Arguing with a buddy of mine about race

Hey Holla Forums, how do you argue against aut-rights spooked on race?

My friends used to call me an alt-right a couple months ago, but I never liked being associated with idolators who insulted me for liking Tolstoy's philosophy.

However, I'm having a bit of an issue with various spooks they bring up that I don't ever have answers to. I've seen Zizek talk about how even if aut-rights were right, they're somehow wrong because their bias lead them to their various answers. I can't really use this in an argument, so I'd like to disprove it somehow. My one friend is very vocal about his hatred of black people and often cites studies about them having lower Autism Level and being more aggressive and so on. I don't really have a way to disprove this because either I can't search for shit or the internet is filled with blogspots run by idiots who believe in idpol.

TL;DR: how can I un-spook my friend about race?

Tell him to get a life.

If you are america:

Let him do an dna test and show him his % blackness. You're pretty much all mutts.

Okay, maybe saying very vocal was incorrect. I mean that whenever our friend group talks about revolution or uniting workers or what have you, at some point he'll mention something about blacks. We'll mention that even white people can be just as annoying, lazy, or thuggish as blacks, but he just brings up that black people are more prone to it and white people fall for it.

Which is ironic considering that our "superior Autism Level" would let us fall for trickery.

I got you. I'm just kind of tired of debating this every god damn day. I don't know how these people never tire of it.

How bout this: You don't have to like anchovies, but when you talk it about not liking anchovies every fucking day it gets very droll and repetitive.

Think I meant dull. Cuz this shit isn't even droll anymore.

First of all, don't argue that there are no genetic differences between races. It's difficult to get enough evidence to actually back up that position and the truth is a lot more nuanced.

By far the best argument is to point out that even if on average blacks are somehow worse people, that shouldn't affect how you treat any individuals because the differences between individuals are much greater than the differences between the average black and the average white. Point out that feminists use the same flawed reasoning to justify accusing all men of being rapists based on broad statistics. Point out that the same logic is also used by BLM and their ilk to argue for giving hand-outs to rich blacks by taxing poor whites. They should appreciate the anti-SJW, anti-PC angle.

Why should he listen to you or anything you say, OP?

It's easier to get better friends tbh

He's using one of Lacan's famous statements here, where he says something like 'even if a jealous husband claims that his wife is cheating him, that she sleeps around with other men, even if it is all true, his jealousy is still pathological.' It means that the factual truth, or even adequacy in information, can be combined with the untruth, that one can easily lie in the guise of facts. As soon as you agree to participate in argument on this level, you become possessed to a fantasmatic return. Even should you disagree, you leave room for someone to come in and say 'wait a minute, let's look at this objectively, let's invade their space for just a little bit so we can get an accurate representation.' The true question however they are asking in the first place is not about what they are claiming about the wife (or Jews in the case of the Nazis), it's why, in order to sustain their politics, they need this symbolic order of the wife.

I don't know bro.

Maybe ask him if he has any proof for race.

From what I've seen though, most of the Holla Forums types have actually done a lot of research. They might end up looking at biased sources and reaching questionable conclusions, but they aren't just throwing out wild accusations. Well, the holocaust deniers are, but most of their arguments aren't that bad.

So they were right about everything except da jooz?

They're not completely right about anything and they've missed the mark on most things, but their conclusions are evidence based. They've done more than the average liberal does to verify their beliefs.

Unfortunately just because you find some evidence which points to something doesn't mean it's actually true, especially when you get away from the hard sciences. There's an equal abundance of evidence against them which a different person could use to reach the opposite conclusion. To know for sure you'd have to do a fuck of a lot of very rigorous research, since you can't really trust any sources to be unbiased on the topic.

Again, you're missing the point. It's not about if they're right or not. It's about why they need to be right in the first place. The problem I have with Nazis on this particular issue is that they basically copy the SJW argument of "overrepresentation." Instead of "white people" and "normative behaviors" the Nazis replace it with "Jews, non-whites" and "degen­eracy."

Yes, they borrow a lot of arguments from the feminist play-book. No arguments there.

Unfortunately this is true. Feminists are generally bad at making criticism.

Or taking, for that matter.

Do you think these things are untrue?

Come on, Holla Forums, you don't seriously wanna hurt these children do you?

I don't want to hurt anyone, but they do score more poorly on Autism Level tests, don't they?

So do children. Does that mean we should segregate parents from their children?

some of them do some of the time yes

No, and I don't see what that has to do with this.

See . It's true but irrelevant.

Yes. I basically agree with that post.

It means using averages to point to causality and a plan for the future is dumb.

If they live in America, you can't, you can't hide the racial problem. They aren't spooks for noticing it.