the definition of "white supremacist" was purely any of these definitions, then I'd have no argument with you. It's fine that "white supremacist" could have a purely literal definition.

However, as I've demonstrated numerous times, all "white nationalist" groups have been labelled as "white supremacist" by Wikipedia. Conversely, NO OTHER race's national group has been labelled that race's supremacist group by Wikipedia. So, it appears that forming a white group is labelled as "white supremacist", something that is unexplained by ANY of the definitions you've provided. We've also seen "white supremacist" labels be applied to research conducted on IQ that has nothing to do with race.

So, either:

(1) Your and other's application of "white supremacist" is wrong when used to describe white groups and research done by whites

(2) There is non-literal meaning that is NOT specified by any of the definitions you cited

There is no other possibility -- you are contradictory in arguing there is no problem.

False. All three examples- Lynn, Rushton, Gottfredson are clearly identified by SPLC as white supremacists in the literal, whites-are-superior sense, which is the only sense of that term.

Once again, you've decided to appeal to authority. Once again, you need to demonstrate why these people should be labelled as "white supremacist" instead of merely appealing to authority (and we're not even sure the SPLC is an authority on anything).

There is no double-secret non-literal non-dictionary sense of the term WHITE SUPREMACIST that supports Mesmer's claim of secret attack.
Sorry, that is just pure bullshit (in the figurative sense)
[...]
Because there's no such thing a secret, non-literal meaning of "white supremacist"

Then it must logically follow you are using the (only) literal definition of "white supremacist" incorrectly.

If you want to concede this, then feel free to.

Mesmer thinks that Trump was deliberately trying to insult all Caucasians just before the election last fall by condemning White Supremacy in its secret, non-literal sense. Mesmer likewise claims that FBI Director Wray was just trolling white people generally he warned of the rise in White Supremacist terrorism this spring.
Does such a claim make any sense to anybody else or is Mesmer here living is his own super secret bubble of special pleading?

None of my claims at all lol.

My claim about Trump was this: "Yes, white supremacist is a racial slur, regardless of who says it, even if that person is Trump." "White Supremacist" is a racial slur (debateart.com) .

My claim about FBI Director Wray was this: "I've got no problem with white terrorists who shoot up mosques or schools because they're non-white being labelled as "white supremacists" and "violent extremists"." "White Supremacist" is a racial slur (debateart.com)

I have no idea why you decided to lie about what I said when I can disprove it so easily.

White people have become so disenfranchised in western countries,
false

Firstly, when entities like you and Wikipedia attempt to call white groups "white supremacist", and when entities like you and the SPLC label scientific work from white people as "white supremacist", that's disenfranchisement. So, you're already off to a bad start.

Secondly, white people are becoming the non-supermajority in many of their countries, and hence they're less able to vote for issues that affect them, and other racial groups are able to DEMAND for things that benefit only them (such as black only spaces: "Allison Hill is the founder of the Toronto-based Black-only space Restore." Pandemic pushes Black-only spaces online — here’s what happened next | Globalnews.ca BLM Philly: Black-only spaces are a gathering place to 'organize, heal' (inquirer.com) Seattle ‘Autonomous Zone’ Creates Black-Only Segregated Area | The Daily Wire ------ Demands for more Black only spaces: 5 Reasons We Need Black-Only Spaces (And No, Reverse Racism Isn’t One of Them) - Everyday Feminism No, Black-Only Safe Spaces Are Not Racist. (wearyourvoicemag.com) Black students demand segregated spaces from white students | The College Fix The Arrow | Why People of Color Need Spaces Without White People (arrow-journal.org) ).

Thirdly, I can elaborate on the first point by saying that some people call white (unorganized) groups "microaggressions" University Report: A Room Full of White People Is a Microaggression | National Review . All the policy changes suggested in this review were aimed at reducing white numbers in these classes.

Fourthly, we can observe how political parties can be attacked for being "too white", as the Tea Party was "The party of white people": How the Tea Party took over the GOP, armed with all the wrong lessons from history | Salon.com . The GOP was attacked for being "too white" GOP soul-searching: 'Too old, too white, too male'? - POLITICOPOLITICOSearchSearchCloseBack ButtonSearch IconFilter Icon .

Fifthly, the US army has had its white troops be the focus of an anti-white campaign because they have "white privilege" Here’s That Wonderful ‘White Privilege’ Course US Army Soldiers Had to Take | The Daily Wire . Moreover, they argue that these white military people need to be aware that their achievements in life are to be discounted because of the color of skin. This attempt to strip whites of their positions/achievements has come from other angles, too: Report: Too many whites, men lead U.S. military (nbcnews.com) Is the military really too white and too male? | The Week Officials Say US Special Forces Are Too White And Too Male | The Daily Caller Even the POW flag was attacked for being "too white", despite most of America's military has been historically white. Instead, they wanted to put a NON-WHITE on the flag The Story Behind the POW/MIA Flag (newsweek.com) .

Sixthly, people from Los Angeles demanded that the LA fire department needs to become less white because it was too white New LAFD recruit class is nearly all male, overwhelmingly white - Los Angeles Times (latimes.com)

Seventhly, a Brooklyn school decided to cut its gifted & talented class because it was too white Brooklyn school cutting gifted program to boost diversity - New York Daily News (nydailynews.com) . The US federal government has also decided that AP classes are too white Finally, the US admits it: AP classes are way too white — Quartz (qz.com) .

Eighthly, some people actually believe that "you cannot be racist against white people" You Cannot Be 'Racist' Against White People (dailydot.com) .

I have more but you get the point -- you're dead wrong.

and also plagued by white people who have white out-group bias
false

"White liberals" have been shown to have out-group racial bias against white people: white out group bias - Bing , white out group bias - Bing and white out group bias - Bing . Again, I have more studies that make the same argument but you get the point -- you're dead wrong.

speaking out against injustices against white people is considered "racist" or "bigoted".
false

Called "racist" for arguing against the misapplication of slander against whites: Racism is a nonsense, malicious term (debateart.com)

Called "racist" for because I (a white person) suggested that human subspecies exist, and that these genetic differences account for different outcomes (rather than systemic racism) Racism is a nonsense, malicious term (debateart.com)

Got called "racist" again for trying to explain the above Race Realism: Critical understandings (debateart.com) .

Got called "racist" yet again for trying to explain the same thing Race Realism: Critical understandings (debateart.com) .

Here is someone ready to call me a "racist", regardless of how I defend race realism, purely because I am arguing race realism explains the racial outcome differences Race Realism: Critical understandings (debateart.com)

Called "racist" for arguing race as a concept (and hence race explains racial outcomes in America) Racism is a nonsense, malicious term (debateart.com)

I think it's an injustice that children go without care from their biological parents You argued that white people were "racist" for believing that a parent needed to take care of their biological children, and that if the man was earning more money, then that means the mother should stay home. IQ is a Valid Metric (debateart.com)

Race realism potentially being valid (instead of the systemic racism nonsense you like to purport, of which illogically attacks white people) is "racist" and "bigoted" according to David Suzuki Rushton Refuted: David Suzuki vs. J. Philippe Rushton - YouTube .

Talking about race (when you're white) is considered "racist" by this person Why I’m no longer talking to white people about race | Race | The Guardian .

Anyone who doesn't believe in the white "oppression" of black people in America are "racist" (can't even discuss it without being "racist") How to talk about white privilege with people who don't 'get it' | Well+Good (wellandgood.com)

BBC believes that all these things are "racist": (1) biological differences between white and blacks are a myth, (2) having a homeland for your race, (3) geneaology tests can't prove someone is white, and (4) black people are better at running than white people. How to argue with a racist: Five myths debunked - BBC News

How many more instances do you need?

It's super sinister
false

Being attacked and silenced because of my race isn't sinister?

Created:

4 years ago

1

Posted in:

-->

@oromagi

I think we have established that you are big on claiming logical fallacies but don't understand that logical fallacies only occur during the construction of an argument. The structure of an argument can be challenged on architectural (formal) or material (informal) grounds. In the post to which you are replying I made no argument of any kind, so claims of fallacy only demonstrate your lack of understanding.

You're right in saying that logical fallacies only occur during the construction of an argument. However, that's exactly where your argument incurred this logical fallacy. Time and time again, you continued to say 'Wikipedia said this' (these are all your quotes) race "realism" is flawed (debateart.com):

- "Wikipedia redirects its definition of RACE REALISM to SCIENTIFIC RACISM and provides this definition:"

- "So, going by Wikipedia..."

- "...judging by the Wikipedia article..."

- "...also going by Wikipedia..."

You DIDN'T get into the specifics of defending the definitions, instead you just quoted mostly Wikipedia, and hence this is a textbook appeal to authority argument, of which is a logical fallacy.

Not ONLY did you appeal to authority, you totally ignored my reasoning and logic as to why we should reject Wikipedia's (and other sources) interpretation of race realist. NONE of my argument was addressed by you in a manner that wasn't an appeal to authority:

"I totally reject the notion of "racism" as being sensical Racism is a nonsense, malicious term (debateart.com) , so this is a non-starter for Wikipedia's definition. Before we can even judge the validity of Wikipedia's definition, we would first need to see a defense of "racism" as a concept, otherwise Wikipedia can't attempt to conflate "scientific racism" with "race realism" because racism is a nonsense term.

I also reject the conflation of "scientific racism" and "race realism". Race realism should reflect the terms that comprise it: race and realism. Race has not been shown to equal "racism" (whatever that means), and hence this conflation should be rejected on that ground. Race is about populations of people geographically separated that interbred and thus are genetically and physically distinguishable. You need to demonstrate that "racism" equates to that definition, elsewise we can reject Wikipedia's definition. I can agree that "scientific" and "realism" are close enough to be valid, though.

I also think there is great harm in attempting to maliciously slander 'race realist' with the nonsense, malicious term "racism". If we are to reject the notion of human races on the basis that they are "racist", then you're being egregiously anti-scientific. Unless you want to deny evolution, you must agree that humans living in different environments will evolve differently to adapt to their environments. Hence, humans races will be different because they adapted. To argue that all human races are exactly the same, despite evolving in different environments, is flat-Earth levels of wrong -- deeply harmful. The definition of race realism I provided accounts for the differences between humans, hence should be preferred."

Thus, we should reject your argument on the basis of it being an appeal to authority, and we should accept mine on the basic of its logic and reasoning (but also the fact that it remains uncontested on its logical grounds).

