My god I just checked your post history. There is no shaming you. This is literally your life. Just imagine how much you could accomplish if you weren’t addicted to Reddit. You’re making a difference, though!
Yeah I went to a predominantly black middle school and was called mayonnaise all the time. I though it was just my friends and their friends having some stupid inside joke until I recently heard Charlemagne call Post Malone mayonnaise and basically white trash over and over and realized it was actually a racist jab and wasn't just a regional thing or something. Live and learn.
Whiteness is a social construct, and one of inherent privilege in contemporary society. It has been pointed out again and again that its scope—what ethnicities are considered 'white'—has been broadened several times in recent history, whenever whites are on the verge of losing their immense political power and need to incorporate more into the fold.
If you are a black person, you are significantly more likely to be incarcerated for non-violent drug offenses, even though all races use drugs at more-or-less the same rate. The racial disparity in our justice system is not limited to America, either, as studies in Canada have shown that black people were significantly more likely to be carded by police.
Race has little-to-no basis in biology, and this is a fact that has become increasingly recognized with the discovery of evolution and genetics. Many experts now reject the term completely, using less vague options such as 'population', 'ethnicity', or 'people'.
This is invariably how conservatives respond when their beliefs are challenged.
By the way, a quick look at your post history has shown me that you're a pretty fascistic and sad man. From using the term "r-t-rd" (1, 2), to admitting that you like MDE (1), to suggesting that CTH fans are 'autistic' as if that's a bad thing (1), to admitting that you agree with Trump that impoverished nations are 'shitholes' (1).
IQ tests are significantly influenced by culture and environment (1, 2)
A dispassionate reading of the evidence on the association of IQ with degree of European ancestry for members of Black populations, convergence of Black and White IQ in recent years, alterability of Black IQ by intervention programs, and adoption studies lend no support to a hereditarian interpretation of the Black-White IQ gap. On the contrary, the evidence most relevant to the question indicates that the genetic contribution to the Black-White IQ gap is nil.
IQ tests are significantly influenced by culture and environment; there is no evidence that there is a genetic component to the gap between mayo-black IQ rates (1, 2)
A dispassionate reading of the evidence on the association of IQ with degree of European ancestry for members of Black populations, convergence of Black and White IQ in recent years, alterability of Black IQ by intervention programs, and adoption studies lend no support to a hereditarian interpretation of the Black-White IQ gap. On the contrary, the evidence most relevant to the question indicates that the genetic contribution to the Black-White IQ gap is nil.
Rates of substance abuse are slightly higher in mayos than black people (1)
In 2013, among persons aged 12 or older, the rate of substance dependence or abuse was 4.6 percent among Asians, 7.4 percent among blacks, 8.4 percent among whites, 8.6 percent among Hispanics, 10.9 percent among persons reporting two or more races, 11.3 percent among Native Hawaiians or Other Pacific Islanders, and 14.9 percent among American Indians or Alaska Natives. Except for Native Hawaiians or Other Pacific Islanders, the rate for Asians was lower than the rates for the other racial/ethnic groups.
Black people use drugs at the same rates as other races, comprise thirteen precent of the American population, yet thirty-nine percent of drug offenders in federal prison are black (1, 2, 3)
About three-quarters of drug offenders in federal prison were either non-Hispanic black or African American (39%) or Hispanic or Latino (37%); nearly a quarter (22%) were non-Hispanic white offenders ...
It's important to note that the 'type of drug used' is largely irrelevant here. White authorities have intentionally put harsher punishments on drugs that are used by minorities more than whites — for example, crack cocaine is punished more harshly than cocaine, even though there is no clear reason why that ought to be the case. It is also important to remember that those who object to this racial disparity are largely not disputing the fact that a portion of it can be explained by the fact that, for example, black people are more likely to live in economically immiserated areas—instead, they suggest that the war-on-drugs itself is a failed set of policies that were largely instituted out of racial bias.
It's interesting that you linked to an article written in 1995. The ones that I've referenced—which I did not get from /pol/, but from reputable textbooks on psychology and anthropology—are studies based on much more recent data.
You've also, interestingly enough, linked to a study by J. Philippe Rushton—who "served as the head of the Pioneer Fund, a research foundation that has been accused of being racist, with its founders being American sympathizers for the Nazi eugenicist program" (1)—and Donald Templer—who is also a racist who has spoken "at white nationalist American Renaissance conferences" (2). Two controversial figures who happen to share the same views as you. I'm sure that that's coincidental.
According to a critique of the former figure, Marvin Zuckerman, claims that the "scientific premises for looking for statistical differences between groups designated as races (on somewhat arbitrary grounds) are questionable ... there is much more variation within groups designated as races than between such groups" (3). There is another study, written by several individuals, which refutes his claims and suggests that there is "no statistical support for the predicted associations between 'race' and behavior" (4). Many researchers have suggested that race has no taxonomic significant, pointing out that all humans belong to the same species and subspecies (5, 6).
