[Poelmo]

No, I think you are making an assumption here. A computer can find these patterns even if a human is not looking at it. For example structure can do it: [...]

All this does is assign probabilities and look for patterns that we choose to call patterns (a pattern that connects Nigerians to Han Chinese would be discarded because we chose to see them as different groups beforehand and that's not good science, it's just convenient to look for a pattern that distinguishes Nigerians from Han Chinese if we want to know if the killer was the suspect with a Nigerian passport or the one with the Chinese passport), like I said, you can apply this down to the family level if you want to, hell, you could say people with long thumbs belong to a special group and you can have the computer find a pattern for people with long thumbs. In the rare event that you find some special Japanese gene you will find that only 40% (or something like that) of Japanese people carry it and chances are that 10 years later you'll find it in some African tribe as well, and it'll probably something that codes for the stifness of nose hairs.

However, despite the obsession with genetics I really think when talking to fascists about ethnicity its best to keep in mind that culture plays a huge role in what they talk about.

When they deny that ethnicity is a human invention you kinda have to go into genetics, especially when they use genetics in their arguments.

[Rei Murasame]

All this does is assign probabilities and look for patterns that we choose to call patterns (a pattern that connects Nigerians to Han Chinese would be discarded because we chose to see them as different groups beforehand and that's not good science

No, that is good science. The reason would be that of course they are not geographically contiguous places, and we know that their history involves a migration away from one place and into the other.

Don't forget that the word 'geographical' is in 'geographical population group'.

[Poelmo]

No, that is good science. The reason would be that of course they are not geographically contiguous places, and we know that their history involves a migration away from one place and into the other.

Again a circular argument (so bad science): when you want to know how different people from different parts of the world are you can't start with the premise that people from different parts of the world are different. Looking for genetic patterns that distinguish the Japanese from the Saami people is like using random google searches to see how much of the internet is in French, after you've set the language filter to "French". Of course you will find something, but you can't just discard all the other patterns where the Japanese and Saami aren't so different or where the Japanese group seems a diverse group itself. We look for patterns between established ethnicities like the Japanese and the Saami because it's convenient: because Japan and Finland are separate jurisdictions where different languages are spoken (making the usuefulness of a distinction between Japanese and Saami a self-fulfilling prophecy), we don't look for patterns distinguishing West-Japanese from East-Japanes or short thumbs from long thumbs because those results aren't very useful because there does not exist a West-Japan or a Longthumbland. However we do use patterns distinguishing between familes for criminal and paternity cases and there we find ethnicities within ethnicities within ethnicities so to say, but that's not a very practical system to group people into different jurisdictions (except when you have a noble house in the middle ages or the Roman Empire).

[Rei Murasame]

This is a strawman argument. You are now just accusing me of doing what I am not doing.

And in fact, people do look for patterns distinguishing different parts of one country. Just the differences within those populations are less than the overall differences between them and the guys across the sea. Or the mountain, or whatever.

This is not arbitrary. Physical obstacles prevented people from fucking other people. Mutations and the frequency of the appearance of those mutations differ because of restricted gene flow between groups.

I know that liberals are in a war against any science that leads to people possibly holding ideas that they don't like, but this is ridiculous now, isn't it?

[Poelmo]

You are now just accusing me of doing what I am not doing.

You are using that circular reasoning, whether you are aware of it or not. It's a major case of confirmation bias.

This is not arbitrary. Physical obstacles prevented people from fucking other people. Mutations and the frequency of the appearance of those mutations differ because of restricted gene flow between groups.

Yeah, those tall, tall mountains between Germany and Denmark and those impassible oceans between Croatia and Serbia... Yes of course there are differences between people living on opposite sides of the worlds: it's just that those differences are small and insignificant, not unique to one group, not fully spread within a group and they don't match well with language and cultural distribution (there are hundreds of languages and cultural groups on Papua New Guinea).

I know that liberals are in a war against any science that leads to people possibly holding ideas that they don't like, but this is ridiculous now, isn't it?

You can ask any geneticist the same things and you'll get the same answers I gave you, are they all "liberals in a war against science"? Geneticists sought for the answers and the answers turned out to be that the "liberals" were right and the fascists were wrong.

[Rei Murasame]

Do you think that all geneticists who study the structure of populations are also involved in confirmation bias? Even when they find results that disprove the biases?

