Seriously, how did it come to this point? How can this dumbfuck just sit there and vomit out his nonsense without, like...

trips of wisdom

I literally can not find a study on Jewish spacial reasoning.

Yeah, he is consequent with his "hands off" attitude towards his intervew partner. But surely he must realize that there is a difference between Sargon complaining about Antifa or whatever and a guy stating that Jews are a naturally deceptive race? Like, does the latter not warrant at least a slight counter argument?

Nobody is challenging molyneux because he's not saying anything controversial

Molyneux is the source (30 years of a philosopher, free thinker in line with Sokrates and Kopernikus)

liberals in the 1910s and 20s were racialists, as the welfare state crumbles they are returning to their original form, away from class collaborationism and back to aristocratic apologetics.
This is innevitable.

13:48 "if it is just racism, that's bad, but on the other hand, what if it is indeed genetical?"

How much more can you dogwhistle ethnic cleansing?

people are challeging mollyneux, Shaun and Jen, Contra Points and other smaller channels constantly make replies to him and his ilk and criticise their misuse of soucres, they simply have no audience. and the people who do have an audience don't dwell on those topics.

There is this Kraut and Tea video where he confronts a neuroscientist and a biologist with these theories and their response was along the lines of "utter nonsense".
youtube.com/watch?v=ilIkoSWeOSk

Isn't he himself a Jew?

remember

Literally every time Molyneux has been confronted by an actual expert he has been eviscerated.

medium.com/@cianchartier/a-review-of-stefan-molyneuxs-the-art-of-the-argument-2c1c83fa7802

Because it's irrelevant. People don't oppose racism because they think races exist/don't exist or fundamental and inherent differences exist or don't, neither would their possibility magically justify racism or systematic oppression for some reason. It's just a huge diversion.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16867211

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mismeasure_of_Man#Criticism

lel, the two are literally inseparable. It's like saying

You guys are just mad because you don't have THE ARGUMENT. THE ARGUMENT is central to reason. You must seek THE ARGUMENT.

You can ask this about most American media (I know he's Canadian but still).

So as a Hibernian, what would my Elder Scrolls skill tree look like?

I know I have low speech skill but an ability that trades 2 points of perception and 1 point of agility for a +20 speech buff while intoxicated

If he asked me if I support him getting shot I would say yes

gee wiz, I never new Martin Luther King was such a bigot.

C'mon, MLK is from a different time.

I don't know OP, why not just ask some physical anthropologists, geneticists, etc. yourself and find out about these topics? Just go on Twitter or shoot someone an email, or download a book on libgen. If you can read Marxist theory you can at least open a book on genetics at the undergraduate level…

...

Does Gould have a model of intelligence at all, or does he just assert that trying to make one would be racist?

How many subscribers did Stefan buy? 600k subs with most of his videos getting less than 100k views and barely even that.

I hate it so much when right wingers treat genetics and evolution as fucking stats that can one up each other. It's colossally retarded.

did you even read what you posted?
the fact that the criticisms are
basically proves Gould's point. it's a political book, not a scientific one.
Molyneux is basically acting as Gould's strawman. Gould is arguing the "nature and purpose" on people like Stephan's terms, not actual scientists.

Not even fucking close to how that works.

It would certainly be nice if he did propose one, if we are to reject "g" as a model for intelligence, yes, since this is the generally accepted one.

Druidic magic from the stones of Galen.

Cuz nobody gives a shit about the rubin report.

It's not merely a question of the model of intelligence. It's a question of how useful that model is, and if it's useful enough to justify the Bell Curve conclusions (it's not).

So are you saying that it's too flawed to reach the conclusions of say, The Bell Curve, or that the conclusions of the Bell Curve are bad enough that "g" should be suppressed in order to avoid reinforcing racism and bourgeois rule more generally?

by too flawed I mean "you can't get from the usual model of intelligence to TBC without several leaps of logic that are inherently bourgeois/racist"

I'm saying this post is a critique of the Bell Curve, not g primarily, and you trying to focus the discussion on g is disingenuous. The issue is that the model is not sufficient to meet all of those criteria.
One leap of logic would be enough to be too flawed, you hyperbolic shitstick.

Gould IS against g in general though, not just The Bell Curve.

That's not relevant to his criticism of it. If the criticism is valid, it's valid.

Has he literally never heard of the fucking Manhattan project?

I would love to discuss the biological basis for intelligence and how this might inform socialist theories and public policies but I don't want to do this in a thread about some cancerous e-celeb with Holla Forums-tier views.

reminder:
youtube.com/watch?v=GKczW14EO_w

What an asshole. I'd pay money to see a debate Unruhe vs Molyneux considering that they argue in a similar style.

50% alcohol resistance

what does that even imply? it's like you think saying anything concrete (no matter what it is) about jews as a race magically excuses every Holla Forums meme

filter race realism and racialism to racism

Eye Queue is remarkably useful for predictive purposes.

But even putting scholarship aside, almost everybody takes note of differences in cognitive ability in other people, and even applies that information in useful ways ("she's smart, promote her"). Eye queue may not be a comprehensive measure of intelligence, but it does estimate a lot of qualities (spatial reasoning, memory, language capabilities) that no sane person would want to lose. When you say things like, "everybody is just as smart", or "there's no way estimate how intelligent somebody is", you are saying things that nobody really believes. Don't be so ignorant and so dishonest.

WHAT? How can someone be this dumb? Has he never heard of Einstein, Neumann, or Feynman?

Not implying they were architects but they needed a very high spacial reasoning. Einstein even had a very developed spacial area of the brain.

...

If you think r&i.q is a settled issue, you haven't looked into it sufficiently. Both left and right fall prey to Dunning-Kruger after seeking out studies that support their pre-existing biases.

How can you judge i.q as not being a useful standard when there is no standard of usefulness?

The thing is, it's irrelevant. I don't care to take three semesters of biology and genetics just so I can argue against Nazis on the Internet.

Let's assume the claim is true, and races (which is already an unscientifc word, haplogroups would be more accurate) are different by average Autism Level in perfect material conditions, so what? Would you want to enforce a racially based policy? Even the thought of this would be literal hell, and has been throughout history.