Obviously, every definition of terms relies on authority to establish common grounds. If your definition of the word THE is different from everybody else's, then it is entirely predictable that you are going to spend your whole debate defending your oddball definition. Relying on the authority of dictionaries up front allows us to establish a shared, common semantic base on which to conduct an argument. I'd go so far as to say that for most debates, everybody should define their terms up front. Most appeals to authority are legitimate. A prosecutor is making an appeal to authority when he brings an eyewitness to the stand but that is eyewitness is the most relevant, expert authority on the subject. An eyewitness knows more and so will likely will reveal more about the truth of that crime that mere deduction (Sherlock Holmes excluded).

Firstly, the audience isn't interested in you slandering my reasoning by labelling it "oddball", so you will stop with that nonsense.

Secondly, you misunderstand how definitions become universally accepted. Definitions do not rely on authority to establish common grounds -- this is an appeal to authority. Instead, definitions rely on cogent, logical reasoning IN ORDER to be commonly accepted -- the logic and reasoning drive the definitions to be universally accepted. Hence, I argue that Wikipedia's definition should be rejected on reasoning and logic, and when you retort 'that's not what Wikipedia says', then you commit the appeal to authority fallacy.

Thirdly, this misconception of the fallacy of appealing to authority is plaguing all your arguments here. In your court example, the witness isn't correct because he/she is a witness. Rather, the witness has evidence/reasoning/logic that will be most convincing -- merely being a witness DOESN'T make you correct (that's the appeal to authority fallacy). Most appeals to authority are NOT legitimate because it's the logic and reasoning that determines whether something is correct, NOT who is saying it.

In this case, both the instigator (drlebronski) and the contender (mesmer) offered customized definitions for the subject of debate RACE REALISM- which is itself not a particularly commonplace concept.

people who think black people are genetically inferior to white people
vs.
real racial differences between various groups of human races.

I provided reasoning and logic as to why my definition should be preferred (to which you've currently dropped, and drlebronski didn't challenge). That's why my reasoning and logic should currently be preferred. If you cannot address me on those grounds, if you insist on your appeals to authority, you lose the argument on logical grounds.

So, at the outset, you are both working with radically different definitions of the thesis' subject. Obviously, such a difference should be resolved before arguments are presented so that the both of you are talking about the same thing. For most such circumstance, I go to Wiktionary and Wikipedia first as the most popular online references and therefore most likely to achieve that shared, common semantic base necessary to productive argument.

Once again, the underlined highlights where you appeal to authority. You now add to your appeal to authority an appeal to ad populum, wherein you argue that because the definitions are popular (which you didn't even prove, btw), they should be preferred.

Every argument you've made thus far is some variation of a logical fallacy.

Now, Wiktionary says that RACE REALISM is just a euphemism for racist science so I checked WIKIPEDIA which redirects RACE REALISM to SCIENTIFIC RACISM which Wikipedia call pseudo-science. I pointed out drlebronksi's definition was much closer to the WIKIPEDIA definition.

More appealing to authority.

I think you are right to chastise drlebronski for not defining his term outright and a total hypocrite for then inventing your own definition. If you don't like WIKIPEDIA's definition then find an authoritative source with a definition that you like. If you can't find a definition that you like online, then the chances are good that it is your understanding of the term that's problematic.

So you're now saying that I can't use reasoning and logic to make my argument, and that I MUST find a better appeal to authority LOL.

If you are just going to make up your own definition, then you can't really fault drlebronski for doing the same. In fact, he did it first so there's not reason not to prefer his custom definition to yours.

I explained why my definition should be preferred (to which you failed to respond to). You've appeal to authority and (in one instance) ad populum (both logical fallacies). Thus, on the basis of logic, my arguments should be preferred.

Created:

4 years ago

1

Posted in:

-->

@Double_R

No, I never agreed to that. What I argued was that all races would fare differently in any outcome metric because all humans would fare differently. I even used the example of twins to emphasize this point.

It’s not a race thing, it’s a human thing. Not sure how many times I need to repeat that.

The question of whether race is a valid concept depends entirely on what were talking about. Validity is a term in logic meaning that the conclusion follows from the premise. So what’s the premise? If we’re talking about appearances then race is a valid concept because we can use easily identifiable physical features to tell whether someone is of one race or another. But this conversation is about government policy. That’s an entirely different conversation and my position is and has always been that race plays no rightful role in that.

Alright so you agree that there are real biological distinctions between people, but you don't agree that we should group biological distinctions into racial groups.

What I argue is that certain races tend to be things more than other races. Like with the Chinese example I used, they tend be lactose intolerant (90%+), whilst other races have less people who are lactose intolerant. You then respond by saying that race is irrelevant, it's the lactose intolerance that the government needs to respond to, and any person with this intolerance (regardless of race) would benefit from governmental policy that addresses this.

Unfortunately, this is not how politics or people work. What actually happens is that people are tribalistic, they tend to party-up in terms of their race (can be other things, too, but race is the favourite) Imgur: The magic of the Internet , and then they do vote on their tribe's interest (which is usually their race's interest). That's one of the reasons why Black Americans of wildly different political ideologies (Liberal, Moderate and Conservative) ALL overwhelmingly voted for Barrack Obama Imgur: The magic of the Internet , Imgur: The magic of the Internet and Imgur: The magic of the Internet . That's part of the reason why most Black "strong Republicans" who thought the Republican party was the best party for Blacks, who thought the Democrat party (party in power at the time) was spending "too much" on Blacks, still voted for Barrack Obama anyway Imgur: The magic of the Internet .

Your idea of the 'government should be blind to race' is a nice idea, but it's not a real idea. However, if you want this neutral government, you're going to lose to other people WHO DON'T want this neutral government, who are happy to group into races are vote solely on that basis, and eventually get into power to govern with a racially biased slant towards their own race. So your ideology of an even playing field slowly gets chipped away by racially in-group biased people.

So, race DOES play a role in this, regardless of whether you want it to or not.

Created:

4 years ago

2

Posted in:

-->

@dfss9788

Race is largely the conspicuous natural features and/or shared ancestry. I'd say that most people do group people that way, but given that its a basis of categorizing people its not really meaningful to say that it is "real".

I don't understand how you can imply that race is a real genetic thing, that most people understand that it's real, and then conclude that it's not real. Are you saying that the "natural features" and/or "shared ancestry" aren't genetic? Are you saying that the way people group others is arbitrary? Your conclusion doesn't seem to follow your premises (the premises of which I agree with btw).

You can categorize people on any basis you want and your basis will be no more "real" than any other. You could categorize people based on shoe size and say "oh yes, shoe sizes are real" and you would be correct as people do have an objective shoe size.

In terms of people categorizing other people (into races), that is based on skin color and other phenotypic traits. Maybe you haven't seen the research on this, but this heuristic understanding of races is back-up by science. At the SNP and loci levels, people can be grouped into races with basically 100% accuracy (if you use at least 100 genetic markers). To be clear: these are not random groups. These are groups based on real, biological differences (referring to Bamshad 2003 in particular: The Existence of Race – The Alternative Hypothesis ). This is 100% real at the biological level.

Shoes sizes are representative of something real: differing foot sizes. Yes, shoe sizes are a social construct, but they're based on real biological differences. Similarly, races are social constructs, but they're based on real biological differences.

Created:

4 years ago

1

Posted in:

Then your argument defeats itself because combining "white" and "supremacist" doesn't create a whole new concept. Instead, white refers to the white race, and supremacist as someone who thinks they're/their group is the best
I’ve already explained this to you as have others in this thread. You are clearly just going to believe whatever you want so I’ll just leave you with the dictionary…

I used the meaning provided by you to show that your interpretation is contradictory to your overall argument, and therefore self-defeating. NB: you were not arguing the dictionary definitions here, even if you thought you were. But who cares because you're about to argue the better argument below.

[lots of definitions from different dictionaries/websites]

Notice how not one of these definitions begins with “a white person”.

I don’t have service where I’m typing this so if you’d like to verify the definitions feel free to Google them yourself, you might learn something.

Now you've gone back to arguing your original argument.

I would usually refer to the non-literal meaning to the word, but we're about to argue this below, so I'll elaborate down there.

My point was that black nationalists, Hispanic nationalists and Chinese nationalists aren't labelled as supremacist, yet white nationalists are. Do you see now how whites are being slurred for their nationalism, yet all the other racial groups aren't?
Nationalism and supremacy are not the same thing. Nationalism is about supporting a particular race, supremacy is about believing one race is better than the rest and should therefore dominate them.

The latter applied to any other race is nonsensical in today’s society. White people are clearly the current dominate race, so the idea that any other race will become the dominate race in the near future is not realistic. Conversely, the former is nonsensical for white people. Because white people are the dominate race, there is nothing to be in support of. How do you move up when you’re already on top? White nationalism is often used as a false label for white supremacy, apparently to the point where people like you really buy into the propaganda thinking they mean the same thing.

Finally, we have someone get the main point: nationalism and supremacy aren't the same thing. I 100% agree with you here. We're making progress.

Now, I'm going to repeat myself but it's an essential argument to address, let's again consider the fact that any country where a race is the majority tends to "dominate". There are exceptions to this (South Africa, Zimbabwe etc.), but these exceptions don't break the rule. So, in China, Chinese people "dominate" their country: "Han Chinese people are mostly concentrated in the People's Republic of China (Mainland China), where they make up about 92% of the total population." Han Chinese - Wikipedia . If China are the dominant group of people in China, then according to your logic, Chinese people in China should be called "Chinese supremacist". But, they are not (control+f for "supremacism": Chinese nationalism - Wikipedia ). As I've previously cited, the same argument can be made for Hispanic and Black nationalists, despite them being the racial majority (dominant) in certain parts of the world (South America and Africa etc.). Clearly, these are real world contradictions of your logic that we should call "dominate"[insert race] nationalism [insert race] supremacist.

You then go on to say "White nationalism is often used as a false label for white supremacy". Again, why is this logic not applied to other races and their nationalism? Also, you agree that all white nationalism isn't white supremacy, hence there exists white nationalism that shouldn't be labelled white supremacist, yet again our favorite friend Wikipedia has decided to say that all white nationalism overlaps into white supremacism "Analysts describe white nationalism as overlapping with white supremacism" White nationalism - Wikipedia . Is Wikipedia wrong, or are you wrong?

If I walk into China and start DEMANDING that they build churches and white only spaces for me, are they "entitled" for denying me that?
No one is demanding that the US government build spaces for black people only. This statement has nothing to do with this conversation or reality.

But I will that say you’d be on far more reasonable grounds to make that demand of the Chinese if the reason you were in China was because they dragged your ancestors here so they could enslave them for 400 years and build the country’s wealth on their free labor, then once finally freed gave your people nothing to compensate them for it.

