Dialectical Memetics

Some Gorean over on 4pol got a hold of the "Ammo" folder we were using in our efforts to colonize their memespace, and is distributing counter-memetics. I find this interesting, as it constitutes an example of dialectical memetics. I will post more as they appear.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=RK3sguRWYK0
sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070420104723.htm
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Brain
Ideology

well we might as well do a debunking of this, right?

Done kek

Those are British sources, and the charts don't mention anything about methodology. You should stick to replying to the sources discussed in the infograph, or it doesn't really count.

I'm sure niggers in the United States have worse SAT scores than Whites. The point is that I can show a counter example. I'm not going to try and debunk an objective fact, Im gonna debunk what they assume is the causal effect.

If poor White British boys are doing worse on standardized test than niggers in England by Holla Forums's logic, they are now subhuman. If not, we must look for other causal explanations. These can include cultural, genetic or otherwise. But the racilist are going to have to do genetic mapping, and control for genes and environment when doing studies if they want to have a leg to stand on.

Until then they're pointing out correlation - this is completely meaningless until causation is established.

No, I think Holla Forums would say that Autism Level falls along a curve, and whites tend to display higher extremes on the tails of the bell curve than other races. However, it's objective, obvious fact that the data exists to show that the lowest scoring whites are still a full standard deviation higher than the average black. That's a profound distance. Ashkenazi Jews, for example, are nearly a full standard deviation above the average European. Obviously, Holla Forums knows that doesn't make whites subhuman, so at least be intellectually honest.

Besides, we were discussing leftypol's "debunking" work. It's obviously shit. We need to do better, and I want this thread to help us do that. If you haven't studied what they call "race realism" yet, you're long overdue.

humanbiologicaldiversity.com

Correlation is not causation, but consistent correlation, to the point that it present predictive ability based on over a century of data, does imply causation – if the common factor is genetic heritage. Autism Level is highly heritable, this is also a fact. Africans in the diaspora populations of the Americas, regardless of environment or familial wealth, will always produce the same distributions in terms of Autism Level.

Regression to the mean is also observable in mixed race children.

What else explains that correlation if you eliminate environment an socio-economic status, and the genetic component is so salient?

race has been scientifically proven to be a social construct so it doesn't matter
youtube.com/watch?v=RK3sguRWYK0

lol ok Bill Nye the science actor

But they very clearly did not fall on a curve in favour of whites, in the first graph it's broken down by socioeconomic background and white rich boys have only slightly higher academic achievement than Niggers, and Pajeets dominate. This is incongruent with Holla Forums's findings.

After a bit of digging I found this.

NCES did a breakdown of the black-white achievement gap. They controlled for much more than the college board and found that much of the achievement gap could be accounted for with between-school, and within-school differences. There was a portion of this difference that was labeled "indeterminate".

If Holla Forums wants to prove that the "indeterminate" section of the difference, with its varying degrees is a matter of genetics - that's on them. In fact, I welcome them to do it. What I see is that the current research does not vindicate race. For example, if blacks have a culture that repels them from education and high income blacks are less likely to be engaged academically, but are engaged in sports - this could lead to a disparity. If someone doesn't concentrate academically (only athletically) but applies for an athletic scholarship they will be required to take the test. This is just an example of a cultural explanation.

By the way (and I'm pretty sure you're Holla Forums), heritability is not a measure of how "heritable" a trait is - so studies that, when looking at twins find a heritability of .9 for Autism Level - prove nothing. It's a correlation between genetic variation and phenotypic variation. It is NOT the same as gene mapping. It does not give you any information about how genes are interacting with the environment, or each other or what genes they are.

Anyway poorly disguised Holla Forums-poster, race IS a social construct in the sense that the genetic variation between races is far less than between subspecies of other species (like Chimpanzees). HBD is clinal, and a well marked cline does not allow delineation into subspecies (so not intergradation).

Thank you, I'll take that as a compliment. I pride myself on blending in wherever I go. This was the kind of reply I was hoping for, very well done.

Now can you meme it?