Molyneaux is a clown in a lot of ways, but the consensus among people in the (non-social) sciences is that race is a real and meaningful shorthand for genetic clusters. Gentle intro here: quillette.com/2016/06/23/on-the-reality-of-race-and-the-abhorrence-of-racism/

We have racially-biased policies already though, at least in America. It seems to be okay.

lel at people who read this pseud rag

That depends on how you define race. If you define race biologically, race clearly doesn't exist. The variation among ethnicities aren't constituting a race, a race would be another type of homo, like the homo habilis or the homo sapiens neanderthalensis. All of them died out.

...

what did he mean by this

I wonder why proponents of Autism Level are so obsessed with race as well? Really makes you think.

So niggers are the horror genre of humans, makes sense.

Race isn't biological definable because we can't find any genetic markers that are in everybody of a particular race, and in nobody of some other race.

Freddy was white.

Do you see how ridiculous this is? Again, genetic clusters.

...

Yes we can. The genes that produce lighter skin are certaintly not universal.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cline_(biology)

Why do people insist on pretending that significant group differences in outcome would have zero implications under socialism?

Currently a great deal of energy is expended (unsuccessfully) under neoliberalism to correct these differences. Because the causes of disparity in outcome are assumed to 100% environmental and 0% hereditary, an onus is placed on Westerners to attempt to engineer better outcomes in under performing minority communities. As we know these interventions aren't really helping and often backfire. I'd imagine that similar initatives would persist under socialism if the heredetarian explanation does not gain hegemony.

The link you posted was to an opinion piece by non-scientists. In to the trash it goes.

The concepts and identities associated with race and ethnicity change over time and geography. And are relatively recent in terms of human history. They are no longer considered biological concepts at all.

...

you could've saved us the trouble and just screeched 1488

You are arguing in bad faith. Albinism is the result of recessive genetic disorders and is incredibly rare.

Why not just say that socially-constructed racial categories should be rejected for being anti-Communist and preventing inter-proletarian solidarity, regardless of what the genetics says? It seems a bit disingenuous to say race/ethnicity doesn't exist when you can see a gradient of features like skin color, facial structure, etc. Certainly people act as if it is real, though you can argue this is caused by class society.

Point is humans are 99.9% genetically identical. Less than most other animals. There is 2-3 times more genetic variation among chimpanzees, 8-10 times more among orangutans than humans.

Albinism is not due to the same genes as those that cause lighter skin in some races.

...

You are basically saying "Africa is poor because niggers", just in nicer words. You advocate for racial policies under socialism. Are you a recent Holla Forums convert? Wouldn't surprise me, judging by your flag. Looking at the perfomance of African Americans compared to Africans, it already shows that it is mostly enviromental reasons. That doesn't mean it is only enviromental, but to an extent where it doesn't matter.

The genes that cause lighter skin are apparent in all humans.

theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/10/a-brief-history-of-the-genes-that-color-our-skin/542694/

Similarly, albinos are found in all ethnic groups.

This number doesn't really have any bearing on the conversation. We also share 98.9% of our DNA with chimps. Lots of variety can be ascribed to a relatively small amount of genes.
Our species has experienced a number of population bottlenecks in fairly recent evolutionary history which reduced our genetic diversity.

1 year.

Nope. This can be explained by sampling error introduced by US immigration policies.

Nigerians Immigrants for example are outperforming whites. But this is only because the US is accepting predominantly educated professionals from Nigeria. These immigrants are from the top of their population's bell curve, so they are predictiably performing well in their new home.

Somalian Americans on the other hand have no such sampling error. Almost all Somalians are let into the US as refugees, so we get a much more representative sample of their bell curve. As a result Somali Americans are performing abysmally.

Coincidentally, the beneficiaries of affirmative action policies at better US schools are overwhelmingly affluent Nigerian and Caribbean-Americans. They're competent enough and can showcase the school's diversity well to alumni donors.

if niggos are naturally stupid then those nigerians shouldn't exist

The Bell Curve logic dictates that you would find proportionately fewer Nigerians who are able to reach that level compared to, say, the Chinese, not that none exist. Come on, this is basic statistics.

that doesn't answer my question

Are you being facetious or are you trying to strawman? The average height of Japanese people is 5'7". This isn't disproven by the existence of a Japanese person who is exceptionally tall.

Do you know the concept of a bell curve?

so are you saying that some black people are born smarter or dumber than others? that makes their skin color pretty inconsequential if that's also a consideration

I love how far in fucking denial you faggots are about the fact blacks might be just a tad bit less intelligent than the rest of us.

also dat obsession with asians. could you be a more textbook racialist Holla Forumsyp

LOL not an argument. go cry with your fellow kekistanis

No, assuming the Holla Forums narrative of Autism Level being a viable metric of intelligence, even across cultures, and Autism Level being normally distributed, if we norm the test on, say, native Brits (so a bell curve centered at 100, SD15), the corresponding curve for Nigerians would be a bell curve centered at (85, SD15). By 68-95-99.7, it follows that around 80% of Nigerians would score lower than the average native Brit.

Now what's the average between the two groups smartass?

You don't even have a rudimentary understanding of the concepts at play.

You're aware this is an argument that applies to people in the same race too right? That we should limit the education prospects of whites in appalachia compared to whites with jewish decent, because they underscore them dramatically in both socioeconimic indicators and raw Autism Level/academic achievement.
You're not arguing for "race realism" but borderline eugenics, something far beyond regular NazBol that we usually tolerate here but to caste-like NRx.
But that is the natural home of all Racialist theories, that's what they were founded for after all. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_de_Gobineau

wow those sure are some stats. what about the ideological implications and conclusions of those stats tho? you seem to be dancing around them with this sophistry

There's no reason to do this. Countries with poorly-educated, less-skilled populations aren't exactly killing it economically. All evidence would indicate that having a better-educated population is better for profits. Less-educated people tend to become cost centers in modern welfare states.

we can't dance around implications all day, Holla Forums. you know that's not his point.

Well, you could always restrict immigration from Nigeria to educated professionals.

what point were you trying to make

..didn't your other fellow kekistani just complain about the same phenomenon because it makes whites look bad?

