Race

natural selection isnt real just imaginary lines drawn
retard

race might be real but it's still irrelevant

A big point leftist make is that human biodiversity is more like a spectrum than discrete categories between groups of individuals. As a result it's useless to try and divide people in such a manner, and historically was only done to promote worker infighting. It's often misinterpreted as a disbelief in differences between people, however.

There is no biological basis for race.
All scientific "racial" categories are based on ethnicity.
Racism is the belief that races are real and have a biological basis (this is absolutely untrue), and the societal structures that persist due to how widespread this belief became.
Race is not real, but racism is.

Race is not material. Species are, two animals of different species cannot produce fertile offspring. Who is in what race is never set in stone, it is not a material reality. "Races" are created culturally and can change definition or even seize to exist when it is politically usefull to do so. Just look at the irish and the english, who used to be considered vastly different races by the english. Races are not real, you cannot recreate race from pure data alone like you can species, you will end up with vastly different "races" which are purely based on your K number of clusters.

Fun fact, if you actually tried to created races from pre-modern-mix humans from genetic data alone, with, lets say, 10 races, you would have 9 african races and 1 euroasiamerican race.

For something to be real it has to be able to be reconstructed from expriments or emperical data. Races cannot be, they are cultural categories, and as such are not real.

Is this thread full of people pretending to be retarded?

Because it may be a crucial to the economy .

Attached: 15g3jks8juq11.png (374x767, 308.51K)

In what sense do you believe races to be real, and how is that important to the economy? Not being a dick just looking for a range of perspectives

We don't give a shit about Race, we care only about the enslavement of billions because of Capatalism.

If you wanna be Racist or live in your MUH ETHOSTATE we don't give a shit, you are either for Capitalism or against Capitalism and if you are for Capitalism we will line every Black, Asian, White, and etc up against a wall and pull the trigger.

race is a social construct the nice dual citizenship holding Israeli Jewish professor told me so

OK then sweetie explain pic rel for me

Attached: b926243ec53f7bc806f06ac35a02d52382a083499c972564c9c1222626f0ab68.gif (2970x2400, 851.12K)

Thats the worst infograph i have ever seen sweetie

Attached: images.jpg (278x181, 4.02K)

Imagine being this fucking retarded

Attached: Alexandrov_Ensemble_16.jpg (550x390, 123.98K)

Plz talk about eskimo theory

Attached: edge.png (373x327, 190.12K)

race doens't exist we are all descendants of adam and eve those who propagate the nonsense theory of evolution will be lined up against a wall and shot for their crimes after the revolution

Attached: stfuliberal.png (573x591, 415.08K)

European deer are different than North American Deer and are classified as different species, all humans are the same duh, can't you see that West Africans are exactly like Orientals?

Youre right, evolution doesnt apply to you, back to the zoo, bobo.

Take a genetics class in youre so smart, OP.

Umm it's right there at the bottom of every box honeybuns. Myth #1 source for example: Li JZ et al. "Worldwide human relationships inferred from genome-wide patterns of variation." Science. 2008 Feb 22;319(5866):1100-4

Now prove that race isn't real. I dare you.

From the actual study's abstract:

The relationship between haplotype heterozygosity and geography was consistent with the hypothesis of a
serial founder effect with a single origin in sub-Saharan Africa

Now please explain how the """info graph""" draws the conclusion from that that "Africans are consistently separated from the rest since they were evolving separately for more than 40k years" . Yet another Zig Forums graph that draws blatantly false conclusions from a study they never read.

the difference is much murkier than whatever you repeat from high school biology class, that's for sure, especially considering how many differing species can produce fertile offspring, polar bears and grizzly bears being an obvious example

That just means all the races share a common ancestor in Africa but that doesn't mean they haven't developed their own separate ways evolutionarily. Africans evolved in a warm region where all the food was just about readily available to them – they didn't have regular monsoons or winters to predict and prepare for, they didn't have any impetus to evolve as did Indians or Caucasians for instance. One more, they came from one origin but had divergent paths. Also you still haven't touched on all the other debunked myths – there are genetic markers and phenotypic differences that account for the differences among these various races.