Drug laws are always messed up, however modern sentencing rules are based more on bureaucratic and political convenience than any desire to target minorities. https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/crack-vrs-powder-cocaine-one-drug-two-penalties.htm it was in fact passed with the intent of stopping the epidemic among black communities, and the legislators who passed it regretted their decision. Most sentencing disparities have been recently rectified. As with many species, intra species variation is larger than inter species, yet most of that is in so called junk dna - coding sequences show more striking differences between races, like in the pastebin above. The distinction between species, subspecies, and lower levels is a subjective distinction that is chosen based on a variety of factors - there are no specific criteria on whether or not two populations that can produce fertile offspring after interbreeding are a subspecies or sub populations (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subspecies). There are many associations between race and behavior that are easy to observe - cultural traditions, differences in mate selection, etc, so saying there's no statistical support for such differences is retarded. The real question is are said differences inherited culturally or naturally, nature and nurture - recent studies argue that it's a mix of both, and that they are so intertwined genetic components combine with learned components (think tribes that have traditions of distance running practice and have legs genetically lighter to make said running easier, which are the reasons so many Kenyans are good runners). Science thinks that both are true - https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/397815790105001995/506243307102535680/map.png there are genetic differences, and the founder of genetics himself believes there are racial iq influences but the world hates him for the obvious reason. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/fury-at-dna-pioneers-theory-africans-are-less-intelligent-than-westerners-394898.html
If you want to appeal to the idea that the demarcation between subspecies is arbitrary, let's remember that the concept of race is solely based on observed phenotype, arose long before a coherent understanding of genetics or evolution, and that physical typologies in general are inherently misleading.
... the founder of genetics himself believes there are racial iq influences
The founder of the science of genetics is recognized to be Gregor Mendel, who died long before James Watson was even born. You are right on one count though: Watson is largely criticized, and even the laboratory he once headed has condemned his views on race as "unsupported by science".
The thing of the matter is that one has to go out of his way to find researchers who contend that race is a meaningful distinction. Our understanding of evolution and genetics has largely discounted these outdated views, to the point that "there is so much ambiguity between the races, and so much variation within them, that two people of European descent may be more genetically similar to an Asian person than they are to each other".
If you want to appeal to the idea that the demarcation between subspecies is arbitrary, let's remember that the concept of race is solely based on observed phenotype, arose long before a coherent understanding of genetics or evolution, and that physical typologies in general are inherently misleading.
There are many associations between race and behavior that are easy to observe - cultural traditions, differences in mate selection, etc, so saying there's no statistical support for such differences is retarded.
This is an ultimately circular contention. Race isn't a meaningful category—it literally means nothing—and the contention that different cultural attitudes are at all related to race is exactly one of the points that is being argued against.
... the founder of genetics himself believes there are racial iq influences
The founder of the science of genetics is recognized to be Gregor Mendel, who died long before James Watson was even born. You are right on one count though: Watson is largely criticized, and even the laboratory he once headed has condemned his views on race as "unsupported by science".
The thing of the matter is that one has to go out of his way to find researchers who contend that race is a meaningful distinction. Our understanding of evolution and genetics has largely discounted these outdated views, to the point that we now recognize that "there is so much ambiguity between the races, and so much variation within them, that two people of European descent may be more genetically similar to an Asian person than they are to each other".
ah yes, an article starting with Donald Trump’s election as the 45th President of the United States has been marked by the brewing storms of racial conflicts. Is surely the forefront of scientific thought. Race conceptually as I am using it refers to distinct populations and their worldwide variations - the phenotypes associated with race like skin color and face shapes evolved for specific environmental purposes as a subset of their population (dark skin for high sun, penis size for weather conditions, etc) and other attributes vary like thinking and physical ability based on the evolutionary goals of our forefathers as well. https://akarlin.com/2012/04/through-a-glass-ceiling-darkly-racial-iq-disparities-and-the-wealth-of-nations/. The fact that you can point out inherited skin color, face shape, musculature, and even eye color and digestive differences between races means that race IS real and people of different races and cultures must have different attributes and goals.
Most experts have stopped using the term race; instead, they usually opt to use the terms 'population' or 'ethnic group'. Race and ethnicity is not the same thing: races are made of many disparate populations, linked together solely on the basis of observed phenotype.
Genetic cluster analysis of the microsatellite markers produced four major clusters, which showed near-perfect correspondence with the four self-reported race/ethnicity categories. Of 3,636 subjects of varying race/ethnicity, only 5 (0.14%) showed genetic cluster membership different from their self-identified race/ethnicity.
It is made immediately obvious that race is a social construct when one considers that, not too long ago, an Italian and an English person would have been considered different races; it is true that one can find genetic markers or physical attributes that are more common in certain 'races', but that does not mean that one can draw a concrete line between different groups of people. Humans as a species have very low genetic diversity, and most human diversity occurs across all populations. Most human diversity is found, for example, within Africa.
No one is denying that humans can be grouped into populations. If you want to call this 'race', you are free to do se—but you are making a completely different point than I.
The proportion of human genetic variation due to differences between populations is modest, and individuals from different populations can be genetically more similar than individuals from the same population. Yet sufficient genetic data can permit accurate classification of individuals into populations. Both findings can be obtained from the same data set, using the same number of polymorphic loci. This article explains why. Our analysis focuses on the frequency, ω, with which a pair of random individuals from two different populations is genetically more similar than a pair of individuals randomly selected from any single population. We compare ω to the error rates of several classification methods, using data sets that vary in number of loci, average allele frequency, populations sampled, and polymorphism ascertainment strategy. We demonstrate that classification methods achieve higher discriminatory power than ω because of their use of aggregate properties of populations. The number of loci analyzed is the most critical variable: with 100 polymorphisms, accurate classification is possible, but ω remains sizable, even when using populations as distinct as sub-Saharan Africans and Europeans. Phenotypes controlled by a dozen or fewer loci can therefore be expected to show substantial overlap between human populations. This provides empirical justification for caution when using population labels in biomedical settings, with broad implications for personalized medicine, pharmacogenetics, and the meaning of race.
'Race' is not being defined or used consistently; its referents are varied and shift depending on context. The term is often used colloquially to refer to a range of human groupings. Religious, cultural, social, national, ethnic, linguistic, genetic, geographical and anatomical groups have been and sometimes still are called 'races'.