Do yourself a favor:
youtube.com/watch?v=GgZFGgJlAsk

Oh fuck off you prude. By 2070 nearly all people born in the west will be designer babies with 150 Autism Level, low chance of Alzheimer's/cancer, etc. This will be a good thing, and I hope you'll live to see the glory of it.

Yes
I'm not advocating for limiting anyone's educational prospects. I just think the industrialized world should proceed with caution in regards to immigration.

Did you know that poor African Americans seem to benefit more Autism Level-wise from minor improvements in socioeconomic status, compared to White Americans?

...

I can't say that it's a big surprise that the top 20% of Nigerians would do better than the average Brit. Lots of people in Nigeria. I think large-scale immigration from vastly different ethno-cultural groups is questionable as it's just asking for ethnic conflict.

Does that reproduce? It would be good to see the paper. I thought SAT score gaps have remained constant, and the SAT is rather g-loaded (or at least it was at one point) and we have been intervening a lot to fix this. Lots of interventions are early-childhood but the result seems to disappear as the kids get older.

iirc this has been demonstrated in children but not in adults. Childhood intelligence has been shown to be heavily influenced by the environment. We regress towards the mean as adults and heredity becomes increasingly important.

YES YOU ARE
You had just argued that the people with the highest skilled jobs and most power in society are there because they're the only ones who are genetically up for the task and that it's destructive and wasteful to fight it, even if it's true, that's the argument of an 18th century aristocrat.
You arguing over Nigerians or Ethiopians has no effect since the majority of black people who your policies would affect were born here.
Not to mention that making your immigration policy based on Autism Level when you claim gene editing will fix the problem is pointless.

"Ensuring the existence of our people and a future for white children" is a much nobler cause than protecting muh Autism Level points, and arguments relating to jobs and brain drain are much more convincing against immigration.

now i know what a cuck is

that contradicts one of the fundamental rules of the bell curve. the 4th one to be exact
i know you're just pulling shit out of your ass to justify a conclusion you came to in the first place despite any evidence but you could at least do that right. this ideological flipflopping is just embarrassing and is so verbatim Holla Forums

i'm sure the guy pushing him into the furnace won't think any less of him as a human

could've called himself "not a fake account".

...

Adulthood is most of a person's life, isn't it? Not seeing the contradiction here. I believe Murray and Hernstein mostly use tests given to people joining the army as a proxy for Autism Level.

Well, if you're spending a lot of money caring for poorly-educated immigrants, that's money you aren't investing in gene editing. If you just invested in gene editing and didn't take so many people, you could probably help more of them sooner, in the grand scheme of things. Certainly there isn't an infinite amount of time when we consider imminent problems like climate change. Certainly you can extend this to "Oh my god, so let's cut all welfare for poor people in the name of bourgeois science!", but I think it's good enough to stop digging if you're already in a hole.

...

Why don't we just rename /lefty/pol to /jew/pol?

statistically righties enable jews much more than lefties do :^)

read Bordiga

are you implying that environmental influence on intelligence just halts at adulthood? how does that even work?

It is in all likelihood a fake account, considering the fact that Stefan Molyneaux tried to pose as a female in his comment section once, gushing for himself but neglected to switch to his sock account and made himself look like a total permavirgin.

Maybe? For instance Turkheimer (people.virginia.edu/~ent3c/papers2/Turkheimer psychological science.pdf) shows that SES modifies the heritability of Autism Level in young children (7 year olds), on the other hand Bouchard (gwern.net/docs/iq/2013-bouchard.pdf) discusses the increasing heritability of Autism Level with age. Razib Khan talks about these two results here: blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2011/01/when-genes-matter-for-intelligence/

If there's a way to make early-childhood interventions permanent into adulthood, I don't think anyone knows it yet. it would be nice to know because it would help poor people a lot.

...

Common mistake. The sd for niggers is around 12, depending on the race. So it'd be 89.4% of them below the average brit, not 80%. Women also have lower sd than men (13.5), which is why the dumbest and smartest person in a room usually are men.

Yes, while our overlords will afford the 9000 Autism Level babies. It will be a brave new world. On second thought, the first super high Autism Level designer baby will probably take over as the single overlord since odds are he'll be the heir of some billionaire.

I'm talking about national-level correlations between Autism Level and tiers of household income. To put it simply, the gap between the poorest blacks and middle class blacks is huge (and it's already huge between the very lowest income level and the next lowest income level), much larger than the gap between the poor whites and the higher income whites. Racialists are focused on the fact that top income blacks still have lower Autism Level than top income whites for some mysterious reason and never bring up that fact.
Now there are several ways you can interpret this gap, these explanations are even compatible

A) The African Americans who see improvements in socioeconomic status actually have their Autism Levels raised more than whites when the environment has more positive influence.
B) African Americans can actually achieve similar socio-economic status while having lower Autism Level, either because of affirmative action or because blacks don't need higher Autism Level as much to succeed in their chosen professions (maybe the fact that top income blacks have lower Autism Level than top income whites could also be explained by how they're more likely to be athletes, entertainers etc while whites are more likely to be classic porkies)
C) The disparities between different subgroups of blacks are more extreme than between the subgroups of whites. A racialist would jump in here and say it's pure blacks scoring lower than coloreds who are considered black because of one-drop rule in general, but it's hard to argue breeding with rednecks would be all that beneficial considered their own outcomes. But I understand that you might expect to see differences between say, the child of an upper class white and an elite Kenyan immigrant and the descendants of West African slaves and it's a bit silly to lump them together under the "black" label.

If A and/or B are true it's basically saying that efforts at eliminating disparity of outcomes are effective, and it could be a good idea to spend more resources improving the outcomes of African Americans rather than White Americans, either because they gain more Autism Level or because they need less Autism Level to succeed (and thus their socioeconomic success is more tied to environmental factors we can easily influence than genetics we can't do much about.)
If C is true it's basically an admission that the "African American" categorization is essentially useless, probably because it's stupidly attributed by hypodescent, and we can't even properly discuss the issue before we have a saner categorization scheme and social engineering work is done to introduce more granularity in racial perceptions than "anyone with skin darker than cream coffee is black."

Or we could drop idpol and support color-blind policies, I'm all for that too.

