/r/iowa is a pretty interesting subreddit. I've been checking it out since before the election and there's been an instant switch after trump won, now its full of political bullshit and Iowans trying to virtue signal (to who?) that they're still notracist, despite the state voting in Trump's suppowrt by a margin larger than that of Texas.
/u/SicSemperDorito I understand that you're a child, but you have to know that words have meanings. Being a republican does not equate to being a Nazi, agreeing/disagreeing with a certain type of healthcare also does not mean you're a nazi. When you call everyone you don't like a Nazi, you're 1) telling the world you're 16, 2) Diluting the meaning of the word, and 3) using an ad hominem which is a logical fallacy
If the guy is a Nazi, or supports racial supremacy, then he is human trash. End of story.
I'm not gonna go around and check every user's history to verify whether they're Nazis or not, but in that linked thread the comment he made was sound and didn't indicate any Nazi views, but he still didn't get a response.
I often have a hunch about people's general political outlook after I see some specific responses about politics or adjacent topics, and a quick trip down their profile (like when you wholeheartedly applaud and support a horrifyingly bad healthcare act that almost nobody supports) almost always confirms it.
In this case, you don't even need that, and he's always like this on that same subreddit.
I often have a hunch about people's general political outlook after I see some specific responses about politics or adjacent topics
Yeah if his comment was "blacks have lower intelligence and are more prone to violence" or something similarly retarded then I would've assumed he was a Nazi and ignored his comment.
like when you wholeheartedly applaud and support a horrifyingly bad healthcare act that almost nobody supports
wait what? Supporting the healthcare act is now indicative of being a Nazi?
100% agree with you, as i said before he's human trash. My point was that there was nothing in the linked comment that indicated it, and his approval of the healthcare plan did not point to it.
Aka nazis? I don't see your point here. I mean if you're saying that views on a certain topic may indicate where a person falls on the political spectrum then I agree, but it doesn't mean that liking the act makes you an evil nazi
Nazism is a bit more than 'supports racial supremacy'.
You all need to grow the fuck up. He's allowed to support or believe whatever retarded nonsense he wants. That's just America.
Nazis killed millions of people. They didn't just sit around talking bullshit, and equating every idiot who sits around talking bullshit to that bunch is, among other things (not the least of which being disrespectful to the memory of people who were victimized by the Nazis or who fought them), dangerous in a Democratic system.
Not every white supremacist is the next Hitler, any more than every Christian wants a witch trial. Learn to understand nuance in something more than gender issues.
Here's the thing. You said a "white supremacist is a nazi."
Is it in the same family? Yes. No one's arguing that.
As someone who is a scientist who studies nazis, I am telling you, specifically, in science, no one calls white supremacists nazis. If you want to be "specific" like you said, then you shouldn't either. They're not the same thing.
If you're saying "nazi family" you're referring to the taxonomic grouping of Nazidae, which includes things from the nutcrackers to oven administrators to propaganda ministers. etc etc...
Here's the thing. You said a "race realist is a nazi."
Is it in the same family? Yes. No one's arguing that.
As someone who is a scientist who studies white power groups, I am telling you, specifically, in (((science))), no one calls race realists nazis. If you want to be "specific" like you said, then you shouldn't either. They're not the same thing.
If you're saying "nazi family" you're referring to the taxonomic grouping of hate groups, which includes things from Black Iraelites to skinheads to ustaše.
So your reasoning for calling a race realist a nazi is because random people "call the white ones nazi?" Let's get the KKK and skinheads in there, then, too.
Also, calling someone a "human" or an ape? It's not one or the other, that's not how white power works. They're both. A race realist is a race realist and a member of the white power family. But that's not what you said. You said a race realist is a nazi, which is not true unless you're okay with calling all members of the white power family nazis, which means you'd call the KKK, skin heads, and other ethno-nationalists nazis, too. Which you said you don't.
You could have read like two comments down before jumping to conclusions... he's a full blown unapologetic white nationalist. That's close enough to Nazi for me.
Do you think IQ tests are actual measures of fluid intelligence, or a test derived using subjective assumptions of what "intelligence" is? Seems like an arbitrary definition to me, tbh
I think IQ test are highly cultural, but they still set an objective (meaning unchanging) standard by which to judge intelligence. The important thing about IQ is that it correlates extremely highly to success in western society.
How different are the mean scores of each "-oid"? (Honestly don't know). Do you think the differences in scores of each gross group may be due to cultural factors, then? Or perhaps some sorts of biases? It seems pretty redundant to say "western whites appear to perform best at a test derived to measure how well people succeed in western white culture."
That could very well be true, but it really does not seem to be all that meaningful in context.
Negroids are an average of 85 (1 standard deviation lower than average) Caucasoid is average at 100, mongoloid is half a standard deviation above at 108.
IQ is 70% heritable (in adults, children have a lot of diversity) so there are definitely some cultural aspects. You can see that when you take sub-Saharan (ancestry) blacks and place them in America their IQ rises from 70-80, depending on which study you look at, to 85. There is a certain ceiling most people can't pass (and that's one set by individuals), and it seems to be about 10 IQ points above the average of your parents, or quite a bit lower (depending on abuse or illness, nurturing has the potential to do a lot more harm than good).
It seems pretty redundant to say "western whites appear to perform best at a test derived to measure how well people succeed in western white societies."
Well, western whites don't do the best on these tests, Asians and Ashkenazi Jews do. I always get a good laugh at telling people I'm not a white supremacists, I'm a jewish suprmacist since they have higher IQs. It's still usually followed by "Nazi nazi nazi", but what can you do.
Ok, so what set population took this test, and from them the average derived? Was it caucasoids (lol at that term!)? Because it is more and more sounding like a measure of how well you can blend in and succeed in "caucasoid" society and less like a measure of what I would consider to be actual 'intelligence.'
This was a while back (I'm dating myself here) but I recall learning about the Flynn effect, in which each successive generation is becoming "smarter" as measured by standard old-ass IQ testing. These discrepancies seem more evidence to me that the test is not actually measuring what we colloquially know as "intelligence" but more so how well you "fit" into the model of society. Or, something like that.
It just seems a little disingenuous to call that factor "intelligence" because that word has meaning beyond how well you grasp English grammar and spatial reasoning. It also seems to be measuring something (a factor) that is malleable, a la the Flynn effect. It really only seems valuable when considering the extreme low or high end. Otherwise, seems pretty "meh" in discussions, particularly in discussions in how gross populations of people tend to score certain ways on average. Obviously white westerners are going to score "average" because the test was validated in those populations.