Black only spaces already exist: "Allison Hill is the founder of the Toronto-based Black-only space Restore." Pandemic pushes Black-only spaces online — here’s what happened next | Globalnews.ca BLM Philly: Black-only spaces are a gathering place to 'organize, heal' (inquirer.com) Seattle ‘Autonomous Zone’ Creates Black-Only Segregated Area | The Daily Wire

Demands for Black only spaces already exists: 5 Reasons We Need Black-Only Spaces (And No, Reverse Racism Isn’t One of Them) - Everyday Feminism No, Black-Only Safe Spaces Are Not Racist. (wearyourvoicemag.com) Black students demand segregated spaces from white students | The College Fix The Arrow | Why People of Color Need Spaces Without White People (arrow-journal.org)

So, not only is it true that people demand Black only spaces, but these Black only spaces have already been allowed.

As for your slavery point, China engaged in slavery repeatedly throughout its history Slavery in China - Wikipedia . Wikipedia notes than even before 594 BC, slavery was a thing in China (a bit longer than the 400 years you wanted). China no longer has African or slaves of other races because most were worked until they dropped dead, which is a fate a tiny bit worse than African Americans in America, don't you think? Africans and African Americans in China: A Long History, A Troubled Present, and a Promising Future? • (blackpast.org) . So, in your book, I must be on far more "reasonable grounds" now :)

No, because you’re just wrong. ‘White supremacist’ points to a person’s ideology, not their race.

And even if it was referring to that persons race, it still would not be a racial slur because in that definition the race of the person is merely a descriptor. Your argument is like saying that calling someone a male whore is a slur against all males.

You also completely twist my argument on cotton picker. I explained to you, twice now, how it does apply to all black people. What is the problem here? Why can you not absorb this point?

Again, the white group point: if it was just about "ideology", then why are all white nationalist groups labelled "white supremacist" too? Even you agree that not all white nationalist groups are white supremacist ones, hence it appears "white supremacist" attacks white groups not based on ideology, but race, especially when we recognize that we don't consider Chinese nationalist, Hispanic nationalist and Black nationalist to all be [insert race] supremacist.

My argument has never been that if you call someone a racial slur, you're slurring all of that racial group. Again, you don't need to think every black person is the n word for the n word to be a racial slur. Likewise, you don't need to think every white person is a white supremacist for white supremacist to be a racial slur.

Other groups are fighting for equality, white groups are fighting for dominance. Those are not the same thing.

Yes, Chinese people in China are fighting for equality. They are clearly not the supermajority. Hispanics in Mexico are heavily oppressed by the overwhelming minorities of other races. South Koreans are overrun by the 4.9% of people in their country who are not Korean, and thus need to fight for equality.

Created:

4 years ago

1

Posted in:

This entire thread is a series of grasping at straws.

You haven't demonstrated this.

I'm not sure why it's even getting attention, it's so obviously nonsense that it needn't be addressed.

Circular reasoning. You need to demonstrate why your conclusion is that it's nonsense, rather than imbed it in your reasoning that it is nonsense.

'white supremacist' actually refers to the race being held supreme, it is only a coincidence that the white supremacist happens to themselves be 'white'.

That alone destroys your entire case, literally. Your case relies on the 'white' referring to the race of the supremacist but it is in fact referring to the race/appearance that the supremacists holds as supreme.

Again, there is non-literal meaning behind the term 'white supremacist'. So, "white supremacist" doesn't actually *only* refer to the race being held supreme, elsewise black nationalist groups in Africa would also be called "black supremacist" (they shouldn't be, according to Wikipedia), whilst white nationalist groups are "white supremacist" groups (they should be, according to Wikipedia). Hence, there is non-literal racial slurring of white people. If you had actually read the thread (you haven't), you would have seen this: "White Supremacist" is a racial slur (debateart.com) .

Created:

4 years ago

1

Posted in:

-->

@Double_R

If you don't want to respond to what I wrote to you
I did. Read post #62

I've read it already.

You're rejecting race realism on the grounds that you don't like what you see as the "white supremacist" talking points. That's fine and you're well within your rights to do that.

However, you are indeed a race realist because you believe human racial categories as valid concepts. That's all you need to be a race realist. You don't even have to agree there are valid policies that can extend from this. You can even argue that the differences between races are arbitrary.

You stopped responding to the Chinese lactose example I was discussing with you to jump to the discussion I was having with Thett. It seems like you want an excuse to reject race realism. But again, you don't need to believe in "white supremacist" talking points in order to believe in race realism. You can't reject race realism on this basis. You're already a race realist, it's just a matter of determining what flavor of race realist you are.

"Racism" and "racist" are nonsensical, malicious terms
They are perfectly sensical to everyone else.

That's a wild claim that you've failed to demonstrate at all. Good luck proving "everyone else" (you know, all 7 odd billion of them) believes that they are sensical. Surely you can understand how ridiculous a claim this is.

Also, the OP in the thread has received 5 likes Racism is a nonsense, malicious term (debateart.com) , so even in this small part of the world, people are agreeing with me that these terms are nonsense. So, we already know that you are wrong, so save yourself trying to prove the wild claim above.

Created:

4 years ago

2

Posted in:

-->

@oromagi

Oh great. Another massive appeal to authority (logical fallacy) by you.

Wikipedia redirects its definition of RACE REALISM to SCIENTIFIC RACISM and provides this definition:

Scientific racism, sometimes termed biological racism, is the pseudoscientific belief that empirical evidence exists to support or justify racism (racial discrimination), racial inferiority, or racial superiority. Historically, scientific racism received credence throughout the scientific community, but it is no longer considered scientific. Dividing humankind into biologically distinct groups is sometimes called racialism, RACE REALISM, or race science by its proponents. Modern scientific consensus rejects this view as being irreconcilable with modern genetic research

Yeah so this might shock your 'appeal to authority at every opportunity' brain: I don't agree with Wikipedia. We've already encountered instances where Wikipedia has been wrong (it thinks Ad Hom isn't a logical fallacy: IQ is a Valid Metric (debateart.com) ), (it's hypocritical in thinking all racial groups but white people are okay: "White Supremacist" is a racial slur (debateart.com) ).

I totally reject the notion of "racism" as being sensical Racism is a nonsense, malicious term (debateart.com) , so this is a non-starter for Wikipedia's definition. Before we can even judge the validity of Wikipedia's definition, we would first need to see a defense of "racism" as a concept, otherwise Wikipedia can't attempt to conflate "scientific racism" with "race realism" because racism is a nonsense term.

I also reject the conflation of "scientific racism" and "race realism". Race realism should reflect the terms that comprise it: race and realism. Race has not been shown to equal "racism" (whatever that means), and hence this conflation should be rejected on that ground. Race is about populations of people geographically separated that interbred and thus are genetically and physically distinguishable. You need to demonstrate that "racism" equates to that definition, elsewise we can reject Wikipedia's definition. I can agree that "scientific" and "realism" are close enough to be valid, though.

I also think there is great harm in attempting to maliciously slander 'race realist' with the nonsense, malicious term "racism". If we are to reject the notion of human races on the basis that they are "racist", then you're being egregiously anti-scientific. Unless you want to deny evolution, you must agree that humans living in different environments will evolve differently to adapt to their environments. Hence, humans races will be different because they adapted. To argue that all human races are exactly the same, despite evolving in different environments, is flat-Earth levels of wrong -- deeply harmful. The definition of race realism I provided accounts for the differences between humans, hence should be preferred.

So, going by Wikipedia, drlebronski's definition, "people who think black people are genetically inferior to white people" is not a complete definition and Mesmer is correct to say that RACE REALISM is not entirely White delusion regarding Black people although judging by the Wikipedia article the proponents of RACE REALISM are overwhelmingly White people and the inferiority of Black people is their favorite topic.

However, also going by Wikipedia, Mesmer's assertion that RACE REALISM is "about real racial differences between various groups of human races." is the more wrong statement about scientifically discredited pseudo-science.

If you can't defend Wikipedia's definition, then it shouldn't be accepted as a premise. You need to defend the definition before you argue it as an assumed premise.

Mesmer says drlebronski is "dead wrong" but going by the world's favorite reference tool, drlebronksi is at least partially accurate while Mesmer's definition is entirely inaccurate.

Yeah going by logic, instead of your typical appeals to authority (logical fallacy), Wikipedia's definition can be rejected. You didn't even appeal to authority correctly here, in that you forgot to source your "world's favorite reference tool".

Created:

4 years ago

1

Posted in:

"White Collar" is a Racial Slur

-->

@Discipulus_Didicit

Racial slur = slur against a race.

Sorry bud.

But I agree with this LOL.

Better pick that mic up again before people notice.

Created:

4 years ago

1

Posted in:

-->

@drlebronski

Sorry, but you don't get to define terms to mean whatever you want. Race realism is about real racial differences between various groups of human races. Race realism does not mandate that race realists believe that "black people are genetically inferior to white people". It's possible to believe that and be a race realist, but it's not required. It's also possible to be a race realist and believe white people are genetically inferior to black people.

Your definition is dead wrong.

I'll just assume you conceded the above.

You rely completely on heritability yet https://art1lib.org/ireader/63517532 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27906501/
"The term 'heritability,' as it is used today in human behavioral genetics, is one of the most misleading in the history of science. Contrary to popular belief, the measurable heritability of a trait does not tell us how 'genetically inheritable' that trait is. Further, it does not inform us about what causes a trait, the relative influence of genes in the development of a trait, or the relative influence of the environment in the development of a trait. Because we already know that genetic factors have significant influence on the development of all human traits, measures of heritability are of little value, except in very rare cases. We, therefore, suggest that continued use of the term does enormous damage to the public understanding of how human beings develop their individual traits and identities. "
also

Firstly, it's actually quite baffling that you'd imply that heritability is a completely false notion. Even Wikipedia, which often finds sneaky ways to distort reality to suit an anti-white agenda, doesn't even contemplate people rejecting the notion of heritability Heritability - Wikipedia .

This article engages in a whole bunch of sophistry and doesn't actually deny the validity of heritability (in fact it outright concedes it, just in a sneaky way). Even in the abstract, it's already equivocating that heritable with inheritable. Yes, heritability doesn't determine whether a trait is inherited. Instead, heritability refers to proportion of variance attributable to genetics.

In the very next sentence it continues with more sophistry by saying that because heritability doesn't "inform us about what causes a trait". Yes, heritability doesn't explain what "causes" traits. Again, it tells us the proportion of variance attributable to genetics, and so DOESN'T explain the parts that are NOT attributable to genetics.