Lmao. Obviously this an is unpopular opinion here but I think its self evident. Intelligence is lavishly rewarded with wealth and power in liberal capitalist countries. Peter Porky is genetically more intelligent than Patrick Prole. That's why low cost genetic engineering is so exciting.

I made no specific prescriptions, I only expressed misgivings about the status quo and said it would be best to proceed with caution.

Is this actually true? This seems to have reached folk-wisdom status but I've never seen a paper.

The poorest blacks are likely suffering from malnutrition, or iodine deficiency perhaps. This is an obvious intervention that would accomplish good things. Also American racial categories aren't the most useful. Even among whites we can track different political attitudes (heritable) to different founding populations back in the colonial era - for instance, American North-South political divides are basically "English civil war, Round N".

Also lead in the water.

We're talking about America here. Lead poisoning and the quality (or perception) of schools in the ghettos are more likely candidates. But yes, that's basically my conclusion.

There is one thing you should fear in life more than any person you consider inferior, that fear you feel is only you. And it will only ever be you. For as much as you fear everything foreign and seemingly inevitable about demographics and what you dislike. You ignore what you are capable of doing and end up becoming mad off the high of perceived moral and physiological superiority, which always ultimately, leads to your demise.

Understand that you are a looser who will die, and that the method of your death is entirely up to you in a sea of six billion people you consider lesser. You are nothing, you will never be important, and this superiority is to make up for the fear of your own death, the fear of your own decay, and the fear of your own disease and disorder that only become comorbid. None of it really matters if you're right or not.

All these issues will make you let go of yourself until you finally croak, off ideology that infected you ever since you were a teenager on image boards. It consumed you, and in the end, it will rot you. Here lies user, dead at 48, nobody remembered him anymore than they remembered the flesh he thought lesser.

You're going to die on an ideology that becomes so absorbed by the self you ignore your flaws and flip up. Every Goliath wishes he was David, before his hubris consumes him. And in the end he became jealous of David.

I try to forget about the lead. smh

wew. Try to proofread next time. That first paragraph read like a transcribed trump speech.

Regardless it's true. I've never met people filled with more self consuming hubris than I have with these people, not in literature or film or theater. Their all consuming lust for superiority will become a note on a grave among hundreds. People passing by they hate living longer than the last.

This isn't a moral diatribe, this is a warning. If you become so obsessed with your own superiority to others that it becomes your politics, you will make foolish mistakes, and those mistakes come in both the instant and long term form. Regardless, being on image boards at such a young age sealed your fate.

If I were to compare your ilk to any one character from film it would probably be Seth Brundle.

2244231

LOL, no.

people usually attribute female under-representation in STEM fields to a different SD, but I've never really believed it. Notably Larry Summers got purged at Harvard for saying that, top lel and fuck him.

Women: 101.41 +- 13.55
Men: 103.08 +- 14.54
Notice that since the men's average is slightly higher women should have more dumb people but men have more really fucking dumb people.
Pic. Notice it's kids, not adults. Sample size is huge though: 80k.

Are you sure about that?

There have been tons of studies since then that do not reach the same conclusion.
psychologytoday.com/blog/sideways-view/201410/are-men-really-more-intelligent-women

Also,
livescience.com/21647-men-women-iq-scores.html kek.

Some studies suggest this, but like many other interesting questions regarding intelligence, further research is taboo and social scientists don't have the balls to come to real conclusions.

And I see no better representation of this in Stefan himself. Look at him over the ages. Unwarranted Self Importance isn't just a bad character trait, it is one totally destructive to the self and your body.

I believe that white supremacist thought, subversive picks upon the bullied, twists their minds and makes them believe they are special. First it comes as an extreme sense of individualism at a young age, then it comes in deeper and deeper manifestations. It then becomes bigotry. All the while they are living inside their own minds while their bodies decompose and become in their own words, and philosophies "inferior". Only it happens faster.

To me, this is no different than a disorder. A virus of some kind that effects the health beginning at childhood and ending at premature death due to lack of care. Which is how ironic, considering they call the socialists filthy. They themselves decay and die, alone, unknown, in a grave wedged between the two others. I expect these people to die at a premature age.

They've lost the ability to care for themselves, only dive deep into the belly of the beast, the beast of self delusion of superiority. As the body grows old, the fear of death grows, etc. There's more to it than that, but I find Stefan a great example to my idea that these people's ideologies consume their bodies no different than any disease could.

Forget I posted two, I suck cocks. You get my point. I meant to post him as a happy little boy first.

Do you stalk him? Weird.

None of this has any bearing on the questions at hand. Or in the words of the meme man himself

Yes, depending on the definition of dumb. If dumb is

Vis-a-vis my comparison of these people, and their social and physiological destruction in the Fly. Both are consumed by the idea they have become superior, only to slowly realize they have not become superior, they are decaying and becoming something else. Something people they love can only look on in sadness, pity, and horror.

What once was good is gone, and what once was seen as a spectacular innovation in science, and his genius, gone. Turned into a monster who would sacrifice anyone and everyone, even those they love, to become normal again.

You don't understand. The argument, is the decay. It doesn't matter if its right or wrong, we live limited lives and we can do very little with them. Despite having a following people will forget Stefan existed in large part. Stefan, once being so infested with individuality at such a young age as were countless others his age, felt compelled to go down the rabbit hole.

The only end is death.

The argument is death. There is no better answer to the argument than for it to not be, an argument.

Plucked out of context quote.

A third of a standard deviation, not 13.5.

Are we getting a bit overdramatic?

I'm just telling burgers that if they continue down the Holla Forums path their lives will not improve, in fact they will become everything they feared walking at a younger age. What they consider inferior.

Like how for example?

Are their skins going to turn black?

That doesn't mean what you think it means. His blog post says the difference in averages is 5 points. That says nothing of the standard deviation. Your confusion comes from the fact each 15 points means 1 sd (so if you're 3 sds from the average you have an Autism Level of 145 (or 55)).

They are going to be reminded the body is as frail as the brain, and the worship of the body will only crush them as it ages. Give it time, they will all self destruct faster than they already are.

