Apologise

...

Demography and ecology are the only things that matter at this point, nobody seems to understand, not a real mention of global warming or shifting demographics by either side, it was a four hour debate wankfest by ideologues stuck in 1991 still clinging to fukuyamaism.

official thread theme:

youtu.be/d7_0-jidcTA?t=3m53s

Xexizy the idiot pulled the "USSR wasn't socialist" nonsense.

TheFinnishBolshevik was very good but he took along time to make his points and said "umm" alot and didn't get to explain fully but don't forget he was the only one who didn't have English as his first language.

...

UPHOLD THE ETERNAL SCIENCE OF MARXISM MUKEISM

Yes im sure gold man Sachs profit rates are going to matter when the entire biomass of Africa and MENA comes knocking on Russia's door because of complete ecological disruption.

NONE OF YOU UNDERSTAND THE HELL WE WILL HAVE TO ENDURE BY 2045.

Which is because of capitalism? If you wanted to stop a refugee crisis maybe you should have helped smash the fossil fuels porky

No, muke should thank us for bullying him into reading.

Yes he did not do bad , and brought good arguments, but he was to engaged in "historical" stuff instead of social/enocomical one.
Still not bad for his first debate, just remenber the infamouse debate of Muke that ruined his reputation, practise makes you better.

Yes, actually. The declining rate of profit is a problem.

...

I thought we established a week ago TFB's retardation. Who could be forcing this?

wew there just plain idiotic and disingenuous and not reflective of what's actually happening

anuddah shoah is real because? Birth rates for every race in post-industrial countries are going down. And white people who have children with non-whites are making the world just a little whiter. How do you have a problem with this? And why wouldn't you blame capitalism for the conditions in post-industrial nations?

Sorry, please post an a Wyatt Mann comic as evidence

Yeah it was clear at the end that Muke won. BM and FinBol were total fuckheads but not as bad as sargon's cronies. But sargon… beat the other two

Do you support the free market?

There must be an fbi plant among them

Yes you are

muke was the worst, Finbol and Badmouse were better, the only thing that xexizy was better at was being louder

Did he actually win or do ya have selective bias? Genuinely asking I had work to do left after the first topic
Did anyone have an spergout? All I remember was shitposting in the chat and someone mentioning Corn

Nah I think muke is a cumfuck, but he was certainly the most prepared.
See finbol

If anyone it was the CEO guy who sperged out when the supercar hoarding thing was brought up, he got triggered as fuck

Because it's literally happening as we speak? BECAUSE London is already majority non white? Because the entirety of western Europe has a hostile occupation force already emnedded in its ethnic muslim ghettos?

Because the great migrations caused by global warming in 2050 will result in a literal apocalyptic Nazi masturbation fantasy?

It's true that demography and ecology do matter in that sense of the exact moment which we live in right now, but that's at best a still picture without guides on what led up to it and where it can lead to if we take the proper actions. Take a closer look at the historical circumstances leading up to both, and you see that it is intrinsically tied to the historical arc of capital.

Muke was god-tier, FinBol sperged out, what about Badmouse?

How are you not an SJW again?

That's not true tho

5/10

OH FUCK ITS ANNUDAH SHOAH

...

White British

London is 15% white Johny foreigners

weak start; strong finish. he actually had a closing argument about as good as muke's but it got overshadowed by Finn's awkward meandering in between

...

Your race will be your uniform when they all come flooding in.

This is to say nothing of his content, but if I could tell TFB one piece of advice here it'd be that it sounds better to pause than to "uhh umm like uuhh"

Then stop the impetus from happening in the first place you stupid faggot.

White chicks are boring

Spooky… I think I'll vote for Trump another year now!

English isn't his first language so it's kind of an unfair expectation he be as fluent. Are there any good english-speaking MLs on youtube? Maybe just sub in someone like left economics who isn't explicitly one but knows the history

Literally unavoidable, ethno fascism is literally the only way to prevent yourself from being eaten alive by Mutumbo at this point. Fascism is not to preserve capitalism it's literally to preserve whatever your in group is.

shocking!

As a bitch this doesn't sound so bad 👅👅👅

Well then why do all you conversation fags deny climate change?

In fact I think I want to be eaten alive

Do you often find that just telling people the conclusion of your fringe beliefs with no argument and no coherent link to the discussion is convincing?

His english was fine. But his arguments were 3/10
tankies gona tank

EVERY TIME

Wrong! Ethno hoxha posadism is literally the only way to prevent yourself from being eaten alive at this point.

But people in debates don't listen to arguments they listen to conviction. Which is why anyone listening to Sargon has ever thought he won in a debate.

I will never understand how someone can be this fucking spooked. goddam

I want to live in your video game, is it starcraft?

...

Dick is diamonds MOAR pls

I, too, enjoy larping as imperials from Warhammer 40k

Did somebody call for backup?

Whom is he really? I do not have a faintest clue about him yet. There is no reason for me to apologise to him because I have not wrong him yet. Please improve your uninformative thread next time because you are better than this you frickin' lazy bummer.

plz fuck off you are joke with a meme ideology

I literaly wanted to dos when Muke was talking he got BTFO by sargon that fucking sucked.

Lol do you think I'm literally Jason?

I did not watch the debate, I was too busy playing my Soviet Nintendo!

Where the fuck did FinnBol "sperg out"? Not saying the USSR was hell on earth and that Stalin and Mao killed 1000 zillion people was a "sperg out"?

He denied the existence of the Soviet Nintendo.

Please grant us this blessing Great Sun of the Communist Future. May the nuclear hellfire serve as a testament to your divine light.

Our little boy's grown up :'-)

...

tbh on a more serious note, you can see how debates is mostly about experience and not about theory knowledge. Muke debated tons of AnCaps and the arguments leveled by liberals and conservatives against socialism are always the same, Muke knew the pattern on how to control the debate and make counterpoints to it, but he wasn't laying down impressive theory or valueable data. Namedropping Coca-Cola deathsquats and muh Cockshott isn't really that impressive, but it is an effective strategy to get your points across in this sort of enviroment, especially when you have three pretentious retards on the other side who can only think in memes.

muke i doubted you when i saw that ur friends with sargon now but this was rad

Well they got Sargon and the Insurance CEO guy to admit that communism is inevitable, but still think it’s a ways off.

Capitalists in the comment section are saying they won but I haven't watched it yet.

Even as someone sympathetic to your social views. Stop inserting them to discussions that are exclusively on economics. If the debate was on general politics than it would be apropriet, but on an economic debate it isn’t.

Still scary

"Fuck off Jason" being yelled in reply to any mention of Jason Unruhe should really be added to Holla Forums bingo.

Demographics are mostly tied to economics my dude. I'm still pretty spooked about race and if you really wanna know who supports mass migration look to the ceos and celebrities.

The only way to a truely stable demographic setting in a nation is socialism kamraden. Embrace it and you will see the light.

Please please please! This would be fucking hilarious. I want to see Sargon debate an ISIS supporter and be BTFO

Holy fuck is that black chick THICC
source?

Please do not interracial breed with them because it is unethical to eliminate their races and cultures against their wills. It is important for them to preserve their races and cultures without the white interventions, otherwise the damages inflicted upon on them will be irreparable.

Those woman are my property, I am just yet to obtain their physical possession.
I own them just as I own you nazbol user

I don't give a fuck about your beliefs.

it's unethical to have a child at all because they don't have a will to consent. don't have babies, especially white ones who just get skin cancer because whiteness is a shitty adaptation to shitty parts of the world with no sunlight

im glad i didn't kill my self in january

...

Heavily underrated post

Y-yeah, we won guys, r-right? Heh helico-opters…

Finnbol is a near constant spergout.

It's going to happen whether you want it to or not, past your lifetime or not

i'm sorry for thinking you didn't read shit based on that debate you bombed like a year ago

By your logic, you are my owned property so I have a right to destroy you because your quality is inferior.

Okay here you go in the gulag because I do not give a eff about your life you nihilist dumb jerk.

You have no right to criticize them because they have invented many things that impacted the humanity in special ways otherwise we wouldn't be chatting with each other online on our computers so please shut up and embrace the technology.

That's why we need to be revolutionary soldiers instead of larping around like the retards. I mean, look at us and doing nothing to stop the rainbow dream from interracial breeding us out in oblivion.

When you realise that those actually exist.

30 minutes into the debate right now (I missed it live) and it's blatantly obvious that the capitalist side knows nothing about socialism. The insurance faggot thinks that socialism is "top-down" TAA is talking about rent controls and Sweden. These cunts literally think that socialism=famine. Why is the opposition so fucking stupid?

