Is today’s stance on race just left-creationism?

I will agree with you on like a personal level (having more people of the opposite sex interested in you) But the idea that non attractive to the mainstream beauty standard's people will have it worse in society (in a communist one no less ) is completely wrong ,look at your tv yes ugly people (wtvr that means) would have a hard time becoming models or anything similar but no one cares if a teacher or a doctor is attractive
Same goes with all blue-collar jobs ,all academic field's etc

What’s with Westerners and their autistic obsession with race? Pretty much the same thing as radlibs and their debates about genders.

Even if you believe there are meaningful genetic differences in intelligence between populations, race is a bad way of viewing it. This is what right-wing brainlets can't wrap their heads around despite how trivially easy it is to understand, when scientists say race doesn't exist what they mean is race is an arbitrary, superficial, and immensely inadequate way of categorizing human genetic variety.

Besides even if you go by the assumptions of rightoids' view of race and Autism Level, not only are the gaps not very large, but they insufficient on nearly every level to explain the social phenomenon rightists claim it explains.

Who the fuck cares? Why do you waste your brainpower on this nonsense?

To be fair the gender shit is mostly pushed by the right trying to make it an issue. See: the bathroom shit that was a completely non-controversial city ordinance until the state of North Carolina threw a hissy fit and held an emergency session to overturn a local ordinance so they could have more culture war horseshit. Notice how it's always the right who repeats ad nauseum "the Democrats care more about trannies taking over womens' bathrooms than they care about honest (white) people!", when most normies and libs can barely tolerate the gays let alone the autistic trans #girlslikeus mob on Twitter. The radlibs are gonna radlib, not much to be done there unfortunately.

That was the 90s and a conservative Democratic president that was elected mainly by the white working class.

Bill didn’t go out of his way to publicize those remarks or make his approval of that books content known. The fact that you have to go back more than 20 years to find a notable example shows how much things have shifted. You rarely see liberal journals or academia countenance the idea that race is anything other than a social construction (the book you posted is an example of that). But, the contradiction is that whiteness immediately stops being a social construction the moment that a white person says anything they dislike, then it’s readily identifiable and plain for everyone to see.

I’ve even seen liberals publish articles complaining that most genetic scientists are white and their samples are white that affects the treatment of certain diseases that disproportionately effect blacks. In that case, it’s made an issue of mere representation rather than an acknowledgement of the reality of race.

But, it’s funny that the term “racialized” (which refers to the social construction of race) has little traction among actual non-white radlib activists but explicitly racial terms like POC does.

Extreme lookism like today happens because people are so atomized. It sounds tired at this point but this is really the first time in human history when masses of people were so concentrated but had almost no way to organically connect to one another. Its important to recognize this though.
Think about it: All that society requires you to do is work, which you do either alone or semi-alone, having only cursory interactions, and then consume, which is more profitable if everybody is doing it in isolation.

This means that everyone constantly has to go out of their way to build a social circle, which is something that humans are occasionally able to do but is definitely not the norm. Communities and human bonds are supposed to evolve out of organically shared experience and mutual dependency for the most part. If you want that nowadays you have to force it, its hard.
We talk about the concept of "making friends" (out of strangers) as something completely normal and natural, but the way in which it works and the fact that this is the normal way of socializing makes it very counter to human nature.
The result is that since everyone is lonely and clamoring for human contact, people sort by superficial bullshit. Looks are one aspect, but also for example scenes centered around, say, a certain kind of music (think about how retarded that actually is, although still better than the normie looks-based caste system).

Very Beautiful people right now live completely different lives than the broad masses. They are highly sought after because in an environment that is completely anonymous, they can transmit something about them within a second.

Keep in mind something, user. The fact that something is a social construction doesn't mean it's not real or that it has no entity. Otherwise racism wouldn't even exist. Even if races are a social construction, they do exist insofar they're real and have entity to people who have grown up socialized to perceive race as a significant of many things (for example, blacks are dumb and aggressive animals, but for the same reason they're sexual beasts). This "spooks" are a reality and the fact is that you probably can't "deconstruct" them. You can, though, acknowledge rationality, data and facts but you'll probably feel the same way towards other races, even as a subconscious impulse. All of this is to say that race bounds, solidarity and etc. are a real thing for many people, this is when IdPol does something coherent. The problem is, they don't have a general theory to explain the genesis of western racism and things like that.