For

=THE ESKIMO THEORY=
=FUCKING BINGO=

lmao Eskimos have winter year round, they can't prepare for anything. Their lands suck, are frozen, and the only thing they can do is hunt elephant seals and build igloos. Just about no trees, poor geographic location (far up north from everyone else) and it's just way too cold to ever do anything. It's like hibernating forever. White pipo on the other hand had trees, mined resources because it wasn't too cold, and had horses, cows, easier access to other lands, etc.
Your move.

And yet Eskimos haven't fucking advanced at all. They're still in igloos up in Canada.

Race is a political term with no scientific basis. Demographic groups on the other hand, have a very solid scientific basis. Take Africa for instance. When talking about race, people consider all sub-saharan africans as "blacks". However, from a genetic standpoint, an Nilot African is more different from a Bantu African than an European is from an East Asian. And that can also be seen in their physical traits for those who actually put some effort in researching the topic. There are roughly 5 different demographic groups in Africa, all very different from eachother, but the idea of "race" only gives us the "black race".

Another example would be the always ignored central Asians, who are a mix of European and East Asian. They are thus a very distinct demographic group of their own, but the concept of race can only tell us that they are "a mix of two races".

So, as you can see, race is a useless social construct. If you're interested in human diversity you got to talk about demo groups. Here's a nice non-right-wing youtube channel that actually goes into detail about various such groups: youtube.com/channel/UC1vVNQN-TCy8d3Mb_Owr2Kw

Attached: 02ae1f5d866772b29938abba850cf41cb372901581f3b5091634aeacc4c58cd4.mp4 (426x240 1.46 MB, 1.65M)

Did you have to buy these by the pixel?

Races exist if we are talking about the different hues people can come in but if you look deeper into it can get very tricky in deceding what goes where.
The ethnic groups of the Horn of Africa come from independent of shoot of the Afro-asiatic and denigrated back into the horn via , they are "racially" closer to Arabs & Berbers than any other people including Africans.

Times is hard, bud.

Those deer have been separate populations for millions of years. Humans have only been around for ~200,000 years and have traveled and mixed a lot in that time. Humans "leaving Africa" happened gradually and with a lot of back-and-forth over millennia.

isnt that the whole point of racialists though. to separate and allow the population to drift apart and not mix?

Human Bio Diversity people don't maintain that there is anything that necessitates a discreet categorization, they can make all their points operating under the assumption that this is all on a spectrum. The fact that we can conceptualize of biological phenomena as existing on a spectrum doesn't change any of their claims. The classic example being the analogy between race and the color spectrum. Sure, orange exists. That however does not negate the fact that we can observe yellow and red.

or the gender spectrum for that matter

some girls have pensises

some groups of humans have tiny brains and are members of the baboon menace

deal with it sweaties

boons to society=Rightist
Zoo=gulag

Attached: 4b2eb6bf446dc2c5d518e86a18dccedffdae7d97456639965258aa9cf56421f8.png (1063x1388, 1008.98K)

"Race" as we know it today is an anglo/American invention. Also reminder that if you aren't anglo you aren't white.

Attached: benjamin franklin white.jpg (850x400, 71.27K)

All you are doing is playing a word game. You replaced race with 'demographic group'.
You also maintain a very odd definition of the term race which you then reject. I mean, fine, I reject your odd definition of the term race as well. That there is more genetic diversity within Africa than outside of it is not a strike against racial categorization in the conceptualization that any Human Bio Diversity person holds.
The fact of the matter is that we can see that SSAfrican groups are phenotypically distinct from European groups. We can genetically corroborate this observed difference, and we continuously observe it through various measurements. None of what is said here implies that there does not exist intra-group diversity. It just delineates that this difference is of a smaller scope pheno and genotypically.

SCANDINAVIANS AREN'T WHITE
MADE BY
FOUNDING FATHER GANG

So you just replace race with ethnicity? Is ethnicity biologically real?

Multiple species exist that can have fertile offspring with other species. Speciation is not as material as you imagine.
All you are doing is playing a wordgame. Just because the human construct of race has changed, and the definition of the word has changed, does not mean that the biological reality that spurred the creation of the word has changed. The Irish are different from the English pheno and genotypically. This difference is materially real, just like the materially real difference between Western Europeans and SSAfricans is real.
There used to be a material reality that maintained we could create gold by mixing together metals. The verbal constructs we created around this supposed material reality changed once we better understood reality. The fact that our understanding changed does not mean reality changed. Pointing towards this change in human understanding as a strike against chemistry, maintaining it is not a representation of material reality, is stupid.