[Igor Antunov]

A geneticist in the dying neoliberal degeneracies of the west will be subject to institutional bias and strict preconditions, because the desire to conform is borne out of economic necessity. You do not want to be branded a radical/rebel in this field. Your funding would be pulled, your projects would be cut short-unless you're self sufficient, and the vast majority of scientists are not.

So you will often see scientists in this field avoid/ignore such pivotal questions entirely if they can-they fear the backlash. Just like most scientists, despite being majority atheists/ireligious, avoid the morality tales spun by the moralists/religious regarding this work. They will often try to stay under the radar because these moralist institutions have a huge sway over the economic livelyhood of many places of research.

Similarly, the romanticism infesting our institutions of learning forces researchers to work under the radar to get real work done without having their reputation/funding destroyed. Sometimes what 'should be' (in conformance with ideals of religious liberal morality) in science is not how the experimental evidence pans out, and you see massive backpeddaling or extensive whitewashing, particularly when it comes to research regarding specific ethnic differences and gauging behavioural/intelligence differentials across disperate population pools. The tactic of the day seems to be brushing aside such indicators as 'insignificant' in the interests of political correctness. We all know black men are always going to be the fastest runners due to their fast twitch muscle proportions, they might as well be cheating.
But in the name of political corectness, you will continue to see white men racing alongside them. Worse are the preposterous efforts of the feminist cliche, that focus on getting women to compete against males in various physical sports.

[Rei Murasame]

That was such a great post until the last sentence you decided to randomly throw in at the end, Igor. I can't even fathom why you would think that placing women in sporting competitions against men - which the women will lose at anyway - is 'worse' than the denial of the existence of geographical ancestral groups.

I think that you'd be a great poster on these issues if you could just resist that primal urge that men seem to have which makes them elevate gender above ethnicity all the time.

All that aside, the reason that I only put in a half-hearted effort on these debates is because I know that I am arguing against people who have a particular religious world view. There is nothing that can be said that will cause white liberal men to accept facts. They are immune to facts.

[Igor Antunov]

That was such a great post until the last sentence you decided to randomly throw in at the end, Igor. I can't even fathom why you would think that placing women in sporting competitions against men - which the women will lose at anyway - is 'worse' than the denial of the existence of geographical ancestral groups.

I knew you would like the post so I was thinking of you when I added the last line. I wanted to see if you can hold two opposing ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function.

I consider it worse because the gender divide is greater than the most glaring inter-ethnic divide I can think of. This is due to the male sex chromosome which might as well belong to another species.

[Rei Murasame]

How is it worse? You'd just end up with sporting events that don't work properly, and then they'd have to change it back to how it was. I think you're trying to be funny with me, which is unfortunate since I think you should have focussed on Poelmo.

[foxdemon]

I seem to remember reading about a bird that lives, roughly, in sub-Arctic regions around the world. The populations can each successfully breed with those that are close to them but, as you proceed around the world, you end up with so many genetic differences that the offspring of a mating ends up unviable - say between those in Norway and Canada.

Does this ring a bell with anyone else? I don't think I read it in a peer-reviewed paper, so it might have been a misunderstanding, by me or the author. Or complete bollocks.

Actually seagulls are an example of such clines. It is a mystery that baffles scientists who are trying to come up with a good definition of species. The living natural world is like that, to every rule we make an exception will inevitably show up. This is due to the living world being an increadable complex system.

[Potemkin]

Actually seagulls are an example of such clines. It is a mystery that baffles scientists who are trying to come up with a good definition of species. The living natural world is like that, to every rule we make an exception will inevitably show up. This is due to the living world being an increadable complex system.

The concept of a 'species' is a theoretical abstraction, and is more or less meaningless for things like bacteria, for example. Besides, the process of speciation is, by definition, a gradual process. At what point, precisely, does an isolated population become a new species? Which generation is it? We should therefore not be too surprised if nature disregards our theoretical abstractions and just does its own thing.

[JRS1]

There is nothing that can be said that will cause white liberal men to accept facts. They are immune to facts.

Let me guess, yellow men and all women are less immune to facts. Genetic factazoid.

And before you give me some BS about it being a liberal issue - being liberal has nothing to do with race or gender. So leave my race and gender out of it when you want to slag off liberals.

[Rei Murasame]

And before you give me some BS about it being a liberal issue - being liberal has nothing to do with race or gender.