If you know white people and academics enough (outside of the perfunctory requirements of appearing politically correct), not much has changed since the Clinton years. The whole narrative of the Democratic Party since '92 has been "Bill Clinton Forever", to the point where they kept pushing Hillary on us over and over again. The sort of scientific racism of Charles Murray is pretty normal among academics, as I am quite painfully aware. It's impolite to come out and say "niggers are dumb, right fellows?", but the kind of thinking is ubiquitous and heavily implied time and time again, along with the whole milieu of eugenics-inspired rot.

I don't know what liberal journal you're talking about but there are countless studies which control for race, socially constructed or not. For example, the Autism Level studies you would cite re: race are coming from typically liberal sources, because conservatism has a piss poor intellectual tradition. Liberals don't entertain the notion that there is something special or magical about race or "whiteness", but they are always tracking racial groups and finding out how to section people apart from each other.

Again, just read the PDF for fuck's sake to get an idea what people here mean when they talk about "the invention of whiteness". We're not saying that the white man was an illusion created by Yakub 6000 years ago, but that the fuzzy popular conception of "whiteness" in the Americas is fucked up and moronic and fairly useless by any meaningful definition of "race".

It sounds like you believe intelligence is divided among red, yellow, black, and white races. First, genetically we do not divide that way. We divide into a million genetic groups without respect to borders.

Second, most black Americans (not "African Americans") are descendants of slaves. Further, they are descendants of institutionalized racism that ended in worse jobs, worse housing, worse food, and worse education.

As you probably know, Autism Level and test scores depends largely on the home environment and economic class. Working class kids are exposed to less words as a baby than leisure class kids, which ends in developmental delay and lower reading scores. It shouldn't be a surprise that kids in shitty homes have shitty test scores. A lot of black kids grow up in shitty homes, and thereby have shitty scores.

The house you're born into might have a single mom who works three jobs, a lot of different boyfriends who take your mom's limited attention, the house has asbestos but the landlord won't fix it, even the paint is extremely toxic and chipping. When you do remember to do your homework, the house is loud from your brother's music, your sister is watching tv, and mom doesn't come home at nine. That's not a good learning environment.

If I recall correctly, Autism Level goes up with class for every race. This makes sense: more resources, better education. Is there a split in upper class Autism Level among race? Consider their history.

These studies don't give us the answer. Zig Forums thinks they do, but they don't actually give us a conclusion. The answer lies in the interpretation.

*When you are looking at things like racial differences, remember the historical context of different races and remember that race isn't genetically supported.*

Attached: 1564106120391.jpg (421x441, 118.17K)

Biological race is arbitrary, but most importantly it is irrelevant.

So what if blacks are dumber than whites which are dumber than Jews which are dumber than Asians? Do you want to forbid a smart black from being an engineer just because his arbitrary race is dumb, or allow a dumb white to be an engineer because his arbitrary race is smart?

That meme is a cop out and it doesn't make any sense. Of course it does matter.
That's like saying that the wage gap between the average man and woman doesn't matter because it is much smaller than the variation of individual wages among one gender.

That's right. The problem is how.
If dumb aggressive people find themselves failing out of school and going to prison more often, and they're made to believe that the only cause for this is racism, that's only going to make them reject education and resent the racistized group, which in turn will feel wrongly accused and angry, and in the end everyone lives a less dignified life.

Really? The only book that tried to be mainstream on this that has been recently published I can think of that asserts that race is biological rather than socially constructed is Troublesome Inheritance (2014). Maybe it’s different in whatever field of Academia you’re in but in the humanities it seems like social constructionism is dominant. I’ll take a look at the book that you recommended but I’ve already read social constructionist works like Neil Irving Painter’s book “The History of White People”

Just to add to my comment Wade’s book was far from a hit in liberal circles

the wage gap doesn't actually matter, and forcibly erasing the wage gap doesn't necessarily make salaries more fair, only hides the unfairness in other places (e.g. men getting paid for dangerous and hard jobs the same as women get paid for comfy office jobs)