Yes, there exists greater genetic diversity within Africa than outside of it.

We can reconstruct self identified races through genetic data with 99.X% accuracy.

No, ethnicity has a definition, and it's socially constructed.

Everything is socially constructed outside of your physical interaction with it. Chemistry and Physics are socially constructed. I would still maintain they represent reality in a valid way.
But if none of this is biologically real, how do we chalk up all of the measured pheno and genotypic differences between population groups?

Absolutely perfidious.

So you admit that there is more genetic diversity between African population than between European and East Asians but somehow it is smaller in scope than that between Africans as a whole and other "races" because "intra-group", whatever that means? If there are so many differences between Africans then there are is no such things as intra-groups - they are distinct groups.

Did you even read what you wrote?

Attached: i-would-prefer-not-to.png (443x395, 135.97K)

Attached: e978261c70378dbbb0b84a1aebb233f65379f164ee30ff9728508430329da5b2.png (1505x1035, 394.05K)

Races exists, although there is no correlation between it and Autism Level, and between races and ethnicities, for example, the English are usually assumed to be mainly the descendants of The Anglo-Saxons. However, once you actually study their genome, one is reveled with a mostly Celtic ancestry, giving credence to the fact that culture determines an individual much more than racial ancestry.

What kind of Haplogroup R1b bullshit thread is this

Attached: IMG_1904.jpg (750x733, 156.54K)

What do you mean "admit"? Nothing to the contrary was ever maintained. Did you imagine the HBD crowd didn't know this? That this in any way conflicts with what they say? It's literally a part of what they say.
What are you talking about? It's not "because" of anything. It just is a fact of genetic measurement. The fact that intra-group diversity exists has nothing to do with it.

While we're at it:

Attached: 9541fe6b83b97a36cb23e4d938cc2b6f5266737a880a6b03d9498a2dfe8eda1e.png (4856x1296, 785.33K)

Read ANY of those sources in your infograph beyond the explicit racialist ones and it will contradict and disprove your point.

Attached: checksourcefascist.png (1600x2780 433.3 KB, 488.79K)

Second pic literally debunked by

READ STALIN
marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1913/03a.htm

Well frankly, is complete debunked by my first pic.

Race realism TL;DR: genetic clustering with unclear effects occurs, therefor all hitherto existing racial stereotypes are true.

Attached: 46048e1a768c3190b29e48c900834ca97581dd136506bd3120f640d6372b0f0e.png (1104x872, 37.75K)

Race doesn't exist beyond social ideas.

Racial divide in socioeconomic status is caused by low levels of class mobility.

This economic mobility as well as the recent history of each ethnic group influences their culture or sub culture.

Racists should have the shit kicked out of them until they stop spewing hate and pseudoscience

Racism seems to thrive in capitalist system. In order to keep slavery around, racism was a tool used by porky. Race to me is such an irrelevant topic as it just seems like a byproduct of capitalist society.
I do think racism is somewhat instinctual because as humans we fear the unknown or those different. Overcoming that can be a difficult task for some.

Yes, certain traits have a basis in genetics but this doesn't mean that the person has less inherent value.

A broad aptitude test administered on an individual basis that assesses the strengths and weaknesses of individual citizens rather than an assessment based on race or sex would be a better way of approaching this. This way the strengths of individuals can be best used to further the common good.

...

...

...

“Race realism” is just code for white supremacy.

Attached: 4B137223-F0A9-494F-BDA0-7814CE99A850.jpeg (300x300, 14.7K)

Come on, now update your shit.

Attached: Lefty pol research.jpg (1122x4320, 3.26M)

We're all the same in the inside, racists

Attached: 9.PNG (320x303 438.4 KB, 26.15K)

Actually, we're literally all different inside retard. Even "identical" twins.

Attached: 2d8158bde2476aa4b72c2cecf96795e7f4c42ca077e724a6ffcaddd98aa5e43d.jpg (1066x600, 159.21K)

right, so theres abbos and everyone else.

