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)