How do I debunk "race realists"?

I've had lots of debates with/pol/yps and the alt-right in general recently. However, they always manage to drag the conversation into this whole race thing, bombarding me with infographs and so on, and in the end it really comes down to this since their ideology is pretty much constructed arround this issue.

I'm not a biologist, so I don't know the shit necessary to debunk all of that and I also don't care to put hours of research into this ridiculous topic.

I know a few stuff, such as that there is ancestry but no race, etc., but as I said I'm a layman and can only argue with hearsay. How can I sufficiently debunk race realists?

Other urls found in this thread:

commonruin.wordpress.com/2016/09/06/extinguishing-popular-support-for-political-racialism-via-immanent-critique/
therightstuff.biz/2015/05/18/the-rational-view-on-race/
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19695787
neuroscience.stanford.edu/news/ask-neuroscientist-does-bigger-brain-make-you-smarter
amren.com/news/2008/02/race_and_physic_1/
science.sciencemag.org/content/351/6273/564.full?utm_source=sciencemagazine&utm_medium=facebook-text&utm_campaign=myudell-2236
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Elementary school biology classes. At least in Europe.

Make the conversation about their genes, not their race.
Tell them there are many other races and individuals with superior genes than them, which will make them shift the conversation from reductionist stance on physical appearnce of a race to actually things that matter such as IQ, pyhsical prowess etc.
Also it's nice to keep in mind that transhumanism can really improve all races, so conversatino about race in the near future can just be conversation about creating superior genes for all humans.
Btw, never let them just focus on race, ask them in what kind of enviroment those individuals live and how it affects them.

Read scientific articles and books, especially if they have statistics.

You're going to have to read…a lot. There are many race realists on the internet and some have a decent understanding of biology. There are some decent blogs out there debunking race realist claims but they dont post that frequently.

I also reccomend reading a lot of history books since most race realists are very weak in that area

you don't lol

Do not let them set the political framework for the discussion. Don't be fooled into confronting them on race without unambiguously rejecting their whole premise.

As a socialist, do you care about the fact that some people may be born more intelligent, more talented, more able than others? Do you think they deserve preferential treatment for these possibly innate traits? No, you don't. The same goes for the alleged differences between racial groups.

It's useless to dabble in racial science. Simply reassert the largely irrelevant nature of its conclusions when it comes to socialist policy.

If you don't know how to debunk it, then you don't have the certainty that their points are not valid. If you are not certain they are not right, why are you so eager to prove them wrong? You already made your mind, you started from a conclusion and are trying to adjust to such conclusión.

1. Evolution doesn't matter any more. Humans are on the verge of taking control of their own biological structure and development. There's no risk of "white genocide" when anyone can just fly over to the gene clinic and get whatever genetics they like.

2. Variation within any single "race" is greater than the variation between races. Discriminating against an entire race based on broad statistics is fucking stupid because you'll be throwing a hell of a lot of wheat out with the metaphorical chaff. It's both counterproductive and unfair to the individual.

3. Exactly the same logic can be used to justify declaring that all men are rapists and women should be in charge of the world.

The classical race realist argument is that race x having a higher average iq than race y implies superiority, because research also suggests that iq is quite hereditary (accounting for most variation in iq)

The presupposition here is that higher iq among one's race implies superiority at a general scale. For example, just because someone of some race is less likely to have a certain level of intelligence when compared to a person of another race, that doesn't mean any two random people of those two races are unequal

I think you ought to take a statistics course.

...

Well, the main argument pretty much boils down to IQ correlates with a superior society and race correlates with IQ, therefore a superior society is made of a certain race with a high IQ.

IQ is distributed in a bell curve, so the fact that a certain race has a lower share than the others doesn't mean they have no people that are more intelligent than the mean. Quite a few blacks are still more intelligent than quite a few whites.

So you just ask why these people are unacceptable to them.

This is also a very good point. I guess you just end up asking them why isn't their immigration policy based on intelligance as opposed to race.

honorary aryans btfo'd

The main problem is that race as a scientific concept is entirely useless. Some aspects of intelligence might be genetic, but all people with dark skin don't have the same set of genes, and indeed IQs can vary significantly between different sub-Saharan African ethnicities. Plus, a Berber from Mali might have more in common genetically with a white Portuguese than with a Zulu from South Africa, since traits we associate with race tend to vary gradually across geographical areas. I think a lot of the confusion comes from the fact that American Blacks are considered to be an ethnicity, so idiots see scientific articles about Black people and assume that they're talking about all persons of sub-Saharan African descent.

There's also the issue of there being confounding variables, nutrition and fetal environment being some huge ones, as large swathes of sub-Saharan Africa are rural and undeveloped, with malnutrition being common even among some well-to-do people because of innate deficiencies in the traditional diet. That's not taking into account childhood diseases, parasites etc. which can further affect measured IQ.