L

Technically Africans have wider faces, Europeans are more narrow. Native Americans have really tight faces and smaller cheek bones and Asians have a smaller forehead and outgoing mouth.
Aborigines have the most open faces since they're in a warm climate.

social equality≠biological equality, retard.
Although if it makes you feel any better I advocate race mixing.

the abbos have huge eyebrow ridges and a different shaped scalp than the rest. otherwise, the rest all look very similar
need I mention the absurdity of making "sub saharan african" one category? or of distinguishing europeans from east asians while at the same time using "native americans" as one single category?
the point isnt that you cant identify different genetic clusters in humanity, but that the categories of race, ie, "white, black, asian, indian" are near meaningless genetically such that any attempt to link them to genetics is bullshit by default.

This is what YOU retards actually believe
That without outside influence Whites will all work together happily, both rich and poor with no problems at all.

This

interesting thing is voting habits imho: in hessen/germany people with migration background voted for AfD (right-wing anti-immigration party) 1% more than those without migration background

Attached: uvchart-kxgwbhtsjqrx-101~_v-videowebl.jpg (960x540, 46.57K)

'BURGER! EMPIRICISM IS GOOD!' And even if all your empirical data happens to be true, how does that justify your politics? Your ethnonationalist compromise (since all reactionaries LOVE compromises in the face of illusory limitations, that's the point of their politics) assumes that this gap - if it truly does exist in the way that your image suggests it is, which frankly does not pin it on biology even though that what you're after - will persist if no other solution works, or that at least your segregationism is the best thing on the table. Then by that very reasoning human flight was not the best thing on the table because land was much easier to access, then, huh? Developing the technology to sort that out was a stupid thing, right? I take it that civilisation itself was a mistake, too, what with all those deaths and all that suffering?
Even if all your empirical claims here are true, you still cannot construct an ethics which does not appeal to some sort of 'inherent' limitation which we can in fact overcome. In short, RACISM IS A MORAL AND ETHICAL PROGRAMME because 'science' and empirical data alone tells us nothing about what we are to do and what we should consider. That rests upon PHILOSOPHICAL assumptions.
You tell us that your politics is that of strength and overcoming - you know, uebermenschen like you should know this very well - but you are so ready to shy away from doing something as unthinkable as sorting out the gap. Come on, the data that you and your ilk have sourced is testament to how difficult it must be then, right? Then you bloodsuckers want to tell us about 'reality' because in actual fact you don't want to give a shit about it, you act like you're above it, much like Hegel's 'beautiful soul'.
Rafiq was right again when he schooled that 'vegan anarchist': your tricks appear to work, but that is only because of many epistemological assumptions which pseudo-liberal technocrats and their high priests in the dominant empiricist trend - Peter Singer and Steven Pinker being just two of them - have become taken as given in the sciences, leading to the creations of monsters such as sociobiology.

You, of course, will be screaming about how leftists are anti-science, taking various combinations of words out of context and posting them on numerous sites which are allied to your cause. No, the argument here is that we recognise that with regards to politics (in other words, anything that concerns the social world, i.e. other humans), we cannot just get by with invoking empirical data, and this happened to be one of Marx's key criticisms of the classical economists before him such as Smith and Ricardo. Working with empirical data alone tells people nothing because without a philosophical framework we simply don't know how to treat it. Even if we can name what we see before us, the perceived existence of these things alone does not mean that we should do anything in particular with them. For example, one can take the perspective of Bishop George Berkeley and tell us that we can't even know whether these things exist or not. He presents to us a solipsist scepticism, and the only way that he can fill in the gap is by saying that 'God gives us this knowledge'. What's more, even if these named things ARE objective, so what? If there's an elephant floating in front of me, what do I do? I can let it be. I can make sure that I'm in its way so that it might come and kill me. I can weaponise the damn thing somehow. Some of these things are easier than others, yes, but why shouldn't I pursue something that's difficult? Keeping ourselves alive is so difficult, why don't we all just kill ourselves? You've taken the answers to such questions as given through outright ignoring them or never even considering that those questions exist. Worse still, empiricism fails to take into account things which cannot be formalised. Empiricism can at best only work with extrapolations of formalised logic which concerns the sum-total of what is perceived, with anything else simply not existing. Formal logic can only take into account a given number of qualities. Anything else can be regarded as 'background noise which we can't know about', there is no way to formally describe it. But consciousness - more accurately, the self-conscious access to reason which is talked about in Continental philosophical works - cannot be formalised because when we describe it, we describe ourselves and at the moment that we do that, precisely by way of gaining such knowledge we change ourselves, namely the way in which we see the world. This is the reasoning behind the NPC meme that your ilk are waving around: other people are computers because there's no way of telling whether they have access to reason or not, or even if they're conscious; they might as well be computers running blocks of code as far as those who originally spouted the meme can give a shit. The only way to prove otherwise is to become 'enlightened' and 'redpilled' - in other words, to submit to your ideological god. Analytic Anglospheric empiricists struggle with similar things! They call it the 'hard problem of consciousness'. Because they can't consider that oh-so-hidden(!) social world for what it is - that universal commons of reason - they fall back to thinking that neuroscience provides the answer and more biological reductionisms, or they say that we have a soul of some sort and that somewhere along the line some deity is needed for that.
Unlike them and you, Marxists know that they don't rely on empirical claims for all of what they say because even by the standards of the empiricists, empiricism itself relies on non-empirical claims - the difference being that for the latter they go unquestioned in many ways. So you can babble on about empirical data all you want but without considering what the fuck it means, all you've given us is propaganda which appeals to the assumptions made by an increasingly-popular sect of ruling ideology. Even Karl Popper said much about this 'scientism' of yours, so don't spit that 'unfalsifiability' crap back.