You don't read enough, or you're looking for sources that specifically placate your particularly view of special whiteness or something. Mainstream liberalism is quite comfortable with the racial categorization you see pretty much everywhere that is implicitly accepted by just about every American, and mainstream liberalism doesn't want to talk too much about historical racial oppression - according to Democrat Dogma, Bill Clinton descended from the mountain and saved us from Reaganomics (not really), was the bestest friend of black people, and then Barack Obama became president, ended racism forever by being white peoples' cool black (but half-European half-Kenyan, so the Good kind of black) friend, and saved the economy forevermore. That's what is mainstream in liberal circles. They don't talk about race being socially constructed so much, outside of academic works (and no serious study will tell you Caucasians and Africans are interchangeable, biologically or culturally). By the way, the concept of race being socially constructed is not a newfangled Marxist thing; historically, race or nation were understood to refer to cultural history as well as biological origin, and until the late 19th century there wasn't a firm grasp on genetics so the cultural side was often emphasized more than any biological understanding of race. A European in 1800 wouldn't be having autistic arguments about biological superiority, or if they did most people (normal people and learned alike) would laugh in their face. Their arguments for superiority were rooted in culture (and that remains the primary thrust of white identitarianism today, the superiority of Le Western Civilization and the Clash of Civilizations narrative. (You DO know about the Clash of Civilizations narratives liberals were really big on pushing during the 1990s and 2000s, right? It's still around, those people didn't go anywhere, but most normal people aren't hyped to fight because Christopher Hitchens hates Afghans. A lot.)

You're right about the possible unfair fixes but that doesn't make it not matter (on the contrary actually). It affects the lives of people, and it impacts their political consciousness, so it does matter.

You seem to be describing a climate that has pretty much disappeared. Have you seen the latest democratic debates? its stars and celebrities? It's full idpol le evil white man narrative, and a deep silence when you talk about uncomfortable things of muslims for example. Ilhan Omar, Tlaib, AOC, those are the new stars and they're not talking about Democracy and Western civilization like Hitchens. Those people are still alive but they don't have the preeminence they used to have and they're not the future of liberalism in America.

evolution didn't stop at the neck

a wage gap will exist as long as wages exist, because men are physically much stronger than women, a difference far greater than that found between "races"

other not necessarily undesirable facts may increase the gap too, like women may be socialised to not seek jobs that are high risk or demeaning but that they would be perfectly capable of doing, or may take the task of child-rearing more often which would cause a gap in averages but not affect any women that don't make that choice. as long as "men" and "women" exist as meaningful groups it is because there are social differences between them. even if you abolish gender, the wage gap would exist between "people who choose to work or not have children" and "people who choose to care for the children"

it "doesn't matter", because the existence of wage differences is uncorrectable without dismantling the job market itself

the idea that american blacks commit more crime because they are naturally more aggressive is silly. white troops do worse things to iraqi and afghan civilians when the law doesn't forbid it. if blacks in the US chose not to follow the law it is because society and the state have failed to persuade them to do so, not because they are too dumb to understand law itself

Wow, it's like you can't see anything past narrative. Here's a reality check - if you're believing in narratives mass produced on CNN, FOX News, /pol, or other such outlets, you're a fool, and even most Americans (dumb as they are) know the narrative is bullshit. Narratives are for chumps, or for political posturing and chest-thumping on internet / old media debates. I have no time for someone who actually takes the narrative at face value (and I know you're just here to troll, but again, it's something that has to be said).

The only difference between now and 10 years ago is that media control over the Internet has intensified, and social media apps took over the old forums (after many were ratfucked by operations like, say, the one you're trying to do to us). The legacy media has to go more and more batshit insane to keep up with FOX News and keep their olds hooked to the TV, which is why they had no choice but to handwring over Trump instead of calling him the fucking retarded jackass that he is (gotta keep ratings up, and besides the Clinton campaign was building up Trump and basically dictating the narrative for CNN by the end). There was also a move from Obama to start doing full-scale propaganda on Americans, as if we were a foreign enemy, starting around 2015 and intensifying in 2016 during the election circus (you could practically feel the switch being flipped when the media went to "controlled oligarch media" to "maximum Goebbels mode").

Honestly, right now the ruling ideology is shifting from liberalism to straight up fascism. Your faggotry and ideology is getting pumped to the masses, and it's been more or less passively accepted. I don't know why you're whining and complaining. Maybe you realized too late that you're not actually on the winning team, and the people selling you white identity politics have been laughing at your sorry ass this whole time. But the "SJW" is a strawman meant to be knocked down. Few take them seriously, and usually when they accomplish something, there's money and a wrecker of some sort behind it.

how many times has this thread been made, it feels like someone makes a variation of it everyday here

Attached: disu shitto.jpg (800x450, 79.94K)

dude what the fuck
you actively look schizophrenic
I genuinely don't know what you're talking about. I'm conspiring against someone?
whining and complaining? was I whining? I wasn't even the same poster if that's what you think, so I wasn't fucking whining about anything

In your case, it must have stopped altogether.