This is meme war, so make us some memes

Statistical genetic variation has nothing to do with race. It is a purely arbitrary social category.

just to help you out, pic related

pics related

DELET THIS

girls always outperform boys in early adolescence

Oh I was hoping you'd post about Heterozygosity. heterozygosity tells us NOTHING about how genetic variation is composed. For example, in dogs heterozygosity is high between breeds, for humans it is the opposite - heterozygosity it is within populations. Now this is a fact that is totally obscured by the heterozygosity measurement, so clearly some other measurements must take place. After tall, Chimps have a similar heterozygosity measurement to humans despite being divided into three subspecies.

How about genetic distance? Well, when we compare genetic distance between Chimps and Humans, Chimps have a lot more genetic variation between subspecies than humans do between races. sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070420104723.htm

If you think whites are more similar to chimpanzees than blacks because of statistics, you know less than nothing about biology.

That wasn't always true. In fact there used to be an Irish/White I-Q gap as well as a boy/girl I-Q gap.

that's just want they wanted you to think

kek

not enough people know about the hibernian conspiracy, we need to redpill them

Actually, now that I think about it, your first pic fails to even defend its own proposition. The graph is unexplained and likely cherry picked for visual impact rather than contextual meaning.

Also, human genetic variation is much fuzzier than with non sapient animals. Africa has more of it than most of the entire planet.

Intellectual dishonesty, plain and simple.

What part of "the genetic distance between Africans and Eurasions is greater than the distance between subspecies of Jaguars – thus, the 'no significant genetic variation' argument is nonsense" didn't seem clear to you?

There are subspecies of field mice that differ by only a few genes governing hair color, and these are considered different races of mice.

How much more obvious of a counter-example can you find?

*greenpill

lol, ahem, I meant greenpill
*farts in gaelic*

But the graph itself is unlabeled with no context. I have no clue what it is suppised to precisely indicate, so it is useless.

You could select for like ten genes and easily get a graph like that.

The test explains the principle, the chart on the lest demonstrates the content of the text numerically/by species, and the plot on the right is obvious to anyone who knows what it is. You can argue there are people who wont understand the chart, but that's not the same as saying the chart is inaccurate.

Just because some might be confused doesn't mean it isn't accurate.

look, its a fact that your genes can tell someone which global region your ancestors were from, bottom line. Lets not quibble about which genes are labeled on the chart.

That doesn't explain why we should divide people according to race. You still have to make the argument why divisions should be drawn and why they should be drawn where you want to draw them.

The genes for Autism Level arent the same genes for skin colour.

Race just means subspecies friend, it's not more controversial than that. The desperate attempt to suppress race in order to escape the reality that people evolved differently is a failure of modern society. What sick irony that anyone on the secular Left would be so well-versed in the depredations of religious dogma, only to wind up fighting against the fact of evolution as fiercely as a low-church evangelical.


Race isn't skin deep, it's far deeper. Tell the next mixed race child you meet that her genes for bone marrow have nothing to do with her skin color, but she's going to die for lack of a transplant anyway. See how comforting you sound.

Race is a spook and has no scientific basis

science is a spook

indeed
science doesn't explain how the black magic of the shamans in South Afrika works
SCIENCE is the white mans construct to keep down melanin rich urban youth, honour grade students and future rappers getting their life back on track

we am undone.

So yeah, 100% must be genetics as to why black kids perform worse on SAT scores. Couldn't be cultural or social.

Also

Wut.

No it isn't you dumb fuck. Most races are linguistic groupings.

this

Everything is a spook, but race is very useful.


What would tell that it whether it culture or society? Perhaps if int. quot. and behavior remained consistent across cultural and geographic boundaries, say, if blacks had low int.quot. in Africa and throughout their diaspora around the world?

Find the population of blacks that outperforms another race and you have your answer. Black Americans that have been here since slavery perhaps, and are in the top 20% of earners, let's say. Why is their "culture" what explains their scoring lower than poor whites?

Besides, culture is a fucking spook.

Fucking what.

The entire idea isn't to superficially reject infographs using a vague set of contrasting figures and reasons, but to provide the most basic, fundamental tools for critical thought necessary to come to your own conclusion on the matter without the inevitable political bias which occludes "the facts".