Basically, IQ is only relevant to me if someone scores well below average signalling a disability of some kind. It seems like a complete bullshit measure if you're trying to compare "-oids" since the test was literally designed and validated in one population of "-oids." So, why does it matter to you?
Ok, so what set population took this test, and from them the average derived?
Anyone who has access to the test can take it. The average is 100, and Caucasoids happen to score in such a distribution that averages to 100.
Because it is more and more sounding like a measure of how well you can blend in and succeed in "caucasoid" society and less like a measure of what I would consider to be actual 'intelligence.'
Yeah, that's the whole problem with defining intelligence. The test measures your aptitudes with certain fields, but it doesn't measure your responsibility with money, or your time preference, or your ability to dedicate time to work, or things that are direct measures of success in society. The score you get from that cocktail of questions happens to correlate with how well you perform at the direct measures.
It just seems a little disingenuous to call that factor "intelligence" because that word has meaning beyond how well you grasp English grammar and spatial reasoning.
You can take the tests in other languages.
Basically, IQ is only relevant to me if someone scores well below average signalling a disability of some kind. It seems like a complete bullshit measure if you're trying to compare "-oids" since the test was literally designed and validated in one population of "-oids." So, why does it matter to you?
Australian Aboriginals (or what I believe to be the 4th race, Australoids) score and average of 62. That means your average Aboriginal is mildly mentally retarded, and half are worse than that. That's 2 and a half standard deviations from the average, which is even worse considering IQ is exponential.
Sweetie I know we use it to measure retardation, which is why I included that. Also what population originally validated the test? Do you know what "validation" actually means in terms of diagnostic tests?
The test can be taken in any language, among any culture, albeit would be a different test since they can't just translate it, but it would be the same measures.
You act like aboriginals were discovered yesterday. Instead of FOBs it would be FOJs, Fresh Out the Jungle. They've been in Australian society, any environmental factors (such as schooling) would have taken effect. This might be anecdotal, but I'm a 1st generation immigrant to the US, culture takes hold pretty quick.
Funny story, I actually had a friend who didn't know I wasn't born in America for the entire time we were in high school. He didn't feel bad because I didn't know he was adopted either.
The probably-almost-certainly discredited anecdote I related was not about aboriginals, sorry if that confused you. It's a popular apocryphal story usually used to demonstrate cultural relativism (blech) and the importance of perspective.
It was relevant in the sense that whatever skills needed to thrive in aboriginal communities are probably not the same as the skills measured by IQ testing.
I am not very familiar with Australia or aboriginal culture, but you should probably also consider the roadblocks set up preventing assimilation into white Australian society - if what I have read are true, they are almost worse off than the way Native Americans are treated in the US so I'm willing to give them a pass on not "fitting in" well enough with white Australian society.
You raise a very valid point in the over application of IQ among the white supremacy movement. IQ is not the skill needed to survive in Aboriginal culture, not African culture. When you have food scurry across your feet, your ability to invent the automobile is not going to fill you up, it's going to be your physical ability and your reaction times. When you have a winter to endure through, time preference is the thing that will keep you alive, farming and storing food.
I will give you that, the Aboriginals have it way worse than native Americans. Australian people are actually incredibly racist. Most people outside the US are racist, in my experience.
My family is originally from Yugoslavia (the region that is now Bosnia) and they fled the war to Germany where I was born. When Germany was sending refugees back, my parents came the the US.
I've heard horror stories about the treatment of aboriginal people there. I'm incredibly ignorant about their set-up though, but here in the US with reservations it's a complete travesty. Reservations are basically a serial killer's playground. It's just sad.
That's interesting, I have a friend from that same region who got here by the same means.
Why wouldn't whites be scoring higher than Ashkenazi Jews and Easy Asians?
If I had a ckuwiy2 intelligence test that was completely biased, I'd have myself in the top percentiles, if not the number 1 spot. And then it probably wouldn't correlate to success in western culture.
Because the factor(s) measured by the test are inherently higher OR culturally valued more highly in those communities. It's pretty simple. Which makes it all the more hilarious when white racists try to use IQ tests as measures of what we colloquially call "intelligence" now. They can't even win at that, and they designed it.
The mere fact that we can't win at it is supporting evidence for its' efficacy
No its not. We are coming at this from two entirely separate angles: You claim IQ tests are good, actual measures of 'intelligence.' I am saying no, they are not, but the factors measured are highly valued in white, Western society.
The average comes from white people, which we have established. Of course other populations are going to score around that average in some way, depending on if their culture/society uses/values those factors.
A genetic fallacy (such as "Whites made it so it's wrong"), to be more specific
I am not saying that at all. I am saying, the factors it measures were derived and validated by whites, so of course they will score "average" on the whole.
What fallacy is it where someone uses circular reasoning? Because that is the fallacy that whiteys make when they try to make IQ tests proof of anything regarding x vs. y
IQ tests would be just as valid is Africans came up with them, and the average African IQ was 100. Whites would just be an IQ of 115 and Asians 120 something.
It could be an entirely different test of how good your were at catching running food, which wouldn't really measure intelligence, but would be an indicator of how well you would do in African society. It wouldn't carry well (just like IQ doesn't) to other cultures where other things are more important.
Ok but that's the point - IQ tests were made and validated in a very specific population. Who knows what an actual universal test would be? IQ tests are great for measuring certain factors. I'm not willing to blanket them with the term "intelligence" as it is popularly understood.
You know, we haven't even broached the subject of taking these tests. That's a whole other set of issues in validity. I have a very close friend who is extremely dyslexic. They are what I would call average/above-average intelligence. If they attempted to take an IQ test, they would probably score in the "retarded" category.
It's a goddamn common word dude, it's pretty condescending to try to "define" what objective means to someone else in a discussion. It also does not mean "unchanging," but I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming you know that. I get what you meant, so we can let that lie. Or, is not a common term in Iowa? I don't know, I don't frequent the flyovers <lighthearted emoji>
This is actually a problem I run into very often... Kind of. In this case, objective has a different definition in philosophy, but in other cases, there is nuance to words. When you are listening to someone making a claim, they are trying to convey a message. You should always agree on terms beforehand (as much as possible without getting pedantic) but you should usually give the benefit of the definition to the claimant so as to maximize understanding.
because the idea was that IQ tests measure your "innate" intelligence and that you can't study for them. does your race define how much time you physically committed to studying for the test?