HISTORICAL MATERIALISM.
fuck off with your nonscientific American racial drama bullshit.
none of us care what x celebrity said or y retard did.
the reason science still doesn't have answers to many questions regarding race isn't political correctness jews, it's the complexity of such subject, the difficulty of doing research that has a control group and conflicting and insufficient data.
the "civilized" world also destroyed every isolated agricultural society that could have helped show us see how different agricultural societies might develop outside of the typical European/Asian/north African civilizations that have been connected ever since they existed

Attached: socialist-eyes.jpg (362x218, 26.74K)

You're hard selling the "libruls hate wypipo WAAAAAAAAAAAH" narrative so you're functionally similar enough. I don't care if you're the same user or not.
I don't know why anyone tries selling the narrative here any more. Narratives are bullshit. I'm telling you what people in general actually believe in, both at the common level and in those liberal circles that still hold a lot of sway in the decision making apparatuses. What someone says in a show debate is less relevant than who sets tangible policy at, say, the university, or on the city council. Aside from some perfunctory shows of political correctness and tolerance, there isn't a whole lot of "anti-white" policy being enacted. You even mischaracterize the content of that sorry-assed Democrat "debate", considering most of the people on that stage are white men, who often want to advertise that they are white men. You'd be amazed how deferential the general public is towards white men, minorities included. I don't know how you get "DEMOCRATS HATE WYPIPO" unless you're aggressively harping on that obviously scripted scene where Harris played the face and Biden played the heel, which if you knew anything about how the Dem party operates is completely expected. And really, Biden deserved to be eviscerated after that, dude really does not want to be president, and I don't blame him since who would want to inherit this shit heap?

Also "The Squad" are backbenchers who are being highlighted as Trump's pinata of the moment. The whole point of this spectacle is to give Trump a platform to hit the brown and black women, two of whom are Muslims, so that the white trash base are sufficiently riled up and prepped for another round of pure faggotry next year. The mainstream Dems basically give no shit about them, and they represent districts that are so heavily Democrat that their re-election is almost a foregone conclusion. They're not "the future" of anything, because the political talent is largely going to the conservative side in America and the Democrats in general are going to the right along with that (lots of MIC candidates won in 2018, they were incredibly well-funded and organized and ran as centrists to flip Republican districts, i.e. doing the thing that actually makes a modicum of sense if the Demoshits want to keep making money).

Right, I agree with that. That's why I'm not saying that racism was eradicated or that there's actively "anti-white" policies. I never said that because no matter what some antifa student says or whatever, the policies enacted are very different.
11 of the 20 candidates on the stage were white men, yes. But most of them were totally forgettable and irrelevant assholes like Swalwell. The same distribution is not present among the forerunners, where only 2 are white men (Biden & Sanders, in front of Harris, Booker, Warren).
Uhmm, but everyone agrees that it was the most important moment of the debates. Also another relevant one was Castro making O'rourke look like a fool.

You're really upset and freaking out about something completely made up in your mind. I never said that there's an ongoing anuddah shoah or anything crazy and stupid like that. I never said racism doesn't exist. But, even if it's because of Trump or legacy media, people like "the squad" seem now the face of the democrat party. Look at the notes of liberal papers like The Atlantic or things like that, they're 24/7 talking about how white people is becoming a minority and America is now more diverse and we must tolerate and integrate etc. I am not saying this is bad, but that's what they're saying. I was just pointing out this and the fact that the hegemonic speech of the liberal media and democrats is very different now from the 2000's western civilization and democracy one.

Attached: nazball.png (600x699, 251.71K)

...

There is no scientific evidence for race.

people can't even agree on a definition for race, or sometimes definitions that make sense. The American definition for white people is based on the one drop rule, which means whites can't have African ancestry. Considering that humans evolved in Africa, means white people don't exist. Some categories of race posit eternal differences between races and contradict evolution. Racial ranking sometimes take the form of master/salve races (invented by slave merchants) , sometimes it's Warror/builder-races (invented by British colonials) and some concept of races see different level of development, where some races lag behind in time, but still have the same potential as other races. As far as numbers of races goes that ranges from 4 to over 300.

The closest scientific category to race would be subspecies, and that doesn't match reality, humans have no subspecies.
If you go look at statistics for ethnicity, you'll find that virtually everybody is mixed-race

Some people seem to be using white to mean "very sophisticate behaviour", and black "tribal behaviour". Indians call some of there members "white on the inside".