There is quite literally nothing you can do about it past 100 years let alone 1000 so what the fuck is your point

It's a liberal protest vote dividing the working class.

There isn't a point to """saving"'" the white race because over time people will forget your politics even existed

...

They don't know theory. To them socialism is government interferance with markets

Felix?

> Having a coherent or logical ideology/thought/opinion flow their mattered

Haven't watched yet and I hate to ask this but the youtube comments(I know it's all sargon subscribers) are proclaiming that the capitalist side completely dominated the debate… I'm sure they're exaggerating but, how wrong are they?

9/10 Nazbol posters are ironic memers and 1/10 are recently ex pol. Nazbol isn't a serious leftist movement so don't worry about them, they are as i said memers or Holla Forumsacks who will soon learn better

We're not saying we should rape them, bro.

And the world stagnated except the Asian countries whom will rule the world with the iron rods. What a spooky place.

Is it? No one told me and I live here.
Oh right, you're just pulling stuff out your arse. Don't believe everything Milo tells you, retard.

We're coming for them too.

No one is safe.

Stop posting your boyfriend faggot

Saged.

The black women are reserved for the black men and the straightening their African hair in order to appear attractive is a sign that their self esteem is low. Stop encouraging them to buy the harmful and environmentally unfriendly products to destroy themselves so please buzz off to somewhere.

What exactly are you going to do to change history, change human migratory pattern?

Scream into the fucking ether your political project might last into eternity?

While this Capitalist ship is sinking?

No you're just like the rest of the rats trying to protect what's yours against the foriegn hordes of other rats. It doesn't matter to you in fact, the ship itself is sinking and you want to reform what you have into something that, MAYBE, at best can be remembered in a 150 years.

If the white race is going in even 400 years when people forget about your politics what was the point of your politics to begin with and what does it have to do with helping the working class going into the future besides dividing into identity

Low self esteem is something alien to Holla Forums lmfao

Well that sure is sexist and entitled of them.

Black women don't belong to anyone but themselves.

Stay spooked, my property.

...

If anuddah shoah is the price we have to pay to be rid of faggots like you, I'm willing to pay it.

Don't speak like a racist against the black people, you should be ashamed of yourself for being careless toward their psychological health.

Everyone is entitled to guard their races violently without being ashamed for being authoritarian racialist to their own races.

Black women belong to the black people. It's not your business to tell them to be feminist.

see

I was mocking yours

I apologise for missing your post so I will answer your question in a few minutes.

You mocked my post means you don't give a eff about the black people so not cool to mock them.

No I was saying that you should care about your own problems too

I care about you

But race is a big fat spook user.

That's horrifying. I would hate the idea of "belonging" to the rest of the white people as a whole. I belong to myself, and I think it would be for the best if this was true for everyone else also.

I really don't want to belong to the people who gave us the USA

Infiltrate many different political parties by pretending to be them and ruin the political parties
to take over the governments.

Scream into the fucking ether your political project might last into eternity?
By preaching the people about the ideology continuously no matter how much I lost.

While this Capitalist ship is sinking?
Die trying.

No you're just like the rest of the rats trying to protect what's yours against the foriegn hordes of other rats. It doesn't matter to you in fact, the ship itself is sinking and you want to reform what you have into something that, MAYBE, at best can be remembered in a 150 years.
Nazbolism is growing so I am positive it will change for good.

If the white race is going in even 400 years when people forget about your politics what was the point of your politics to begin with and what does it have to do with helping the working class going into the future besides dividing into identity
At least people will learn about the nazbolism by the e-book so it isn't forgotten. The humanity should keep improving itself for the greater good.

The internet isn't going to last 1000 years so again, what's the point. Nothing you said strikes the meat of the argument besides but "m-muh community, it doesn't matter capitalism is sinking and I'm being divisive, m-m–muh community mother fucker"

You don't belong to any community that currently exists to begin with

I care about my problems but thank for you concern though.

If it is a literal spook then everyone should look same as the deadpan to you.

Well, tell the African to stop preserving their race and they will scream at you for being racist. Asian belong to the Asian group, African belongs to the group, Arab belongs to the Arab groups, etc. It is best to keep the color separated or they will become brown like the shits.

Then stop being loyal to the corrupted multiracial USA and start belonging within your racial and cultural circles.

No.

That's not how human migratory patterns have worked and particularly transfer of culture over

I think what's it been, thousands of years I think?

Oh, that's a lot of bullshit. I belong in the white community and I am extremely proud of my race cause the white doctors invented the medicines for the people with HIV/aids who are currently sucking the taxpayer's pockets out.

It really isn't. Can you describe the members of your community you actively engage with?

Africans developed their own cultures in Africa, Arab developed their own cultures in Arab. Asians developed their own cultures in Asia,European developed their own cultures in Europe.

Anglo-celtican Australians.

I miss him :(

You must have glossed over the entirety of human history

My condolences

...

There's a literally long history of their cultures. I think you knew that. Asian invented the fireworks, African invented the huts, Arab invented the desserts, Europeans invented the sawmill.

What's the problem?

What I said as above.

There has never been cross culture interface ever ever

I forgot about the various Orientalizing Periods of human history

COCA COLA DEATH SQUADS

youtube.com/watch?v=HGK3o-ghXgU

That's not a photo of him you idiot.

I see, that is a flawless argument.

But there's nothing wrong with being brown.

poor little guy is sick, too. He was coughing really bad after the debate. Hope he gets better

Look at the latin america and they are interracial mixed. You can thank the spainards for murdered and raped most of them for hundred years. It's a pretty rainbow, isn't it? The indigenous peoples in Latin America are struggling to keep their cultures alive.

Ooh that's easy! you can blame the mother nature for making them looking different. The nature is brutally wonderful, isn't she?

What culture does non-native Australia have I'm curious

Australia was a continent where they shipped rapists, what's your point. You can make history look bad quite easily. It's harder to fix it.

I feel like Jason and Carl are destined to meet at some point.
It's just a matter of time.

And they're sexy as fuck too.
If a culture can't survive naturally then it belongs with the other extinct cultures on the pages of history books. No culture is ever going to last forever and it's no great tragedy for one to be replaced by another, or by a totally new one.

They do look different. My point is that the spook bases itself precisely on them looking different, but it's still a spook.

Likewise if we decided to divide society on the basis of how long people's noses are it would still be a spook. You can't just turn around and say "It's not a spook because people actually do have noses of varying lengths", that misses the entire point. The spook is the fact that we're categorizing people on that basis.

made that into an mp4 for you, fam

Too many cultures to count, so I have to say multiculturalism, however, it isn't so prevalent in the outback, semi-rural and rural area. Australian culture is the majority, which is somewhat close to the UK. I don't like the idea of the multiculturalism rubbish because many people born in Australia are pretty much Australianised anyway, so Australia should be called multiracial to be accurate.

Wrong the criminals isn't the only who colonised the Australia. It may be hard to fix but we can learn the lessons from the history in order to understand them.

interracial people riddled with illnesses is sexy as fuck, is that what you are trying to say?

True however the cultures can be preserved by recording them much as we can so it can't be forgotten.

Tbh that make no sense.

You still are avoiding the actual point made here

And rural Australia is not reflective of other, what you would consider "white" portions of the world. You can't just speak for all of us

Ideally I prefer healthy mixed race people but if they've gotten sick it doesn't necessarily make them any less good looking.

That we can, but they're still going to be wiped out. They're just going to exist, as I said, exclusively in the realm of recorded history.

It would make a lot more sense if you read the following two sentences rather than just taking pot shots at snippets of my post without addressing the actual points.

What am I avoiding the actual point?

Of course I can speak for the white Australians.

You can't speak for entire portions of the population of the Earth, actually.

How do you know they are healthy? It shouldn't be based on their appearance.

Okay, you have a point but I still do my job because it is important to me.

Race is real, not a spook.

We have a duty to help people who get sick via medicine, not medieval breeding pairing

Every person of different races should speak up for their races. It's called defending the races. There's nothing wrong with that at all.

"Everyone should engage in identity politics"

No

I'm sorry I doubted you

We have a duty to keep the humanity strong and healthy. Sterilize the sick people, criminals, traitors, jews and capitalists to lessen the burden on the humanity because there are too many people since we have already passed 7 billion population.

Why or why not? You can't stop the people from talking about the racial identity in politics, can you? No you can't because it's impossible to do that. If there is no identity, then there is no culture to discuss over.

Because it does nothing to address class problems but bring the working class to the wrong political conclusions about the sources of their problems.

It is not identities, there are real material factors at work in Capital.