Race """Realism""" is stupid because race is an entirely made up concept, and it actually minimizes the importance of ethnicity and genetics in favour of entirely superficial differences.

Pretty much.

Considering that IQ has a way stronger correlation with a society's wealth than ethnic homogeneity

You are right, I phrased that wrong. I meant that just because person a is of race x with lower average iq than race y, that doesn't automatically mean race x has an iq lower than the average of race y.

In other words, at an individual level, these average IQs only give us probabilities. They are not predictive.

It would be like saying on average chinese men are not as tall as white men. This is true. But then an incorrect assumption is that we shouldn't let chinese men play basketball. No, it just means there will be less chinese basketball players (assuming height is a stronger predictor for being a basketball player than all other factors combined).

The SJW fallacy is that all people are by default equal so if there isn't equal outcome between races at a large scale, there must be some inequality. The race realist, I won't say fallacy but incorrect assumption (because you can't really define superiority) is that being of a race with better statistical metrics than others makes you superior. This ignores the variation within races. Like I just explained, just because white people have higher iqs than black people doesn't mean there aren't black people that are vastly more intelligent than the average white person, it just means they are unlikely. This does explain inequality between races but to advocate things like genocide and separatism are pretty much entirely orthogonal to difference between races

Why do you even debate with your enemies? They are steadfast in their position and so are you. Any debate is a complete waste of time, either you already agree (echo chamber) or you never will (shouting match), because the positions have already been picked.
It's better to spread propaganda among the general public.

the point of debating isn't to convince your enemy but to convince your audience

christ do you even rhetoric

But user, debates are not meant to change the mind of your opponent. They are meant for the audience.

oops, didn't see your post

it's okay fam ♥

you don't user,

Race is real, but that doesn't matter. Just because more East Asians are smarter than White people doesn't mean East Asians can deny residence to White people in their countries.

Race will die out in the future, which is good. Keep the flame alive

here's one quick tip
commonruin.wordpress.com/2016/09/06/extinguishing-popular-support-for-political-racialism-via-immanent-critique/

The articles in this blog sound interesting in substance but they're written in a way that fells like they were committed by a 16 year old who's trying his hardest to sound intelligent. It's so insufferably stuck-up and arrogant, it's basically unreadable.

pot calling the kettle black, etc.

Read Stephen jay gould

If doesn't work just debunk their memes with simple logic.

Ask them to show studies that have demonstrated there is a specific gene or collection of genes that have caused black people to be dumb sub-humans.

Ask them to explain the effects this has on their ability ti create civilization and/or live normal lives. Then ask them to explain why they aren't more worried that a significant portion of the white race falls below the average.

Black Pigeon Speaks on suicide watch.

do you have a screen of his face? I can't find mine, need it for memetic reasons.

You can't because race/clines/subspecies are real. Get rekt you filthy christ-cucks

point out the shitty methodology of their graphs
Holla Forumstards will literally use this as proof to make the reverse conclusion: "black people are poor because they have low iqs which is because they are poor".

So how do you know it's false? Serious question.

Berbers are a mixed group with respect to race, mostly semitic and levantine with some sub-saharan African and European genes thrown in. Not exactly a streong arguement

We know that, the largest genetic distance is between sub-saharan africans and australian aboriginals. This is because africans have neither denisovian or neanderthal DNA, which aboriginals have. This is a really stupid argument, you can have several dark skinned races, do you think anyone thinks abbos and niggers are the same race?


therightstuff.biz/2015/05/18/the-rational-view-on-race/
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19695787

Relevant to your picture, brain size and IQ:
neuroscience.stanford.edu/news/ask-neuroscientist-does-bigger-brain-make-you-smarter

OP here. I don't. I was phrasing my question in a way that would provide the most straightforward answers.

So far Holla Forums seem to has two stances on this issue:

1. Race is real but it doesn't matter because of transhumanism and genetic engineering.

2. Race isn't real because physical differences like skull shapes and skin color don't imply that the genetic difference between what we perceive as races is significant

I guess the main question just boils down to nurture vs nature but I feel like there hasn't been a consent about it within the scientific community (probably also because it's a pretty loaded topic).

True. But it does mean that educational expectations in a black inner city school will likley be lower and that a white kid who ends up in this school would likely have achieved more at a white school. Most race realists don't want to kill all niggers. Them just want more honesty and fairness in society.

Then thats just more evidence that putting people into different racial classification is ineffective and non-nonsensical considering the overlap of all the different types of human beings.

Literally every storm fag on the internet does.

Stormfags use this example all the time.

Why? What standard are sub-species placed under that we MUST then have human sub-species? You can have Lynx with different colored fur, different stripe patterns and behave in different ways, but I was under the impression that it takes a lot more than that to simply place them in a different sub-species.