The sentence after we have this sentence: "Because we already know that genetic factors have significant influence on the development of all human traits, measures of heritability are of little value, except in very rare cases." They concede the implications of heritability (that genetic factors have significant influence on the development of all human traits), and then go on to imply there's "little value" in measuring the variance LOL. Like why? What? In any case, this DIRECTLY contradicts YOUR argument that using heritability is wrong BECAUSE they concede that it's a valid concept, they argue that there's little value in measuring it (which is in itself completely debatable).

So, after reading the whole thing, they've basically never argued that heritability is a false concept, they've just engaged in a whole bunch of sophistry to say 'it's not the same as inherited', or 'there's little value in measuring it (because humans are complex, doesn't completely explain inherited traits blah blah)', or 'the term should be developmental resource, not heritability', or 'traits are complex' and 'heritability doesn't explain everything'. They just do this hand-waving the entire article without doing any research themselves to show heritability is a false concept. In other words, the source you've provided to imply that heritability is a false concept doesn't even argue that.

Hell, the very title of the article is sophistry in that at a glance, useful idiots like you would read it (because useful idiots like you only read the title and sometimes the abstract), and then conclude 'wElL tHiS sAyS hErItAbIlItY iS a FaLlAcY', without actually understanding they are NOT arguing that at all, but instead they're arguing that the public doesn't always understand heritability and confuses it with things like heritable, hence the fallacy.

Your interpretation of this article is embarrassingly bad and you should be ashamed that you're the useful idiot these people want reading their sophistry, so that you spew scientifically incorrect conclusions.

this work by Richard Nisbett, published in 2009) found that there is virtually no gap in heritability between ages 7 and 17

Do you actually read or comprehend any of the studies you post? Above, you've argued that heritability isn't a valid concept, and now you're citing a study that does acknowledge the validity of heritability, it just doesn't think it has an impact.

What are you doing lol.

The Flynn effect doesn't debunk the genetic heritability of IQ. The fact that the environment can cause large gaps in IQ doesn't disprove that genetic heritability plays a part. Nisbett and Flynn are correct in saying that the average IQ of African Americans has risen over the years. However, so too has the White (American) IQ. Generally, the fact is that the factors wherein the African American IQ has risen (environmental ones) aren't the factors that account for the black-white IQ gap (genetically heritable ones). Ryan Faulk puts it succinctly The Flynn Effect, Race, and IQ – The Alternative Hypothesis :

"...the Flynn effect and racial intelligence differences have nothing to do with each other. Intelligence differences between races and between generations are largely gaps in different abilities, to the degree that they are gaps in the same abilities they are produced by different causes, and the existence of a large gain in intelligence over time has no a priori implications on the causes of racial intelligence differences."
again you rely on heritability

Again, you do realize that this argument you make here (citing a paper referencing the Flynn effect) argues with the premise that heritability is a real concept? It seems that all you do is get angry that I argue race realist points, find anything in an abstract that appears to contradict what I write, and then post it here without reading any of the study beyond the abstract.

Race realist talking points aren't quick to understand or comprehend. You can't just read an abstract and assume you have the correct view. You need to actually comprehend the concepts involved, be able to process research data (p value, interpolation etc.) and THEN respond to what is being said.

If you don't understand what you are talking about at all (you don't), stop engaging in race realist topics and actually comprehend the basics involved first. For you to have a discussion on the topic of heritability, you need to first understand what heritability means. Go and learn that.

Created:

4 years ago

1

Posted in:

"White Collar" is a Racial Slur

-->

@drlebronski

There's not much to say because it's a troll post.

I will say that I think it's funny how he ran out of steam in an actual discussion "White Supremacist" is a racial slur (debateart.com) , then made this troll post in an attempt to mock the topic, likely because he doesn't have any actual arguments against it.

Created:

4 years ago

2

Posted in:

-->

@Double_R

You argued that a word does not have to apply to everyone in a race in order to be a racial slur

You do understand that you agreed with this, right? You do understand that if you no longer agree with this, you've changed your argument, right?

used cotton picker as an example. I then went on to explain why you’re wrong. I wasn’t explaining why cotton picker doesn’t apply to all black people, I was explaining how it does. Once again, those who were forced to pick cotton were so because they were black. The term is an attempt to dehumanize the individual by reminding them of a time when they would have been reduced to less than a human being because of their skin color. That is entirely about their race.

I agree that "cotton picker" is about race, hence making it a racial slur, but this wasn't the point of contention.

The point before I made was this: you previously said "white supremacist" doesn't apply to all white people. Furthermore, "white supremacist" DOES refer to race. Similarly, "cotton picker" doesn't apply to all black people. Furthermore, "cotton picker" DOES refer to race. Your logic is inconsistent because you think the first example is NOT an example of a racial slur, whilst the latter IS.

Read the title to your own thread; “White Supremacist" is a racial slur

Any word can be a slur to any one, if we’re talking about racial slurs then we’re talking about a slur directed at ones race. You cannot then argue that the word does not apply to others of that same race.

Right. So we agree that "white supremacist" is a slur.

I walked you through the non-literal meaning and how white groups/research are slurred, but Asian, Black, Hispanic etc. groups aren't. "White Supremacist" is a racial slur (debateart.com) This point is addressed in my other response to above, but if you want to single out white people for wanting white groups as being "entitled" or "white supremacist", and totally be fine with all other races wanting their own racial groups and NOT being labelled as "entitled" or "[insert race] supremacist", then you're racially biased against white people.

Created:

4 years ago

1

Posted in:

-->

@Double_R

Nonsense. Combining two words doesn’t create a whole new concept, it just combines the concepts within those two words. If I gave you hot chocolate served cold, it’s not hot chocolate. Nor would it be hot chocolate if there was no chocolate. You need both for the phrase to apply. That’s English 101.

Then your argument defeats itself because combining "white" and "supremacist" doesn't create a whole new concept. Instead, white refers to the white race, and supremacist as someone who thinks they're/their group is the best, and so we have 'white person thinking they're/their group is better than everyone else'. So, now you've just provided a slam dunk for me because this version of "white supremacist" is more obviously a racial slur because you're literally slurring only white people LOL.

Don't argue this silly line of argument, dumbo. It's not correct AND makes it easier for me to be right about "white supremacist" being a racial slur.

If it was just about ideology, then why is black nationalism not considered black supremacist, whilst white nationalism is considered white supremacism?
If a black person believes black people are the superior race then that by definition would make them a black supremecist. Which BTW, would not be a racial slur.

This totally misses my point.

My point was that black nationalists, Hispanic nationalists and Chinese nationalists aren't labelled as supremacist, yet white nationalists are. Do you see now how whites are being slurred for their nationalism, yet all the other racial groups aren't?

How could whites wanting to form white groups, without any reference to supremacism, be considered to be supremacist, especially when blacks do the same and that's *not* considered supremacism?
Because we live in a country dominated by white people. Black people forming an all black group is a response to their status as ethnic minorities and the discrimination that comes along with it. White people forming an all white group is a response to nothing.

This sentence is far more racially hateful of whites than you probably realize. What you're implicitly saying (given the context of what I said) is that white people don't have a reason to form groups (that's debatable anyway), therefore it's fine to call them "white supremacist". That in itself is a pretty racially hateful thing to say against white people.

But of course, this assumes that ethnic minorities are systemically discriminated against (which is a large debate, in any case, but one in which I think concludes that blacks aren't being racially discriminated against). I don't think it's true that blacks are being systemically racially discriminated against, so I think you're effectively racially slurring white people whilst being systemically racist against them.

If IQ researchers conclude that Asians/Jews have the highest IQ, why are they called white supremacists? Surely, if Lynn argues that Asians are doing best in IQ tests, why isn't Richard Lynn called an Asian supremacist?
Researching IQ scores is not “supremacy”. It’s the intent of the research that matters. IQ scores do not measure genetics or cognitive potential, they measure current ability. That ability can be cultivated and improved just like any other. It’s when one for example tries to use the research to justify inequality as a means to stop helping those in need that out crosses into suprematist territory.

Believing that one race is superior is the literal definition, but that’s not the focus of the phrase white supremecist. The focus is really more about entitlement. Any white person who tells a minority to go back to their country for example, I would argue is a white supremecist. What gives them the right to declare this “their country” to be telling someone else to leave it? What makes them think they are more entitled to this country than any other human being?

It’s that mentality that those who tend to use the phrase are pointing to. Jan 6th is another example. It is not credible to argue that the people who stormed the Capitol were doing so based on facts and reason. They did so because they couldn’t accept that the votes of people who don’t look like them were a legitimate catalyst to remove their President. The Capitol belonged to them and they had to take it back. That’s white supremacy.

So can this apply to other races? Of course it can. It’s just that the phrase black supremecist or Asian supremecist carries no connotation because it’s a useless thing to even talk about in a country dominated by white people.

If the research is conducted with the intent of being nonsensically racially biased against a group, then the research will be shown as faulty. We don't need to guess the "intent" of the research -- that's a red herring. Instead, we need to work out whether the research has been conducted correctly. If the research is conducted correctly and shows that Whites have higher IQ than Blacks, then that's fact regardless of "intent".

IQ scores (the proxy for general intelligence (g)) are partially heritable. So while you're correct in saying IQ scores can be "cultivated and improved" [by the environment], there's a limit to that because general intelligence is partially heritable. For example, you can't turn the average Pygmy with 50 odd IQ into a competent neurologist, regardless of what environment you put him/her in -- heritability already accounts for too much of the variance.

If I walk into China and start DEMANDING that they build churches and white only spaces for me, are they "entitled" for denying me that? If I walk into Sudan and demand they stop worshipping their deities because I feel like that excludes me, are they "entitled" for saying no to that? If an African walks into America and demands that you tear down historical statues and then reorganize workplace laws to make hiring Africans a legal must, is it "entitled" to deny him/her that?

Are Chinese people "Asian supremacists" because they "dominate" China? Are Arabic people "Arabic supremacists" because they "dominate" Saudi Arabia, Iran and Iraq? Are African people "African supremacists" because they "dominate" most of Africa?

Created:

4 years ago

1

Posted in:

-->

@oromagi

OXFORD:

su·prem·a·cist [noun]

a person who believes that a particular group, especially one determined by race, religion, or sex, is superior and should therefore dominate society.
WIKIPEDIA:

Supremacism is "the belief that a certain group of people is superior to all others. The supposed superior people can be defined by age, gender, race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, language, social class, ideology, nation, culture, or species, or belong to any other part of a particular population."

A literal interpretation of "white supremacist" is not sufficient to explain its usage. Your definitions don't make sense without this non-literal meaning, especially when I've directly quoted you using this non-literal meaning (shown below):

"The term has non-literal meaning. For example, when we say 'it's raining cats and dogs', obviously that's non-literal. Let's explore the non-literal meaning to "white supremacist".