I don't know, can you keep people out of nations :v)

"the humanity"

...

Oh the humanity

How much you want to bet this guy

is actually this guy

Someone should make a highlights video so people don't have to watch 4 hours' worth of debate to get the best parts.

Can someone give me a quick rundown of what happened?

So we should ignore the problem that the races are being faced with the extinctions due to the interracial breeding and multiculturalism. That's depressing dude.

I am not sure what you meant by that, but If you think I support the equality then you are sorely wrong.

White people are pratically keeping the african population to keep the africans remain poors in order to exploit the african resources for the capitalists. It's possible to keep them growing and yet you think it's impossible to reduce the population.

No his writing style is different to mine.

Love that red alert 2 music.

yes

me too, dude

Well, that's nice to know that you are a racial traitor so you better be prepped for the DOTR.

Never thought there were actual unironic Nazbols here

Can't be a traitor if I was never loyal to your spooks to begin with. >8^)

There are serious nazbols around here so you should not be surprised.

Your mind is messed up so here you go in the Gulag for being wrong think.

That's my point, dude. The fact that someone is mixed race does not automatically mean they are ill.

Yeah, and long noses are real too. But it would still be totally fucking retarded to categorize people into little groups based on how long their noses are and seek to structure society based on that information.

I like the cut of your jib, user.

Even unironic nazbols don't normally talk this way tho
hmmmmmm >8^/

Let's start with nazibols instead.

You think so dude? Stupid man.

Why the nazbols though?

is that contrapoints?

...

why do they think helicopters are scary?
we have fucking gulags and red guards, not some tinpot cia puppet

That is my waifu stay away, my property.

Enjoy your mental onanism for as long as you can, my homosexual friends.

This image is completely false, though: and really obviously so.

Even if it's representative merely of demography within individual (formerly) white nations - it's still fucking wrong. Why are you people so shit????

Why, if our demographic crisis is inherent to capitalism, has every leftists under the sun made it their mission to swamp Europe???? Why are leftists such active traitors, if it's the masters of capitalism that want them to be (not disagreeing that this is the case btw)?

Also:

...

Ladies and gents, we have a new argument.

Kek, I was wondering why nobody ever brought up the Coca-Cola death squads anymore. Does anyone remember that site that used to show you other sites you could be interested in, and one of them that always cropped up was about Coke in Latin America?

Yes. At about 3:20:00 they won.

All the retards of the other side admitted Socialism to be the future. They were supposed to be against it in the debate but they endorsed it.

Then it went to some arguments about suppression by Capitalism which they denied, as if it was sacred, their fixed idea. But they admited that when that happens it's actually Anarcho-Capitalism.
So yes they just tried to avoid using "yes it happens under Capitalism!" by blaming it on… non-anarchy aka Capitalism.

The snowball of contradictions then rolled on and on and on. Anyone smart enough will be able to notice all that, the contradictions, the not-really-defending the argument.

Remember the video isn't for the fanboys of Lardgon of Cuckkad. It is for the general public those that are less religious to these ideas, more open minded.

No. we don't have gulags, bla bla bla. Just as they don't have helicopters.
They're just socially retarded dweebs that fantasize having helicopters. Reality is that they're just dumbass whimps.

Power fantasies like those are for the retarded.

that image will never stop being funny to me

how is muke is qt?

*so

lmao ok man

Fucking shit game.

& non-ideological to.

Why are orcs evil then?

Because Blizzard can't make up their stupid minds about ruining the lore actually competent people made

It pleasures me to see how spooked Holla Forums is by the aryan race. One only has to mention it and they grab their drawings of a scrawny cuck who failed at his own philosophy by dying in debtors prison. They fear us.

wut

t. brown american

I have never seen so many unresolved complexes in my life!

COCA COLA COMMUNIST DEATH SQUADS

Bravo you fucking stupid faggots

heh

my gott this is literally our only other option

pick your disappointment, either be represented by reasonable people with acceptable ideas but be utterly embarrassed in the debate, or witness a communist fucking superslam sargon in an argument but be represented by a fucking third worldist

although i will admit watching a sargon roo debate would make anyone's top ten anime battles.

Are you blind? We've done nothing but praise Muke. Literally lurk for five fucking minutes.

Don't you remember when he was BTFO'd by the stormniggers which made both us and him a laughing stock? Still, he's redeeming himself either way.
/r/ing that post about Muke being a protagonist of a shounen anime

Jason Unruhe Gould probly debate that the earth is flat and win.

PURE

I hope next time it's a six vs six debate, so we can have a MTWist, a trot, and a Clintonite vegan "feminist", and the other side can add a bomb-all-the-things neocon, a Christian fundie rapper, and a weirdo in a Wehrmacht uniform who never blinks. That way, we can finally have serious discussions.

Replace the nazie with an ISIS supporter. This way the right will finally understand that Islamism is right-wing ideology. Also replace the trot with a mutualist.

The roo should have been in it

fuck off

Further historical hilarity to that image - It was actually white supremacists/KKK bombing & terrorizing Birmingham so badly in the 50s/60s, that the city became known as "Bombingham".

You disappoint me, fellow Holla Forumsers. Stop feeding those idiots. They derail threads intentionally, create meaningless discourse & never change their minds while in shitposting mode.

That's Birmingham in the UK you pillock.

Rude.

Anyway, the info I gave is still accurate & relevant on the issue.

(cont.)
Fucking hell, as I keep reading I see that almost the entire thread has devolved from that nazi's posts. A good example to show how it happens & needing to stay on topic. I know it's not that important a topic & therefor more susceptible to derail, but yeesh.. .

good prole

Quoting my own post because it's more important than taking bait from some Holla Forumsyp retard.

this

seeing all you fucks massively sperg out any time finnbol was speaking about SU was the most pathetic scene I witnessed on this board so far
especially considering all the hilarious claims that it was actually finnbol who sperged out
speak about paying no attention to the plank in your own eye

and of course some leftcoms and IWW fags jumped on slandering the guy as pathetic gossiping little shits they are

Fuckin this

yes

I wholeheartedly agree. I was 10 minutes behind the Holla Forums thread, and I only read "OMG FINNBOL GOES FULL RETARD HE'S GONNA PRAISE KIM JONG UN" and when the video catched up he was simply saying that some of the claims the other side made were simply wrong.

*caught

Holla Forums ain't what it used to be(obligatory: still better than many other places online at least). This thread is actually a great example of that; all of the replies to the nazi, derailing, etc.
Too much memeing/reactionaries atm because of new additions. I didn't catch this particular debate spergout, but I remember when we went a little crazy about Bernie. But at least that was an election.

Holla Forums always took the bait, that is nothing new

It really is how we are still able to argue strongly.
Really, I see it as good and frequent exercise. Even if it is annoying as fuck. Luckily I know when not to participate.

Not this much, ffs. This thread is pretty embarrassing for that, tbh.

That's ok for the very few whom were actually responding seriously. The rest is just filler & not necessary.

My bad I think I missed that part. Very good.

...

somehow I feel like a capitalist made that image, not realizing they lost both debates.

i can't believe that egg headed retard wasted some of noam's precious time left on earth
the sam harris noam thing was worth tho

...

what did he say that made him look retarded? genuinely asking

people watch this shit?

I was hoping the Noam & mollymeme was a meme, but I seem to remember seeing something about it.

Fucking THIS. Noam must be really bored, lmao. We can understand that at least.

it also pleases me that, after all this time, Holla Forums still has no idea what that word means

So IdPol aside, what's the stigma with bringing "emotions" or "morals" into these kinds of grand debates on systems and ideal societies? Isn't the fundamental nature of human beings not being thrown into a profit based thresher simply for need of basic material survival inherently a "moral" one? Maybe it's because I lean pretty Christ-Com sometimes, but praying to the god of "muh reason n' logic" like some sacred cow seems like a pretty dumb thing to advocate for when humans, as animals, have emotional drivers that are part of who we are fundamentally. Unless you have some kind of brain damage you're never truly free of emotional/moral influence on things you do or advocate for in some capacity. To deny that is some "euphoric" bullshit.

That said, I think muke n' friends did a pretty good job.

all the moral shit came from badmouse, he should had just explained how poor people don't want to starve to death or how workers don't want their labor exploited

I just don't see having a moral dimension as a weakness. If it doesn't factor into your perspective or your opponents then you or they might be sociopaths.

kys

just make some black friends. It will cure you of your autistic racism.

This:
youtu.be/e43UPo2nhJM
I liked Xexizy but at this point he is not even trying, he talks as a left communist without even nowing even leftom shit.
This tankie speaks the truth.