Races are identities based on mostly arbitrary biological features. As far as "evidence" goes, there is now so much biological data that you can find correlation for any group-category you invent. For example short /tall people could also be made into a race, that way. If you want to talk about intelligence, heck why don't we make that the brain-race, that can have different skintones, you know like hair/eye-color. Hello fellow brain, which ethno-suite are you wearing.

There is no reason to believe this, considering that this is mostly based on some visible biological features and in-group out-group thinking, means that if capitalism continues long enough, you'll be able to shop for racial features for designer babies, probably "traditional races" as well as "neo-races", like furries or Anime-like.

As far as strategy goes, there is a nature v nurture debate here. And where you wish to focus your energies.

The people that see reality through "racial glasses" are at best talking about improving human biology/nature, which is impossibly slow with stuff like breading-lineages, and of very questionable efficacy. Genetic editing will take at least a century to mature into a reliable technology, At worst you'll be stuck with a political ally that wants you to shuffle gigantic numbers of people around, to meat some demands for the population to have a specific ethnic composition/distribution, or demands to block certain genetic treatments based on "race-codes"

As far as nurture goes, i.e. improving the environment for people, will yield much faster results, which will be beneficial for political projects.

Politics isn't about sex.

Well that sounds like epigenetics, if you are looking for a scientific interpretation.

Attached: animeyes.jpeg (800x450, 58.57K)

Once again you're not making any sense.
Are you considering my point at all or are you just thinking about your rebuttal ?
Why are you talking about strength when most jobs don't require much of it, especially the best paid ones ?
Why are you comparing a whole population to a selected subset of another put in a different environment ?

The issue is unsolvable, that means it doesn't matter.

Can be improved, perhaps. You might be able to diminish the wage gap by finding and combating discrimination, or by socialising women to take jobs that they now don't. But a gap will always exist.

To demonstrate that the wage gap cannot be ended, only transferred to other groups.

Remember that Trump picked the fight with Ilhan Omar and company at one of his gay orgies, I mean, rallies. Trump wants to hold her up and say, "see, fellow white people? This is the face of the Democratic Party!" It couldn't be more obvious, and of course Blue Checkmark Twitter bit the bait and got his supporters riled up. When you start advancing narratives like that, and you see the same people coming here advancing the same narrative, it's pretty clear someone is just fishing to create a narrative suitable for them rather than the truth - that Omar is an outlier in a heavily Democrat district. The typical Democrat is still usually someone like Adam Schiff or Kirsten Gillibrand, predictably whitebread and moderate candidates that will toe the line on Clintonism, or more CIA candidates like Slotkin or Spanberger, or forgettable and irrelevant assholes like Swalwell. Those are the types of candidates the party already runs in "swing" races, whether we like them or not.
The narrative of identity politics does not mean as much as you think it does. Up until quite recently, Joe Biden had a large chunk of the black vote (don't know if that's still the case, he's certainly slipped in the polls). It's also telling that the two white men are leading, and it's quite possibly in part because they are white men. Like I said, people have quite a bit of deference for white men.
That's not saying much since that "debate" was such a pathetic clown show that it was a waste of broadcast time, but it's quite clear you're committed to soundbite politics instead of actual politics. How the hell can you have a "debate" consisting of two minute speeches on canned topics, anyway? Of course, they're never going to allow anything substantial at debates, and part of that is because it's easier for them to sell The Narrative, and any meaningful conversation on air leads to uncomfortable questions.
No they're not, you overly sensitive faggot. There you go again, inventing a narrative that is so ridiculous. (You do realize that part of legacy news coverage is "wall coverage" - that is, they try to push a strong narrative at any given time to give the impression of a zeitgeist that doesn't actually exist? Textbook propaganda. But even that doesn't describe most lib media outlets. What you're describing is /pol and the right-wing echo chamber which also does wall coverage narrative shaping at a massive scale, in addition to exporting their faggotry everywhere they can on the rest of the Internet.)
We should have fucking pushed integration hard from the Civil Rights Act onward, because segregation was a fucking stupid and ruinous policy that does nothing good for the country. That we still have to have this conversation 50 years later should be utterly baffling. Even conservatives have given up the ghost on that many years ago, which is why until Trump came along the GOP was experimenting with getting the Hispanic vote, and actually made pretty good progress in giving spics the whiteness badge. It'll still happen, in the long term. Spics will just become another kind of wypipo.