If it was just about ideology, then why is black nationalism not considered black supremacist, whilst white nationalism is considered white supremacism? How could whites wanting to form white groups, without any reference to supremacism, be considered to be supremacist, especially when blacks do the same and that's *not* considered supremacism? Why is the Hispanic 'La Raza' not considered Hispanic supremacy for forming Hispanic groups? Why is Chinese nationalism not considered Chinese supremacy? Why are white people being singled out as being supremacists for forming their own groups? Black nationalism - Wikipedia White nationalism - Wikipedia La Raza - Wikipedia Chinese nationalism - Wikipedia

If IQ researchers conclude that Asians/Jews have the highest IQ, why are they called white supremacists? Surely, if Lynn argues that Asians are doing best in IQ tests, why isn't Richard Lynn called an Asian supremacist? Richard Lynn on Race Differences in Intelligence - American Renaissance (amren.com) Richard Lynn - Wikipedia

Similarly, why is J.P. Rushton called a "white supremacist" when his research argues Asians have larger cranial capacity, and thus higher IQ? jp rushton iq - Bing images J. Philippe Rushton - Wikipedia iq-race-brain-size-kamin-omari-rushton-personality-individual-differences-2000.pdf (philipperushton.net)

Why did Oromagi attempt to rebut Linda Gottfredson's work, which had nothing to do with race, as "white supremacist?" Imgur: The magic of the Internet IQ is a Valid Metric (debateart.com)

Using your literal definition, none of these scenarios make any sense, so the term "white supremacist" can't be a purely literal one. Sure, if someone is saying "white people are superior to everyone else", by all means does your literal definition apply, but not all usages of the word are using this literal definition, as seen above.

Instead, "white supremacist" is a non-literal racial attack against white people forming groups and conducting research. You racially slur white people when you imply there is something inherently wrong with them forming white groups. You racially slur people when you imply their research is wrong because of the color of their skin. Both of these are precisely what "white supremacist" sometimes does, hence white supremacist is a racial slur."

"White", in this context, is modifying the type of supremacist rather than modifying the supremacist's race. You can and do have white supremacists who are black, male supremacists who are women, etc. I don't agree that the term white supremacist is typically used to characterize all white people, rather to indicate that subset of people who are deluded about the supremacy of whites.

I agree that it is possible for a black person to be a white supremacist. I agree that "white supremacist" doesn't modify a person's race. However, this doesn't address the non-literal meaning wherein white people are slurred on their ability to form groups and conduct research. Again, you yourself have engaged in this non-literal meaning by calling research on IQ, something that has nothing to do with white superiority, as "white supremacist" (quoted above).

If you are right that the popular use of the term is intentional abuse than how do we explain Trump's statement last Fall, "I condemn all white supremacists" You're saying that the correct interpretation of Trump's statement was a slur against all white people? How does that make any sense for Trump? If yours was a normal or popular interpretation, then Trump would have been criticized for slurring white people.

Yes, white supremacist is a racial slur, regardless of who says it, even if that person is Trump.

White people have become so disenfranchised in western countries, and also plagued by white people who have white out-group bias (as in they actively discriminate against their own race), that speaking out against injustices against white people is considered "racist" or "bigoted". It's super sinister when you consider that all the false narratives and slurs levelled against whites CANNOT be talked about whites because they would be "racist" to do so. In other words, anti-white slurs rhetoric isn't popular at all with white people, they're just scared of speaking up and getting slammed by anti-white extremists.

FBI Director Wray testified under oath this spring that racially motivated violent extremism, specifically violent white supremacy, is the biggest chunk of the FBI’s domestic terrorism case portfolio. [...] groups or individuals who facilitate or engage in acts of violence directed at the Federal Government, ethnic majorities or Jewish persons in support of their belief that Caucasians are intellectually and morally superior to other races.

I've got no problem with white terrorists who shoot up mosques or schools because they're non-white being labelled as "white supremacists" and "violent extremists". I take GREAT ISSUE when YOU label mere research on IQ as "white supremacist", because you're lumping genuinely dangerous people in with people conducting racially impartial research. Again, if IQ was about "white supremacy", then why do these "white supremacists" consistently find that Jewish and Asian people have HIGHER IQ than whites? Why are they finding that Jews and Asians are superior if they believe that whites are? That makes ZERO sense.

Yet people like you continue to slur these white researchers as "white supremacist" even when their research shows that whites AREN'T the best/superior to Asians and Jews, in regards to IQ.

Also there are people who openly advocate the superiority of European or Caucasian ancestry who have no reason to mind being called white supremacists as the most apt label.

These people are called useful idiots.

Why did Oromagi attempt to rebut Linda Gottfredson's work, which had nothing to do with race, as "white supremacist?" Imgur: The magic of the Internet IQ is a Valid Metric (debateart.com)
that link is wrong. here's the link:
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/6468/post-links/279261

The link wasn't wrong. You deleted the 2nd link, probably accidentally "White Supremacist" is a racial slur (debateart.com) :

"Why did Oromagi attempt to rebut Linda Gottfredson's work, which had nothing to do with race, as "white supremacist?" Imgur: The magic of the Internet IQ is a Valid Metric (debateart.com) "

But you correctly found the link that you deleted.

My post shows
I did not try to rebut Gottfredson. In fact, Mesmer specifically asked me what I thought of his sources and I replied that his sources sucked. One of several reasons given was that the SPLC condemns Gottfredson as white supremacist in ideology.

I asked you if the arguments were wrong. You responded by implying the arguments were "white supremacist" and Ad hommed a whole bunch of people related to the field. Even if they were terrorists, pedophiles, Nazis or telemarketers, that is totally irrelevant to whether their argument is correct -- this is a pure example of Ad hom. And before you make the silly argument again that Ad hom is valid, I explained in detail why you were wrong on that: IQ is a Valid Metric (debateart.com) .

To say that those numbers had nothing to do with race is also false. Gottfredson's public defense of those numbers was specifically racist in conclusion.
[quotes about what Gottfredson apparently said]
[more quotes about what Gottfredson apparently said]

If she actually said that African Americans were mentally retarded with 85 IQ (these quotes are unsourced), I would argue against that as being wrong (since as your quote says, the cutoff is 70). However, again, in that case, the argument is wrong herself, regardless of her character AND research. Again, arguing that IQ has certain correlate impact on life outcomes doesn't make you a "white supremacist" lol.

Whatever the quality of the evidence, one can't deny that claiming that it is the very nature of African blacks to be mentally retarded and that the only reason African-Americans enjoy better intelligence than Africans is due the benefit of white rape is a fairly white supremacist statement. If Gottfredson thinks that the average black person is actually disabled in intelligence by definition than one can't really wonder if Gottfredson thinks that group can rule their own affairs.

You're not citing any of this with sources.

Let's note that the DebateArt.com CODE of CONDUCT uses SPLC as the standard for evaluating hate groups.
Advocacy in favor of terrorism and/or violent extremism, especially as related to hate groups as generally defined by the SPLC, is likewise prohibited.
Generally yes, if the SPLC calls somebody a white supremacist, I'm going to feel free to use that term. Not as an insult but as the most matter of fact way of describing aa long standing and sometimes popular ideology and political movement.

So this is the crux of your stance: a big organization is okay with calling white groups and research done by whites as "white supremacist", therefore it's okay to racially slur white people. This is you making a big appeal to authority (a logical fallacy) to justify your anti-white racial slurs against white people. You're not really interested in arguments or logic. Big daddy SPLC has said it's okay to verbally abuse white people with racial slurs, and that's all you need to justify your racially charged verbal abuse against white people.

Created:

4 years ago

1

Posted in:

IQ is fundamentally flawed

-->

@drlebronski

Also, they're obfuscating the fact that IQ measures a variety of g loaded intelligence metrics, by stating that, "The results disprove once and for all the idea that a single measure of intelligence, such as IQ, is enough to capture all of the differences in cognitive ability that we see between people". Again, multiple factors go into measuring IQ.

Source? what g-factors go into IQ tests?

The fact that you're asking this question proves you don't understand what IQ tests are.

Firstly, it's g loaded factors, not "g-factors". G (general intelligence) is what you are testing to determine.

Secondly, you don't need a source to know that tests need to be g loaded, in order to better ascertain general intelligence through the proxy of IQ. Lol. If you aren't measuring for g loaded factors, you're measuring things like whether someone understands the language you're speaking. For example, if you give an IQ test in Mandarin, most White people are going to fail that test because they don't understand the language, not because they have low IQ. We don't need a "source" to know that hahaha.

Thirdly, as for g loaded factors, there can be many. For once, RationalMadman has decided not to be an oversensitive droll and provide a great post on what could be considered g loaded: IQ is fundamentally flawed (debateart.com) . However, things like memory can be environmentally influenced by things such as mnemonics, and thus if that isn't controlled for (e.g. making sure no one has been taught mnemonics), this reduces the g loaded impact of mnemonics on IQ.

Fourthly, are you going to address the rest of what I wrote? You've only addressed one paragraph out of the five, so I assume you simply agree with everything else I wrote (and thus now believe that the article you posted is garbage).

Created:

4 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@drlebronski

when i say race realists i mean people who think black people are genetically inferior to white people

Sorry, but you don't get to define terms to mean whatever you want. Race realism is about real racial differences between various groups of human races. Race realism does not mandate that race realists believe that "black people are genetically inferior to white people". It's possible to believe that and be a race realist, but it's not required. It's also possible to be a race realist and believe white people are genetically inferior to black people.

Your definition is dead wrong.

an important study was published in the journal Developmental Psychology in 1986. The author observed that black and interracial children raised by white parents had a significantly higher mean IQ score than age-matched children raised by black parents (117 vs 104), and argued that differences in early socialization explained this gap. Nisbett et. al's 2012 review found that these differences in socialization "were large enough to account for virtually the entire Black–White gap in IQ," lending more credence to the environmental argument.

The issue with studying children is their genetic IQ expression isn't fully realized until the age of 17. During childhood, the environment has far greater impact on children's IQ. Conduct the same studies with 18-20 year olds, and you'll see regression to the mean (85 IQ for African Americans, and somewhere between 85 and 100 IQ for black-white interracial children, depending on admixture). iq correlate with age - Bing images from: The Wilson Effect: The Increase in Heritability of IQ With Age | Twin Research and Human Genetics | Cambridge Core

It shouldn't surprise any studied race realist that the black-white IQ gap could be closed if you put black children in better environment (and/or white children in worse ones), and this by no means effects the genetic expression of IQ in adulthood. Hence, the gap hasn't closed.