Intelligence isn't necessarily innate. IQ is mostly nurture for children, but in adults, it regresses back to the mean and is mostly heritable. You have a window where you can affect your scores, most people won't exceed that window even if they study non-stop, but a lot can undershoot it, especially in cases of abuse or mental disability.
I find myself asking this question all the time. My only answers are a) Dishonesty, refusal to debate these ideas even though they claim they are ridiculous, and b) Low intelligence, inability to comprehend that "Get fucked nazi" is not an argument.
No kidding, first of all right after Trump won they banned me, seriously the mods were so butthurt that Trump pulled out a victory that they just banned me.
I created /r/shitriowasays to track some of the more egregious virtue signaling that's done there
HEY DID I EVER TELL YOU HOW AWESOME DES MOINES IS AND HOW THE REST OF THE STATE SUCKS?
AND OMG ZOMBIE BURGER IS LIKE TOTALLY THE BEST FUCKING PLACE IN IOWA TO GET FOOD EVEN THOUGH IT WILL CONTRIBUTE TO MY ALREADY PREVALENT OBESITY! BUT ITS OK BECAUSE EVERYBODY ELSE HERE IS FAT ANYWAY TEE HEE!
The sub's just dominated by the vocal minority. You know what virtue signaling is called when you are signaling to those you already agree with? /r/LiberalCircleJerk, or /r/Politics for short.
Yeah, I used the term virtue signal because some of them are really pissed that a notorious swing state actually swung between the two major parties, so now they want to explain how they're totally still progressive and therefore good guys.
Fuck you too. The OP of this post has been banned from /r/iowa under several accounts, and is a genuinely shitty person (almost too racist to be believed.) Please read for context before you go white knighting to subreddits where you have nothing to contribute.
/u/ckuwiy2 Did you have to work to be this retarded? Since you care so much about human biodiversity, you can improve the human genepool by removing yourself from it.
I'm not submitting them as evidence but as arguments, as they sum up your most likely beliefs and counters them better than I effectively could here. They have evidence in them.
Fine. Let's do it the hard way - show me the sources of those 'statistics' you linked and a general summary of your beliefs about race which I assume are race realist/racialist?
This book was funded by the Pioneer fund. It's an example of the Pioneer Fund's activities in promoting "Scientific racism". Many of the supportive comments for the book come from Pioneer grantees like Rushton himself and that a 100,000 copy print-run of the third edition was financed by Pioneer. The book is cited by psychologist William H. Tucker as an example of the Pioneer Fund's continued role "to subsidise the creation and distribution of literature to support racial superiority and racial purity." The mass distribution of the abridged third edition he described as part of a "public relations effort", and "the latest attempt to convince the nation of 'the completely different nature' of blacks and whites." He notes that bulk rates were offered "for distribution to media figures, especially columnists who write on race issues".
According to Richard R. Valencia, the response to the first edition of Rushton's book was "overwhelmingly negative", with only a small number of supporters, many being, like Rushton, Pioneer Fund grantees, such as Arthur Jensen, Michael Levin and Richard Lynn.[7]
Valencia identified the main areas of criticism as focusing on Rushton's use of "race" as a biological concept, a failure to appreciate the extent of variation within populations compared with that between populations, a false separation of genetics and environment, poor statistical methodology, a failure to consider alternative hypotheses, and the use of unreliable and inappropriate data to draw conclusions about the relationship between brain size and intelligence. According to Valencia, "experts in life history conclude that Rushton's (1995) work is pseudoscientific and racist."
Validity of the concept of race
Richard Lewontin (1996) argued that in claiming the existence of "major races", and that these categories reflected large biological differences, "Rushton moves in the opposite direction from the entire development of physical anthropology and human genetics for the last thirty years. Anthropologists no longer regard "race" as a useful concept in understanding human evolution and variation."[8] The anthropologist C. Loring Brace (1996) concurred, stating that the book was an amalgamation of bad biology and inexcusable anthropology. It is not science but advocacy, and advocacy of 'racialism'".[9]
This goes back to video I linked. It goes into what actual human races are and what people can actaully be seperated by according to the science community. I highly recommend you watch it.
Well, Wikipedia's first point is entirely irrelevant. That's what's called a genetic fallacy, attacking the origin rather than the point.
poor statistical methodology
That needs expanding.
and the use of unreliable and inappropriate data to draw conclusions about the relationship between brain size and intelligence
What is unreliable? What is inappropriate? What data sets are in question?
Scientific consensus
I'm entirely uninterested in consesnsus. I want to know what the consensus is over. Fortunately, Rational Wiki has a few of these.
Theoretical flaws
Again, needs expanding.
Race is a poor predictor of genetic and phenotypic variation.
Why? I've never seen a negroid with blonde hair, blue eyes, white skin, small nose, small lips, and born to parents with the same traits.
Yet 84.8% of the variation in this strongest predictor occurs within populations
Populations tend to be racially homogenous, America is an exception. Even in America, there is inter-racial breeding. Of course you'll find strong predictors in populations where breeding tends to happen.
race is a poor predictor of these phenotypic variations. Source: Relethford, "Craniometric variation among modern human populations", Am. J. Phys. Anthro., 1994.
That source is comletely insufficient to make that claim. Examining skulls is a general predictor that
are mostly "clinal" -- gradients, not binaries.
There is overlap, these traits exist on a curve. And then, even if we do assume that skulls are entirely a poor predictor, that still doesn't validate that claim since skulls are not the only factor.
if we're going to have a discussion about this you have to be at least willing to change your mind
This is the problem. I can't argue with you because you've learned about this subject today, you have not information outside of Wikipedia, yet you are still adamant about your position. You'll trust anything that has a source without examining it, simply because your article claims that it agrees with you.
Since you knowledge is only skin deep, I can't ask you to expand on anything. You can make weak claims in debate if you can expand on them, you're missing half the equation.
Oh dear god. I figured this had something to do with r/Iowa.
Just so you all know in case you dont. Those fucking idiots dont represent how Iowans are at all. If they did the whole state wouldnt be run by republicans.