Empiricists, being unable to think of anything better than sociobiology or some fixed sociological rules of thumb (such as those used in bourgeois economics) in trying to understand the social world at the pace at which it moves, find themselves wrapped up in all sorts of ethical monstrosities. For example, if human thought is causally owed to and strictly determined by biological processes then it follows we are no different from animals who have similar abilities of cognition. No different to dolphins, chimps and the like besides from obvious biological differences such as larger brains with more biological units and processes which are dedicated to cognition. Chimps, too, have 'social' formations, so do dolphins, so do all kinds of other animals on the planet. This obviously doesn't mean that we can consider them on the same level as humans. We can either take the route of an Avatar-style animist (which falls apart unless we treat all animals as ethical agents - and where does this stop? At insects? Bacteria? Rocks? Sub-atomic particles…?) or we can establish a hierarchy based on empirical data which is presently-avaliable with most if not all of the prevailing assumptions that these empiricsts have in mind. This is perfect for the 'scientific' racists of our time, who can now tell us that sub-Saharan Africans are less intelligent than animals let alone Caucasians and Mongoloids because of biological differences between them! 'Look at how the loony left, egged on by Jews and self-hating whites are trying to prevent others from just connecting the dots!' But that's just it - the dots do not connect. First, neurological processes are quite different from thought and they are not causally-linked - they only facilitate each other. To claim otherwise is to attempt to demonstrate that such processes can be casually-linked - in other words, we can pin down every single thought to neurological processes, including that which accounts for the thought that human thought can be owed to such processes itself. And the thought that accounts for thinking about that thought, too. And so on; this is just one example of an infinite loop which generates qualitatively-different thoughts. Potentially-infinite numbers of thoughts with potentially-infinite dimensions and sides, with nothing in biology, chemistry and even physics to explain all the intricacies of them. Second, appealing to 'socioeconomic status' is not enough. Does there not exist a culture of depravity and identity politics among large segments of the sub-Saharan population, particularly in the US, for example, which allows the richer ones to maintain rituals which are frankly superstitious (and not just in a way which seems obviously-so), only made worse by the pity politics which social-liberalism in general has been reduced to (which is something that your ilk absolutely love to point out because you use it to tell others about your more-obviously segregationist alternative). Come on, did you conveniently forget the spread and popularisation of a de-radicalised yet glorified ghetto culture?