A 2012 paper by Richard Nisbett (co-authored with James Flynn and other leaders in the field), published in the American Psychologist, reviewed numerous studies conducted over the past decades, finding that the evidence "fails to support a genetic hypothesis.” The authors instead argue for an environmental explanation of the racial IQ gap.

The Flynn effect doesn't debunk the genetic heritability of IQ. The fact that the environment can cause large gaps in IQ doesn't disprove that genetic heritability plays a part. Nisbett and Flynn are correct in saying that the average IQ of African Americans has risen over the years. However, so too has the White (American) IQ. Generally, the fact is that the factors wherein the African American IQ has risen (environmental ones) aren't the factors that account for the black-white IQ gap (genetically heritable ones). Ryan Faulk puts it succinctly The Flynn Effect, Race, and IQ – The Alternative Hypothesis :

"...the Flynn effect and racial intelligence differences have nothing to do with each other. Intelligence differences between races and between generations are largely gaps in different abilities, to the degree that they are gaps in the same abilities they are produced by different causes, and the existence of a large gain in intelligence over time has no a priori implications on the causes of racial intelligence differences."

In addition, a 2017 study in the Journal of Intelligence examined trans-racial adoptions, finding that "there is no consistent IQ difference between Black adoptees raised by Whites and White adoptees raised by Whites." This supports the "nil hypothesis" (i.e. "that adoptees of different races have similar IQs when raised in the same environment"), indicating that there is no genetic IQ gap between races.

Link is for "nl.hideproxy.me". That doesn't sound like a research paper. I'm not clicking that lol.

Created:

4 years ago

3

Posted in:

-->

@Discipulus_Didicit

I have said that a racial slur is a slur against a race and you have declared that definition invalid but not presented one of your own that I have seen (it is possible I have missed it, if that is the case then point it out).

I haven't declared it invalid. I said the standard which you argue from this is invalid, because you don't need to imply all black people are the n word in order for the n word to be a slur. "White Supremacist" is a racial slur (debateart.com) "White Supremacist" is a racial slur (debateart.com) . When you did support your definition of "racial slur" with "a slur against a race", I didn't attack it because I agreed with it.

A white supremacist is a person that thinks whites should be supreme.

A racial slur is a slur against a race.

You and the CRT folk are making this out to be much more complicated than it actually is

What do you call a person that wants whities to be supreme over the non-whites?

White supremacist has non-literal meaning which I addressed in the OP and more thoroughly here: ("The term has non-literal meaning. For example...": "White Supremacist" is a racial slur (debateart.com)

Created:

4 years ago

1

Posted in:

-->

@Double_R

The slur in cotton picker comes from its historical connotation. What you fail to understand is that not all black people were forced to pick cotton, but those who were forced to pick cotton were so because they were black, so this absolutely was about their race.

White supremecists are not supremecists because they are white, they’re supremecists because they’re ignorant, assholes, or both.

I'm not sure if you intentionally did this, but you've changed your argument to be the same as mine, and now you are framing your argument (which is mine) as the one I'm arguing against.

It's been my contention all along that you don't have to think *all* people of a certain race are a slur, in order for the slur to be a slur. Moreover, you don't have to think *all* white people are white supremacists, in order for white supremacist to be a slur.

So, there's no failure to understand because that has been my argument all along LOL.

Created:

4 years ago

1

Posted in:

-->

@Double_R

First of all, the term “white supremecist” combines two words. Therefore, in order to qualify under this term *both* of the words must apply. So instead of demonstrating your fragility over the first word, look at the second… “spremecist”. Notice how the second word has nothing to do with your race but is rather an ideology. That’s the part you need to focus on explaining if you are really trying to stick to this argument.

The two words create a singular term. That's why you don't say "white and supremacist" -- two separate terms. Instead, you say "white supremacist" a singular. IF we were arguing about "white and supremacist", what you are saying here is correct, but we are arguing about the latter, so your distinction doesn't apply.

Second, “white” in this phrase isn’t even referring to the race of the of the ideology holder. It’s referring to the ideology itself. White supremacy means you believe white people are ultimately the superior race. Nothing about this precludes that you must be white to hold this attitude, as bizarre as would be for a non-white person to think this way, hence the David Chappell skit.

The term has non-literal meaning. For example, when we say 'it's raining cats and dogs', obviously that's non-literal. Let's explore the non-literal meaning to "white supremacist".

If it was just about ideology, then why is black nationalism not considered black supremacist, whilst white nationalism is considered white supremacism? How could whites wanting to form white groups, without any reference to supremacism, be considered to be supremacist, especially when blacks do the same and that's *not* considered supremacism? Why is the Hispanic 'La Raza' not considered Hispanic supremacy for forming Hispanic groups? Why is Chinese nationalism not considered Chinese supremacy? Why are white people being singled out as being supremacists for forming their own groups? Black nationalism - Wikipedia White nationalism - Wikipedia La Raza - Wikipedia Chinese nationalism - Wikipedia

If IQ researchers conclude that Asians/Jews have the highest IQ, why are they called white supremacists? Surely, if Lynn argues that Asians are doing best in IQ tests, why isn't Richard Lynn called an Asian supremacist? Richard Lynn on Race Differences in Intelligence - American Renaissance (amren.com) Richard Lynn - Wikipedia

Similarly, why is J.P. Rushton called a "white supremacist" when his research argues Asians have larger cranial capacity, and thus higher IQ? jp rushton iq - Bing images J. Philippe Rushton - Wikipedia iq-race-brain-size-kamin-omari-rushton-personality-individual-differences-2000.pdf (philipperushton.net)

Why did Oromagi attempt to rebut Linda Gottfredson's work, which had nothing to do with race, as "white supremacist?" Imgur: The magic of the Internet IQ is a Valid Metric (debateart.com)

Using your literal definition, none of these scenarios make any sense, so the term "white supremacist" can't be a purely literal one. Sure, if someone is saying "white people are superior to everyone else", by all means does your literal definition apply, but not all usages of the word are using this literal definition, as seen above.

Instead, "white supremacist" is a non-literal racial attack against white people forming groups and conducting research. You racially slur white people when you imply there is something inherently wrong with them forming white groups. You racially slur people when you imply their research is wrong because of the color of their skin. Both of these are precisely what "white supremacist" sometimes does, hence white supremacist is a racial slur.

Created:

4 years ago

1

Posted in:

-->

@Double_R

So in other words… the reason some groups (like black people) are doing worse than others is because they’re genetically inferior, and you think government policy should take that “realism” into account when it decides on policy.

None of what you quoted was addressed to you. If you don't want to respond to what I wrote to you (found here: Race Realism: Critical understandings (debateart.com) ), or if you try to conflate what I wrote to Thett with what I wrote to you, then I'll assume you've agreed with what I wrote to you.

But this has nothing to do with racism or spreading racist rhetoric. Ok.

"Racism" and "racist" are nonsensical, malicious terms Racism is a nonsense, malicious term (debateart.com) .

Created:

4 years ago

1

Posted in:

-->

@Discipulus_Didicit

You didn't respond to any of this:

Not every whitey thinks that whities should be supreme over the non whites though. White supremacy is not a race, it is an ideology.
"We've been through this already, although my examples were probably not thorough enough, so I'll do better this time.

Let's take for example "cotton picker". Let's say a White American used to this describe an African American -- this is a racial slur. However, it's possible that this White American doesn't believe *all* African Americans are "cotton pickers", BUT "cotton picker" remains a racial slur regardless of that fact. Again, you don't have to think that all African Americans are "cotton pickers" for "cotton picker" to be a racial slur -- your qualification/standard of 'you have to think all people of that race are the slur' isn't valid."

Since this counters your standard for your argument that "white supremacist" didn't count as a racial slur, and now you've failed to address it, you've conceded the argument.

Thanks for implicitly agreeing that "white supremacist" is a racial slur.

Created:

4 years ago

3

Posted in:

IQ is fundamentally flawed

-->

@drlebronski

"“The results disprove once and for all the idea that a single measure of intelligence, such as IQ, is enough to capture all of the differences in cognitive ability that we see between people,” said Roger Highfield, director of external affairs at the Science Museum in London.
“Instead, several different circuits contribute to intelligence, each with its own unique capacity. A person may well be good in one of these areas, but they are just as likely to be bad in the other two,” said Dr Highfield, a co-author of the study published in the journal Neuron."
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/iq-tests-are-fundamentally-flawed-and-using-them-alone-to-measure-intelligence-is-a-fallacy-study-finds-8425911.html

These guys seem to be removing g-loaded facets that would be typically attributable to IQ scores, and narrowing criteria down to "short-term memory, reasoning and verbal agility." The article doesn't explain why they've decided to change the criteria, how it's superior and what was wrong with IQ. With a bare assertion (logical fallacy), they just assert their definition of intelligence without any justification with sentences like this: “several different circuits contribute to intelligence, each with its own unique capacity. A person may well be good in one of these areas, but they are just as likely to be bad in the other two.” Moreover, why is this superior to IQ? Does this control for cultural bias? Does your criteria for intelligence explain all the results?

Also, they're obfuscating the fact that IQ measures a variety of g loaded intelligence metrics, by stating that, "The results disprove once and for all the idea that a single measure of intelligence, such as IQ, is enough to capture all of the differences in cognitive ability that we see between people". Again, multiple factors go into measuring IQ.

I think they're arguing in bad faith when they say, "The scientists found that no single component, or IQ, could explain all the variations revealed by the tests." IQ correlates with itself at 0.88, because things like tiredness and cultural bias on tests can influence the result and make it non-g loaded. Thus, IQ will never explain all of the variation in test performance, but it explains the vast majority of it.

They also conclude with the objectively incorrect statement of, "We already know that, from a scientific point of view, the notion of race is meaningless. Genetic differences do not map on to traditional measurements of skin colour, hair type, body proportions and skull measurements." This probably requires its own thread, but I've briefly addressed how this statement is absolutely incorrect (read from "Secondly": "White Supremacist" is a racial slur (debateart.com) ). It's good that they flatly assert this because WE know that there is a great debate on this topic, and for them to state that anti-race realism is something we already know is true, proves that they're absolutely abusing appeals to authority to make their arguments, rather than valid logic.

Overall, this article is largely an appeal to authority (a logical fallacy), wherein they say "researchers say this" and "scientists say that". They don't explain themselves, they just assert things because, for example, a "scientist" has said it. This authoritarian view knowledge (i.e. that it's only true if officials say it), is pure garbage and illogical.