They let themselves go off the excuse that they are a "superior" people. But they nobody escapes the consequences of their lifestyle, social and physiological. They will slowly realize they fucked their entire lives up, and I can't help but imagine much of it will result in suicide for the most open among them later in life.

Flesh is flesh.

Selectively applying this bizzare nihilism and getting all preachy is not going to shut down discussion.

R&I.Q is on topic because it has political implications within the context of leftism. Ideally this thread wouldn't have a shitty right wing eceleb in the OP, but the discussion has been good in spite of that.

That happens to anybody, it doesn't matter if they believe themselves inferior or superior.

Nothing a good lift can't fix.

What I am trying to suggest here, is everybody's a mad scientist, their own genius following old methods true and tested. And life is their lab, an analogy to the people around them, and these white supremacists see the working people as their lab. But it has nothing to do with the grand ways they lie to themselves will come, their ideas manifest.

They're not too different from anyone else. we're all trying to experiment to find a way to live, to solve problems, to fend off madness and chaos. All of it eventually leads to self destruction as their ideas cannot be applicable to reality. They implode on themselves. And then they die.

For a next copy to appear, fearful, afraid, and not ready for a world that is not tailored.

It is not Nihilism. Flesh is flesh. There can be differences in the flesh, but nonetheless you as an individual are flesh, and you can't do much to others flesh outside of harming it, or as in the case of Holla Forumsyps destroying themselves.

Nothing will come from the argument. The argument is the death they fear.

Way up the thread some user seemed to claim women are 13.5 sds below men, he clarified a bit by posting women's Autism Level sd where 13.5 and men's where 14.54. But it was old data. Since then various studies have shown different results and have interpreted the dada in a variety of ways. The blog post listed a bunch of different conclusions you could reach.

In fact I'm not shutting down conversation at all, I'm introducing it. You need to understand what a censor means. Censors tend to do what only psychotics do; They confuse fantasy with reality; a world where their opinions go unchallenged and the problems of the subject matter effect them.

Who better does this represent than the white supremacist? The identity politics junky? All of this has to do with fear of the flesh, fear of death, fear of your own flesh.

Global digital parasitism is the new Trotskyism

Technology is being an extension of the human body, and with white supremacists, the computer largely becomes their body. It consumes them as their body slowly rots, slowly becomes what earlier they would have considered inferior. Dying young. The digital consumes the physical in the idea naive, of flesh supremacy.

Do you remember when you found out you wouldn't live forever? Do white supremacists? I never hear them speak of it. I only hear the clacking of bones and corpses.

This is the arrogance of the supremacist. The arrogance of the faux intellectual, the arrogance of ignoring the death, the arrogance of thinking you can change things if only you had enough people to believe in you, if you kept fighting on the internet day in day our, day in day out, day in day out.

The delusion that we have more time and more strength than others to get things done.

Nothing humans do, or at least, what you hope, other than the universal truth of all human beings, which is decay, and death. The computer has only exacerbated this death for the poor souls who cling to their superiority, that maybe one day they can be strong and powerful. It's filled with insecurity over death itself.

You are getting way overdramatic.

Am I?

Yes.

I disagree. The internet is now a forum for public prosecution, and white supremacists are the a large arm of it.

Yes, dude.

Post your pic.

My pic? Those people fell for your lies. Not mine.

Just curious is all, for all that about flesh, I would like to see how you are holding up.

I am holding up as well as any random man or woman in a planet of six billion people. So are you. So is he. And that's where all fear arises.

yes, you totally derailed the thread with your long winded nonsense. It's a shame no one ignored you initially, although I guess we couldn't have predicted it would spawn a dozen more useless posts.

Technology is us. There is no separation. It's a pure expression of human creative will. It doesn't exist anywhere else in nature. It gives us hope that we will not die and our influence lives on, our insecurities manifest into superiority live on.

Only for the biological facts of life to have the last laugh as what we've made slowly deteriorated our physical selves, while we all talked about the white race.

It's almost an Aesop's Fable.

Well, ok dude, so it doesn't matter what we believe in, does it?

What is there to derail? I am giving my opinion on the topic of white supremacists and their hubris.

Not at all. What I'm saying is your idea of supremacy lies in the hands of politicians you do not have the power to resist, and your plans are terribly thought out, while socialists of all colors have been fighting for something different for over a century, even in America.

My problem with you, is your obsession with your own body and its identity, while ironically letting it rot, trying desperately to prevent ideas from spreading.

The supremacist has become the technology. The technology repeats itself. A tired message.

You could have confined your response to a single post instead of vomiting up 15 posts like a shitty rafiq wannabe.

I could have, but that wouldn't have confronted you.

Except you didn't confront me. You never addressed the empirical basis of what myself and others were saying.
Instead you wrote ad nausem about your thoroughly spooked opinion that race is some sacred cow which we mustn't discuss lest it corrupt our souls.

My argument: You do not matter, your organs and flesh do not matter, as long as capital exists your body will be its instrument. White supremacy is a trend in a game of numerology and politics.

Feeling good about yourself that others suffer does not make up for the fact that you too, suffer in your own way. As I've said, flesh is flesh. And the television became the flesh, and so did ARPANET.

Simply put, white supremacy means less than the supremacy of death. Nothing escapes it, it is an argument over who dies first in a time where enemies change on a weekly basis.

Who do you trust on the internet? Others now, or yourself? The answer should be neither. Nothing conclusive matters one way or another. The Internet is almost a Bible of sorts for those who wish to become more than they are. But it also consumes them. I am telling you that white supremacy, real, fabricated, exaggerated, none of it matters.

It just eats you alive with a devil's contract.

Nothing escapes decay. White Supremacy seeks to ignore it.

Basically this.

...

Not this guy, but this isn't a "white" family, it's a Jewish family. That's Ludwig Wittgenstein on the bottom right and the other people are his relatives.

I want to see it so bad

On the off chance that the race "realists" here haven't been banned yet: lets assume you are right. What policy proscription, what organizing consequences, what principles for organizing society follow from your thinking?
Because it very much seems a case of even if you are right, it is still irrelevant because universalist principles predominate. Democratic control over the MOP doesn't presuppose that you have this or that level of intelligence, for one.