Before you sneer about it, pointing out depravities is not against leftist values, it is only a taboo for social-liberals, against whom you have been trained by all this experience BTFOing liberals epic style. We stand for organised and conscious self-discipline and the ruthless overcoming of all obstacles which face us from the world outside us through bringing it under the control of those who have access to the commons of reason.
Third, how is your solution the only one on the table when there are numerous other methods of education which haven't even been synthesised yet? Are you telling us that research into them is worthless? Again, like all reactionaries you are telling us that there is an inherent limitation for which we need some sort of compromise. That there is a limitation does not matter, it is whether we can sort it out or not. You will tell us that we can't. Really? This is a positive empirical claim which requires evidence, since you are telling us about something that will permanently remain outside of our reach. The short answer is that you can't give any; the best that you can do is tell us that we're short of time. Why? Because: the movements to which you are allied are growing; people are generally getting dumber; there are plenty of other things to consider and it's a nightmare trying to sort it all out… ENOUGH FUCKING EXCUSES. You are part of the problem that you describe to us; it is in your interest that this problem is perpetuated so that the only solution is that segregationism which you masturbate to. But let's discuss your solution anyway. For you, of course it's no problem because you don't consider yourself a part of the mess. You'll just get your pay, get your idols and sod off home wanking all the way. Or so you tell yourself, because unfortunately someone can easily find a reason to send you off to the concentration camps or back to 'your own country': 'You're just not pure enough'; 'you don't embody the ideal man enough'. Little if anything at all in the domain of human reason is static, for there is ALWAYS a way to revise and expand upon given strands of reasoning. The standards of 'pureness' will shift as your masters set about creating their perfect races. If you aren't a part of the haute bourgeoisie, you are well and truly fucked; they will treat you like guinea pigs who firstly don't need to think and then eventually don't think at all. What can be done to a rat can be done to a human, no? If you do happen to be very powerful, you will still have to fight - not just against angry masses who rebel against you but among your colleagues in the machines of power. If not, you too shall suffer and die. The only way out here is a nationalist petty-bourgeois 'socialism', or a strong work ethic with none of those darkies around. And what will become of international organisation, for example? Even towering walls and non-aggression pacts will not work here because countries are fundamentally independent, and that is necessary for the purposes of growing faster. You could say that you'll get there eventually, but no, INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION IS BETTER FOR EVERYONE DUE TO MUTUAL BENEFIT. The 'globalism' that we are faced with today is a pathetically-disorganised and compromising sort of international politics, and the example of the UN's 'Agenda 21' is yet another eco-fascist compromise which focusses on a flawed notion of 'sustainability' and the collectivism-individualism dichotomy which Communists overcome through notions which are similar to Stirner's 'unions of egoists'. In pseudo-Hegelese, it is the union of universal and particular when it comes to politics. No mention of the internationalism of Communists at all. So no, that is a terrible option. But there's more to the problems with segregationism besides this: if we take this kind philosophy to its extreme, are some races not objectively better than others? If so, why shouldn't they control the entire world? Hence there is little besides pity politics which stops a mere keeping-apart from becoming a vicious battle of many supremacisms! In other words, without keeping your ethnonationalism weak and moderate, you are calling for a world war with all the spilled blood and destruction that it brings. Judging by the calls for such a 'race war' to erupt, that's something you consciously recognise and in fact romanticise.

And don't worry, reactionary stooge, I can think of plenty of things which will absolutely horrify you. Chew on this if you have the fucking stomach for it, aren't you a fearless man of science who stands against those lazy and idealistic leftists? Keep in mind that there are differences between the sources and what I say because the left is not a hive-mind, contrary to what you might think.
revleft.space/vb/threads/196200-Veganism?p=2876704#post2876704
revleft.space/vb/threads/192239-Marx?p=2823991#post2823991
questionofwill.com/en/reza-negarestani-2/
dialectics.org/dialectics/Primer_files/Karl_H._Seldon_,_for_F.E.D._,_v.2.0_,_Introduction_to_'Contra-Boolean'_Thinking_,_21MAY2016.pdf

Race is absolutely real, not as a "real biological" thing, but the fact humans act like race is real, makes it real in every meaningful way.

This is correct. It is only there because it serves some sort of use for us - but the nature of this use is misunderstood by 'race realists'.