Created:

4 years ago

1

Posted in:

Race realist Sean Last stands tall in systemic racism debate

-->

@drlebronski

i apologize i used a (totally not illegal) site in order to bypass the paywall and forgot to include it.
https://sci-hub.do/10.1177/002221948902200803

Are you going to address the parts I've already responded to? --- Race realist Sean Last stands tall in systemic racism debate (debateart.com)

Created:

4 years ago

1

Posted in:

taliban taking over afghanistan.

-->

@drlebronski

The US shouldnt of entered afghanistan in the first place.

100% agree with this.

The US should have exited the Middle East after the end of the Cold War (when it was no longer strategically advantageous to have a position there against Soviet Russia). This would have avoided 9/11, all the oppressive anti-freedom laws that resulted from that, and the general animosity that the Middle East has against Americans.

The US needs to clear out of the Middle East completely and stop involving itself with affairs that are of no business to it.

Created:

4 years ago

1

Posted in:

-->

@3RU7AL

Humans can be divided into sub-species (races): The Existence of Race – The Alternative Hypothesis . I've posted this argument to you multiple times and you've failed to address it every time.
Seems to contradict,

Racism is a nonsense term: Racism is a nonsense, malicious term (debateart.com) .

Race =/= "racism".

People should only be self-described.

Instead of trying to force a category on someone, you should ASK THEM if they identify with some proposed generalized type and or label.

Forcing a category on someone (that they do not personally self-describe as) is almost always an AD HOMINEM ATTACK.

If you insist that labels can be used to people who self-describe, you'll get more grifters and liars who pretend to be something they're not. For example, if you don't go to church, and you don't believe in God, and you don't know anything about the Bible, chances are you're not a Christian, even if you describe yourself as such.

In practical terms, it doesn't matter how many or how few "genetic markers" there are.

Humans cannot detect "genetic markers".

And discrimination, not only based on skin-tone, but also on language and culture and religion have existed for millenia, certainly long before anyone even considered "genetic markers".

For determining race, it matters a lot how many markers there are because using fewer than 30 leads us to faulty conclusions about the validity of human races. Using genetic markers in the first place is to demonstrate that human races are a valid concept, and aren't just something some 'racist' made up.

I agree that racial discrimination has existed long before our time, and the overwhelming majority of humans don't discriminate due to loci/SNP data collections. I'm just arguing that these people are inadvertently correct about different people being genetically different, sometimes to the point of being a different race.

BLUE POWER

PINK POWER

GREEN POWER

You've going to have to explain this one to me, lol.

Created:

4 years ago

2

Posted in:

-->

@Discipulus_Didicit

Not every whitey thinks that whities should be supreme over the non whites though. White supremacy is not a race, it is an ideology.

We've been through this already, although my examples were probably not thorough enough, so I'll do better this time.

Let's take for example "cotton picker". Let's say a White American used to this describe an African American -- this is a racial slur. However, it's possible that this White American doesn't believe *all* African Americans are "cotton pickers", BUT "cotton picker" remains a racial slur regardless of that fact. Again, you don't have to think that all African Americans are "cotton pickers" for "cotton picker" to be a racial slur -- your qualification/standard of 'you have to think all people of that race are the slur' isn't valid.

Could you be a bit more specific on who you do or do not call by the N word?

I never use the n word because it's a racial slur. I wish people would stop using racial slurs like "white supremacist" against White people, too.

Created:

4 years ago

2

Posted in:

-->

@Discipulus_Didicit

Kinda just sounds like a slur at that point.

If it was just a slur, the term would just be "supremacist", instead of "white supremacist". The "white" part makes it a racial slur.

Created:

4 years ago

3

Posted in:

-->

@Discipulus_Didicit

Racial slur = slur against a race. Seems pretty self explanatory.

This explanation fails to contend with the secondary part of my post to you: "Also, your standard is inaccurately high. It's possible to call someone a racial slur *without* believing all people of that race are that racial slur. Hence, this invalidates your standard, even if you were to actually support it." "White Supremacist" is a racial slur (debateart.com) . In other words, I don't have to believe every black person is a "n*gger" in order for the term "n*gger" to be a racial slur against an African American. So, your standard remains inaccurately high.

Created:

4 years ago

3

Posted in:

-->

@drlebronski

we both know you just pulled that number out of your arse

For 50%: The Heritability of IQ – The Alternative Hypothesis .

For 80%: Why 80 Percent? - altCensored .

Created:

4 years ago

1

Posted in:

-->

@thett3

I don't want to go so far as to say that, but a highly successful and technological African or Amerindian society would definitely look different than a Western or Eastern one. The arc of history is long and we don't know how things will shake out in the end, but expecting perfect equality in all things is just ridiculous--groups of people are different. I also don't know how much of the IQ gap is environmental or cultural, what can be ameliorated in the near future with gene therapies, etc. PhD theses could be written about this stuff.

I know it's starting to go well beyond the Overton Window of politically-correct discussion, but I think it's true and would be happy to argue it line-by-line.

The differing genetics have resulted in differing levels of success and technological advancement -- that's my point. Saying that *if* we were to have these successful and technologically advanced African societies misses the point that they don't form naturally. Plus, we've had instances wherein outside influence has aided the success/technological development of African countries. South Africa and Zimbabwe are clear examples wherein White people helped things like GDP and farming advancement (under the heading: "National Success Since Apartheid" South African Apartheid: a case study on the effects of European colonialism in Africa – The Alternative Hypothesis ). When the Whites started leaving, the countries became noticeably worse, too (albeit, this is inductive).

We know that the I.Q. gap, through analysis of things like twin studies, is at least 50% explained through genetics. I'd argue it's far higher at something around 80% (particularly as people age), but accepting that it's 50% shouldn't be that hard for people who are ideological zealots. If we have clean discussions that have evolved past the "you're racist" nonsense, we can clearly see this imo. Perhaps gene therapies in the future could ameliorate this, but for now we have to deal with the reality of differing I.Qs in racial populations (as well as all the other genes which factor into maintaining/further building a civilization).

Created:

4 years ago

1

Posted in:

-->

@Double_R

No, it’s an attack on white people who hold racist attitudes. HUGE difference.

You've already conceded the argument with this statement because you described them as "white" people. If race had no bearing on this, then the (non-racial) slur would be "supremacist".

Calling someone out on their racism is not racism.

Racism is a nonsense term: Racism is a nonsense, malicious term (debateart.com) .

Created:

4 years ago

3

Posted in:

-->

@Discipulus_Didicit

Which means that even if the term is not applied to all whities you still say it is a racial slur.

Your standard for a "racial slur" is unsupported.

Also, your standard is inaccurately high. It's possible to call someone a racial slur *without* believing all people of that race are that racial slur. Hence, this invalidates your standard, even if you were to actually support it.

Created:

4 years ago

4

Posted in:

-->

@secularmerlin

There is only one human race and you cannot derive differences in ethnicities such that any single group is actually superior to any other.

Humans can be divided into sub-species (races): The Existence of Race – The Alternative Hypothesis . I've posted this argument to you multiple times and you've failed to address it every time.

I never made an argument about racial superiority. I think we're finding out the reason you don't quote people: you lie about what they said.

If a white supremacist is called a white supremacist it is in no way comparable to the emotional and sociological baggage involved in using a slur against a group. White supremacy is a social agenda not an ethnic group.

(1) Social baggage doesn't determine whether something is a slur. Someone could be called a slur and not get offended, but the term would be still be a slur.

(2) White people don't enjoy being called a "white supremacist". This is clearly a negative thing.

In no way ever will having your racism pointed out to you ever going to represent the same harm that practicing your racism on others does. This is not an argument it is an observation of observable reality.

Racism is a nonsense term: Racism is a nonsense, malicious term (debateart.com) .

If your argument has any validity it is only in the pedantic sense that anything could be used as a racial slur.

All your premises are wrong so this conclusion is wrong.

Created:

4 years ago

2

Posted in:

-->

@secularmerlin

You argued that: "These [racial] differences are entirely cosmetic" Race Realism: Critical understandings (debateart.com) .

I responded by suggesting the various ways in which we know this isn't true: Race Realism: Critical understandings (debateart.com) , referencing this from the same discussion we had in the other thread: "White Supremacist" is a racial slur (debateart.com) .

You begin by arguing here that I'm not arguing real "white supremacist" talking points, hence implying that my argument is wrong: "You are moving the goal post by changing from superior as used by white supremacists and superior at "insert stated goal". I have no idea how you think heterozygosity and fst value results, which demonstrate real genetic variance between human racial groups, is wrong because it's not a white supremacist talking point. Even if it weren't a "white supremacist" talking point, how does that affect the validity of heterozygosity and fst values in proving human racial variance? It's irrelevant whether you classify my arguments as "white supremacist" talking points. It's a total non-sequitur and you're attacking the argument's character instead of the argument.

You then continue to say that, "IQ tests are among the institutions that are used to justify systematic racism. I am dubious at best of their efficacy in determining actual human intelligence." I just assumed you weren't silly enough to deny the validity of I.Q. tests, but I guess you are: The Validity of IQ – The Alternative Hypothesis . You also haven't demonstrated how I.Q. tests are "systemically [racist]", so this is a bare assertion on your behalf. As for being "dubious" about the efficacy of I.Q. tests, that's an argument from incredulity (a logical fallacy), unless you have demonstrated reason as to be "dubious".

You then say, "Nothing you have said convinces me that a large widespread population of interreproductive individuals are not the same race[...]No genetic findings support your claims. I'm sorry but this is not good science it is a justification to discriminate." I have addressed this multiple times with reference to fst values, heterozygosity, phenotypic traits etc. I will repost what I originally wrote to you because that is where I've made those arguments. All you have responded to, despite having multiple posts in which to do so, is the cranial shape/size point I made (saying that I.Q. is invalid, which I've addressed above). Again, I'll repost the arguments that you haven't responded to, in hopes that you read them *and* respond to them this time around "White Supremacist" is a racial slur (debateart.com):

"Secondly, human races are of taxonomic value. There is sufficient fst value for humans that are similar/above other animals' species whom DO have species (read: race). Heterozygosity reflects the same findings of fst value evaluation. SNP/loci grouping distribution, done blind by a computer, distinctly groups 'African', 'European' and 'Asian' racial groups (super broad racial groups) when the SNP/loci number reaches 100 The Existence of Race – The Alternative Hypothesis . On a scientific level, humans are of taxonomic value [this argument shows genetic differences between human races that aren't "purely cosmetic".

We're also able to observe albinism in differing races and easily determine their race, based on their phenotypic traits: main-qimg-54acc098bd279b12f95dd678b2395091 (602×566) (quoracdn.net) . Empirically, we can observe what we typically call human races (Asian, African etc.) through something as blanketing (e.g. changes skin colour) as albinism. Why are all African noses broader, generally speaking, if race has no taxonomic significance?"