Its certainly a more feasible explanation than
There are undeniable physical differences between races why would the brain be any different?

Different physiology and behaviours are clearly visible for all the different races in every single species on Earth, yet some people think it doesn't apply to humans. Race is real and it makes a difference, like it or not.

I'd have a lot more respect for "race realists" if they didn't all inject their fascist ideology into their shitty science.

PS: Dave Rubin is waaay past the point of being able to call himself a liberal of any sort at this point.

This bullshit is a fucking DEAD END once you realize that the constant research and study of race and genetics (which nerds like molytard support) will put an end to the whole argument with genetic engineering, treatment, Autism Level supplements, whatever. It's ironic that they think ignoring race is going to bite anyone else in the ass in the long run, when in reality the argument is going to turn on them. The reality of genetic engineering is creeping up on them faster than whatever 'race-ignorant' policy effect is creeping up on the left or liberals. The Chinese and 1% rich fuck liberal progressives are going to pop-out non-white super humans before everyone realizes "race matters" or whatever the fuck.

They only latch onto this "forbidden science" so desperately to have the leverage of made up persecution.

It is a factual claim to make that genetic clusters (colloquial races) vary between each other in their average Autism Level scores (useful predictor of success in life, as per the western definition of it).

From this factual claim they launch their assaults, but don't dismiss the actual claim.
1. Yes, Autism Level is a useful metric and a good predictor of success in life.
2. Yes, there is a genetic component to Autism Level.
3. Yes, that component is hereditary, and thus some groups have different average values to others.
4. Yes, it is practical in the utilitarian sense to use this information when making political or administrative decisions.

Ethics can be discussed, of course, and the definition of "race", but you shouldn't pretend the above information isn't reliably proven by now.

Why would you want this?

yeah I'm sure you'll discuss ethics in a way that doesn't suit your cause

I won't discuss shit with larpers on an anime forum, I am telling you what you can do.
You can discuss the ethics, but you can't deny the facts.

there's no discussion to be had
that's why you're pushing this "facts are facts" bullshit while seemingly conceding that "ethics can be discussed", you're trying to soften up the retards who get a boner thinking of themselves as very rational people but still have enough humanity to consider your ideas fucked up

My ideas? What ideas exactly are these?
This was my first post in the thread, it has no statements that aren't proven to be factual.

Miss me with that biological essentialism.
Humans descend from the world of beasts, yet we parted ways with it with the arrival of our humanity. It is from this humanity we derive our self-consciousness, which we in turn derive our freedom, language, capacity for rational though, ability to consciously transform our own material conditions, etc. from. To say that a is true in humans because a is true in animals is effectively to claim that we are no different than the biological machines in the world of the animals, who never really act but are rather always acted upon by their biology. By doing this one disowns their humanity, their human consciousness, which one has to rely on to provide you with any reliable conclusions, or any conclusions at all for that matter.

well give it to me then: what is your opinion on the ethics of the thing

you dont understand people at all

How about you stay on topic?

What a load of bullshit. Other animals are far more capable than you give them credit for. Obviously I'm not saying all animals are as good as us (or, some of us), but you seem to think man came from a different universe altogether. Everything you attribute as uniquely human exists in animals (how could social animals survive without language?), but at different degrees.

Why do retards actually pretend that they care about the science and shit? Mongs like you and Moly are so obviously driven by angst and insecurity. How the fuck else would mediocre internet ghetto dwelling white guys start giving a single shit about genetics all of the sudden? This shit isn't any different from the same mediocre white guys that were making atheism and Carl Sagan videos on YouTube just 5 years ago. This shit is embarrassing.

Why do you strawman me so viciously?
Me and Molly? Where did I agree with what he said?
Why do you think I'm white? Why do you think I didn't care about genetics before that given X moment you are obsessed with?
Why did you bring atheism out of nowhere just to compare me to a fedora stereotype after you are done comparing me to Molly?

How can you write such an abhorrent post and not realize?

lol, so it's clear
your "well, the ethics can be discussed" is just lipstick on a pig
back to pol

Nigga you are asking me to say something subjective, so you can attack it, because you can't attack the objective facts previously stated.

You are begging for me to help you insult me. Stay on topic.

Wow I deeply apologize if I insinuated wrongly that you are a brain dead Holla Forumstard defending Moly and shit in a thread full of Holla Forumstards defending Moly. Maybe you could not be such a bitch and try to understand that my post was also describing the average "race-realist" aut-rightist and not totally specific to you.

nigga I'm asking you what you want to do with those facts
nigga if we're talking honestly, the ethics is the most important part of the situation because it doesn't describe what is but it gives an insight into what you think should be done, just like the fact that retarded people are retarded is less important than the ethical question of whether they should be sterilized
is it clearer, nigga?

I didn't say language in itself, but our language. The language that can express human thoughts, not just a result of some biological reflexes. Although, if I were to be proven wrong about self-consciousnesses being exclusive to humans, the only species I would concede it to would be some monkeys.
It is not a question about "how capable" or "how good as us" they are, I am not suggesting the division between humans and animals are a vast quantitative difference, but a strict qualitative one. Humans are the only species that are self-conscious, what one may perceive as such in other species are only biological reflexes. This is of course not something that is inherently only human, there might be other future species, or aliens for that matter, that are also self-conscious.
I do not know where our humanity comes from, if it was bestowed upon us by god, if it arrived by aliens, or if it is just a result of biological mechanisms that are independent of their creator, but I am rather convinced it does exist.

Very good arguments from someone who has very good arguments.

Way to take a small passage of my text completely out of context. No, I do not believe in god nor in aliens, I was being rhetorical in order to illustrate my ignorance, or rather our common ignorance, on the subject.

...

...

ALIENS

WHITE RACE

SKELETONS

THE INTELLIGENT QUOTIENT

GOD'S WILL

BIOLOGICAL MECHANISMS

Words and phrases uttered everyone in real life will avoid you for.

Nah I read it I'm just focusing on the specific part and that's all I really want to do.

Oh, so this charlatan finally upgraded to unabashed racism?

...

Good, those grey fuckers are the lying scum of the universe.

...

Who is that man?

tl;dr

Stefan's special education years.