The Clash of Civilizations narrative was cancelled because, for a lot of very obvious reasons, it wasn't selling well; but it was a narrative based on things which are very much real. The West is at war with Islam, and at war with the last vestiges of socialism, that is undeniable, however much neoconservatives want to pretend that they can make Iraqis into Ohioans. The reasoning behind the clash of civilizations is very much still acted upon in liberal circles and believed in to varying degrees, and for the most part liberalism has come on board with the Forever War projects of the neoconservatives. Mainstream conservatism, obviously, is very much on board. Trump country and /pol will support whatever they're told to support, because they have zero critical thinking faculties. The new narrative(s) are around, but when it comes to what people do and think in practice, the shit you see plastered all over the news or in shitholes like /pol is surprisingly not very relevant at all.

Sanders is a Jew.

I mean, race like any classification category is ultimately arbitrary. There is no magical marker of nature which cares about "white" or "black" or "European", or even "human" for that matter. We make those categories and hope they resemble the actual creatures we encounter.

It's pretty clear when talking to people they're more interested in the understanding of race as a sociological phenomenon rather than a biological one, and Nazi pseudo-science conflates the two deliberately. I don't even think most passive participants in white idpol care about biological distinctions as much as cultural ones, but because they lack a language to describe culture in meaningful terms they resort to these quasi-scientific explanations. (And this is not merely a fascist or reactionary issue; scientism is prevalent everywhere in our culture, and it infests liberalism like a plague. Even socialism isn't immune.)

humans are defined by being able to reproduce with one another and generate fertile offspring

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (700x700, 43.74K)

plenty of different species are able to crossbreed and have fertile offspring

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_categorization)#Subspecies
sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2017/science-genetics-reshaping-race-debate-21st-century/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Genome_Project
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_genetic_variation
tl;dr
there isn't enough difference for them to be considered different subspecies and those who argue otherwise only look at appearance, the only problem is that appearance doesn't suddenly change when you move a distance but it fades slowly.
pic related is a good simplified map of how humans have immigrated historically

Attached: World_Map_of_Y-DNA_Haplogroups.png (3000x1900, 1.46M)

nice post

Attached: AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA.jpg (1200x1126, 122.39K)

I wonder what would happen if a human tried to mate with a gorilla or chimp. No, I'm serious. Has that been tried?

Anyway, if you want to deny race that's your call, but the "nothing is real lol" argument is not the way to go.

There is some evidence that ancient humans had sex with gorillas since the type of lice found on pubic hair is closely related to the lice found on gorillas.

yes

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanzee

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (1600x2780, 553.02K)

No one is denying the diversity of humanity as a whole. The "racial traits" which many claim are intrinsic is actually influenced by the material conditions (environment, geography, weather etc). These traits have developed over time and propagated to one generation from another through the aforementioned factors. These races did not exist in a vaccum.
What leftists attack the idea of division of mankind, just like capitalism's division of labor.

Race as a concept has always been used to justify discrimination.
youtube.com/watch?v=IuDuKOSQXgk

Here is debunking of races aka the social construct meant to divide humans.
youtube.com/watch?v=teyvcs2S4mI
youtube.com/watch?v=vVmj8dDx9yY

Bonus- wreaking White racists dog whistles
youtube.com/watch?v=vJ_YxluCvag
youtube.com/watch?v=frU21i9CJKI

Nope.
Nope.

Check this out and dispell your comfort-based beliefs :

Values for mammal populations between subspecies, or closely related species, typical values are of the order of 5% to 20%. FST between the Eurasian and North American populations of the gray wolf were reported at 9.9%, those between the Red wolf and Gray wolf populations at between 17% and 18%. The Eastern wolf, a recently recognized highly admixed "wolf-like species" has values of FST below 10% in comparison with both Eurasian (7.6%) and North American gray wolves (5.7%), with the Red wolf (8.5%), and even an even lower value when paired with the Coyote (4.5%).[7]

FST in humans
Edit
FST values depend strongly on the choice of populations. Closely related ethnic groups, such as the Danes vs. the Dutch, or the French vs. the Spanish show values significantly below 1%, indistinguishable from panmixia. Within Europe, the most divergent groups have been found to have values of the order of 7% (Lapps vs. Sardinians).

Larger values are found if highly divergent homogenous groups are compared: the highest such value found was at close to 46%, between Mbuti and Papuans.[8]

Race might be real. It's irrelevant.
Raise everybody up the highest possible. Anything else is cowardice.

So the largest genetic variation just happens to be found between two Black crowds? In other word within a race?