For humans it should be easy to demonstrate this but so far all they have that is concrete, biological evidence is differences in height and build (which can't be determined outside of nutrition or environmental factors anyway) bone and skeletal structure. There's the vague I.Q. differences but thats not really enough to separate them into different sub-species. Is a redneck a different species from an average white person just because they are ten points apart?

Your own chart attests to this. Why does the Lynx only have 3 when its as far away from humans as the Zebra? Come to think of it, what does genetic distance demonstrate in this context?

tell them that race is just a social construct and that tens of thousands of years of divergetn evolution and interbreeding with different hominid species only affects height, disease resistance, skin pigmentation, cranial circumference, bone structure, muscle fibers, reflexes, length of pregnancy etc.

The brain is magic and is not affected.

OP here. I don't. I was phrasing my question in a way that would provide the most straightforward answers.

So far Holla Forums seem to has two stances on this issue:

1. Race is real but it doesn't matter because of transhumanism and genetic engineering.

2. Race isn't real because physical differences like skull shapes and skin color don't imply that the genetic difference between what we perceive as races is significant

I guess the main question just boils down to nurture vs nature but I feel like there hasn't been a consent about it within the scientific community (probably also because it's a pretty loaded topic).

Geez, didn't mean to double post, fix this site pls

Well no, it doesn't matter because it doesn't support race realist conclusions that:

A) The reason why niggers didn't establish their own civilization. This is dumb because they did establish societies and civilization by pretty any definition of the word thats not exclusive i.e. our society is the best therefore the only one that matters. Because if that's the case white people didn't do shit and can chalk up most of their success to the efforts of Arabs, the Chinese and the Greeks. Similarly it raises the question of why whites are superior at all when more than 30% of them must fall below the magic 100 number and many of those falling into the "savage" territory. Asian master race anyone? AND;
B) That most societal problems come from niggers because of I.Q. Again why trust white people when their lower tier are as dumb as the supposed sub-human counterparts?

There must be something going on more than I.Q. Is it race? How come if it is so obviously race its built on all these dubious conclusions drawn from I.Q. and nothing else? Clearly other socio-economic factors play a role.

kek

Having left your room and having had a friend other than your skin colour tends to help.

Never met any alt-righter who had a friend who wasn't white. They would know they'd lose that friend if they held such disgusting views. Exposing yourself to different people leads to an open mind and generally being a better person.

also this

I live in Europe and I'm a racialist. The biology classes in school do not really speak about race. Infact science itself does not deal with race as much anymore (only in medicine because they simply have to admit that races are different in certain things, otherwise there would be quite a bit of dead people).

Science took a path to an unified human race awhile ago, it is not that they debunked race but they decided that the path that science will be taking will eliminate different races and because of that we do not need to deal with the issue anymore.

So IQ and scientifical achievements come from skin pigmentation or some shit?

You can't

Uh, how about: It doesn't fucking matter whether racial differences are real? Races don't matter any more than nationalities or cultures do. Individuals matter.

Now, whether racial differences are real is another question, but it's also one that's based on a fallacious premise. Yes, people's genes differ. Yes, populations' genetic pools differ. That's the crux of arguments you'll hear from race "realists", and it's pretty much indisputable and obvious. What they actually try to do, however, is find a meaningful method of classifying and evaluating people based on a small subset of genes determining skin color and face structure. That is obvious bullshit not supported by any serious scientific evidence, and pointing it out is the most straightforward answer you can ask for.

Kek. Defeatism 101.

Individuals simply make up a nation, a race. Saying that they matter means that the race matters too. :^)

Since you have the Marx flag, do you see the prospect of Socialism or Communism as being restricted to only some ethnicities, mainly the ones that have developed some sort of industrial or post-industrial civilisation by themselves?

I guess you just didn't read past the first paragraph. Sorry I typed too much. :^(

I'll try to put it as simply as possible, though I am fully expecting you to come up with some inventive ways to play dumb and misunderstand:

Individuals make up a group. A group does not make an individual.

My experience is that the opposite is true, people in the alt right tend to of the working class
who have been forced to interact with non whites. My area is about 40% non white and being
around them is what made me face the reality of racial differences and the incompatibility
of non whites in white majority countries. Doesn't mean I hate them all
mostly the ones who rape children or murder each other over drugs but that doesn't
mean they should stay in our countries, they have to go back.

I've had two former muslim friends from Jordan and Bangladesh. Very nice couple, I used to
go jogging with them every week until I moved away.

I've also had a friend who was from Africa and worked in the same office as me, he was a
delight to be around. The guy was just happy to be in a country he could buy food.

That some non whites are good people is by no means a reason as to why they should be in
white countries, the good non whites need to fix their native homelands instead of running
away and leaving the problem to their lower IQ fellow non whites.

Why can't you lot just accept that its ok if people want their country to be 100% white?

...