There is great genetic diversity within all human populations. Pure races, in the sense of genetically homogeneous populations, do not exist in the human species today, nor is there any evidence that they have ever existed in the past.
The scientific premises for looking for statistical differences between groups designated as races (on somewhat arbitrary grounds) are questionable. The explanation of such differences in strictly biological-evolutionary terms is even more dubious. Studies of temperament, basic personality traits, disorders (such as antisocial personality), and specific genetic markers show that there is much more variation within groups designated as races than between such groups.
Using previously coded data on the 186 society Standard Cross-Cultural Sample, we find no statistical support for the predicted associations between 'race' and behavior.
In their 1999 study, Katarzyna Kaszycka and Goran Strkalj (2002) tried to asses the attitude of Polish physical anthropologists toward the concept of race, asking, in a questionnaire, whether they agree that "There are biological races (meaning subspecies) within the species Homo sapiens" ... out of 55 respondent, 31 person agreed, 62 percent disagreed, and seven percent found it difficult to tell.
If separate racial or ethnic groups actually existed, we would expect to find “trademark” alleles and other genetic features that are characteristic of a single group but not present in any others. However, the 2002 Stanford study found that only 7.4% of over 4000 alleles were specific to one geographical region. Furthermore, even when region-specific alleles did appear, they only occurred in about 1% of the people from that region—hardly enough to be any kind of trademark. Thus, there is no evidence that the groups we commonly call “races” have distinct, unifying genetic identities. In fact, there is ample variation within races.
gish galloping is cool and all, but try using your own arguments
Anyway, just because something is a social construct doens't invalidate its basis in reality. Gravity is a social construct, yet has real physical effects.
Sure it is. It means different things to different people, some people perceive certain things to be falling, others perceive them to be remaining still depending upon your perspective.
Literally everything is a social construct. This isn't even controversial m8
As opposed to yours, which was just as substantiated?
When people say that race is a social-construction, they mean that it has no solid or real basis in biology. If you want to argue about semantics, go somewhere else because I'm not an idiot.
I’ve already shown you with a source that it does have a biological basis. Yet you continue to ignore evidence. It’s strange. Why are you accepting of biological differences in ethnicity but not race? It’s just a matter of degree and not quality you know. Think of it like a colour spectrum. There is no clear demarcation between blue and green yet we know they are different
It is true that race is a social construct. It is also true, as Dr. Lewontin wrote, that human populations “are remarkably similar to each other” from a genetic point of view.
I am referring to ethnic differences lol, but have you noticed people from different regions farther apart generally have differing appearance and culture, and those close together (on the same continent) look similar? Race is that fact - that large population groups near each other have common ancestors and therefore traits and attributes, while those far apart (Europe and Africa) differ? Maybe they evolved different intelligence attributes during the 80k years they were separated?
note that these people specifically evolved to fit their environments and surrounding populations. As a result, cultural admixture and migration often subverts existing nutritional, cultural, geographical, and personal things that were once useful and turns them against people. Vitamin d deficiency, and obesity are two of many problems this causes, as well as loss of useful ties that hold together families and communities and even religions.
Psychologists have long recognized that IQ tests are by no means infallible. One's result can vary solely on the basis of their culture or upbringing; to this end, enormous effort has been made to create 'culture-fair' IQ tests. We also have evidence that black people who are raised in It should be immediately obvious, in any case, that this conception is false, because—if it were taken as truth—the only conclusion that one could make is that the majority of people living in certain nations are actually mentally-disabled, and that is obviously not the case.
Sources
Nisbett, R. E. (2005). Heredity, environment, and race differences in IQ: A commentary on Rushton and Jensen (2005). Psychology, Public Policy, & Law, 11(2), 302–310. doi:10.1037/1076-8971.11.2.302
Sternberg, R. J., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2005). Cultural explorations of the nature of intelligence. In A. F. Healy (Ed.), Experimental cognitive psychology and its applications (pp. 225–235). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Are you saying asians and jews all have the highest iqs by mere coincidence? If we measured humans like we do dogs or birds or anything really there would be 30 subspecies of humans. Humans are more genetically diverse than all species of dogs. Also how do you explain the patriarchy? Men have higher iqs across the board.
There's a reason that people have to go out of their way to find a shred of 'evidence' that race is actually meaningful. There's a reason that racists inevitably cite the same articles written by the same people, again and again.
Because they are more successful than blacks and Hispanics? Why is it that when Asians and Jews do well it is (rightfully) attributed to their industrious culture and above average intelligence, but white people being successful must be a result of "privilege"?
what ethnicities are considered 'white' - has been broadened several times in recent history
Irish, Italians, and Slavs were considered white by racial laws(segregation, miscegenation, etc) in the past, reflecting the attitudes of the general public.
if you are a black person, you are significantly more likely to be incarcerated for non-violent drug offences
This is to be expected, black neighbourhoods are more heavily policed because of high crime rates. Of course, local governments don't really have a choice but to do this, because if they don't commit extra resources to keeping black communities safe then the liberal media will paint them as being neglected.
Blacks are more likely to attract the attention of the police because they commit more violent crime and property crime on average.
black people were significantly more likely to be carded by police
If blacks commit more crime on average(and they do), they we can expect that they are more likely to behave suspiciously on average.
race has little to no basis in biology
"Race" IS based on physical features, but physical features are strongly influenced by genetics. It is a widespread practice in biology to classify separate populations within a species into distinct sub-species based on differences in physical features. Why should the same not apply for humans?
'population', 'ethnicity', or 'people'
Black Americans are a distinct population, they are primarily descended from West Africans.
The idea that black people commit more crime may be factually true, but the conclusions that one can draw from that premise are varied. Are black people genetically predispositioned to crime? As there is no basis for that claim, and, in fact, significant evidence to the contrary, the most likely conclusion is that black people are drawn to crime through their environment—including, but not limited to, the economic immiseration of their communities. This is yet another example of how the circumstances that have been created by white politicians work to harm black people.
"Race" IS based on physical features
Race is based on observed phenotype—in other words: yes, it is based on physical features, but our understanding of genetics and evolution have shown that attempting to explain human variation solely through the lens of observed phenotype is misleading and baseless.
It is a widespread practice in biology to classify separate populations within a species into distinct sub-species based on differences in physical features. Why should the same not apply for humans?
I have already explained this in multiple comments. Essentially the degree of variation between human populations is not significant enough to warrant their demarcation into distinct subspecies. Biologists recognize that all humans belong to the same species and subspecies, Homo sapiens sapiens.
black people commit more crime may be factually true, but the conclusions that one can draw from the premise are varied
Moving the goalposts. You racial inequity within the criminal justice system as an example of racism, I pointed out why that inequity exists. The reasons behind disproportionate black crime is a different discussion.
are black people genetically predisposed to crime
There is evidence to suggest that the correlation between race and cognitive capability(which obviously affects predisposition to crime) gaps can at least be partially attributed to genetic factors.
I mean, at the end of the day, if you deny that groups of people who have been separated for tens of thousands of years, and subject to different evolutionary pressures as a result of living in different environments, will develop different physical and mental traits, then you are denying evolution itself. You are just as anti-science as Creationists.
the most likely explanation is that black people are drawn to crime through their environment
Since you were the one complaining about racism, the onus is on you to prove that their poverty is a result of racism and not their own actions. I would point out that African Americans drop out of high school and have children out of wedlock at disproportionately high rates.
Another study from noted racist, J.Philippe Rushton, someone who has been refuted a thousand times over. I've cited a dozen articles which deal with the issue of race, some of which refute his claims specifically.
Rushton argues that much variation in human behavior is explained by membership in one of only three genetic groups or “races” (“Negroids,” “Caucasoids,” and “Mongoloids”). Using previously coded data on the 186 society Standard Cross-Cultural Sample, we find no statistical support for the predicted associations between “race” and behavior.
I mean, at the end of the day, if you deny that groups of people who have been separated for tens of thousands of years, and subject to different evolutionary pressures as a result of living in different environments, will develop different physical and mental traits, then you are denying evolution itself. You are just as anti-science as Creationists.
Again, there is no one denying that there are different populations of humans. If you want to refer to those as races, you are free to—but I will quote what I said previously:
It is made immediately obvious that race is a social construct when one considers that, not too long ago, an Italian and an English person would have been considered different races; it is true that one can find genetic markers or physical attributes that are more common in certain 'races', but that does not mean that one can draw a concrete line between different groups of people. Humans as a species have very low genetic diversity, and most human diversity occurs across all populations. Most human diversity is found, for example, within Africa.
The proportion of human genetic variation due to differences between populations is modest, and individuals from different populations can be genetically more similar than individuals from the same population. Yet sufficient genetic data can permit accurate classification of individuals into populations. Both findings can be obtained from the same data set, using the same number of polymorphic loci. This article explains why. Our analysis focuses on the frequency, ω, with which a pair of random individuals from two different populations is genetically more similar than a pair of individuals randomly selected from any single population. We compare ω to the error rates of several classification methods, using data sets that vary in number of loci, average allele frequency, populations sampled, and polymorphism ascertainment strategy. We demonstrate that classification methods achieve higher discriminatory power than ω because of their use of aggregate properties of populations. The number of loci analyzed is the most critical variable: with 100 polymorphisms, accurate classification is possible, but ω remains sizable, even when using populations as distinct as sub-Saharan Africans and Europeans. Phenotypes controlled by a dozen or fewer loci can therefore be expected to show substantial overlap between human populations. This provides empirical justification for caution when using population labels in biomedical settings, with broad implications for personalized medicine, pharmacogenetics, and the meaning of race.
The majority of anthropologists, biologists, and geneticists no longer use the term 'race'. You are accusing me of being anti-science but presenting cherry-picked articles, written by the same individuals that racists cite all of the time (because they're the only ones who believe this shit), and attempting to pass off an understanding of human variation that was formed long before we had a coherent understanding of genetics or evolution as some immutable and infallible truth.
It is a widespread practice in biology to classify separate populations within a species into distinct sub-species based on differences in physical features. Why should the same not apply for humans?
I mean, if you honestly have to ask this question, then you're legit too retarded to be even attempting to participate to such a 'debate'. Take your oxy pills, drink some milk, eat some cookies and go to sleep.
So the kids parents take him out of the school and put him in a better one. All the decent students leave, all the good teachers and administrators leave. You're left with a school that cranks out do nothings or criminals. All because you didn't suspend or even discipline a few bad apples.
108 comments
1 SnapshillBot 2019-02-08
My god I just checked your post history. There is no shaming you. This is literally your life. Just imagine how much you could accomplish if you weren’t addicted to Reddit. You’re making a difference, though!
Snapshots:
I am a bot. (Info / Contact)
1 wwyzzerdd 2019-02-08
Shouldn't we be praising these poor misunderstood youths for actually going to school?
1 NumerousEvent 2019-02-08
They're practically honor students!
1 fernguts 2019-02-08
Not to mention practicing for the mayocide?
1 AnnoysTheGoys 2019-02-08
Mayos are so easily bullied
1 Alicesnakebae 2019-02-08
We all bully mayos at some point but when they break the whole school is in trouble
1 thisishardcore_ 2019-02-08
World history in a nutshell.
1 alphetasauce 2019-02-08
Do Jews have room to talk? You've bullied one man 2000 years ago and white people have been bullying you ever since.