Biologist studying population genetics here. You're utterly wrong. Here is an actual picture of human genetic diversity: either Homo sapiens is composed of one "race" or a couple hundred–all but one of which exist entirely in Africa.

So you insulted someone else, while addressing all said insults at me, and not addressing anything I said?
Might want to not spit at me if someone else gets you mad. It sends the wrong signals, you know?

I will not discuss anything with people who refuse to admit to the facts, and so far you managed to go several posts completely ignoring them.
Stop with the appeals to absurdity, and look at the very basic thing:

Look at these, agree to them, internalize that agreement so its not just "yes, but!" on a message board, and then we can talk.
Right now you have no interest in the truth and just want to insult people who disagree with you, even before they have voiced any such disagreement.

Is this your first time on an imageboard?

No, sadly it isn't my first time on an imageboard, and I am used to people using this retreating tactic.
I just like to point it out to new people lurking, so they can spot it too. When defeated, the ideologue will insist he wasn't even trying to argue in the first place, and that if he was trying he'd mentally massacre you! But he isn't right now :)

not admitting to =/= ignoring
if you're expecting something like "yes user, the 4 points you enumerated are 100% factually true" you won't get it because I don't know shit about Autism Level and genetics and race so how can I know you're right
my question is very simple - what do you want to do about it? your hysterical refusal to even entertain the question is answer enough
go back to Holla Forums

and the only reason why you haven't voiced any disagreement is because you got caught trying to peddle racism with a soft touch, so fuck off with that bullshit

Let me attempt to explain how principal component analysis (PCA) works so you have a clue how to interpret this. PCA is a way to find relationships among complicated data when you don't have a theory or strong basis for how they interact. You take your data (in this case usually the existence or absence of a single nucleotide variant in an allele) and arrange it in a matrix, where each column represents an individual. Let's say each column represents a vector in X-dimensional space (X being the number of entries in a column, in this case each entry would indicate the presence or absence of a particular allele). Then, you can perform what is called "eigendecomposition" on the matrix, where you attempt to find the highest amount of linear independence (i.e., orthogonality) between each column. What you get back are a set of vectors and a scalar quantity associated with each vector. The first vector or "principle component" accounts for the highest amount of variation among the original columns and its scalar tells you how much, the second the 2nd highest amount of variation, etc. People usually only make use of the first two or three principle components because there is less and less information with each subsequent component. There are as many principle components as there are linearly independent eigenvectors (i.e., less than or equal to the original number of columns).

Now look at the scales for that graph. The first principle component accounts for 0.21% of the variation amount individuals while the second account for 0.08%. These are staggeringly small percentages that probably run into the margin of error for their basis. If anything what this actually tells you about Eurasian populations is that allele frequencies among population clusters are highly diffuse and there is a high level of migration affecting the gene pool–little evidence for a subspecies, race, or even a "deme". You can say that the allele frequencies cluster around reported geographic origin, but . When you're normally performing PCA on a set of subpopulations among other animals, the principle components account for considerably higher variance if there is evidence for genetic isolation.

Finally, PCA has some significant caveats. For starters, PCA clustering can be an artifact of a number of things simply from the design of the analysis. For instance, let's say you didn't standardize the sampling sizes–PCA demands roughly equivalent subpopulation numbers or you will generate clustering in PC-space that is simply an artifact of the eigendecomposition process. I can see right from that graph that some of those clusters have significantly less or more numbers than others. The distinct clustering between, say, the Romanian and Russian-reported populations in the graph could be entirely due to a difference in their sample sizes. Second, it is very difficult to make inferences in population genetics with PCA, because some six or seven completely different historic processes can create the same clustering patterns.

PCA in all fields of science is usually more of a tool to say "this merits further exploration" than something that provides evidence for something specific in and of itself.

You are asking me to build on top of the facts you are refusing to admit to, or attempt to refute.
Anything I build on them will be dismissed by you as savage discrimination, like it already is before I even say it.
No discussion can be had unless we are on common ground, how can I discuss with someone refusing to see reality?

You might say that the allele frequencies cluster around reported geographic origin, but the evidence is exceedingly small*

the moment you said "ethics can be discussed" it was clear what you are
ethics aren't a side thing, they're the whole discussion
you're not an honest guy seeking for truth and wanting to discuss some stuff with leftypolers, you're someone trying to ease people into racism
but when I put it like this, when I don't concede your stupid fucking points, when I straight up ask you "what do you want to do" then you blow a gasket and run as far away as possible from the question because you know if you hit people right out of the gate with a "humane relocation" or some bullshit euphemism for ethnic cleansing they're gonna freak out, so you need to treat this like a game with lelevl-ups where the basic level is reading your points, learning them by rote, and "internalizing them" AKA brainwashing yourself

And one final thing to note about that graph: Imagine if you had no reported geographic origin associated with each data point? Take all the color and different shapes out of that graph and you are left with something very different. The only way to see much of the distinct clustering between these allele frequencies is to color them by self-reported geographic origin from individuals. It is very important to understand this because sometimes inference in PCA by coloring clusters based on another entirely separate piece of information approaches the level of being tautological–you only see clustering informed by your separate piece of information because you wanted to see it.

Ethics aren't a fact. They aren't a physical object. They aren't a chemical compound.
Ethics are social constructs, we made them, and we've changed them plenty in the past.
Yes, ethics can be discussed. They were born by discussion, and evolve in discussion.

Translation: when I refuse to admit to reality, and ask you to make a subjective statement that I can attack instead.

Why are you so, dare I say it, triggered by objective fact? Agree to objective established facts before we can move to discussing subjective opinions of said facts.

already answered
you're asking me to trust you, an anonymous poster on the internet, at your word and also to take it as a given that you're well-intentioned, and that would be a very stupid thing to do
how do you not understand this, why does this even need to be spelled out to you?

also, it's crystal clear what your goal is: set as fact that black people are subhuman - use that fact to justify racist policies under the cover of "rational" thinking
you're not some rusemaster about to trick stupid lefties into supporting jim crow, you're transparent, and that's probably why I'm the only one even talking to you, the rest have read your posts and found them unworthy of replies

So much for traditionalism Holla Forums., lamo.