Lmao

It is retarded to suggest though

Bzt, wrong ! You're now the ignorant one who only looks at appearance !

That's basic biology for you !

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14655871

Attached: fst.PNG (512x208, 84.86K)

Lmao

So much for race realism.

I can't access the whole study but that text in your pic is a weak argumentation. A simgle sample exsmination can be bad for a multitude if reason. As for the problem of the model tree, I suppose they argue against the simple phylogenetic model where branches separate without later connection. But I don't see how that matters how the tree looks as long as we get the final points of the branches right.

So much for honesty

Read a book you dumb sack of shit.

Attached: distinction.jpg (505x651 51.52 KB, 60.13K)

Just give it up, leftist can't accept HBO. You are playing chess with pigeons.

I still consider myself a leftist, so I can't give up. What's HBO ?

Read the whole text. Pic is just for review.

Take your race realism shit somewhere else.

Hakim just posted a vid on the topic.
youtube.com/watch?v=pfjCVOE7l2Y

If you consider yourself a leftist then gain self awareness and think why it is considered a social construct when it is talked about, mostly in a social context then mere biological curiosity and analysis.

>If you don't accept our specific interpretations of data, unfounded and unsubstantiated by any of the professionals whose work we parrot for our own purposes, it is in fact YOU who is irredeemably wrong.
The thing is that no one here ever argued the absence of human biodiversity, just that you retards you that half-baked "concession" to imply that your particular theories on the matter are in empiric. For everyone else except you, the existence and acknowledgement of human biodiversity doesn't come with your retard ideology baggage.

youtu.be/SIsndKkasfI

Attached: B73167BB-11EB-43DF-911A-CFB81BA8431E.jpeg (640x485, 136.27K)

You fucking wish
Thats rich, considering that all i did was mention HBO, and got 2 butthurt respones right thereafter telling me about how my "ideology" is wrong

That doesn’t make any sense, either the whole model works or it doesn’t, you can’t pick and choose which portion works, especially if the one failing is the more fundamental aspect of the model.

Can't access the full text.

It is partly a social construct. The biological basis is ignored for convenience and because that idea has been important for conservative and fascist ideologies.

You guys don't deny diversity but you mischaracterize it and minimize it by saying there's not important differences between populations.

Basically, a model can be wrong, and the measurements accurate. In this case, the tree model is in addition not relevant to the existence and importance of genetic distance.
As a comparison, you don't need to have a perfect model for tectonics to recognize that continents are separate.

"Genetic distance is measured by the fixation index (FST). FST is the correlation of randomly chosen alleles in a subgroup to a larger population. It is often expressed as a proportion of genetic diversity. This comparison of genetic variability within (and between) populations is used in population genetics. The values range from 0 to 1; zero indicates the two populations are freely interbreeding, and one would indicate that two populations are separate Many studies place the average FST distance between human races at about 0.125. Henry Harpending argued that this value implies on a world scale a "kinship between two individuals of the same human population is equivalent to kinship between grandparent and grandchild or between half siblings". In fact, the formulas derived in Harpending's paper in the 'Kinship in a subdivided population' section imply that two unrelated individuals of the same race have a higher coefficient of kinship (0.125) than an individual and their mixed race half-sibling (0.109)."
again the problem with the common race understanding is that it doesn't account for how humans have immigrated and the fact that genetic similarity doesn't suddenly drop from 100 to 50 (those are example numbers) when you move a 100 km but it keeps changing slightly the more you move like a spectrum which is why it's difficult to scientifically categorize different populations into subspecies correctly.
a look into human migration routes map (while accounting for geographical distance) in post would tell you which populations shared a closer common ancestor than others.
for example haplogroup A subsaharan africans are closer to europeans than they are to the inhabitants of Madagascar even though one would think that all africans look the same. chadic africans are closer to western europeans than Finnish europeans. that's just a small example of how the common "black people white people yellow people" understanding of race is very incorrect.

Attached: Y-Haplogroups-World-Map.jpg (1440x1017, 399.82K)

Measurements are meaningless without a proper model to place them in. The tree model is the only thing that gives genetic distance any relevance by giving an aspect of comparison.

This is either a poor attempt at an analogy or classic sharpshooter fallacy. Hell the concept continents is as equally arbitrary as taxonomy as the tectonics cut across continents

Read the end of my statement, where I, too, call your ideology retarded - because it is.

Ok big boi. What's my ideology?