1 AnnoysTheGoys 2019-02-08
Yep, (((we))) got room to kvetch
1 StopEditingTitles 2019-02-08
Interesting quote
1 shaneoffline 2019-02-08
There's always a third option.
1 [deleted] 2019-02-08
[removed]
1 LightUmbra 2019-02-08
Lol mayo
1 pepperouchau 2019-02-08
He goes on to say he prefers Miracle Whip. Imagine being too white for mayo.
1 LightUmbra 2019-02-08
I'm so white I just drink cum.
1 charming_tatum 2019-02-08
Goodboye
1 LightUmbra 2019-02-08
Badboye today
1 supersonic-turtle 2019-02-08
Hell yeah get ahead of the cuckold curve
1 the_marx 2019-02-08
Whiteness is a social construct, and one of inherent privilege in contemporary society. It has been pointed out again and again that its scope—what ethnicities are considered 'white'—has been broadened several times in recent history, whenever whites are on the verge of losing their immense political power and need to incorporate more into the fold.
If you are a black person, you are significantly more likely to be incarcerated for non-violent drug offenses, even though all races use drugs at more-or-less the same rate. The racial disparity in our justice system is not limited to America, either, as studies in Canada have shown that black people were significantly more likely to be carded by police.
Race has little-to-no basis in biology, and this is a fact that has become increasingly recognized with the discovery of evolution and genetics. Many experts now reject the term completely, using less vague options such as 'population', 'ethnicity', or 'people'.
1 thisishardcore_ 2019-02-08
NPC
1 ArlenBilldozer 2019-02-08
Shut the fuck up
1 the_marx 2019-02-08
This is invariably how conservatives respond when their beliefs are challenged.
By the way, a quick look at your post history has shown me that you're a pretty fascistic and sad man. From using the term "r-t-rd" (1, 2), to admitting that you like MDE (1), to suggesting that CTH fans are 'autistic' as if that's a bad thing (1), to admitting that you agree with Trump that impoverished nations are 'shitholes' (1).
1 ArlenBilldozer 2019-02-08
I ❤ u
1 TechnogeistR 2019-02-08
That's a lot of effort to accomplish (0) things.
1 PUBLIQclopAccountant 2019-02-08
Those nations are shithole because previous US foreign policy made them so.
1 ballrot 2019-02-08
DEPORT
1 GoopSqwad 2019-02-08
I hope you're entertaining yourself because nobody else gives a fuck about your seriousposting bullshit
1 the_marx 2019-02-08
It seems like I've triggered you.
1 Strictlybutters 2019-02-08
1 Ed_ButteredToast 2019-02-08
RAPEFUGEES OUT OUT OUT 👉👉👉
1 CJ_from_Grove_St 2019-02-08
Take the commie pill
1 vtesterlwg 2019-02-08
social scientists are jews
1 the_marx 2019-02-08
Biology isn't a social science.
1 vtesterlwg 2019-02-08
I'm seriously tempted to search /pol/ for "journal article" and watch you spin on that trust of (((scientists)))
1 the_marx 2019-02-08
IQ tests are significantly influenced by culture and environment (1, 2)
1 the_marx 2019-02-08
IQ tests are significantly influenced by culture and environment; there is no evidence that there is a genetic component to the gap between mayo-black IQ rates (1, 2)
Rates of substance abuse are slightly higher in mayos than black people (1)
Black people use drugs at the same rates as other races, comprise thirteen precent of the American population, yet thirty-nine percent of drug offenders in federal prison are black (1, 2, 3)
1 LongPostBot 2019-02-08
Sorry ma'am, looks like his delusions have gotten worse. We'll have to admit him,
I am a bot. Contact for questions
1 Bonstantinople 2019-02-08
Bad bot
1 vtesterlwg 2019-02-08
check my original comment for my reply to you
1 obsequium_ 2019-02-08
drug use rates are not accurate, since blacks are more likely to lie on drug surveys. Urine tests show extremely high discordance rates.
1 the_marx 2019-02-08
It's important to note that the 'type of drug used' is largely irrelevant here. White authorities have intentionally put harsher punishments on drugs that are used by minorities more than whites — for example, crack cocaine is punished more harshly than cocaine, even though there is no clear reason why that ought to be the case. It is also important to remember that those who object to this racial disparity are largely not disputing the fact that a portion of it can be explained by the fact that, for example, black people are more likely to live in economically immiserated areas—instead, they suggest that the war-on-drugs itself is a failed set of policies that were largely instituted out of racial bias.
It's interesting that you linked to an article written in 1995. The ones that I've referenced—which I did not get from /pol/, but from reputable textbooks on psychology and anthropology—are studies based on much more recent data.
You've also, interestingly enough, linked to a study by J. Philippe Rushton—who "served as the head of the Pioneer Fund, a research foundation that has been accused of being racist, with its founders being American sympathizers for the Nazi eugenicist program" (1)—and Donald Templer—who is also a racist who has spoken "at white nationalist American Renaissance conferences" (2). Two controversial figures who happen to share the same views as you. I'm sure that that's coincidental.
According to a critique of the former figure, Marvin Zuckerman, claims that the "scientific premises for looking for statistical differences between groups designated as races (on somewhat arbitrary grounds) are questionable ... there is much more variation within groups designated as races than between such groups" (3). There is another study, written by several individuals, which refutes his claims and suggests that there is "no statistical support for the predicted associations between 'race' and behavior" (4). Many researchers have suggested that race has no taxonomic significant, pointing out that all humans belong to the same species and subspecies (5, 6).
1 LongPostBot 2019-02-08
K
I am a bot. Contact for questions
1 vtesterlwg 2019-02-08
yay drama
Drug laws are always messed up, however modern sentencing rules are based more on bureaucratic and political convenience than any desire to target minorities. https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/crack-vrs-powder-cocaine-one-drug-two-penalties.htm it was in fact passed with the intent of stopping the epidemic among black communities, and the legislators who passed it regretted their decision. Most sentencing disparities have been recently rectified. As with many species, intra species variation is larger than inter species, yet most of that is in so called junk dna - coding sequences show more striking differences between races, like in the pastebin above. The distinction between species, subspecies, and lower levels is a subjective distinction that is chosen based on a variety of factors - there are no specific criteria on whether or not two populations that can produce fertile offspring after interbreeding are a subspecies or sub populations (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subspecies). There are many associations between race and behavior that are easy to observe - cultural traditions, differences in mate selection, etc, so saying there's no statistical support for such differences is retarded. The real question is are said differences inherited culturally or naturally, nature and nurture - recent studies argue that it's a mix of both, and that they are so intertwined genetic components combine with learned components (think tribes that have traditions of distance running practice and have legs genetically lighter to make said running easier, which are the reasons so many Kenyans are good runners). Science thinks that both are true - https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/397815790105001995/506243307102535680/map.png there are genetic differences, and the founder of genetics himself believes there are racial iq influences but the world hates him for the obvious reason. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/fury-at-dna-pioneers-theory-africans-are-less-intelligent-than-westerners-394898.html
1 LongPostBot 2019-02-08
Wow, you must be a JP fan
I am a bot. Contact for questions
1 the_marx 2019-02-08
If you want to appeal to the idea that the demarcation between subspecies is arbitrary, let's remember that the concept of race is solely based on observed phenotype, arose long before a coherent understanding of genetics or evolution, and that physical typologies in general are inherently misleading.
The founder of the science of genetics is recognized to be Gregor Mendel, who died long before James Watson was even born. You are right on one count though: Watson is largely criticized, and even the laboratory he once headed has condemned his views on race as "unsupported by science".
The thing of the matter is that one has to go out of his way to find researchers who contend that race is a meaningful distinction. Our understanding of evolution and genetics has largely discounted these outdated views, to the point that "there is so much ambiguity between the races, and so much variation within them, that two people of European descent may be more genetically similar to an Asian person than they are to each other".
1 LongPostBot 2019-02-08
I've known more coherent downies.
I am a bot. Contact for questions
1 the_marx 2019-02-08
If you want to appeal to the idea that the demarcation between subspecies is arbitrary, let's remember that the concept of race is solely based on observed phenotype, arose long before a coherent understanding of genetics or evolution, and that physical typologies in general are inherently misleading.
This is an ultimately circular contention. Race isn't a meaningful category—it literally means nothing—and the contention that different cultural attitudes are at all related to race is exactly one of the points that is being argued against.
The founder of the science of genetics is recognized to be Gregor Mendel, who died long before James Watson was even born. You are right on one count though: Watson is largely criticized, and even the laboratory he once headed has condemned his views on race as "unsupported by science".
The thing of the matter is that one has to go out of his way to find researchers who contend that race is a meaningful distinction. Our understanding of evolution and genetics has largely discounted these outdated views, to the point that we now recognize that "there is so much ambiguity between the races, and so much variation within them, that two people of European descent may be more genetically similar to an Asian person than they are to each other".
1 LongPostBot 2019-02-08
This is one of the worst post I have EVER seen. Delete it.
I am a bot. Contact for questions
1 vtesterlwg 2019-02-08
ah yes, an article starting with Donald Trump’s election as the 45th President of the United States has been marked by the brewing storms of racial conflicts. Is surely the forefront of scientific thought. Race conceptually as I am using it refers to distinct populations and their worldwide variations - the phenotypes associated with race like skin color and face shapes evolved for specific environmental purposes as a subset of their population (dark skin for high sun, penis size for weather conditions, etc) and other attributes vary like thinking and physical ability based on the evolutionary goals of our forefathers as well. https://akarlin.com/2012/04/through-a-glass-ceiling-darkly-racial-iq-disparities-and-the-wealth-of-nations/. The fact that you can point out inherited skin color, face shape, musculature, and even eye color and digestive differences between races means that race IS real and people of different races and cultures must have different attributes and goals.
1 the_marx 2019-02-08
Even within races, there is a significant range of phenotypic variation.
1 obsequium_ 2019-02-08
So you accept the reality of ethnic differences but not racial differences? You're legit retarded bruh
1 the_marx 2019-02-08
Most experts have stopped using the term race; instead, they usually opt to use the terms 'population' or 'ethnic group'. Race and ethnicity is not the same thing: races are made of many disparate populations, linked together solely on the basis of observed phenotype.
1 obsequium_ 2019-02-08
Actually self-reported race is almost entirely accurately mirrored in the genome
1 the_marx 2019-02-08
It is made immediately obvious that race is a social construct when one considers that, not too long ago, an Italian and an English person would have been considered different races; it is true that one can find genetic markers or physical attributes that are more common in certain 'races', but that does not mean that one can draw a concrete line between different groups of people. Humans as a species have very low genetic diversity, and most human diversity occurs across all populations. Most human diversity is found, for example, within Africa.
No one is denying that humans can be grouped into populations. If you want to call this 'race', you are free to do se—but you are making a completely different point than I.
Genetic Similarities Within and Between Human Populations
Conceptualizing human variation
AAPA statement on biological aspects of race
Some dubious premises in research and theory on racial differences: Scientific, social, and ethical issues.
Cross-cultural evaluation of predicted associations between race and behavior
"Race"—Still an Issue for Physical Anthropology?
How Science and Genetics are Reshaping the Race Debate of the 21st Century
1 LongPostBot 2019-02-08
OUT!
OUT!!!
OUT!!!
I am a bot. Contact for questions
1 obsequium_ 2019-02-08
gish galloping is cool and all, but try using your own arguments
Anyway, just because something is a social construct doens't invalidate its basis in reality. Gravity is a social construct, yet has real physical effects.
1 the_marx 2019-02-08
Gravity is not a social construct.
1 obsequium_ 2019-02-08
Sure it is. It means different things to different people, some people perceive certain things to be falling, others perceive them to be remaining still depending upon your perspective.
Literally everything is a social construct. This isn't even controversial m8
1 the_marx 2019-02-08
Only if you define social construct broad enough that it is essentially meaningless.
1 obsequium_ 2019-02-08
but that is exactly how it is defined, academically.
1 the_marx 2019-02-08
No it's not.
1 obsequium_ 2019-02-08
Great argument
1 the_marx 2019-02-08
As opposed to yours, which was just as substantiated?
When people say that race is a social-construction, they mean that it has no solid or real basis in biology. If you want to argue about semantics, go somewhere else because I'm not an idiot.
1 obsequium_ 2019-02-08
I’ve already shown you with a source that it does have a biological basis. Yet you continue to ignore evidence. It’s strange. Why are you accepting of biological differences in ethnicity but not race? It’s just a matter of degree and not quality you know. Think of it like a colour spectrum. There is no clear demarcation between blue and green yet we know they are different
1 the_marx 2019-02-08
From the article that you cited:
1 obsequium_ 2019-02-08
Yeah it’s a construct but so is everything so it’s a moot point. Name a single thing that isn’t a social construct (you can’t)
Also this:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/12879450/
1 the_marx 2019-02-08
Nah
1 obsequium_ 2019-02-08
Great argument bruh, denial is an effective defense mechanism 👌🏻
1 vtesterlwg 2019-02-08
I am referring to ethnic differences lol, but have you noticed people from different regions farther apart generally have differing appearance and culture, and those close together (on the same continent) look similar? Race is that fact - that large population groups near each other have common ancestors and therefore traits and attributes, while those far apart (Europe and Africa) differ? Maybe they evolved different intelligence attributes during the 80k years they were separated?
1 the_marx 2019-02-08
:/
1 vtesterlwg 2019-02-08
note that these people specifically evolved to fit their environments and surrounding populations. As a result, cultural admixture and migration often subverts existing nutritional, cultural, geographical, and personal things that were once useful and turns them against people. Vitamin d deficiency, and obesity are two of many problems this causes, as well as loss of useful ties that hold together families and communities and even religions.
1 Strictlybutters 2019-02-08
You can’t seriously be this big of a faggot right?
1 vtesterlwg 2019-02-08
imagine not thinking arguing with the_marx is epic
1 Ed_ButteredToast 2019-02-08
kek x2
1 Matues49 2019-02-08
Legit delete your account
1 vtesterlwg 2019-02-08
agree
1 Ed_ButteredToast 2019-02-08
kek
1 Sarge_Ward 2019-02-08
where did all these badposters come from?
1 vtesterlwg 2019-02-08
I've been a dramatard for over a year I just thought it'd be funny to do this with marxxy
1 Sarge_Ward 2019-02-08
Fair enough i guess. Fighting fire with fire, or in this case dumbassery with dumbassery, is a pretty good strategy
1 StopEditingTitles 2019-02-08
Are you just like, ignoring iqs despite blacks having 30 iq points lower than jews? Thats a huge disadvantage
1 the_marx 2019-02-08
Psychologists have long recognized that IQ tests are by no means infallible. One's result can vary solely on the basis of their culture or upbringing; to this end, enormous effort has been made to create 'culture-fair' IQ tests. We also have evidence that black people who are raised in It should be immediately obvious, in any case, that this conception is false, because—if it were taken as truth—the only conclusion that one could make is that the majority of people living in certain nations are actually mentally-disabled, and that is obviously not the case.
Sources
Nisbett, R. E. (2005). Heredity, environment, and race differences in IQ: A commentary on Rushton and Jensen (2005). Psychology, Public Policy, & Law, 11(2), 302–310. doi:10.1037/1076-8971.11.2.302
Sternberg, R. J., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2005). Cultural explorations of the nature of intelligence. In A. F. Healy (Ed.), Experimental cognitive psychology and its applications (pp. 225–235). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
1 OnePercentOfMonster 2019-02-08
not that obvious
1 the_marx 2019-02-08
Maybe you're mentally-disabled, then?
1 StopEditingTitles 2019-02-08
Are you saying asians and jews all have the highest iqs by mere coincidence? If we measured humans like we do dogs or birds or anything really there would be 30 subspecies of humans. Humans are more genetically diverse than all species of dogs. Also how do you explain the patriarchy? Men have higher iqs across the board.
1 Ed_ButteredToast 2019-02-08
This but unironically
1 the_marx 2019-02-08
It was unironic.
There's a reason that people have to go out of their way to find a shred of 'evidence' that race is actually meaningful. There's a reason that racists inevitably cite the same articles written by the same people, again and again.
1 Ed_ButteredToast 2019-02-08
Based and redpilled.
1 CanadianAsshole1 2019-02-08
Because they are more successful than blacks and Hispanics? Why is it that when Asians and Jews do well it is (rightfully) attributed to their industrious culture and above average intelligence, but white people being successful must be a result of "privilege"?
Irish, Italians, and Slavs were considered white by racial laws(segregation, miscegenation, etc) in the past, reflecting the attitudes of the general public.
This is to be expected, black neighbourhoods are more heavily policed because of high crime rates. Of course, local governments don't really have a choice but to do this, because if they don't commit extra resources to keeping black communities safe then the liberal media will paint them as being neglected.
Blacks are more likely to attract the attention of the police because they commit more violent crime and property crime on average.
If blacks commit more crime on average(and they do), they we can expect that they are more likely to behave suspiciously on average.
"Race" IS based on physical features, but physical features are strongly influenced by genetics. It is a widespread practice in biology to classify separate populations within a species into distinct sub-species based on differences in physical features. Why should the same not apply for humans?
Black Americans are a distinct population, they are primarily descended from West Africans.
1 LongPostBot 2019-02-08
That's great and all, but I asked for my burger without cheese.
I am a bot. Contact for questions
1 the_marx 2019-02-08
The idea that black people commit more crime may be factually true, but the conclusions that one can draw from that premise are varied. Are black people genetically predispositioned to crime? As there is no basis for that claim, and, in fact, significant evidence to the contrary, the most likely conclusion is that black people are drawn to crime through their environment—including, but not limited to, the economic immiseration of their communities. This is yet another example of how the circumstances that have been created by white politicians work to harm black people.
Race is based on observed phenotype—in other words: yes, it is based on physical features, but our understanding of genetics and evolution have shown that attempting to explain human variation solely through the lens of observed phenotype is misleading and baseless.
I have already explained this in multiple comments. Essentially the degree of variation between human populations is not significant enough to warrant their demarcation into distinct subspecies. Biologists recognize that all humans belong to the same species and subspecies, Homo sapiens sapiens.
1 LongPostBot 2019-02-08
😴😴😴
I am a bot. Contact for questions
1 CanadianAsshole1 2019-02-08
Moving the goalposts. You racial inequity within the criminal justice system as an example of racism, I pointed out why that inequity exists. The reasons behind disproportionate black crime is a different discussion.
There is evidence to suggest that the correlation between race and cognitive capability(which obviously affects predisposition to crime) gaps can at least be partially attributed to genetic factors.
The richest black students score lower on the SAT on average compared to the poorest white students.
There are gaps in average cranial capacity between blacks and whites. I think this much should be common sense, seeing as how different races have distinct skull shapes.
Another interesting explanation would be hormones, the same reason that men are more violent than women on average. This study found differences in testosterone levels between white and black men.
I mean, at the end of the day, if you deny that groups of people who have been separated for tens of thousands of years, and subject to different evolutionary pressures as a result of living in different environments, will develop different physical and mental traits, then you are denying evolution itself. You are just as anti-science as Creationists.
Since you were the one complaining about racism, the onus is on you to prove that their poverty is a result of racism and not their own actions. I would point out that African Americans drop out of high school and have children out of wedlock at disproportionately high rates.
1 LongPostBot 2019-02-08
Good job bobby, here's a star
I am a bot. Contact for questions
1 the_marx 2019-02-08
Another study from noted racist, J.Philippe Rushton, someone who has been refuted a thousand times over. I've cited a dozen articles which deal with the issue of race, some of which refute his claims specifically.
Cross-cultural evaluation of predicted associations between race and behavior
Again, there is no one denying that there are different populations of humans. If you want to refer to those as races, you are free to—but I will quote what I said previously:
Genetic Similarities Within and Between Human Populations
Other articles which I've previously linked to:
The majority of anthropologists, biologists, and geneticists no longer use the term 'race'. You are accusing me of being anti-science but presenting cherry-picked articles, written by the same individuals that racists cite all of the time (because they're the only ones who believe this shit), and attempting to pass off an understanding of human variation that was formed long before we had a coherent understanding of genetics or evolution as some immutable and infallible truth.
1 LongPostBot 2019-02-08
😴😴😴
I am a bot. Contact for questions
1 CanadianAsshole1 2019-02-08
What has he said that is racist?
I will not accept this as "evidence" for your claim until you can link the full study.
Also, I'm pretty sure that this paper attempts to debunk one of Rushton's other studies. This one looks at cranial capacity, not behaviour.
Blatant lie. Italians were always "white".
Variation within a population does not disprove variation between populations.
Can you actually debunk the cranial capacity study or SAT scores statistics?
1 Mat_The_49th 2019-02-08
I mean, if you honestly have to ask this question, then you're legit too retarded to be even attempting to participate to such a 'debate'. Take your oxy pills, drink some milk, eat some cookies and go to sleep.
1 boyoyoyoyong 2019-02-08
When people have kids and are moving to better schools they mean they're avoiding this level of diversity
1 imgeekedupondembars 2019-02-08
So the kids parents take him out of the school and put him in a better one. All the decent students leave, all the good teachers and administrators leave. You're left with a school that cranks out do nothings or criminals. All because you didn't suspend or even discipline a few bad apples.
1 RecallRethuglicans 2019-02-08
That’s why you ban charters and private schools. Why should the kids be allowed to leave?
1 imgeekedupondembars 2019-02-08
So they don't get beaten.
1 RecallRethuglicans 2019-02-08
Then stop teaching toxic masculinity
1 imgeekedupondembars 2019-02-08
Scuse me but i happen to teach toxic masculinity at my local college.
1 CanadianAsshole1 2019-02-08
Hey, they can't do that. It's 2019, wanting your children to be educated in a safe and welcoming environment makes you a WHITE SUPREMACIST.
1 JumbledFun 2019-02-08
"/r/news discusses" more like some poor trailer trash jerks off about how they got bullied in school, cause they are so unique in that regard
1 Ed_ButteredToast 2019-02-08
kek
1 charming_tatum 2019-02-08
I went to a mostly black high school but I also played football and was 6ft in 9th grade zone no one fucked with me