[...]

"African have flatter, broader noses which allows them to cool down faster. In this regard, this makes them functionally superior to non-Africans when in hot environments, and hence this phenotypic trait is not "entirely cosmetic". There are plenty of other examples of this, too."

If you are again unable to respond to what I've actually written (for about the 4th time), I'll take your ignorance/refusal as a concession and stop responding.

Created:

4 years ago

1

Posted in:

-->

@Lemming

I don't think he's saying that in post #53.
I think he's saying that the genetic makeup of a people, effect their actions/policies.
And making his case towards his OP claim race realism, or recognition of differences.

Thank you for not having -150 I.Q.

Created:

4 years ago

1

Posted in:

-->

@drlebronski

do you think people shouldnt be able have children with chinese people because of lactose intolerance? what a joke dude

No.

Created:

4 years ago

1

Posted in:

-->

@drlebronski

i will call you a racist that's not an ad hominem

Racist is a nonsense, malicious term: Racism is a nonsense, malicious term (debateart.com) .

Even if I were a "racist" (whatever you mean by that), my argument isn't invalidated.

there are differences in races i dont deny that but these are mainly insignificant

You need to demonstrate that they are "mainly insignificant", or your argument is a bare assertion (a logical fallacy).

you cannot use small genetic differences like some being more prone to sweat more

You haven't demonstrated that this is a "small genetic difference". You need to reference its weighting.

You haven't argued as to why I can't use this or these types of differences, hence this is another bare assertion.

Created:

4 years ago

1

Posted in:

-->

@Double_R

Because race has nothing to do with it. Even if you can find an established correlation between races on lactose, that still has no place in government policy. The policy would be aimed at *people* who are lactose, not at people who share genetic traits with others who are lactose.

So I've argued that:

(1) Chinese is a valid racial category

(2) The vast majority of Chinese people are lactose intolerant

Hence, when a government produces policy that aims to aid its Chinese population's lactose intolerance, this is functionally policy that is responding to Chinese genetics -- Chinese genes are causing the lactose intolerance. Yes, other races can be lactose intolerant (would be interesting to know if this is because of Chinese admixture, but I digress), but this occurs far less frequently than with Chinese people. Lactose intolerance isn't a condition that spawns randomly in people; it is passed down through genetics, specifically Chinese genetics in my example. Thus we have a clear example of where race is what dictates policy.

You can try to cloak it in 'it's a lactose intolerance issue', but it's effectively a Chinese issue. If Chinese people weren't in your population, lactose intolerance would be far less of an issue because Chinese people would no longer be there -- the policy is **dependent** on Chinese people being there. Hence, race determined policy.

Created:

4 years ago

2

Posted in:

-->

@secularmerlin

These differences are entirely cosmetic.

Loci and SNP are literally genetic. Heterozygosity is built upon genetic differences. Fst values for within-between groups are measurements of genetic diversity. None of this is "purely cosmetic" -- you are completely wrong here.

The cranial influences things like I.Q., wherein roughly 0.3 of it correlates with cranial size. The shape tends to reflect the environment in which it was selected for, but it's theoretically possible that cranial shape was not specifically selected for/against because there was insufficient selective pressure -- this is the closest you could come to being right (and you didn't even make this argument; I'm being super charitable making better arguments for your side).

Phenotypic traits (mentioned in the albinism example) influence ability to cope with environments. For example, African have flatter, broader noses which allows them to cool down faster. In this regard, this makes them functionally superior to non-Africans when in hot environments, and hence this phenotypic trait is not "entirely cosmetic". There are plenty of other examples of this, too.

You clearly haven't read what I wrote or you don't understand it. I suggest you stop responding before you embarrass yourself further.

Created:

4 years ago

1

Posted in:

-->

@thett3

That’s crazy because sprinting is basically pure physicality, and people of African descent but from all cultural backgrounds (Africa, Britain, United States, Caribbean) dominate the sport. I know we agree on this but it’s just so laughable that it needs to be said

Yeah. When you add a few more lines of dialogue, it becomes clear that these people are essentially arguing 'genetics don't exist'. The more affluent areas of the US and Britain will help these sprinters sprint faster, but clearly, with the reference to differing cultural backgrounds you've made, there is a genetic component in sprinting. But then some of these people will get hung up on the idea that 'race is a social construct' etc. etc.

I would be behind the “don’t talk about it” position if our political culture wasn’t enthusiastically pointing out every single metric of inequality as proof of racism and scapegoating white people as the culprit. There’s a reason that in such a “systemically racist” country Asian people do extremely well (even though they *actually* face extremely well documented discrimination in university admissions and probably job hirings.) Culture has a lot to do with it, but pretending like the tens of thousands of years of different selective pressures resulting in different cognitive abilities has nothing to do with it is just crazy

Yeah, white people are overwhelmingly blamed for these issues that aren't necessarily issues we cause. Imo it gets scarier to think about when these issues aren't necessarily caused by anything external, but rather the functional result of being genetically African/Hispanic. If your race on average has: lower I.Q., lower impulse control, greater likelihood to have debilitating genes (for civilizations) like the MAO-A 'warrior gene', you're going to have worse modern societies on average. We can see this when we look at countries with majority Africans and the bottom of worldwide HDI index is full of African countries List of countries by Human Development Index - Wikipedia . Mexico does way better, but it's still middling at #74. The top 30 countries are majority White, Asian or Jewish.

When you word it like that, "pretending like the tens of thousands of years of different selective pressures resulting in different cognitive abilities has nothing to do with it is just crazy", the absurdity of it becomes very clear. That's why I think race realists will eventually win the public over. The truth is somewhat obvious and the counter-narrative is such an egregious lie -- can't stay this way forever.

Created:

4 years ago

1

Posted in:

-->

@secularmerlin

Racial differences in humans are entirely cultural. No significant biological differences exist. The minor superficial cosmetic differences are not enough to categorize any difference taxinomicaly.

You've already made this assertion elsewhere and you've already been addressed (despite you ignoring/ not understanding it): "White Supremacist" is a racial slur (debateart.com) .

If you choose to ignore the response, that's a fault on your end and effectively a concession.

Created:

4 years ago

1

Posted in:

-->

@SkepticalOne

"White supremacist" is descriptive. The n word is not.

In no case is "white supremacist" purely descriptive. That is why when people use it, it is regarded as an insult -- no one wants to be called a white supremacist. Wikipedia probably agrees with this notion because it doesn't want 'black nationalism' to be ascribed as 'black supremacy', most likely because 'black supremacy' would be a slur referencing race (racial slur).

But even if you could prove that "white supremacist" is descriptive, then the n word should be considered that, too. That's why we have terms like 'white n*gger', because n*gger describes certain behaviors usually attributed to n*ggers What Is a "White Nigger" Anyway? | History News Network . If n*gger wasn't descriptive, how can we have have a different race of people described with the term?

So, even if we agree with your argument (we shouldn't), you're still wrong because the n word would become descriptive.

Created:

4 years ago

2

Posted in:

-->

@Discipulus_Didicit

What race is that term slurring?

Wow, what a great question! Hmm, I wonder what race "white supremacist" refers to? Wow, thoroughly interesting question that makes everything think super hard.

If only the race "***WHITE*** supremacist" refers to was built into the term itself, then we could open our eyes, move our eyeballs onto the term, and know what race is being slurred.

If only...

Created:

4 years ago

3

Posted in:

-->

@secularmerlin

If no one is claiming that white supremist attitudes are an inherent property of whiteness then it is not a racial slur. Case dismissed.

Intentionally or not, you've changed your argument from your original claim. You originally claimed:

"No one is claiming that a white supremacist attitude is something all white persons are white supremacists."

This is not equivalent to your new claim of:

"If no one is claiming that white supremist attitudes are an inherent property of whiteness then it is not a racial slur."

These are not equivalent because with the first quote, you effectively say 'white supremacist =/= all white people bad'. In the second quote, you now effectively say that 'if white supremacist charges are not based on being white, then it doesn't matter'.

I've already responded to your first quote: "You've strawmanned everything in the OP. The claim the OP makes is that "white supremacist" is a racial slur. Whether or not someone claims all white people have white supremacist views is irrelevant to the term being a racial slur or not" "White Supremacist" is a racial slur (debateart.com) . You haven't responded to my response, so feel free to try again.

As for your new quote, "white supremacist" is a racial slur by referencing white people in a derogatory manner. This is made clear by the fact that you don't say "supremacist", but instead "white supremacist". In other words, you have taken the notion of "white" and turned it into a slur.

Not genetically. A European descended person may have more dna in common with any given African descended person than any of his eurocentric contemporaries. There is not enough difference between us behaviorally or physically to make any taxonomic distinction.

You've totally ignored the arguments I provided to make the case for human races, so I'll repost it all here. Basically, at 100+ loci or SNP, you're dead wrong:

"Secondly, human races are of taxonomic value. There is sufficient fst value for humans that are similar/above other animals' species whom DO have species (read: race). Heterozygosity reflects the same findings of fst value evaluation. SNP/loci grouping distribution, done blind by a computer, distinctly groups 'African', 'European' and 'Asian' racial groups (super broad racial groups) when the SNP/loci number reaches 100 The Existence of Race – The Alternative Hypothesis . On a scientific level, humans are of taxonomic value.

Furthermore, here are different human skulls from varying races (differences noted, too): main-qimg-6f0736c16e8265de9f98f40e7ef7e76a (602×610) (quoracdn.net) . You're essentially arguing that these differences in skull shapes are culturally caused (?!). Forensics actually use skulls to determine human race because it has predictive validity Microsoft Word - 07. (pharmainfo.in) . Again, is the fact that forensic police use this notion of human race, and are able to accurately determine human race, just a series of extremely lucky guesses?

We're also able to observe albinism in differing races and easily determine their race, based on their phenotypic traits: main-qimg-54acc098bd279b12f95dd678b2395091 (602×566) (quoracdn.net) . Empirically, we can observe what we typically call human races (Asian, African etc.) through something as blanketing (e.g. changes skin colour) as albinism. Why are all African noses broader, generally speaking, if race has no taxonomic significance? "

You've also now decided to make the claim that there is 'more difference within than between'. This argument has been debunked to death, but nonetheless here is an argument walking you through why that claim doesn't prove what you think it does (tl;dr: there are greater instances on individual genetic markers within races than between, but the total weighted effect of these genetic markers (despite between fewer in quantity between than within), produces greater genetic variance between than within): Variation Within and Between Races – The Alternative Hypothesis .

Created:

4 years ago

3

Posted in: