How does this comment make you feel?

Well the remarks about race are factually wrong. Psychologists who study Autism Level disavow the kinds of claims that are made in the bell curve and so on. I'm not offended by these ideas though, I just disagree. The thing he says about civic nationalism is true, and personally that's why I support strict immigration laws and think there should be very few foreigners in a given country.

The rest about ideology is so damn vague and based on generalizations. It doesn't make sense. It's not coherent.

At one point he says people select their ideology based on memes. Yeah well the reason that seems true is he's in the alt right, and the alt right is filled with young sweaty males (most of whom live with their parents) who stare at internet memes all day and bitch about tumblr. That's why it seems that way. Because most of his peers do that.

"Race realism" is race creationism, with every race having its own God. "Race" is not just a synonym for "biological diversity".

No, that common ancestry exists as a result of divergent evolution. Nobody claims each race is unique and totally separate. I challenge you to find a single academic who purports such a thing. Or that intelligence is 100% genetic. The entire point is that it is, to a degree, heritable and environmentable. We are even finding genes that express these conclusions. Not to mention that there are pretty obvious differences that have been observed, like the following: cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822%2815%2900671-5.
For a thorough and lengthy debunking of race creationism (we are all the same blank slates and environment doesn't impact us as a species), see: humanbiologicaldiversity.com/articles/Fuerst, John. "The nature of race." Open Behavioral Genetics, June, 2015.pdf.

I ain't got time for this now.

>>>Holla Forums

Yes, they do. And even when they don't, it is the sole logical conclusion that one can derive from a political system of hierarchy based on race.
If there isn't any political implication, then no one cares, whether or not it's bullshit.
Google makes me strongly doubt the veracity of your sources, especially since academic integrity in science journalism is a major issue in general, not just here.

Congrats on finding content too lowbrow for /leftytrash/

Any image that relies on a straw-opponent can be safely discarded

Is this an argument in favour of irrelevant shiting? Because that is the way one would guarantee that the beneficial genes would be spread to those that don't possess them.

Okay, then the next part must be a piece of pie: I challenge you to find a single academic who purports such a thing.
Why do you rely on what others have said of him, instead of actually reading him? Isn't that a common issue regarding Marxism?

Stop reading YouTube comments.

Also, looking closer at your first pic, the citations are the most shameless example of cherry picking I've seen in a while. Whoever made it is basically pretending that all evidence contrary to their views doesn't exist. Half of the cited papers are by literally whos being privately funded by interests that will throw money at basically anyone who might say what they want to hear, and the other half are presenting evidence that isn't suspect in and of itself, but becomes statistical noise when applied to the "whole picture" of the topic at hand, like the vast majority of studies that attempt to find significance in individual genes. Actually recreating the findings of these papers is extremely rare, and in terms of race and intelligence, as of yet unheard of.
The straw man on the right is, in fact, raising a very important point: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_heritability_problem
What does author avatar on the left do to dismiss this argument? Essentially, call him a liberal faggot. Brilliant.

I won't make any strong claims, but to imply that strong evidence against such conclusions doesn't exist is so boldly retarded that I can't even imagine who would be gullible enough to take it at face value.
apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/amp-67-2-130.pdf
peterdanpsychology.ro/ro/pagina/25/files/docs/black iq gains.pdf
unz.com/article/the-iq-gap-is-no-longer-a-black-and-white-issue/
iapsych.com/iqmr/fe/LinkedDocuments/wicherts2010b.pdf

The people I'm talking about aren't academics, they just pretend to be.
The difference here is that Marx's academic significance is an elephant in the room to people who want to disregard him as irrelevant. I don't really care about some blogger pretending to be an academic.

The beauty of this point is that one cannot defend against it. No matter how hard you try, you can't. Watch: all your sources are "shameless examples of cherry picking". It's not actually a counter-point, though. Just an accusation.
The only question you should be asking is if those genes exist or not. If they do and the papers in-question have studied them, then you'll have to attack the methodology or something. Not sure, but just expanding implications means nothing. Again, I can levy the same point. Your sources assume MY viewpoint "doesn't exist". Not really a valid counter-point.

So you're saying that because the individuals aren't famous and are privately funded, that their results are incorrect? If this is an assertion you are making, then the burden of proof is on you to show how they are wrong. Just saying "look at big pharma funding 'x', it MUST be wrong" isn't grounds to dismiss a conclusion.
Saying evidence is "suspect" means nothing. Argument from personal incredulity doesn't refute the findings.
Analyzing a population and finding an exception does not negate the rule. The entire point regarding the genes in-question is… variation. It isn't supposed to be static among all individuals. That's where the whole point comes into play: divergent evolution doesn't result in a "blank slate" issue for humans.
The missing heritability problem is a good example of a teleological fallacy. "Evolution is often misunderstood as teleological as evidenced by suggestions that humans represent the apex of development. Evolution might be better understood as the genetic movement of a species to better align its genetic composition and related behaviors to the environmental context, rather than striving towards some genetic goal independent of an environmental context."
It's the linear assumption that it must be genetic, and if the genes don't exist, then 'x' doesn't, either. In reality, it can be the result of multiple genes, or gene interaction.
It's a strong judgement, but when information to the contrary comes out, you dismiss it because "they are literally whos funded by private people".
Can you quote me that? I don't recall the comic showing him as a liberal.
I was looking through your sources and found something funny. How can you be talking about replicating results (even though they are centred around statistics examining group-level variation, and are replicated in that regard) when you use black immigrants in the UK as representative of all blacks?
From the comments section: "Selection isn’t an “environmentalist argument”, it is simple statistics and will apply even if hereditarianism is true. No matter what causes Autism Level differences, if you compare non-random samples, you will not generalizable results. Eg, if you compare blacks with PhDs to white high school dropouts, your results won’t be generalizable to the black and white populations at large.

As for selection among African immigrants, it is obvious and enormous. To use Nigerian immigrants to the US as an example, 58.6% have college degrees and 28.3% had graduate degrees. Among Nigerians as a whole, less than 10% have college degrees. The immigrants are therefore a highly non-representative selection of the Nigerian population."

Okay, then the idiots with no credentials. Find me a foremost "idiot" making such a claim.
That wasn't my question. I'm asking you how you can be upset at people dismissing Marx even though he was not as he is portrayed, yet you dismiss others based on what people have wrote of them, and now because they "blog". How does his blogging make his claims incorrect?

I'm not going to sift through this wall of text quote by quote because it's clear you care a lot more about this than anyone on this board.

First of all, the fact that this research is by random dickheads is important because they don't want to be peer reviewed and scrutinized by the scientific community at large, they want to push a political agenda using a false pretense of scientific objectivity. This is why they make their own "science" journals that only far right ideologues have actually heard of, so they can avoid scientific rigor through irrelevance.

Second, dismissing a serious dilemma in genetic research as a "fallacy" is either dishonest or extremely stupid. It's pretty clear to me that you didn't even read what I linked you. The issues I pointed out regarding your pic's citations apply to all statistical analysis of the sort because statistical evidence is not empirical evidence. If group A is different from group B in some statistically verifiable way, and some gene is more common in group A than group B, of course it's going to correlate with the aforementioned difference. It means nothing. Genetic analyses like in your pic are almost never repeated or verified because they are indistinguishable from random noise. This paper explains it nicely: ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3498585/
My citations do not make the same flawed claims because they do not try to turn statistics into empirical knowledge. They simply list statistical data and go no further than some personal conjecture on what they mean. The selection argument is dealt with nicely in a different post: unz.com/article/closing-the-black-white-iq-gap-debate-part-i/

Third, none of this bullshit even comes close to addressing the core of my argument: "Race" is not just a synonym for "biological diversity". Even from a biological determinist point of view, race is too arbitrary to be useful. Human biology is too complicated and nuanced to fit into such pigeonholes. Whatever abuse of math might be used to prove the contrary has absolutely no bearing in real world scientific research because, again, statistics are not empirical knowledge; the endless exceptions to this imposed rule are what define it.

You're welcome to refute the claims. I mean a refutation beyond appealing to authority or "they are politically motivated". If it's such nonsense, then it must be easy to refute.

This doesn't change the teleological fallacy that was committed. Fallacious reasoning in questions of science is the real dishonesty.
Statistical analysis is based primarily on recording observations. It is by every definition empirical. Define your terms before making such claims.
The entire issue is assuming "no genes can be found=it isn't genetic". That is a teleological fallacy. No "gay gene" has been found, either. Doesn't dismiss the argument, though.
Your source is excellent… conjecture. In fact, your own paper makes the same flaw: For comparison, height is approximately 90% heritable in Western populations, but so far no common variants contributing more than 0.5cm per allele have been discovered, and the set of 180 height-associated SNPs identified by the most comprehensive meta-analysis only explains about 10% of the population phenotypic variance.
Except that genes have been found. The first paper is here: lesacreduprintemps19.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/factor-analysis-of-population-allele-frequencies-as-a-simple-novel-method-of-detecting-signals-of-recent-polygenic-selection-copy.pdf.
Quoting somebody who doesn't discuss the issue we're referencing now, and just using "probably true" as a blanket statement isn't very scientific.
"Our results add Autism Level to the list of phenotypes that must be approached with great caution when evaluating published molecular genetic associations."

I'd suggest reading the link from the dummy idiot who have you have refuted by calling him that for more on race. Race is simply a categorization. It is the result of divergent evolution because the blank slate argument is against evolutionary theory. It's what the link I cited above expands upon, about brain topography.
Too arbitrary to be useful? Well, it seems to be utilized in the citation above. Seems like conjecture to me…
You're just appealing to some complexity you don't actually want to discuss.
"Whatever abuse of math might be used to prove the contrary has absolutely no bearing in real world scientific research"
Math "abuse" isn't related to scientific research?
Statistics are, by definition, experimental. Define your terms and see what the commonly accepted definition is.

All I can glean from your post is that you are incapable of arguing with someone without constantly misrepresenting what they say, which says a lot. If you aren't willing to argue in good faith, I don't see why I should bother.

This is an excellent way of removing yourself from an argument without actually sourcing your claims.
I misrepresent you? How and where. Your own points rely on the teleological fallacy that… isn't accurate.
Your response is basically "I can't believe you did this, I am upset and I am leaving now".

Why do PoCs want to follow white people everywhere?

You're the deficient little brother to us that still shits his pants and drools into a cup, eventually we will get tired of lugging you around just because our new Jewish step dad insists.

No one thinks you're white, stop LARPing

In other words, you don't care about meaningful discussion, your motivation is in all of the libtards you think you're triggering while you wank to how edgy and controversial you're being. This isn't some normie comment section, bad reasoning is something we're familiar with.

I hope he realizes that his autistic knowledge of racial statistics won't speed up his loss of virginity.

Great, then you can elaborate as to how I misrepresented you more than "wow, I can't believe you did that". Accusation requires evidence.
Idpol won't win you this one. None of what you said has refuted hereditarianism or evolutionary theory. The blank slate argument has already been debunked.

Yeah, you are seriously wanting to how contrarian you are.
You are stroking yourself so hard to how dumb and annoying you are to listen to that you may regain that foreskin the evil joos took from you 14 years ago.

Anti-Semitic much?
I thought Ashkenazi Jews wuz just a social construct…