Strange, because Muke and his buddies lost almost entirely up to 3:00:00, the worst being the first hour where it was utterly shameful how hard they dropped the ball.

Seeing as i zoned out after 2 hours due to how one sided it appeared for a normie who assumed the capitalist side, I know he didn't "win" in any way meaningful even if it turned in his favor in the last 40 minutes when it came to idealism.

...

literally his only problem was saying umm a few too many times he was great otherwiss

...

...

this is one of the cases where I actually would support Sargon.

If there was a debate entirely about the question whether the first world exploits the third I wouldn't want to be on the same side as Unruhe. He claims that the working class in the first world benefits to a great extent from this exploitation, he believes that the loot is really widely shared between porkies and the rest here, so that almost everybody in the first world is porkified.

I don't believe that and I even have doubts about the more widely shared Leninist wisdom that the bourg clearly benefit as a class from third-world exploitation and all these interventions and wars. Rather, I believe that there are specific bourg that do benefit (like those manufacturing arms, duh), who have much closer relations with the government than the others and the rest has to pay for it.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Doesn't matter if you feel your way is morally right. That will comfort nobody if your plan winds up starving an entire nation.

Fuck yeah straya cunt

Would bang

Hourly reminder that A.W. is a shroom-taking buffoon who believes that claiming cows are an input for producing cows is a circular-argument fallacy.

Someone please make some webms of the cappies getting btfo

Obligatory

It's gonna sound fucking stupid, but my personal problem with FinBol was that he may have been a little too earnest for such a spectacle. He tried his best to thoroughly explain his sides' positions but Sargon's side went with the usual, cheap tactic of burying them with the same shit that's always flung at us (i.e. "HUMAN NATURE!!!!", etc.), and the worst part of it is that it kinda worked; Muke and co. were flustered and had a bit of a struggle trying to wade through the shit with proper arguments. The only solution I can think of should any of the 3 get into a group debate again, they need someone that can easily turn that shit around; think "coca cola death squads" but more material

...

To be fair, this was a dumb argument by Xex and it made the socialists look retarded

Capitalism is not a system of government. The "Coca Cola death squads" are an argument against AnCaps, which the capitalists said from the beginning they weren't. Obviously they support a system where murder is illegal.

Xex should be banned from ever speaking for socialism again fuck

Ok Carl.

he'll literally respond to you if you email him

Explaining leftists theory to rightards is like being AOL tech support. All day long you hear the same stunning idiocy from people who do not understand the most basic concepts relating to what they want explained ("Who is going to write my paychecks in communism?"/"What does the On switch look like?"). It takes the patience of a saint, and even Saint Jude would probably be tempted to strangle them to death and thus make the world a smarter place.

Capitalism is a system of goverment you retard lmao. It has to be a State.

Anywhere where is hierarchy, an order of power, underlings, bosses, etc. Is a State.

You know whats not Capitalism? Selling, Buying, Trading. Those are physical ACTIONS. Not an imaginary system.

[citation needed]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism

There. Thats a fuck ton of citations.
Private Property if there isn't an state to defend it, it's legal fiction.
The state are to be people with power (guns) that respect the spook of "private" property.

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism#Role_of_government
Again, [citation needed]

Yeah exactly. The State defends it. Thats what I said lmao.

The State doesn't has to tax. It has to be weaponized power that defends some sacredness, a belief. In this case "private" property.

Keep reading… You're finally reading thats a start.

Do go on. Again, [citation needed]. Your own link shows how capitalism is not a system of government. It's a economic system. Your own link refutes you.

The exact part you sent do me says it man hahahahahah

"In a capitalist system, the government does not prohibit private property or prevent individuals from working where they please. The government does not prevent firms from determining what wages they will pay and what prices they will charge for their products. Many countries, however, have minimum wage laws and minimum safety standards."

The goverment is there to defend "private" property.
Tell me how does "private" property exists without a state. It doesn't. There needs to be armed people that respect the spook for it to exist.
The Mafia is a perfect example of this. They're illegal but they're pretty much their own Capitalist state. Otherwise the egotistical worker the one who grows the weed, cocaine, etc could just sell it and not just work for a wage but for himself. Simple as that tbh.

But if he does that the Capos are going to kill him, since he is stealing "private" property from the Boss.

Still, [citation needed]. What a way to defend private property by attacking it.
This is the equivalent gripe of "anything the government does is socialism".

Read what you sent me lmaoooo hahahahahah you're so fixed on the spook.

Anything a group does with an ideology in mind can be either Capitalism (Post French Revolution), Liberalism (French Revolution), Socialism, etc.
You can't generalize dude lmao every group has different ideals. Some individuals have none, like me.

Really dude keep reading what you sent to me, read it's good for you. De-spook your ass homie.

None of what you said raises a counter-point to the fact that: a) your own source refutes you in the first sentence, b) a state cannot protect and attack private property at the same time.

Man you sent to me this: "In a capitalist system, the government does not prohibit private property or prevent individuals from working where they please. The government does not prevent firms from determining what wages they will pay and what prices they will charge for their products. Many countries, however, have minimum wage laws and minimum safety standards."

That is saying that the goverment plays a role in Capitalism. They're believers of "private" property, if the shit of the boss gets stolen by the worker who produced it. It's their affair, a state affair. Motherfucker can't be doing what benefits him the most, he has to be arrested, jailed or if he did a major offense against that sacredness then he is to be killed.

Capitalism + State are water. Hydrogen needs Oxidane to be water. Capitalism's core sacredness, it's god "priave" property isn't respected at all if there are no guys with power that respect it.
An Egoist like me can produce and sell at full price what I produced, way better income than working for a wage easy. I can get away with it so easily without any life threats, without authority.

First of all, you sent me the "citation" from wikipedia. It refutes the points you are trying to make because it is demonstrably untrue that the state doesn't prohibit private property or prevent individuals from working where they please. You are making a self-refuting argument. Either retract the "citation" that asserts illegitimate and untenable positions (which you have not even attempted at defending, simply opting to repeat them ad nauseam) or admit to sophistry (by redefining terms to fit your worldview).

I never said that the state prohibits private property. I always said it defended it lmaoo.

Pay attention with what this all started

Capitalism is indeed a system of goverment, authority and hierarchy. Can't be a ruling idea without it, without a State it's nothing.

It seems that I might have phrased my sentence in a way that was difficult for you to understand. Given your grasp of the English language, I would not be surprised if many things were difficult for you to understand.
When I claim the following: "it is demonstrably untrue that the state doesn't prohibit private property or prevent individuals from working where they please", this is referencing the source which states that (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism#Role_of_government) "the government does not prohibit private property or prevent individuals from working where they please". It is a double negative. So it is untrue that the state doesn't prohibit private property. This means that it is true that the state prohibits private property. It also does not allow individuals to work where they please. Hence the mockery alluding to how this position assumes property taxes or statist border patrol does not exist, which is demonstrably untrue.
Again, you are at a crossroads: Either retract the "citation" that asserts illegitimate and untenable positions (which you have not even attempted at defending, simply opting to repeat them ad nauseam) or admit to sophistry (by redefining terms to fit your worldview). I would suggest improving your reading comprehension, as I never claimed you stated that governments prohibit private property. I stated that your assumption that they don't prohibit private property is untenable, as you have not been able to defend any of my critiques. It assumes no such infringement of private property on behalf of the state exists, not in the form of taxes, or repossession, or restrictions of free trade.

Muke boipussy pics when?

And I'm addressing your first argument and always your first argument.

You claimed that Capitalism was not a system of goverment. But it requires authority because without it nobody has to respect what is labeled private property, it's my property if I want to.

Still claim Capitalism isn't goverment?

Stating that you are doing something does not mean you have done it/are doing it. You can only repeat that you are doing so ad nauseam without providing anything of substance.
This is a false dichotomy. As I mentioned here:
Any time the people take up arms and lay claim to a land, it is not synonymous with statism/is in any way related to a government.
Using this logic, any time the government does anything remotely socialistic, this is equivalent to socialism.
Essentially, you are asserting that authority can only manifest itself in a state, which is not feasible/supported by any evidence.
That is your assertion to back up with evidence. So far, you are essentially falling into the "government has always existed because any time people say 'I own this', a state is created/self-defence of property must be collectivist", which is an untenable position.

HAHAHAH
ok now I know what your problem is. You only know the 2 types of property that you were taught about: "public" property and "private" property.

Pro tip: Both are spooks.

Anyway answer me 2 things.
Is Capitalism a goverment or not then?
According to you what is property?

Excellent diversion. Notice how you completely side-stepped the communication error and my subsequent clarification? This is not how a discussion works: you do not talk "around" points, you address them directly.
To the first, it is not my duty to provide a definition, it is yours. To the second, that is a non-sequitur irrelevant to fulfilling a proper definition. If you claim that capitalism is a system of government, linking to a wiki article that refutes the point in the first sentence, then goes on to make idealistic claims of some small state (with no relevance to the United States since the last few decades) is irrelevant. Sure, in principle, property taxes would be fundamentally anti-capitalist. But they exist, so the ideal scenario is not relevant.

No, it's yours.
You claimed 1st that Capitalism wasn't a system of goverment. Here

Explain then.

That post is not mine. This is my first response to you here:
Again, provide a citation. In your own interests, it would be best to not provide one that refutes your claim by stating "Capitalism is an economic system and an ideology based on private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit."
Kind of refutes your claim right off the bat. Can't have a state manipulating private ownership or arbitrary restricting free trade.

different user here, no it doesn't. Capitalism is a system of government because private ownership of the MoP requires a government to protect that private property.

[citation needed]
You are arguing in a circular fashion. Private ownership is not dependent on state authorities. The government is not the only entity that is capable of preserving private property rights, as private property defence is not… and this is the key point where you lack any definitional evidence or context… necessarily collectively enforced, it can be individually enforced. A stateless system with each individual defending what they lay claim to refutes the concept. In fact, the same wiki article the other guy links to alludes to this same non-interference by stating the private owners operate their own control. You act as if it is impossible to hire individuals to fulfil roles you set forth. Like I said, lacking in any substantive definition or evidence.

I already explained to him but he doesn't wants to. He is religious, don't bother. Just dig deeper on his stupidity for fun.

Finally you're spitting up your ideology lol

What other "entity" is able to protect these beliefs then? Only an Authority.
Armed believers which rule, as State. US Army, NYC Bolice, Al Capone's Hitmen, Coca-cola Death Squads, anything.

Private Property no. What is individually protected would be only on your personal property through, your only real property. What is yours is what you can protect but the Capitalist while he is sleeping, or just away from his business, the things in his business belong to the jungle, they belong to me without State that defends them they're so easy to take for my own benefit.

You haven't really explained anything. You just linked to a wiki article that debunks you in the first sentence.
[citation needed]
Like I already said, the government is not the only entity that is capable of preserving private property rights, as private property defence is not… and this is the key point where you lack any definitional evidence or context… necessarily collectively enforced, it can be individually enforced. I don't need a state to defend my private property. You must first prove why the state is necessarily defined in that context, as the burden of proof is on you to fulfil that claim with evidence. So far, you've provided nothing.
The government is the state. US army is within the state. So is the police, based on jurisdiction. Al Capone's hitmen refute your entire assertion, as it shows how an individual can hire hitmen to defend business interests, namely private property. You are basically saying "all authority is a government because I said so". Cola death squads aren't a state.
Yes. See your own example where you highlight how Cola can have private employees defend private property. Security guards aren't a state.
You can go to sleep, too. And you can also hire security guards to defend your personal property, as theft is not exclusive. Again, any authority is not a state. The barrel of my gun pointing at you for trying to steal my private property, or my guards' guns, is not a state. Your assertion that it is relies on a sophist's definition of a state, which you have neither provided or elaborated on.

You debunked yourself when you said Capitalism wasn't a system of goverment.
And you haven't said why it's not.

Then why they act exactly like one hahahahaha

Security guards are a State since what they're protecting is not theirs but the boss property, they're respecting private property. The sacredness is above them, not their own above it.

Hahahahahah man good thing you don't have servants in reality. You would be a Warlord.

loool you need to read homie, I said you don't understand the varying forms of property and indeed that is exactly the problem as I pointed out before.

Keep reading.

See: yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof. I'm not making the claim to a redefinition, you are. You said it is a system of government, I point out your own source debunks that in the first sentence.
See above.

Hiring someone to guard your private property is not equivalent to a state.

I challenge you to find any definition that is justified and tenable that supports this assertion, that security guards outside of some private business constitute a state. Again, since you are making the claim to knowledge, the burden of proof is on you to show how "my guards" constitute statehood.
Until you cite a definition, you have will have made no attempts to provide justification for your claims.
I am aware of the toothbrush analogy: my point is that I can choose to defend either or without resorting to statism. I can hire a watchdog to defend my toothbrush, or I can hire security guards to defend my toothbrush factory without the existence of any form of governance or agreed upon legal code. I pay them for their services and they oblige. By any accepted definition, your argument is debunked.
Your own image states that private property rights exist. This is a post hoc argument you are making. Because states "protect" private property/allow its existence (let's ignore property taxes, though), that means private property exists because of states. You have done nothing to bridge the logical gap, nor have you provided a single definition of what and how individuals choosing to be employed by a business in order to defend the lands of the factories can constitute a state. It is enforced via violence, no doubt. If you try and take the land, you will be killed. But it isn't a state. Me defending my business doesn't make me a dictator of a state.

LOOOL! I love you! In this case yes it's the saaaaame shit. Only the sacredness is different instead of "private property" for the loyal security contractor. It's "nation" for the loyal soldier.

God, I cringe at leftypols misuse of Stirner, and when some poltard knows nothing of him you assume even more that he affirms your views.

Race is biological reality, not a spook. Maybe false beliefs about it are 'spooks' like some nazi race theory that was pulled out the ass, but nontheless a race with average 70 Autism Level is not going to compare to one with 100, even if Autism Level can be increased over hundreds of years.

Also, Stirner himself said spooks arent inherently 'bad', like his writings about love and how it benefits the individual 'in love', even if it is a spook. Simply calling something a spook is not an argument.

Was it /lit/ that spread stirnerism to leftypol members back in 2012~?

Proud of him.

No it's not.

It's a set of outdated social categories corresponding to regions and ethnic groups which can be classified much more distinctly. We could just as well call more specific ethnic or cultural groups races (as has been done in the past, but mostly isn't now except with Jews and… ok, it's still done now) but it wouldn't be particularly useful. Drawing the line at race is a social decision and not any kind of hard scientific fact.

Do you really just type this generic 'debunk' of race and think you got it all sorted? It's pathetic how intellectually dishonest 99% of people on both sides are.

The borders being blurry doesn't change reality, just like a black brain surgeon doesn't. It's like saying Europe and Asia are spooks because borders are manmade, great job king retard, what a fucking great thinker you are, really outside the box. Honestly this kind of mental masturbation is what makes whites inferior.

He only talked that way when it was about Love.

And… Love forms something physical a chemical reaction with dopamine, adrenaline and norepinephrine, increase when individuals fall in love.
Chemicals my brain produces to feel good are my property.

youtube.com/watch?v=igNhVwf_Gz8

Are you literally ignoring things he said because it does not suit your political views?
He clearly states the choice to believe in spooks for your benefit is there, like with honor for example. Any spook is free game, just be aware of it. I like how you corrupt something like stirner egoism to become 'my enemies believe in spooks so i'm right'.

This kind of shit makes me want to get violent, I swear I will if somebody ever argues like this with me.

Not to mention Marx hated Stirner because he knew communism is a big fat spook that appeals to emotion, and spent hundreds of pages debunking stirner to himself unsuccessfully.

Sorry, not a centrist, in fact more radical than 99% of pol and leftypol who will never do anything physical for their agenda in their life. It just makes my blood boil how retarded you are about Stirner.

You didn't refute me, so yes.

You said "biological reality." What you're actually dealing in is feels. If I and others categorize steel workers as a different race from coal miners, it's a reality that we believe that. It's also a reality that coal mining and steel work are different things. This doesn't make our "theory" biological reality.

I didn't say that, though, you did. And you're right; you are a retard.

I don't enforce political views. I'm not a Capitalist, Liberal, Communist or anything.
I'm an Anarchist.

Your argument is no different than the one about land, in fact it might apply more to land, but amounts to nothing more than intellectual masturbation.

You cannot import millions of 70iq blacks into a peaceful white or asian country and expect them to act equally, even if they are literally only babies. It doesn't matter how much you argue that borders between what race is are blurry, ir how people from the same race can vary, those things don't disprove common qualities and trends in millions.

Again, white people are retarded about race, either denying it or putting it above all else.

LOL why you mad tho?
no, not the dumbass meme. For real.

I don't like seeing smug children appropriating a philosopher I like and misunderstanding him so badly.

Emotion is a spook.

Not believing in spooks just bevause they are spooks is a spook.

Daayyum ICE BURN

lol k man
Just a question what "political ideology" do you think I "subscribe" to?

Are you going to claim that nationality is "biological reality," too, now?

This has nothing to do with anything I've said so far, nor does it prove anything about race. For all you accuse me of "intellectual masturbation," an awful lot of what you post is bizarre conjectural arguments with yourself.

Except that these "common qualities and trends" can also be picked out within a "race." The Irish, Ashkenazi Jews, Slavs, Nords,the subgroups that exist even within those; if you analyze them as groups, you will still find "trends" and differences between them which will end up being relevant to Autism Level and crime rates and whatever else. And these ethnic groups are much more measurable than race is or ever was. But instead of pursuing this scientifically, you seem to prefer ending any consideration at color coding.

And there are massive holes in that color coding - Indians, American Indians, Arabs, Persians, Australian Aborigines, Mestizos - groups like this just don't fit plainly into racial categories in a reliable way. For instance, Indians were considered Caucasian in classical race theory - are they still, now? Amerindians are genetically and culturally close to ethnic groups which still exist in Asia and Eastern Europe - so are they their own race or something else?

Racialism can't adequately assess these things because it crumbles as soon as a large enough population "mixes." In order for "race" to be "biological reality" actual biology has to stop taking its natural course and "racial" groups have to stop displaying internal ethnic diversity.

Not really, no. All things that are attributed to "race" can be accounted for using genetic clusters and clinal variation. It's not a useful classification.
Secondly, "real" things can be spooks because you can form fixed ideas about them. I feel like you missed the point of Stirner.

Communism is a spook the retard is right there. The spook that Communism holds above is "Humanity", "Man", "The Worker".

But a communist commune does come closer to an union of egoists than the current spooked af capitalism does.
There are less shitty beliefs, I have none but I live around individuals who have them.

tl;dr
Bernie Sanders is better for me than Trump or Hillary imho tbqh famalamabinbonbam

The retard is a racist homie he is spooked as shit. I'll go to sleep and stop bothering with him I already had enough fun laughing at him.

Communism was a spook to humanist like Bruno Bauer, who were putting it on an altar. That's what triggered Marx. Communism itself was something he was fine with as long as it served the individual, and not just the "worker".

It's not black and white with clear borders but it is extremely useful for population stability and control (either through mixing or unification)
I acknowledged that about spooks in my posts, it is my exact criticism of misuse of him.

Can't respond to others yet because phoneposting, got banned for 'racism', you guys really are close to neolibs.

Never ended it at color coding, you're going full "why would you hate someone just for their skin color, we're all humans man" tier.

I like you. Come back after you sleep.

I didn't knew that good to know. I suppose that on his book after The Ego and It's Own.

"Stirner Critics" am I right?

Thank you stay cool >8^)
Good night big booiii~♥

not really, when you have epigenetic factors at play, and when ethnic groups and demes in Africa/East Asia/West Eurasia do not form a sharply discontinuous genetic (or phenotypic) cluster, nor are there substantial differences between populations in East Asia, compared to populations from other regions across the globe. Race becomes increasingly useless.

You don't have to be a foreigner to hate nazis. We're gonna kill you - not le evil niggers or mudslimes. We, your white brethren, will hang you.

You keep looking for excuses, then conclude it means nothing. You start at the conclusion in fact. It will always mean something in most of the world, unless total mixing or genocide happen.

>booiii
I'm one of the rarer chiiiiicas ;^) Sleep tight.

Bernie "white people don't know what it's like to be poor" Panders, really a fighter for the working class.

From what I can tell he chides Hess, that despite him being accused of not understanding communism, he understands there's a distinction between egoist communism and humanist communism. It's toward the end, and you might be able to find it. You could argue it's not a direct endorsement, but he does seem to acknowledge a distinction.

This is your brain on idpol
Bernie is a fucking sell-out sucdem, but this criticism was always bullshit

How does feel to parrot CNN propaganda? That was taken out of context & you know that. His entire platform is dedicated to the fact that the working class is in historic levels of disproportional poverty, no matter the race. Don't make disingenuous claims.

But he literally said that quote. I am a white Russian who grew in the Soviet union, and this fat pseudo commie fuck says that shit.

Because it does mean nothing?
What excuses am I making? You're the one saying there's something meaningful here, but I haven't seen you back that up.

The conclusion of what? I'm not the fortune teller say " It will always mean something in most of the world, unless total mixing or genocide happen."

and given the context and what he said prior that quote about white working class people in the U.S., it's bullshit.
idgaf

Have you ever even watched the clip of him saying it or just heard it parroted 100x times from second hand sources? Watch the original clip & you'll see it was taken out of context. He was talking about what he's heard said by some in the black community. He then clarified right afterwards plus that statement is clearly antithetical to his platform & life work.

Apparently you're just not interested apparently in being intellectually honest?

He's neither fat nor commie. He's a socdem.

He should kearn to speak if he wants non self hating white votes

Pottery.
And I thought it was "leftists" who were the disingenuous ones? :^)

I'm going to ignore the irony of this, and say I agree, to an extent.
It was a gaffe. That still doesn't excuse you from latching on to cnn idpol propaganda

I left that phoneposting error for artistic purposes

Maybe muke isn't book smarts, whatever, But he's got street smarts.

both

Probably because nobody bothers to argue against the "human nature" thing. It's a weak point precisely because it is a meme to dismiss it. If somebody is going to actually argue with you about why "HUMAN NATURE" is such a huge weakness in your ideology, you are going to have to figure out how to deal with it without blatantly dismissing it, because they won't accept that.

Fuck e-celebs

THICC shit is capitalist tier shit.
Also

mods pls

Distinct definitions can exist on a continuous spectrum.

See: logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/66/Circular-Reasoning. It constitutes a state because it's "the same shit".

From the comments section where the analysis was raised as an argument: 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.

t. burger

This us so dishonest I won't even seriously reply (also because phoneposting because your mods got triggered)
But even if blacks weren't subhuman (they are) I would not believe in mixing, and I respect other races than my own, just see how mixing only benefits the elites that rule over the created mongrels.
I could be the staunchest commie if you put race above all, but alas, I will keep killing your kind, like I did back in my day.

"man i could really get behind this system if it suddenly stopped being based on class conflict and started being based on race instead"

"man i could really get into maths if it dealt more with like birds and shit"

"i like the idea of physics, but it doesn't focus enough on cooking for my tastes"

do you realise how fucking retarded you sound?

Except nobody says that variation within Caucasoid groups is non-existent. There is more than one shade of blue. There ARE ethnic categorizations which have been analyzed. It isn't as one-dimensional; categorizations can also have sub-types while still remaining within the original categories.
cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822%2815%2900671-5
Is this the old "utility of categorization ends when I say so" gambit?

It's their job to put retards that shit on the floor into time out

Class based struggle within an ethnostate. Did you really need to type all that out?
Don't make it about race but don't deny race.You will never unite such different people properly.

Capitalism is definitively not a system of government, numbnuts. It's an economic system.

And the Capitalists already said from the beginning they aren't AnCaps

Holy shit

Reading the arguments against the criticism, it doesn't look like Edwards made any entirely cogent point. So it appears to be a dead end that you're misrepresenting as a solid critique.

"Can" is not the same as "do" or "should." This argument also has little to do with biology - racial classifications being broader than ethno-cultural ones doesn't prevent the former from being largely arbitrary. History shows us that how race is viewed is largely subject to social sentiment.

That's wonderful, but I would like to see where you read the arguments from and on what grounds you dismiss them. If it's just the old "I don't like it/I can't believe it", then you have no point. Razib writes of Dawkin's elaboration on Lewontin's fallacy in a simpler way: blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2012/05/richard-dawkins-accepts-the-usefulness-of-race/#.WW2AwtPyuHJ.

This is kind of an is-ought issue. It doesn't matter what you think the categorization 'ought' to be or why people should not utilize it: it already exists and 'is'.

I can tell you have not learned of the fallacy, because you invoke it here. People A is part of/within people A', yet there is more variation among people A than there is in the categorization of people A'. From this, you cannot logically deduce that the categorization that puts people in A' is irrelevant.
Nobody actually denies this: the point of racial categorization isn't meant to claim that Spanish people and French people are the same just because they are Caucasoid. More recently, more accurate data has been analyzed and conclusions updated: ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11144288. The groups that cluster together are defined as racial groups. This categorization does not mean that further variation is non-existent for the same reason that utilizing the spectrum of light to say that the categorization of visible light exists alongside the total spectrum of light. There is much more variation of all, non-visible light, from UV to X-ray light, but that doesn't mean the categorization of visible light is irrelevant and 'not based in science' just because there are other categories that are more varied. Nor does it mean that simply because the spectrum is continuous, that any attempts to draw definitions of what certain spectra actually mean are "irrelevant".

Capitalism doesn't exist without goverment. To make the idea of private property be respected you always need a governmental control, forced respect.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Genetic_Diversity:_Lewontin's_Fallacy

It appears that the "fallacy" is more just this paper's term, and whether or not a fallacy was ever actually committed is basically up in the air. Dawkins also rests his assertion of this on assumptions and "ifs" in the passages cited in the article you linked - but the social construct of race is subject to social whim, so classing those particular groups together (as opposed to any other groups and inbetweens which also share characteristics) is probably not sturdy scientific ground.

I can describe a ghost, and the concept of a ghost exists, but it doesn't make ghosts themselves real or attempts to attribute things to ghosts (electromagnetic activity and other things which were measurable only long after the concept of ghosts was introduced, for instance) reliable.

Looking into the "fallacy," a lot of the people who agree that it was a definitive fallacy at all indeed appear to be people with a particular political affinity - even Razib, upon further inspection, appears to hold certain very plain biases which are reflected in some of his other writing. I'm curious if you're in the field, and how you came to hear the term used?

It seems to have heavy circulation among people whose primary interest is establishing race, and little usage or agreement elsewhere.

Except I can.

theaporetic.com/?p=54

The actual background of racial categorization relies on primitive science and murky socio-political stuff like what was described in the above. Accordingly, what is or isn't a race goes back and forth depending on convention and convenience. Modern science is applied in retrospect.

>More recently, more accurate data has been analyzed and conclusions updated: ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11144288.

What exactly determines that this is a race, though? The groupings covered appear to be a bit more regionally specific - is there something in the full article not covered here which is assertive of a 'racial' approach?

Does light behave like people?
All categorizations aren't created equal. There are a lot of questions that can be applied to animals but not light, and I'm not sure that the analogy is even complex enough to be applicable to racialism itself.

grul
pro tip: It's not a "Lewontin fallacy", that's a spook, his spook. He learned those from Holla Forums's sticky, then from browsing Holla Forums which is where he got the link, It's just his opinion.

Do you see the banned posts? He was that guy all along. He has got banned a few times, it's fun to see him return but never grows up.

Just like anyone else here.
gn

I recommend reading the literature directly, not information from a wiki article. It isn't exactly a primary source. I will explain why, as can be observed with the misrepresentations below.

You have quoted an excerpt which refutes the argument you are making. That is what race is. It is not trivial: it is the exact point. Your source refutes your claim.

Complete misrepresentation, it is clear that you have either willfully/out of ignorance misrepresented my position, which is that of hereditarianism. Consider the following argument that is alleged to be "my assertion": if there exists a complete disconnect in order to fulfil the "homogeneity", then the group that is "principally homogeneous" would not be homo sapien. It seems as if the concept of common ancestry and divergent evolution is lost. That isn't how it works. It is precisely because organisms diverge and change over time, that we exist as we do today. Nobody is claiming that Africans and AmerIndians are "principally homogenous", that would mean that there are specific and distinct genetic data for one, which the other does not even possess. Again, a basic misrepresentation of the assertions: nobody predicts that humans would fall into different species altogether. The point is that they are partially homogenous (in that racial groups share categories other races do not, like skull shape or predisposition to certain diseases), but not entirely. Ashkenazi Jews are predisposed to different conditions that Sephardic Jews. There can, and is, heterogeneity within the racial groups because nobody has ever asserted the false dichotomy of "there cannot be any variation within categories".

It is fallacies to utilize the conclusion in order to dismiss the categories. It isn't up in the air: it has already landed. What 'if' statements? Dawkins is quite clear: However small the racial partition of total variation may be, if such racial characteristics as there are highly correlated with other racial characteristics, they are by definition informative, and therefore of taxonomic significance.
I find it odd that you berate him for postulation (even though his conclusion is overt) when you rest your case on: "so classing those particular groups together (as opposed to any other groups and inbetweens which also share characteristics) is probably not sturdy scientific ground." Law is also a social construct, but it has utility. Simply because something is socially constructed does not mean it is irrelevant or non-existent. The categorization is based on scientific grounds, it is not meant to be "principally homogenous". Categorizing people by height does not meant that they cannot further be divided by weight, too. In fact, even Blumenbach states: Five principal varieties of mankind may be reckoned. As, however, even among these arbitrary kinds of divisions, one is said to be better and preferable to another, after a long an attentive consideration, all mankind, as far as it is at present known to us, seems to me as if it may best, according to natural truth, be divided into the five following varieties: which may be designated and distinguished from each-other by the names Caucasian, Mongolian, Ethiopian, American, and Malay.
Emphasis on "arbitrary". Race is a social construct based in biological evidence.

Except we have analyzed and examined ghosts and differences between ghosts. The paper I cited above uses geometric mapping to examine the cortical surfaces of various brains. It isn't simply "describing ghosts", it has been objectively proven.

This is an appeal to motivation. So, because individuals hold political beliefs, which I have not referenced in the slightest (yet you still appeal to my bias clouding the evidence), this means they are incorrect. I am not saying I don't have a bias: everybody does. But when you say that the bias makes the conclusion wrong, that's a hefty claim not really warranted by anything but your point that it might be.
I read the literature and its response.

The link does not make the claim irrelevant. The history behind US immigration policy and propaganda of Irish as subhuman non-whites does not bridge the logical gap because the propaganda is not truthful and it never was. Irish are obviously Europeans. Within the category of Caucasoid Europeans, Irish people exist and are distinct/plot some degree of genetic distance away from other groups, like Frenchmen. The racial categorization does not assert that Irishmen should be distinct or "principally homogenous" from all other people.

Your own quote above does a good job: the mere fact that we can find groups to be different and can reliably allot people to them is trivial.
It has a lot to do with human migration. It is one factor, but not the only one.
You ought not be discussing what "race" determines if you are arguing against it. This should already be information you are well-versed in so that you can dismantle it. Unless it is rhetorical, seeing as how you provide a portion of the response when you claim it is "regionally specific".

I never said that light and humans are equivalent, and that light "behaved" like humans. I said: for the same reason that utilizing the spectrum of light to say that the categorization of visible light exists alongside the total spectrum of light. There is much more variation of all, non-visible light, from UV to X-ray light, but that doesn't mean the categorization of visible light is irrelevant and 'not based in science' just because there are other categories that are more varied. Nor does it mean that simply because the spectrum is continuous, that any attempts to draw definitions of what certain spectra actually mean are "irrelevant".
I am arguing against the fallacious dismissal of variation within groups demonstrating the illegitimacy of any sub-categorization. Simply because there is variation within the visible spectrum of light does nothing to disprove that UV light and X-ray light are non-existent. They are socially constructed and arbitrarily called "UV light", but it is based on "natural truth". Caucasians vary and racial categorization does not assert that they mustn't: it is fundamentally rooted in human evolution, so that is the only conclusion it rests on. The last thing racial categorization does is state that Caucasians don't exist because Irishmen and Frenchman aren't the same.

Adam motherfucking Smith himself you dumbass. Go read it.

[citation needed]

Why, though?
I haven't read Lewontin's original article - why would I want to read a paper criticizing an article I have never read? I can just skip to the summary and academic opinions of and on both.

Except your reading is the opposite of the point the quote was making. They were saying race was trivial - and it's evidenced by that portion and the rest of the quote. They're saying that the usage of "race" has been largely arbitrary, and that Edwards fails to prove otherwise.

That was part of the quote; not me, and not about your argument.

The categories should be the result of a conclusion and not a presumption. Race theory predates our current ability to even study genetics to this extent.

But people don't actually agree on the fundamental question of whether or not Edwards successfully refuted Lewontin.

>What 'if' statements? Dawkins is quite clear: However small the racial partition of total variation may be, if such racial characteristics as there are highly correlated with other racial characteristics, they are by definition informative, and therefore of taxonomic significance.

You answer yourself here. Dawkins is essentially relying on his own pre-existing bias as a deciding factor in whether or not race is useful. I have a lot of respect for Dawkins, but he doesn't make any effort here to outline where 'shared characteristics' should start or end, nor apparently to say decisively whether or not there is a high correlation.

The science behind race is from the era of phlogiston, though. It exists in science now on the basis that it was passed from archaic science into culture, and culturally it never quite died. Modern science has been retroactively applied, but struggles to tackle race because the concept is culturally malleable.

Why are you citing Blumenbach?

This is one of the things he's known for.