These fucking dumb dumbs went ape shit when our stand your ground law passed saying "leh streets will run red with blood!" and what do you know... No more people are dying now than before the law passed. It is literally r/politics lite in that subreddit and god forbid you try and bring in a little logic you get called whatever the new catchy anti right insult is for the day.
And dont get me started on how they all get such a hard on for Des Moines and HOW AWESOME AND SUPER PROGRESSIVE IT IS WITH CHEAP COST OF LIVING AND BOOMING ECONOMY!
I'm a gun owner, and while I think SYG was pointless in our state, I didn't get hyperbolic about it. I get hyperbolic when fucking KKK loving douchebags start peddling their shitty beliefs in my state.
That's your opinion and thats ok. I had a talk with my neighbor about it and he says he is not a fan of the bill either. I told him in the end the syg portion of the bill won't matter because I don't believe people who are licensed to carry in this state are going to actively go out and look for trouble. And criminals are gonna criminal anyway.
I'm happy now kids can practice shooting pistols with adults, I'm glad I don't have to worry about the state pulling a new Orleans in a disaster, I'm glad I can now own a sbr, and I'm glad I don't have to worry about a overzealous anti gun prosecutor using vague language to charge me with something god forbid I have to defend myself.
124 comments
n/a IvankaTrumpIsMyWaifu 2017-05-06
u/SicSemperDorito you've graduated from /r/shitriowasays to the big leagues now
n/a GARBAGE_MACHINE 2017-05-06
We should get /u/SicSemperDorito a trophy for leveling up his autism.
n/a MyrLeaf 2017-05-06
Well, his post history show a passion for cranial volume.
n/a IvankaTrumpIsMyWaifu 2017-05-06
https://www.reddit.com/r/Iowa/comments/68vyr0/your_daily_reminder_that_steve_king_is_a_douche/dh7bsqs/?context=5
n/a MyrLeaf 2017-05-06
I was talking about the nazi. I mean he was not wrong.
n/a IvankaTrumpIsMyWaifu 2017-05-06
He's certainly playing Autism on expert mode
n/a SicSemperDorito 2017-05-06
Ian, you remain a worthless piece of shit (and I really could not care less).
n/a IvankaTrumpIsMyWaifu 2017-05-06
You're mad, bro
n/a SnapshillBot 2017-05-06
Providing a Safe Space™ from SRD since 2009!
Snapshots:
I am a bot. (Info / Contact)
n/a Senator_Chickpea 2017-05-06
"If you build it, they will sperg."
n/a ChipChippersonAMA 2017-05-06
There's a shitroiowasays sub lol
n/a ckuwiy2 2017-05-06
We may be a small sub, but we're a fierce one. A single member of ours is worth a thousand of /r/pics members.
n/a SicSemperDorito 2017-05-06
It's a ghost town created by Ian Patrick to harass non-white supremacists after he was banned.
n/a DistortedLines 2017-05-06
/r/iowa is a pretty interesting subreddit. I've been checking it out since before the election and there's been an instant switch after trump won, now its full of political bullshit and Iowans trying to virtue signal (to who?) that they're still notracist, despite the state voting in Trump's suppowrt by a margin larger than that of Texas.
/u/SicSemperDorito I understand that you're a child, but you have to know that words have meanings. Being a republican does not equate to being a Nazi, agreeing/disagreeing with a certain type of healthcare also does not mean you're a nazi. When you call everyone you don't like a Nazi, you're 1) telling the world you're 16, 2) Diluting the meaning of the word, and 3) using an ad hominem which is a logical fallacy
n/a thefran 2017-05-06
He didn't call him a Nazi for being a Republican, he called him a Nazi for supporting white supremacism in other comments.
n/a DistortedLines 2017-05-06
If the guy is a Nazi, or supports racial supremacy, then he is human trash. End of story.
I'm not gonna go around and check every user's history to verify whether they're Nazis or not, but in that linked thread the comment he made was sound and didn't indicate any Nazi views, but he still didn't get a response.
n/a thefran 2017-05-06
I often have a hunch about people's general political outlook after I see some specific responses about politics or adjacent topics, and a quick trip down their profile (like when you wholeheartedly applaud and support a horrifyingly bad healthcare act that almost nobody supports) almost always confirms it.
In this case, you don't even need that, and he's always like this on that same subreddit.
n/a DistortedLines 2017-05-06
Yeah if his comment was "blacks have lower intelligence and are more prone to violence" or something similarly retarded then I would've assumed he was a Nazi and ignored his comment.
wait what? Supporting the healthcare act is now indicative of being a Nazi?
n/a mystupidaccount22 2017-05-06
Dude is pretty racist.
n/a DistortedLines 2017-05-06
100% agree with you, as i said before he's human trash. My point was that there was nothing in the linked comment that indicated it, and his approval of the healthcare plan did not point to it.
n/a mystupidaccount22 2017-05-06
Fair enough, I agree.
n/a thefran 2017-05-06
No, I mean that he's a Trump supporter.
n/a DistortedLines 2017-05-06
Aka nazis? I don't see your point here. I mean if you're saying that views on a certain topic may indicate where a person falls on the political spectrum then I agree, but it doesn't mean that liking the act makes you an evil nazi
n/a Gothmog26 2017-05-06
Blacks are like that because they come from broken homes and are burdened with the weight of degenerate southern culture. Euthenics > eugenics.
n/a DistortedLines 2017-05-06
I never said that black people were like that, I'm talking about the original poster.
n/a ThatDamnedImp 2017-05-06
Nazism is a bit more than 'supports racial supremacy'.
You all need to grow the fuck up. He's allowed to support or believe whatever retarded nonsense he wants. That's just America.
Nazis killed millions of people. They didn't just sit around talking bullshit, and equating every idiot who sits around talking bullshit to that bunch is, among other things (not the least of which being disrespectful to the memory of people who were victimized by the Nazis or who fought them), dangerous in a Democratic system.
Not every white supremacist is the next Hitler, any more than every Christian wants a witch trial. Learn to understand nuance in something more than gender issues.
n/a glmox 2017-05-06
is this pasta or are you actually upset that a white supremacist got called a nazi on an internet messageboard
n/a ProgressiveFragility 2017-05-06
Here's the thing. You said a "white supremacist is a nazi."
Is it in the same family? Yes. No one's arguing that.
As someone who is a scientist who studies nazis, I am telling you, specifically, in science, no one calls white supremacists nazis. If you want to be "specific" like you said, then you shouldn't either. They're not the same thing.
If you're saying "nazi family" you're referring to the taxonomic grouping of Nazidae, which includes things from the nutcrackers to oven administrators to propaganda ministers. etc etc...
n/a darth_stroyer 2017-05-06
Here's the thing. You said a "race realist is a nazi."
Is it in the same family? Yes. No one's arguing that.
As someone who is a scientist who studies white power groups, I am telling you, specifically, in (((science))), no one calls race realists nazis. If you want to be "specific" like you said, then you shouldn't either. They're not the same thing.
If you're saying "nazi family" you're referring to the taxonomic grouping of hate groups, which includes things from Black Iraelites to skinheads to ustaše.
So your reasoning for calling a race realist a nazi is because random people "call the white ones nazi?" Let's get the KKK and skinheads in there, then, too.
Also, calling someone a "human" or an ape? It's not one or the other, that's not how white power works. They're both. A race realist is a race realist and a member of the white power family. But that's not what you said. You said a race realist is a nazi, which is not true unless you're okay with calling all members of the white power family nazis, which means you'd call the KKK, skin heads, and other ethno-nationalists nazis, too. Which you said you don't.
It's okay to just admit you're wrong, you know?
n/a ProgressiveFragility 2017-05-06
how could anyone be opposed to realism?
n/a jPaolo 2017-05-06
Post-modernism was invented 50 years ago, it's not like criticising realism is something new.
n/a ProgressiveFragility 2017-05-06
by (((who)))?
GOOD point
n/a uptotwentycharacters 2017-05-06
Because if you label your ideology as "realism", it naturally raises suspicions that you have an agenda you don't want people to question.
n/a ProgressiveFragility 2017-05-06
duh! of course. it's the same with "freeedom", "equality" or "justice" who could be against those?
n/a uptotwentycharacters 2017-05-06
You could have at least done the whole pasta.
n/a IvankaTrumpIsMyWaifu 2017-05-06
Mom's spaghetti! Fresh pasta!
n/a DistortedLines 2017-05-06
Lmao what? Are you seriously defending the honor of racists?
Regardless this is an excellent pasta
n/a SicSemperDorito 2017-05-06
You could have read like two comments down before jumping to conclusions... he's a full blown unapologetic white nationalist. That's close enough to Nazi for me.
n/a DistortedLines 2017-05-06
ok and i said like twice, i agree
n/a ckuwiy2 2017-05-06
Never supported any supremacy movement.
n/a LadyVetinari 2017-05-06
Let me guess tho - whatever "-oid" group you belong to just happens to have superior intelligence and culture, right?
I forget - does a bump on the top skull ridge mean an inherent criminal nature, or a tendency to be wise? Asking for a friend.
n/a ckuwiy2 2017-05-06
Not necessarily. Intelligence is difficult to define, but if we go with IQ then the Caucasoid IQ is higher (but not as high as Mongoloid).
Culture is entirely subjective, on the other hand.
n/a LadyVetinari 2017-05-06
Do you think IQ tests are actual measures of fluid intelligence, or a test derived using subjective assumptions of what "intelligence" is? Seems like an arbitrary definition to me, tbh
n/a ckuwiy2 2017-05-06
I think IQ test are highly cultural, but they still set an objective (meaning unchanging) standard by which to judge intelligence. The important thing about IQ is that it correlates extremely highly to success in western society.
n/a LadyVetinari 2017-05-06
How different are the mean scores of each "-oid"? (Honestly don't know). Do you think the differences in scores of each gross group may be due to cultural factors, then? Or perhaps some sorts of biases? It seems pretty redundant to say "western whites appear to perform best at a test derived to measure how well people succeed in western white culture."
That could very well be true, but it really does not seem to be all that meaningful in context.
n/a ckuwiy2 2017-05-06
Negroids are an average of 85 (1 standard deviation lower than average) Caucasoid is average at 100, mongoloid is half a standard deviation above at 108.
IQ is 70% heritable (in adults, children have a lot of diversity) so there are definitely some cultural aspects. You can see that when you take sub-Saharan (ancestry) blacks and place them in America their IQ rises from 70-80, depending on which study you look at, to 85. There is a certain ceiling most people can't pass (and that's one set by individuals), and it seems to be about 10 IQ points above the average of your parents, or quite a bit lower (depending on abuse or illness, nurturing has the potential to do a lot more harm than good).
Well, western whites don't do the best on these tests, Asians and Ashkenazi Jews do. I always get a good laugh at telling people I'm not a white supremacists, I'm a jewish suprmacist since they have higher IQs. It's still usually followed by "Nazi nazi nazi", but what can you do.
n/a LadyVetinari 2017-05-06
Ok, so what set population took this test, and from them the average derived? Was it caucasoids (lol at that term!)? Because it is more and more sounding like a measure of how well you can blend in and succeed in "caucasoid" society and less like a measure of what I would consider to be actual 'intelligence.'
This was a while back (I'm dating myself here) but I recall learning about the Flynn effect, in which each successive generation is becoming "smarter" as measured by standard old-ass IQ testing. These discrepancies seem more evidence to me that the test is not actually measuring what we colloquially know as "intelligence" but more so how well you "fit" into the model of society. Or, something like that.
It just seems a little disingenuous to call that factor "intelligence" because that word has meaning beyond how well you grasp English grammar and spatial reasoning. It also seems to be measuring something (a factor) that is malleable, a la the Flynn effect. It really only seems valuable when considering the extreme low or high end. Otherwise, seems pretty "meh" in discussions, particularly in discussions in how gross populations of people tend to score certain ways on average. Obviously white westerners are going to score "average" because the test was validated in those populations.
Basically, IQ is only relevant to me if someone scores well below average signalling a disability of some kind. It seems like a complete bullshit measure if you're trying to compare "-oids" since the test was literally designed and validated in one population of "-oids." So, why does it matter to you?
n/a ckuwiy2 2017-05-06
It's late, but I will reply tomorrow buddy.
!Remindme 15 hours Or is it Remindme! 15 hours
n/a RemindMeBot 2017-05-06
I will be messaging you on 2017-05-07 19:19:22 UTC to remind you of this link.
CLICK THIS LINK to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam.
Parent commenter can delete this message to hide from others.
n/a ckuwiy2 2017-05-06
Anyone who has access to the test can take it. The average is 100, and Caucasoids happen to score in such a distribution that averages to 100.
Yeah, that's the whole problem with defining intelligence. The test measures your aptitudes with certain fields, but it doesn't measure your responsibility with money, or your time preference, or your ability to dedicate time to work, or things that are direct measures of success in society. The score you get from that cocktail of questions happens to correlate with how well you perform at the direct measures.
You can take the tests in other languages.
Funny you say that, because we do actually use IQ tests to measure mental retardation. I don't know how to do those fancy charts but here's this: https://i.gyazo.com/97308924922ed78a7a4ab3cf801a482a.png
Australian Aboriginals (or what I believe to be the 4th race, Australoids) score and average of 62. That means your average Aboriginal is mildly mentally retarded, and half are worse than that. That's 2 and a half standard deviations from the average, which is even worse considering IQ is exponential.
n/a LadyVetinari 2017-05-06
Sweetie I know we use it to measure retardation, which is why I included that. Also what population originally validated the test? Do you know what "validation" actually means in terms of diagnostic tests?
n/a ckuwiy2 2017-05-06
The test can be taken in any language, among any culture, albeit would be a different test since they can't just translate it, but it would be the same measures.
You act like aboriginals were discovered yesterday. Instead of FOBs it would be FOJs, Fresh Out the Jungle. They've been in Australian society, any environmental factors (such as schooling) would have taken effect. This might be anecdotal, but I'm a 1st generation immigrant to the US, culture takes hold pretty quick.
Funny story, I actually had a friend who didn't know I wasn't born in America for the entire time we were in high school. He didn't feel bad because I didn't know he was adopted either.
n/a LadyVetinari 2017-05-06
The probably-almost-certainly discredited anecdote I related was not about aboriginals, sorry if that confused you. It's a popular apocryphal story usually used to demonstrate cultural relativism (blech) and the importance of perspective.
It was relevant in the sense that whatever skills needed to thrive in aboriginal communities are probably not the same as the skills measured by IQ testing.
I am not very familiar with Australia or aboriginal culture, but you should probably also consider the roadblocks set up preventing assimilation into white Australian society - if what I have read are true, they are almost worse off than the way Native Americans are treated in the US so I'm willing to give them a pass on not "fitting in" well enough with white Australian society.
Where are you from?
n/a ckuwiy2 2017-05-06
You raise a very valid point in the over application of IQ among the white supremacy movement. IQ is not the skill needed to survive in Aboriginal culture, not African culture. When you have food scurry across your feet, your ability to invent the automobile is not going to fill you up, it's going to be your physical ability and your reaction times. When you have a winter to endure through, time preference is the thing that will keep you alive, farming and storing food.
I will give you that, the Aboriginals have it way worse than native Americans. Australian people are actually incredibly racist. Most people outside the US are racist, in my experience.
My family is originally from Yugoslavia (the region that is now Bosnia) and they fled the war to Germany where I was born. When Germany was sending refugees back, my parents came the the US.
n/a LadyVetinari 2017-05-06
I've heard horror stories about the treatment of aboriginal people there. I'm incredibly ignorant about their set-up though, but here in the US with reservations it's a complete travesty. Reservations are basically a serial killer's playground. It's just sad.
That's interesting, I have a friend from that same region who got here by the same means.
n/a ckuwiy2 2017-05-06
Yeah, most of us have the same backstory.
n/a LadyVetinari 2017-05-06
you don't have an accent though? My friend has a pretty hawt accent to show for it
n/a ckuwiy2 2017-05-06
No, I have an American accent when I speak Bosnian or German.
n/a LadyVetinari 2017-05-06
Also lol:
hmmm...could this be because they are the population in which it was derived AND validated? hmmmmmm
n/a ckuwiy2 2017-05-06
Yeah, maybe. Doesn't change what the measures tell us.
n/a LadyVetinari 2017-05-06
"white people congratulate themselves for on-average scoring better than other populations on a test designed by white people"
congrats dude
n/a ckuwiy2 2017-05-06
Why wouldn't whites be scoring higher than Ashkenazi Jews and Easy Asians?
If I had a ckuwiy2 intelligence test that was completely biased, I'd have myself in the top percentiles, if not the number 1 spot. And then it probably wouldn't correlate to success in western culture.
n/a LadyVetinari 2017-05-06
Because the factor(s) measured by the test are inherently higher OR culturally valued more highly in those communities. It's pretty simple. Which makes it all the more hilarious when white racists try to use IQ tests as measures of what we colloquially call "intelligence" now. They can't even win at that, and they designed it.
n/a ckuwiy2 2017-05-06
The mere fact that we can't win at it is supporting evidence for its' efficacy.
Not really, that'd be an example of a fallacy of irrelevance. A genetic fallacy (such as "Whites made it so it's wrong"), to be more specific.
n/a LadyVetinari 2017-05-06
Ok I'm going to be really simple:
No its not. We are coming at this from two entirely separate angles: You claim IQ tests are good, actual measures of 'intelligence.' I am saying no, they are not, but the factors measured are highly valued in white, Western society.
The average comes from white people, which we have established. Of course other populations are going to score around that average in some way, depending on if their culture/society uses/values those factors.
I am not saying that at all. I am saying, the factors it measures were derived and validated by whites, so of course they will score "average" on the whole.
What fallacy is it where someone uses circular reasoning? Because that is the fallacy that whiteys make when they try to make IQ tests proof of anything regarding x vs. y
n/a ckuwiy2 2017-05-06
IQ tests would be just as valid is Africans came up with them, and the average African IQ was 100. Whites would just be an IQ of 115 and Asians 120 something.
It could be an entirely different test of how good your were at catching running food, which wouldn't really measure intelligence, but would be an indicator of how well you would do in African society. It wouldn't carry well (just like IQ doesn't) to other cultures where other things are more important.
Also, that's just called circular reasoning.
n/a LadyVetinari 2017-05-06
Ok but that's the point - IQ tests were made and validated in a very specific population. Who knows what an actual universal test would be? IQ tests are great for measuring certain factors. I'm not willing to blanket them with the term "intelligence" as it is popularly understood.
You know, we haven't even broached the subject of taking these tests. That's a whole other set of issues in validity. I have a very close friend who is extremely dyslexic. They are what I would call average/above-average intelligence. If they attempted to take an IQ test, they would probably score in the "retarded" category.
n/a ckuwiy2 2017-05-06
We're back to the problem of defining intelligence.
Taking the test is actually a huge ordeal, it takes hours. If you have any disabilities such as dyslexia, the test is dictated to you.
n/a LadyVetinari 2017-05-06
also, thank you for providing an (incorrect) definition of what "objective" means. Very helpful :*
n/a ckuwiy2 2017-05-06
It's a definition, usually used in philosophy, that just happened to fit here.
n/a LadyVetinari 2017-05-06
It's a goddamn common word dude, it's pretty condescending to try to "define" what objective means to someone else in a discussion. It also does not mean "unchanging," but I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming you know that. I get what you meant, so we can let that lie. Or, is not a common term in Iowa? I don't know, I don't frequent the flyovers <lighthearted emoji>
n/a ckuwiy2 2017-05-06
This is actually a problem I run into very often... Kind of. In this case, objective has a different definition in philosophy, but in other cases, there is nuance to words. When you are listening to someone making a claim, they are trying to convey a message. You should always agree on terms beforehand (as much as possible without getting pedantic) but you should usually give the benefit of the definition to the claimant so as to maximize understanding.
n/a mystupidaccount22 2017-05-06
kek
n/a thefran 2017-05-06
Unchanging how? You can study for these tests.
n/a ckuwiy2 2017-05-06
How does studying for something make it an unobjective standard? I'd say that makes it more unchanging.
n/a thefran 2017-05-06
because the idea was that IQ tests measure your "innate" intelligence and that you can't study for them. does your race define how much time you physically committed to studying for the test?
n/a ckuwiy2 2017-05-06
Intelligence isn't necessarily innate. IQ is mostly nurture for children, but in adults, it regresses back to the mean and is mostly heritable. You have a window where you can affect your scores, most people won't exceed that window even if they study non-stop, but a lot can undershoot it, especially in cases of abuse or mental disability.
n/a thefran 2017-05-06
IQ is just a test.
n/a MG87 2017-05-06
Why oh why would anyone ever call you a Nazi?
/s
n/a ckuwiy2 2017-05-06
I find myself asking this question all the time. My only answers are a) Dishonesty, refusal to debate these ideas even though they claim they are ridiculous, and b) Low intelligence, inability to comprehend that "Get fucked nazi" is not an argument.
n/a CucksLoveTrump 2017-05-06
It depends on if they have pointy ears too. Everyone knows elves are the wisest in all creation
n/a Senator_Chickpea 2017-05-06
Vulcan Pride Galaxy Wide!
n/a mystupidaccount22 2017-05-06
Everyone knows Romuloids score higher on tests of emotional intelligence than Vulcanoids.
n/a ThatDamnedImp 2017-05-06
The Democratic party is basically trying to turn the Al Sharpton shakedown scam into a viable political strategy.
Either vote for them, or they will have the entire media call you racist.
n/a mystupidaccount22 2017-05-06
n/a IvankaTrumpIsMyWaifu 2017-05-06
No kidding, first of all right after Trump won they banned me, seriously the mods were so butthurt that Trump pulled out a victory that they just banned me.
I created /r/shitriowasays to track some of the more egregious virtue signaling that's done there
n/a Russiangreyman 2017-05-06
Fucking subbed!
HEY DID I EVER TELL YOU HOW AWESOME DES MOINES IS AND HOW THE REST OF THE STATE SUCKS?
AND OMG ZOMBIE BURGER IS LIKE TOTALLY THE BEST FUCKING PLACE IN IOWA TO GET FOOD EVEN THOUGH IT WILL CONTRIBUTE TO MY ALREADY PREVALENT OBESITY! BUT ITS OK BECAUSE EVERYBODY ELSE HERE IS FAT ANYWAY TEE HEE!
n/a IvankaTrumpIsMyWaifu 2017-05-06
DAE STEVE KING IS LITERALLY HITLER AND STALIN ROLLED INTO ONE?
n/a ckuwiy2 2017-05-06
The sub's just dominated by the vocal minority. You know what virtue signaling is called when you are signaling to those you already agree with? /r/LiberalCircleJerk, or /r/Politics for short.
n/a DistortedLines 2017-05-06
Yeah, I used the term virtue signal because some of them are really pissed that a notorious swing state actually swung between the two major parties, so now they want to explain how they're totally still progressive and therefore good guys.
n/a IvankaTrumpIsMyWaifu 2017-05-06
/r/politics BTFO
n/a LadyVetinari 2017-05-06
by someone who unironically uses the terms 'caucasoids' and 'negroids'
wew
n/a Nomadlads 2017-05-06
What a Mongoloid
n/a IvankaTrumpIsMyWaifu 2017-05-06
Sounds like something a negroid would say AMIRIGHT?
n/a SicSemperDorito 2017-05-06
Fuck you too. The OP of this post has been banned from /r/iowa under several accounts, and is a genuinely shitty person (almost too racist to be believed.) Please read for context before you go white knighting to subreddits where you have nothing to contribute.
n/a DistortedLines 2017-05-06
I don't think you understand the point of this sub. Being outraged and retarded is encouraged to create more drama.
Should I have read more comments? Yeah. Will I? No cuz that ruins the fun of pinging the users and having them sperg out here
n/a SicSemperDorito 2017-05-06
I think that's stupid, but carry on I guess.
n/a DistortedLines 2017-05-06
k
n/a 80BAIT08 2017-05-06
/u/SicSemperDorito u r so pasionite
n/a mystupidaccount22 2017-05-06
/u/ckuwiy2 Did you have to work to be this retarded? Since you care so much about human biodiversity, you can improve the human genepool by removing yourself from it.
n/a ckuwiy2 2017-05-06
Any good thing takes hard work, buddy :)
n/a alibix 2017-05-06
Believing in shitty psuedocience is pretty easy though
n/a ckuwiy2 2017-05-06
Hey, wanna throw some evidence out, or are you good with just claiming everything is pseudoscience?
n/a alibix 2017-05-06
The charts you put out were hardly evidence. While this is certainly cliché here are two informative videos on Human Races
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teyvcs2S4mI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVmj8dDx9yY
n/a ckuwiy2 2017-05-06
Youtube videos are not evidence unless you're submitting first-hand evidence, in which case I'll need the notes to go along with that.
n/a alibix 2017-05-06
I'm not submitting them as evidence but as arguments, as they sum up your most likely beliefs and counters them better than I effectively could here. They have evidence in them.