Throwing statistical anomalies at inforgraphs based on abstraction from context through purposeful illiteracy tightens the strait jacket of ideological propaganda to the point of uselessness. It's like stab someone wearing plate mail.

trying to*

please be specific
please use commas and other punctuation where appropriate, that didn't make much sense regardless, but at least it would have been more pleasant to read.
Do statistical anomalies go "HADOUKEN!" when I throw them at photoshop?
HOLY FUCK THAT SYNTAGMATIC ABORTION WAS TRIGGERING STOP IT
FAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACK
I'm sure anyone who has the misfortune of conversing with you IRL wishes they could stab you

Cute.

Look, I'll try not to be exhaustive, but you need to keep this in perspective. In a sense, an abundance of constructions concerning not, in fact, narrative, but prenarrative may be discovered in terms of racial performativity. The "racial" subject is contextualised into a Lyotardist narrative that includes reality as a whole. But if neocapitalist materialism holds, we have to choose between capitalist theory and modernist subdialectic theory. Manx uses the term ‘Lyotardist narrative’ to denote a capitalist paradox.

Take your "plate mail" analogy as axiomatic for the sake of conjecture. Race is obviously performative. It could be said that if textual postdeconstructive theory holds, we have to choose between capitalist theory and textual theory in the performativity of race, but only as a purely socio-linguistic construct. A number of sublimations concerning the dialectic of subcapitalist language may be found, and thus, race is not only performative, its also commdified.

...

If you want to counter pol memes why would you do it from a perspective of race? It's impossible to win doing that because the real racists will ignore you and the people doing things because muh-edginess will just not care because you're fighting for a mainstream opinion. You'll never win that fight and it's not the fight you want to win. Instead of that you guys should fight on economic terms because paper of a few massive classcucks and rich boys nobody fucking likes corporatations or the insider elites. We have actual memes about economics, use them, go as tanky as you can and shout gas the rich class war now in every thread you can.

Leftists are often bad at memes because they're overly verbose.

But allow me to indulge myself into the platitude of banality and be, assuming that we can take for granted the conditions which enable us to speak it as such, plain.

At three levels, concerning the topic of our focus, a disjunction appears.

The first is between the intent of the author, who we can not, for the sake of this analysis, assume to show in intent, but merely in replication as we understand it, and as drawn from the confines of OUR focus, and that of their 'scientific reliability'. What does the author know that he knows, what does the author know that we do not know, and so on in the formal grid of the matrix. This disjunction is the primary result of thought as it must investigate and grapple with the phenomenon, but in its elocution, we find beneath it the interests of a wider material foundation; leading me to my second disjunction.

(What we actually discover in that our analysis details something in as much as what we may call an event. Not in a Deleuzian or Baidouvian sense, but an event as in an abstract non-contextual line of impermeability from which there arises the manifold functions of our discursive requirements: that we can speak of the text, and so on and so on).

((In dealing with this, wimpermiabilitye must then, not forsake the actual question of a structure: we must still hold to the three disjunctions as outlined, by only as they are referenced in our relationship as we explicate it. That is to say, between what we say, and how we say it)).

The second disjunction, which is the foundation of the rhizomatic plane, concerns the self-iterative relationship as condensed from the body of the whole into itself, and the body of itself as it approaches contact with its formalization. This is the true level of the realization of the disjunction. We no longer exist on a plane of speculation, but exist only in so far we can speculate as such.

This disjunction occupies no space, and therefore, is not necessary to our example, only in that we must acknowledge its existence.

The third disjunction is total formation of these two taken together. The disjunction in-itself and for-itself. The first, is the for-itself. The second, the in-itself. The third is the sum total of these comprehensive movements.

Thus, to stab at plate mail is to descend into the necessary affiliation of meaning in the relationship between form and content, as you can see.

Problem with going on the approach of economics is Holla Forums brings up Jews being at fault for capitalisms faults rather than capitalism itself. Although this is easy to get around by pointing out all the non jewish capitalists. However they try to tie them to Jews anyway even if they arent Jewish unless they are Trump in which they don't seem to care about all his Jewish ties.