This is quite usually the primary characterization, but that the reason for the emergence of notable difference is not essential to race, but a product of a combination of epigenetic, environmental, and base gene considerations. If anyone is to be susceptible to the accusation of blatant oversimplification, it would most probably be the faction whose use of the scientific record always comes in the form of denying the existing consensus as the null hypothesis, decontextualizing most scientific studies referred to (unless tailor prepared by one of the four living hierophants of the alchemy of racial pseudoscience), posting pictures of Africa and claiming colonialism was positive, and then tying all of these together in an unceasing cycle of both sides talking past one another.

There is no such thing as race, this has been proven by population genetics. Read up on the actual science, and don't base your opinions on "muh common logic" plebshit empirical takes

Measurements are meaningless and the concept of continent is arbitrary ? Tell that to the guys who drown in the sea trying to get to Europe, I'm sure they will be relieved to hear the water in their lungs isn't real.

Reality doesn't wait for a perfect model before it becomes real, you slimy preacher.

I agree with that though.
And the border difficulty is real but a side point.

Attached: Ring_Species_(gene_flow_around_a_barrier).png (800x536, 155.01K)

If your from above precludes statements made where leftists acknowledge human biodiversity, to assert that the extant argument about essential racial difference being wholly and undeviatingly a result of presently existing genetic difference - as is mildly suggestive of the arguments of the detractor, then yes - it is this implied loss of empiric reasoning on the part of the leftist, the abandoning of """the painful truth""" for the """comfortable lie""" that I am saying is part and parcel of an understanding of the materiel at hand that is tainted by ideological considerations. That is the ideology. Good try with the dishonest questioning though, I would afford you full marks in a rhetorics class

Its backwards, race is the biggest spook of our time and on par with creationism. We would be the enlightenment in that situation. Variance in Autism Level has more to do with environment anyway, and mate preference with social status. Given that white people commonly have are perceived to be wealthier, that’s not surprising.

Sure I will. Not an argument.

Not an argument. Models can be imperfect or perfect in describing reality, but basing any prescription in a very flawed model is the real slimy move. Ironic that you are the one preaching stuff not me.

You would pass every sophistry class with that word salad.

Creationist.

Duly noted, words are oppressing you. If you're implying that leftists aren't acknowledging biodiversity, by ignoring above statements and continuing to assert the race realist position of the immutable genetic-social relation, then you're doing so with an ideological bend - because you're ignoring context, evidence, and arguments in favor of your comfortable reasoning where you're simply the most rational guy in the room no matter what is said

I am not the one consistently misunderstand the other’s post to make meaningless statements.

thx

Yes, but the alternative would lead to even more opportunities for divide-and-conquer bullshit so it's best to ignore the whole issue and treat everyone as equal comrades.
Even the most extreme differences claimed by race-realists are tiny compared to random differences between individuals of the same race, so it's not like it actually matters.

The reality of race is mostly that different races have different genetic predispositions to racism.

Racists are obsessed with enemy partisans, specifically race-type. So they turn into chaotic lackwits looking for the next level of every pattern, bilking anyone who’ll fall prey to them. The consequence: famine. Scientific collapse.

Racists can’t handle world-changing new technologies like neural rehabilitation. They would expect great evils to be trying to have one over on them. Racists rape privacy in fear of a world that wouldn’t harm them if they’d just be honest.

Ultimately, racists would rather breed and die than live forever, so they seek the solace of the tribe that will let them get away with rape. They submit themselves to lies and deaths rather than developing in themselves the courage to face a world unwatched and the honesty to present their goals forthrightly.

And wouldn’t you know it, modern racists are starting to notice that by spreading violations of privacy and being absolutely loyal to the people who aimed them, they can drag back the whole world. Who needs eternity? Who wants to live? Living requires too much trust for unsafe people.

OP is an obedient liar. They rape their own integrity for our amusement, proud of their submission to dishonesty.

Go back to Zig Forums, a whole loof people in this wonderfully anchored thread. OP even denigrates egalitarianism. They’re completely enslaved to their own dishonesty.

Thanks. I think the fraud 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸Stephen J Gould🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸 is responsible for that irrelevant argument.

Yeah bro i'm sure those guatemalans and sub saharan africans are reading up on the labor theory of value. We're all the same with the same capabilities. No race isn't real here's a big overly complicated paper explaining why. Yeah dude i would totally rather live in a community of 90% africans rather than europeans bro… the cuisine dude!

Hint: 96% of people involved in the actual left that isn't just liberal garbage are white people

Attached: 1515960457314.jpg (640x638, 40.03K)

...