You'd think so, until the horrible truth of where this stuff originated from, becomes apparent to you. I think that it's possible to argue that those who would be described or self-described as 'white males', usually upper-middle class, have had the most incentive to craft and propagate liberal ideology.

The ramifications of those ideas weigh less heavily on them than the rest of the population.

[Figlio di Moros]

Rei, the only anti-white feminist on the right...

Igor, I think some women could fill certain positions in sporting events, but co-ed leagues would generally be dominated by men. If we consider football (grid iron), teams are basically militariesque- women might be able to compete as kickers, but they'd lack the speed, strength, or tenacity for most positions. Even as QB's, their hand-eye coordination (not sure about how peripheral vision compares between genders) would be an asset, but only for short passes or a pitch- a deep pass would require putting more umph behind it, and I'm not sure if any mental asset would make up for speed or tenacity concerning scrambling, QB sneaks, or being sacked. It's precisely this reason soccer's a female sport.

I take a Spartanesque view on it- encouraging fit women is a positive for society, but they're not able to generally compete with men and, further, allowing them to subverts the sport for nonsense from "pro-women" (not necessarily feminist) types. "Oh, look, Danica Patrick competes w/ men- look how strong we are!" No, dumb ass, she's the best you have, one woman who's third-string in an elite league dominated by men.

[Rei Murasame]

Rei, the only anti-white feminist on the right...

Don't see it as 'anti-white', see it as constructive criticism. If someone is white and not a liberal, then I have no quarrel with them on that basis and will happily work with them, as you see me do all the time.

[Figlio di Moros]

And if someone's not white and a liberal. you, what? Are Asian-liberals off the hook because petite-bourgeoisie Brits invented liberalism in the first place?

[Rei Murasame]

My argument against them would just be constructed in a different way and with different criticisms. I would make the same overall criticisms, just they'd be surrounded by a different history and so the accusations about their methods would be slightly different.

The 'liberal' part does indeed take precedence, as you can see in this thread here, where I say that white liberals are 'raping' the Irish people 'coming and going': [Link]

And it's worth noting that at the time all that was going on, British liberals tried to excuse themselves by claiming that it was all fine because Irish people were not in the 'white' club. The centre-left in particular doesn't like to talk about these things now, but it is great to bring them out and take them off guard sometimes.

[Figlio di Moros]

The point, Rei, is that "white" liberal is completely meaningless in the way you mean to say it, as you're only discussing "liberals" and you aren't excusing others- thus making your statement inherently anti-white regardless by repetitiously conflating "white" and "liberal" as if they're either a separate class or synonymous. Au contraire non-white liberals are everybit as bad, if not worse, than white liberals precisely because they insist on their "victimhood" validating the libcap system they benefit from- i.r., Millie insisting that as a "bisexual" black woman, she's inherently victimized despite being a beneficiary of international liberal structures that not only benefit her as upper-class, but also socially privilege her as a "victim" to reinforce it's social structure. This, despite calling herself a socialist even. On an semirelated note, it seems like most self-described lefties today are simply intersectionalist social-democrats who are only concerned w/ supporting social liberalism while hijacking Marxian terminology to provide a ready-made defense against the obvious point that they're completely unconcerned with the actual issues of class, labor, and poverty.

[Rei Murasame]

Au contraire non-white liberals are everybit as bad, if not worse, than white liberals precisely because they insist on their "victimhood" validating the libcap system they benefit from- i.r., Millie insisting that as a "bisexual" black woman, she's inherently victimized despite being a beneficiary of international liberal structures that not only benefit her as upper-class, but also socially privilege her as a "victim" to reinforce it's social structure.

I agree with you on the problem of Millie. But you can see how that is a slightly different argument, right? After all, she would be a black liberal, and the argument that you've tailored for her (which is very similar to the one I'd use against her as well), is indeed different from any argument that would be used against a white liberal.

On an semirelated note, it seems like most self-described lefties today are simply intersectionalist social-democrats who are only concerned w/ supporting social liberalism while hijacking Marxian terminology to provide a ready-made defense against the obvious point that they're completely unconcerned with the actual issues of class, labor, and poverty.

Possibly, but I can never tell until they say so. So far, there hasn't been any leftist argumentation in this thread, so there's no way of knowing how they see all this.