You should read what caused the error in judgement first before you defend it for being consistent.

The rest of the quote outlines the misconception that is based on what "race" actually means: it is not meant to be "principally homogenous". That is a misrepresentation of the information in order to push a narrative that is untenable: in fact, I already rejected it in the post you are responding to. The quote is: the mere fact that we can find groups to be different and can reliably allot people to them is trivial.
That is a portion of what 'race' is. It isn't actually that linear that "just because organisms live in different environments, they will necessarily evolve differently". It is one factor, but not the only one. Two niches can be similar and yield similar characteristics. Again, the point is that the geographic categorization is not "trivial". As Dawkins says, "However small the racial partition of total variation may be, if such racial characteristics as there are highly correlated with other racial characteristics, they are by definition informative, and therefore of taxonomic significance."
If it is utilized, then it is not trivial. The paper I cited above shows how one example may unfold.

I realize it is not the entirety of the quote. That is why I separated the two because the first part refutes the second. The second half is a misrepresentation not defended by any hereditarian because nobody claims that humans have no shared ancestry: the point is that we have diverged and now vary. For example: nature.com/ng/journal/v47/n7/full/ng.3285.html.
The site seems to be down currently, so check it at a later time. It is a valuable meta-analysis of the heritability of human traits, worth reading.

Then hypotheses ought not exist. Science is about disproving falsifiability, which relates directly to making guesses and disproving them in order to arrive at a coherent theory. The assertion was already proven by the entirety of Darwin's work. Because Copernicus did not know the specifics about Earth's rotational patterns around the Sun does not mean his conclusion, although lacking in empirical data, was incorrect. That is how science evolves and grows: concepts are improved upon. Kind of like how Newton stood on the shoulders of the giants. Natural selection was observed, then it was later quantified when the technology became available, in order to test for the heritability and environmentability of various traits.

Science is not a consensus. If a majority believe in/dispute a concept, that does not mean the dispute is based on valid counter-points or that the belief of the majority is based on valid evidence. Evolutionary differences exist because it is true, not because people believe in it.

Again, like I said above: But when you say that the bias makes the conclusion wrong, that's a hefty claim not really warranted by anything but your point that it might be. Explain how his bias manipulates his judgement and makes his conclusion incorrect.

Demonstrably untrue. For example, I suggest examining the link above, or reading Sesardic on the topic (goodreads.com/book/show/2105959.Making_Sense_of_Heritability). Racial categorization is not culturally malleable. For example (ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3951706/), what you self-identify as, racially, is what you "are" as a racial categorization, despite the fact that many Africans in the US are not entirely African, but a mixed population with Europeans. You would be right that their 'culture' leads them to identify as 'black', even though they are partially European.

It demonstrates how the socially constructed nature of racial categories was already known to be based in natural truth.

Yeah, I still think it's kind of neat, though.

Which is good enough for paranormal investigators, but I'm not sure it really is good enough for science. Also, what paper are you referring to?

I wasn't talking about you, I was talking about Razib Khan, who wrote stuff to VDARE and apparently liked to talk race with Richard Spencer before the latter was famous. And not just Razib Khan, but many of the posts and sources I could find about "Lewontin fallacy" were from people who clearly already believed in race and were using the paper to push their strongly-held belief about race in particular rather than better understand human genetics. Outside of passionate race realists, there appears to be no consensus that Edwards successfully refuted Lewontin - and the race realists are doing more harm than good by adopting Edwards' paper.

I don't think that having other motivations makes anyone automatically wrong.

I was interested to see where your investment on the subject came from and whether it might be your field, ne'ertheless.

That's not the entirety of the link, though. The link was briefly delves into the "Irish as a race" thing, but then elaborates on just how socially malleable "race" is - in particular, in a society with "mixing." The author's ancestors were not actually officially recorded as "colored" on the original document, but retroactively classified as such later on during 1940s segregation where the attempt was to draw the line hard between "whites" and "coloreds." In the end it made bizarre stuff like that into law.

But racial categorization is inconsistent on where race starts and ends, and actually predates evolutionary theory.

I need sauce

See: cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822%2815%2900671-5.

Guilt by association and another appeal to motivation. None of this actually disproves what is being asserted, you are just saying that you have inferences of what their political beliefs are, and that this means they are wrong. A registered Democrat geneticist is not "incorrect" just because I can say he is a Democrat.

So what's the point of mentioning it? It is secondary to the discussion and only serves to divert the discussion to poison the well. It's pretty obvious what you are trying to do by invoking some quasi-Godwin's Law in referencing the article's author to Richard Spencer. "Oh, well he liked to talk race with Richard Spencer, you know all about those kinds of people…"
Intellectually dishonest, serves no purpose.

Like I said above, genetic distances exist, so a Nigerian will plot some degree apart than a Frenchman does with respect to an Irishman.
The entirety of human groups are not mixed. The majority are a specific ethnic group, like Han Chinese.
Again, we can test and disprove the assertion: Irish are white Europeans. "Irish people" themselves are within a racial category of Caucasians.

See the point regarding light here:
You are making a circular loop in our discussion that I have already addressed. Your counter-point was a misrepresentation taking my analogy to be an exact equivalence (i.e. that 'light' behaves just like humans, missing the point in regards to the categorization being continuous, just like in the two cases, while still maintaining variation within the definition of visible light and separate categories of different light spectra).
I also didn't state that evolutionary theory predates racial categorization, but that racial categorization is fundamentally rooted in human evolution. As is evident from the Irish example, our ideas and concepts have evolved; I am not referencing the original ideas held about race, as we have learned a lot more since then.

If the government completely collapsed tomorrow, go ahead and try to take my stuff.

I promise you'll find out for sure that my stuff is still mine.

Yeah, it's the age-old "if the government can't do it, nobody can". They are basically saying that the only self-defence is collective, and individuals cannot do anything.

Muke, I don't know if you will see this.

But thank you. You did good.

There's a difference between private & personal property. But whomever has the mot power has the most influence(individual vs government in this case), is the point.

No, that's not what they're saying. A collective defense is stronger, but individual defense also of course exists. Their main point is that the government defends the capitalist system. It's also why you see those at the top with the most capital, controlling the government to the extent that they do now.

most power*
writing in the dark; I should be sleeping.

If a single brick is light, then a building composed of many bricks is not also light just because the single brick is. If the government, in our case, does happen to 'defend' private property, it does not follow that the removal of the government abolishes any bastion of defence that might have existed to protect private property. What is true in part is not necessarily truthful in whole. Like you said, individual defence exists, obviously. See here:
Instead, the response is "hiring someone to defend your private property for you, or defending it yourself, is equivalent to a state".

Maybe nihilist claimed this(not sure if they did), but I am not.
The government holding up a capitalist system does defend the concept of private property, powerfully. Removal of said government makes it much harder to defend. That's what I'm saying.

I never said you were, I referenced his post.

Sure, but it isn't non-existent. You can always hire people to defend it for you.

Like ancapistan? That won't work well for society; in general. So then it may be right to say it would be nonexistent as a system?

You don't have to abolish government entirely to hire people to defend your private property. It isn't such a false dichotomy.

Sure, that's true. I thought we were talking about a scenario in which the government was abolished.

We can talk about abolishing the state, but that isn't a determining factor when it comes to protection of private property. The police aren't everywhere at once, nor are the courts. People have, are, and will protected/protecting/protect their private property, with or without external aid.

That's why we're talking about capitalism in terms of a system. On an individual level it's not as successful as the state, which is also why a collective would take the place of that role when government is abolished.

Are you sure you didn't drop this flag? ;^)

Capitalism only exists on an individual level. Capitalism cannot be successful on a state level, you are either deliberately or ignorantly omitting any and all impediments to private property and only focusing on the judicial branch of the government. Simply because arbiters and those who enforce the verdict exist does not mean property taxes vanish. That's the problem when you force yourself into a false dichotomy: a state can protect and attack private property at the same time. In order to fund its defence, it first has to attack the private property owners.
I'm not even going to argue against the power void being filled up once a state is abolished because that is self-evident. I'm not an anarchist, anyways, nor am I a capitalist. So I am inclined to agree that some form of central authority will form a structure in society, eventually.

Excellent contribution.

BadMouse said little but everything he said was golden tbh. I wish he spoke a bit more.

The questions overall were unbalanced. I would like the debate to be focused on the "Theory of Value". That is a crucial debate and is the foundation of the capitalist vs socialism debate. They touched on it a little, but I wish they focused on it more.

looool
You have 0 real friends.
Pretty sure that stuff will be mine or my friend's, that will vary.