Continuing from the earlier walls: inb4 'huck hyuck huck kekekekek butthurt science deniers': Alright, what is Autism Level, then, and whatare these tests? What do they indicate and measure? The ability of a person to compute things formally and to understand patterns in the world. The problem here is, for example, a Mensa member can defend the most ridiculous mystical bullshit. This is not even an arcane insight known only to Marxists, it is something that a fucking preteen can understand thanks to widespread anti-intellectualism which happens to be present in reactionary movements too, just like your own. 'Brainlets', 'woke redpilled geniuses' and the like are inescapably defined politically. That is not to say that cannot be related to objective things, but that even when it is, it is not done well enough. It is always about who is best equipped to follow something, and as far as measures of Autism Level can be concerned, it is about how best they can do things which uphold the ruling order - keeping assumptions about various patterns in non-verbal tests, understanding systems of formal logic which work only with given contexts which are not controversial as far as bourgeois science is concerned… That is not to say that these contexts have no value, for things like Ockham's razor are VERY much important to the sciences for the purpose of compressing trends in data to fewer variables by only taking into account the relevant ones. And yes, understanding and comprehending them is indeed important for forming new formal systems. But sticking to those formal systems - as a computer or 'NPC' does - is precisely what psychology itself has become about. Don't bother trying to wriggle your way out of this one, this is precisely what Jensen and other such filth were on about, e.g. the first two chapters of emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/uploads/The-g-factor-the-science-of-mental-ability-Arthur-R.-Jensen.pdf
And before you talk about Locke's account of subjectivity being buried and empiricism having been developed quite a lot by that philospher, empiricism has moved far beyond him, even if we only take Berkeley and Hume into account. Again, look in the direction of much of the Analytic school for filth like this, particularly many of those who aren't in the business of Apologetics.
It is impossible to formalise the dialectic because the dialectic is the mechanism through which we make the objective world beyond us known to us. It is the thing through which we pull qualiatively-new concepts from, unconsciously-so, and then we make those concepts known to us through formalisation - turning them into abstract and clear-cut laws, which has itself happened to notions of the dialectic which have remained popular among many leftists, giving more ammunition to the anti-dialectics crowds. Nowhere is this found so explicitly in mathematic with what Foundation Encyclopedia Dialectica call the 'Goedelian dialectic', or that dialectic through which we synthesise new systems of algebra, such as those which involve complex numbers and the sedenions. The dialectic is inherent to reason as a consequence of reason's instability, demonstrated by Hegel when he showed that one can build the concept of pure Nothing out of pure Being before he went on to Becoming and beyond. g cannot ahistorically account for this at all - just like any other measures - because it describes FORMAL systems when the very measures which Jensen talks about are ultimately based upon social and historical contexts - objective ones at best, but not ones which are above history. Reason is itself historical, and so are many if not all of its fruits.

R-Rafiq? Is that you?

I am not Rafiq, I've been compared to him but he has far more typos than I do and he didn't say a word about FED - at least, out of anything that I could find on RevLeft or the archives that were taken from his blog.

Oh no, not you again

Attached: IMG_3187.JPG (1920x1235, 383.69K)

No one compared you to him in good faith, I assure you. Merely a derisive comment on your ability to produce superfluous text in response to negligible or minimal stimuli, you fucking pedant.

Cry as much as you fucking want, because frankly it falls to scum like me to do you a service in getting to the root of the claims which our enemies hold. If they win in the theory department, you will have all the more reason to cry. In fact, I haven't typed nearly enough. Do you not see that we've now got not one but multiple popular meme response to our own responses to the Zig Forums infographs? As far as conducting a propaganda campaign goes, this is indeed a setback. These maymays will be reposted by bots and a few vocal petty-bourg swine, working their way towards reaching the contrarians who are poised to become outright reactionary stooges if they aren't already. I would much rather that you face this crap and post something in response, but no, it falls to people like me who have plenty of other things to get on with even if one considers reading theory alone.
For an individual Communist, unless one is utterly gish-galloped to the extent that the time needed to sort out the mess is far too impractical, it is a point of duty to construct responses to these claims even if they are not shared with the enemy.
I, of course, choose to share my arguments with some of them not only so that they might fuck off and keep screwing up, but so that other Communists on this board can see what responses they should make to the reactionaries who plague this website. I would frankly love it if you tell me what I'm doing wrong, really, that would save me a lot of time.

This is your brain on Philosophy and Hegelianism everyone. Always remember that Marx considered philosophy another form of religion and thus equally to be condemned. The proletariat, nor anyone for that matter (besides our deranged pseudo-intellectual friend here) will ever read this nonsense nor does it help anyone in any way fight capitalism. Philosophy is a game in interpretation, thus making those who really have nothing to say feel like they indeed do have something to say.

Attached: IMG_2732.JPG (912x1024, 104.67K)

He is not wrong though.

is that because whites come out on top in the stats?

it's because you're an idiot and you don't know how biology works