Again this shit. If you have nothing to say, close the tab.
Stop projecting your favorite boogeyman on me as if that proves me wrong in any way.
The only statements I've made here are objective ones, zero politics, zero left/right shit.
You are doing what the Holla Forumstards do, and just call people who disagree with you nazis and drop any argument.

Like, what the fuck is this shit
How does that argue me or even insult me? I am not a traditionalist, or from Holla Forums, or ever believed in an absolute morality.
Good being a viewpoint was something obvious to me even before I was 10, since its a popular theme in movies. Super simple stuff.

Ecologist here, if anyone brings this shit up in a debate you can feel free to dismiss them immediately. The idea of organisms conforming to some strict r/K dichotomy has more exceptions than organisms that genuinely fit the mold. It thus has poor predictive power and makes it a fairly useless concept. It's an interesting concept often brought up in introductory ecology classes but nobody actually uses it for anything in the field.

r/K is fine for reproductive strategy, if you want to do big data statistics.
But the difference isn't between a welfare queen with 5 children and a surgeon with 1, its the difference between a fish with 5000 eggs and an elephant with one child per decade.
All humans are high investment breeders - pregnancy is long, there is a breast feeding period, the child can't walk alone for many months after birth, it can't feed itself and exist independently for many years after birth. Huge investment, and we are heavy investors.
Contrast with grass or a tree. Very low investment, many "children", the parent doesn't care for them, they are independent the moment they are "born".

I think the main point is that le alt right turns r/K selection theory into a psychological theory in order to garner the attention of incels MRA activists to their movement.

God I hate the reply system on this site.

Yes, clear differences exist, but simply stating "this is an r-type animal" or "this is a K-type animal" and attempting to infer from that quite often fails to predict some sort of behavior or trait one might expect from the dichotomy.

Most species can be clearly classified, since its not like there is a middle ground.
Either you are a high investor, in which case you can only afford fewer offspring, but take care to ensure their survival and train them even perhaps. Or you are a low investor, and you basically spray&pray.
Think about some animals, like all the insects, most plants, most fish, and compare them to the mammals and birds. Its easy to see when the parent has to sacrifice more time and effort to produce a functioning individual that can be autonomous, and when the parent has low involvement, and produces many offspring that it leaves to fend for themselves.

Using it for people is stupid, as stated, because all people are high investors. All mammals are - pregnancy, live birth, breast feeding and raising young are the epitome of high investment.
In that sense, even animals like rats are high investors. People just mostly think of mammals when they think animals, and they forget how "cruel" most species of animals and plants are to their "children".

Let's take sea turtles for example. Are they r-type or K-type? Sea turtles are one of the longest-lived vertebrates, and once they reach adulthood they've virtually indestructible tanks (unless a fishing net drowns them). Because of this, they generally exist(ed before anthropogenic influence) at the carrying capacity of their environments. Sounds like a K-type organism. So this organism should have high investment in small number of altricial offspring, right? Wait no, in fact sea turtles lay enormous numbers of eggs with no parental care and rely on sheer numbers to beat the odds of extremely high juvenile mortality.

There's nothing incorrect itself about being a racialist. What he is saying is scientifically true, although some people disagree as to why there are such wide differences (eg. lack of education etc)

I think that you can only have legitimate class conscious movements in a homogeneous society. It's just a fact that modern black lumpenprole and similar don't care about the class struggle, they just want to replace whitey's capitalism with brown capitalism.

There are a few exceptions of course, but every movement which tries to fight for class consciousness in a multiracial society ends up being subverted into brown power idpol soon enough.

Turtles (that I am aware of) have many eggs, and don't even wait for them to hatch. They are a low investment species.
Age has nothing to do with it. Some trees can live centuries, yet trees are low investment parents.

Using it to predict anything is dumb, because it fell out of favor in the '90s precisely when people began to accumulate the mountain of exceptions that make it a poor paradigm. I have a problem with people like

using it to counter right-wing imbeciles' misuse of it because they essentially lend legitimacy to it that it doesn't deserve. It's a bad theoretical tool and ecologists stopped using it for a reason.

I told ya Holla Forums, I told ya censorship was necessary
I told you
What did i tell you?
Didn't i tell you?
Cause i told ya
Mmmhhhmmmmm
And when did i tell you? A long time ago
And what did i say what happened when i told you? Exacly what just happened?

back 2 r/socialism

Back to /r/The_Donald

Sorry I mean
>>>Holla Forums

Whats the difference?

youtube.com/watch?v=xECUrlnXCqk
Fuck you for not letting us embed.

This r/K selection theory applied to explain political differences is due to some brainlet blogger. It's total nonsense.

He's right though, we actually do need censorship. Any government needs censorship of ideas that are a threat to power. At least the bourgeoisie agree with Communists on what needs censorship on this particular issue.

Also, that quote is from before he became a commie, when he was on the Right. When will brainlets learn?

Nu-left =/= communists

...

after I've said over and over again that you're trying to ease people into racist bullshit you say "but I haven't said anything explicitly racist!"
that's the point you fucking numbskull, that's why it's called "easing people into"
and that's why you melt down whenever you're asked "ok so what do you want to do?"

yes, they guy who is asking you a simple question is the one dropping any argument and not the guy who is autistically insisting on refusing to answer any questions unless his framework is not only accepted but "internalized"
and I'd understand if the question was one of the "have you stopped hitting your wife" type but a simple "what do you want to do?" seems to be too much for the "rational thinker"
and the "rational thinker" apparently doesn't see anything irrational in requesting people to "internalize" an anonymous man's post which I have no scientific background to evaluate before continuing the discussion

if you're truly not a poltard then it's time to go there, I'm sure you'll get along with them like a house on fire

I don't want to kill the blacks and kill the jews.
I don't want to enslave women.

Were those the questions I am "autistically refusing to answer"? Because no questions are asked, and I have to guess them.
Meanwhile, in between strawmanning me, you could've ADDRESSED THE MAIN POINT OF THE FUCKING THREAD YOU IMBECILE.

Make an argument, or euthanize yourself for the greater good of mankind. We won't fly to Mars with low quality material like you around.

I can tell by the first two sentences you made, that you also didn't have to press enter on, you are an autistic person.

...