Just based on your anegdotal evidence, you shouldn't support any race-based immigration, just have tighter immigartion laws to make sure you get the best people in your area.

Certainly, but those people are here for our strong economy.

If 10% of our jobs are in the hands of high IQ immigrants and the economy tanks then they
will move to a country with a stronger economy, fucking us up royally. Better to source
everything from without our own countries and have greater stability. Sure, our own might
leave, but that is far less likely than those without cultural, religious or biological roots than
those with them. To this extent I disagree with the capitalist free market movement that seems
to drive mass immigration.

Plus with regression to the mean with IQ you end up with the children of high IQ
immigrants living on welfare and being more radical than their parents, see image.
In the UK we allowed immigration from Pakistan for doctors and dentists, they
are hard working people, their children are unemployed and being radicalized by Wahhabi Islam.

I'd have no issue with a multi citizenship system, full citizenship for natives, a kind of semi-citizenship for
white immigrants and non whites who work until their own retirement and residency which will allow for
deportation of immigrants and the children of immigrants who are unproductive.

No, it just shows that a cultural group can contain members from several races.

They don't

With a diferent focus, the various dog breeds (races) were brought into existence over a few centuries. It's also more about propaganda than science with respect to those arguement, appealing to the commong knowledge that dog breeding to create new races of dogs happened.

Did you look at the measurements? It measures differences in DNA structure to establish theargument. Why are neanderthals, denisovians, sapiens considered different human races, but whites, gooks, abbos, niggers not? Neanderthals, denisovians and sapiens are generally not considereddifferent human species as they reproduced.

This is how I know you don't know what you are talking about, you are completely clueless. You don't know about the various kinds of IQ tests, the difference in their predictive power, how they relate to the Flynn effect, you don't know about the difference in carbohydrate tolerance across races, you don't know about racial classification systems and how they are used in modern medicine to specialize drugs related digestion and immune systmen (particularly autoimmune dieases), the ability of DNA testing to predict and reveal unknown recial ancestry, which of the genetic distance measurements are meaningful (you admit so youself, and you post uses blood groups rather than direct comparison of the general genome)

All of these things follow racial patterns that, essentially, alligne with common racial grouping. The genetic diversity of African is more of a myth than fact, due what it is meant to imply, for example that Africans are more genetically diverse than the ethnicities across the eurasian continent.

most 6 year olds can tell the difference between a black guy and a white one user. it's a silly argument and it doesn't work.

i think everyone, including the nazis, aren't bothered by race differences in themselves, they are simply insisting (quite sensibly imo) that the people who immigrate to our country share our values and make an attempt to assimilate. this means being an asset to their host country instead of the reverse.

this is just stupid sorry. just because there is variation within a subset doesn't mean you're not able to differentiate between averages.

how about "race is real but we shouldn't punish outliers".
the scientific consensus and nature AND nurture. obviously within sociological contexts the implications of that are not always clear.

because neanderthals are a different species?

Wrong, being able to reproduce with eachother doesn't mean that they aren't different species, and even then there is no evidence of neanderthal mitochondrial DNA in modern humans which suggests that there were issues in breeding between humans and neanderthals.

>Muslim support for…
Just ebin.

Are you saying that there are specific medical race-based treatments to deal with diseases/conditions that affect humans, and could you cite an example for this. It sounds strange to me and I'm genuinely curious about this assertion.

What is that image from and why does it look so familiar?

So basically all Holla Forums has is to rely on the "race doesn't exist" trope to weasel out of the argument. Basically using semantics to avoid confronting uncomfortable facts.

amren.com/news/2008/02/race_and_physic_1/

lol, you might as well post a link from mises or cato you fugging sperg

meanwhile: science.sciencemag.org/content/351/6273/564.full?utm_source=sciencemagazine&utm_medium=facebook-text&utm_campaign=myudell-2236

race is a spook, its easy to debunk.
one you get your opponent to agree on that, you can prove that any racial test is therefore subjective just like political borders and has no biological validity

...

so what you're saying is a white guy with a low iq is better than a non white with a average/high iq.

could you explain why ?

...

islam isn't a race and as far as anthropology is concerned middle eastern are Caucasoid.
good luck applying your race/iq bs on this one.

while this has some validity its not as strong as you think.
a good example visible is hight.
2 parents taller than average are more likely to have kids that are taller than average.
while the regression towards the mean still happen, it does at such a slow rate that the mean itself will go up.
this is basic evolution, contrary to what you may think, humans are still evolving.

i'm not even talking about the flyn effect and the impact that sociol-economic condition on iq.
it well documented already

if you want to be taken seriously post serious sources.
no one buys your stormfag bs except stormfags themselves, hard to believe huh.
you're not on Holla Forums, better post real science

i forgot to add that you have yet to find where that mean is.

it's a character that's been in a lot of furfag shit, marty I think is his name