n/a ckuwiy2 2017-05-06
I'd like you to watch the greatest story never told, as long as we're submitting arguments via Youtube video now. Get back to me in 6 hours.
n/a alibix 2017-05-06
Fine. Let's do it the hard way - show me the sources of those 'statistics' you linked and a general summary of your beliefs about race which I assume are race realist/racialist?
n/a ckuwiy2 2017-05-06
Race, Evolution, and Behavior isbn: 9781560009436
n/a alibix 2017-05-06
This book was funded by the Pioneer fund. It's an example of the Pioneer Fund's activities in promoting "Scientific racism". Many of the supportive comments for the book come from Pioneer grantees like Rushton himself and that a 100,000 copy print-run of the third edition was financed by Pioneer. The book is cited by psychologist William H. Tucker as an example of the Pioneer Fund's continued role "to subsidise the creation and distribution of literature to support racial superiority and racial purity." The mass distribution of the abridged third edition he described as part of a "public relations effort", and "the latest attempt to convince the nation of 'the completely different nature' of blacks and whites." He notes that bulk rates were offered "for distribution to media figures, especially columnists who write on race issues".
The criticisms are summarised in the responses to the book. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race,_Evolution,_and_Behavior#Responses
This goes back to video I linked. It goes into what actual human races are and what people can actaully be seperated by according to the science community. I highly recommend you watch it.
n/a ckuwiy2 2017-05-06
Good job copying Wikipedia pages there buddy. Bonus points if you actually read anything you posted.
n/a alibix 2017-05-06
Definitely did. Looks like your book isn't really good evidence of anything but bad science.
n/a ckuwiy2 2017-05-06
Well, Wikipedia's first point is entirely irrelevant. That's what's called a genetic fallacy, attacking the origin rather than the point.
That needs expanding.
What is unreliable? What is inappropriate? What data sets are in question?
I'm entirely uninterested in consesnsus. I want to know what the consensus is over. Fortunately, Rational Wiki has a few of these.
Again, needs expanding.
Why? I've never seen a negroid with blonde hair, blue eyes, white skin, small nose, small lips, and born to parents with the same traits.
Populations tend to be racially homogenous, America is an exception. Even in America, there is inter-racial breeding. Of course you'll find strong predictors in populations where breeding tends to happen.
That source is comletely insufficient to make that claim. Examining skulls is a general predictor that
There is overlap, these traits exist on a curve. And then, even if we do assume that skulls are entirely a poor predictor, that still doesn't validate that claim since skulls are not the only factor.
This is the problem. I can't argue with you because you've learned about this subject today, you have not information outside of Wikipedia, yet you are still adamant about your position. You'll trust anything that has a source without examining it, simply because your article claims that it agrees with you.
Since you knowledge is only skin deep, I can't ask you to expand on anything. You can make weak claims in debate if you can expand on them, you're missing half the equation.
n/a mystupidaccount22 2017-05-06
Lol @ /u/ckuwiy2's "source" for his "data", this hilarious screenshot he posted: http://imgur.com/St5xGZx
That seems really scientific!
n/a ckuwiy2 2017-05-06
That's a simplified table from a book (which is sourced) that goes into more detail on weighting and methodology.
n/a mystupidaccount22 2017-05-06
n/a IvankaTrumpIsMyWaifu 2017-05-06
M A Y O C I D E
A
Y
O
C
I
D
E
n/a LadyVetinari 2017-05-06
It's getting a little tiresome how fucking right r/drama is in calling for the mayocide
n/a ckuwiy2 2017-05-06
Shitposts got Trump elected. Kim Jong Un Ownes all the IP for memes in NK. you might be on to something here.
n/a LadyVetinari 2017-05-06
wait..a sourced book?!?!?!?! Are you mad?!
n/a ckuwiy2 2017-05-06
Race Evolution and Behavior
n/a celocanth13 2017-05-06
What century is this book/data from?
n/a LadyVetinari 2017-05-06
better than "humors" and "celestials," at least
n/a mystupidaccount22 2017-05-06
Everyone knows Caucasoids are full of yellow bile, that's just science.
n/a Gothmog26 2017-05-06
Based on how easily Japes off themselves, I'd say this chart is complete bullshit.
n/a gay_mayo_pride 2017-05-06
Correct me if I'm wrong but, this is a 60 comment thread with 26 upvotes, that links to a very minor scuffle? Why? This is shit drama.
/u/riemann1413 /u/ComedicSans /u/Zachums
n/a ComedicSans 2017-05-06
TBH at least it is drama and not just someone saying something the OP disagrees with.
n/a Russiangreyman 2017-05-06
Oh dear god. I figured this had something to do with r/Iowa.
Just so you all know in case you dont. Those fucking idiots dont represent how Iowans are at all. If they did the whole state wouldnt be run by republicans.
These fucking dumb dumbs went ape shit when our stand your ground law passed saying "leh streets will run red with blood!" and what do you know... No more people are dying now than before the law passed. It is literally r/politics lite in that subreddit and god forbid you try and bring in a little logic you get called whatever the new catchy anti right insult is for the day.
And dont get me started on how they all get such a hard on for Des Moines and HOW AWESOME AND SUPER PROGRESSIVE IT IS WITH CHEAP COST OF LIVING AND BOOMING ECONOMY!
n/a SicSemperDorito 2017-05-06
I'm a gun owner, and while I think SYG was pointless in our state, I didn't get hyperbolic about it. I get hyperbolic when fucking KKK loving douchebags start peddling their shitty beliefs in my state.
n/a Russiangreyman 2017-05-06
That's your opinion and thats ok. I had a talk with my neighbor about it and he says he is not a fan of the bill either. I told him in the end the syg portion of the bill won't matter because I don't believe people who are licensed to carry in this state are going to actively go out and look for trouble. And criminals are gonna criminal anyway.
I'm happy now kids can practice shooting pistols with adults, I'm glad I don't have to worry about the state pulling a new Orleans in a disaster, I'm glad I can now own a sbr, and I'm glad I don't have to worry about a overzealous anti gun prosecutor using vague language to charge me with something god forbid I have to defend myself.
n/a CaliggyJack 2017-05-06
/u/ckuwiy2 WHo the fuck says "Caucasoid" and "Negroid" in an unironic manner? It's black and white you fucking stooge.
n/a ckuwiy2 2017-05-06
Not when you're talking about taxonomy.