Does the Alt-Right event exist? Or just Clinton fiction?

[Endus]

No you mean the only way to experimentally do this - for the strongest causal effects. You can take a correlation and factor out confounds and find how much race would predict criminality.

It's literally impossible to do this, since race is cultural, in practice. If you want to remove that cultural influence, you need a population that hasn't ever been affected by any external cultural influences in any way while growing up.

People aren't mixing, in fact OKC data shows people are a bit less likely in recent years to 'outdate'. Asia is still fairly homogeneous, so is Africa. You're really just talking about a weeding out of white people (why would white people outdate?), which... is weird.

I have literally never heard the term "outdate". And no, I'm not talking about "weeding out white people", get the hell out of here with that.

[Kraenen]

It's literally impossible to do this, since race is cultural, in practice. If you want to remove that cultural influence, you need a population that hasn't ever been affected by any external cultural influences in any way while growing up.

No, you simply get black kids raised in white families or in upper class neighbourhoods. They didn't suddenly become white, unless you're one of those types of people?

I have literally never heard the term "outdate". And no, I'm not talking about "weeding out white people", get the hell out of here with that.

There's no evidence white people are dying off of that they want to mix. Why would you believe in such a thing unless you thought white people were just inferior mating partners? (I made up outdate, I think exogamy or something is more apt).

[dd614]

Hillary has Pepe on the brain.

- - - Updated - - -

It's literally impossible to do this, since race is cultural, in practice. If you want to remove that cultural influence, you need a population that hasn't ever been affected by any external cultural influences in any way while growing up.



I have literally never heard the term "outdate". And no, I'm not talking about "weeding out white people", get the hell out of here with that.

Culture comes from race and ethnicity, not the other way around.

[May90]

I think this was mentioned earlier - does it make sense to talk about "alt right" or "left-wing"? Sure. You just have to go from black and white definitions to a spectrum/distribution of characteristics.

I suppose that's fair. The problem is, while with "right/left wing" (as much I personally detest this separation) you can point out some general trends that are true for each, in case of races the variations are too big to be able to say anything explicit. There are even white-skinned people among "Negroid" race, for example.

- - - Updated - - -

Culture comes from race and ethnicity, not the other way around.

Uh, no... Not even close.

[Kraenen]

Right, ok. Now factor them out scientifically. You can't just say "they don't count". Show me a group of people socially treated like African Americans for as long as them that aren't black and see what conclusions can be drawn.

Well you wouldn't need AAs would you? If you can objectively prove oppression against AAs, you should be able to measure and operationalize it. Therefore you can factor it out of your analysis.

[Noxx79]

No you mean the only way to experimentally do this - for the strongest causal effects. You can take a correlation and factor out confounds and find how much race would predict criminality.



People aren't mixing, in fact OKC data shows people are a bit less likely in recent years to 'outdate'. Asia is still fairly homogeneous, so is Africa. You're really just talking about a weeding out of white people (why would white people outdate?), which... is weird.

If we all mixed, we would still have different genes, and different groups would start to appear based on selection (mating and natural) given some time (which is shorter than you think).

- - - Updated - - -



I think this was mentioned earlier - does it make sense to talk about "alt right" or "left-wing"? Sure. You just have to go from black and white definitions to a spectrum/distribution of characteristics.

- - - Updated - - -



Are you not familiar with statistical factoring? We're not talking causality which you keep going on about, since that's obviously impossible. We're talking predictiveness.

Statistics without context are meaningless. They can be used to misidentify a source of a problem, can oversimplify a situation, and tell you nothing about how and why this situation occurs, leading one to make incorrect conclusions.

The same "predictive statistics" do not factor in or out variables, they're just numbers.

- - - Updated - - -

Well you wouldn't need AAs would you? If you can objectively prove oppression against AAs, you should be able to measure and operationalize it. Therefore you can factor it out of your analysis.

How? You just did what I was talking about. You just removed it with no applicable reason or method to remove it.

[Endus]

No, you simply get black kids raised in white families or in upper class neighbourhoods. They didn't suddenly become white, unless you're one of those types of people?

That doesn't work, because again, society still exists, and you haven't guaranteed that those families are necessarily treating those kids the same.

Culture comes from race and ethnicity, not the other way around.

This is wildly incorrect.

[Kraenen]

I suppose that's fair. The problem is, while with "right/left wing" (as much I personally detest this separation) you can point out some general trends that are true for each, in case of races the variations are too big to be able to say anything explicit. There are even white-skinned people among "Negroid" race, for example.

Although these albino people are considered a genetic defect and often shunned.

Uh, no... Not even close.

I'd be interested in some kind of genetic/cultural theory. Culture is all sorts of things including morays, preferences, proclivities, sensibilities. But where does this come from? There's a certain amt of social conditioning, but what if our sensibilities and preferences are predisposed? If sexuality is something you're born with, and if we adapted to prefer certain foods like sugary and fatty ones, wouldn't culture in a broader way represent the preferences in us which were already there?

- - - Updated - - -

That doesn't work, because again, society still exists, and you haven't guaranteed that those families are necessarily treating those kids the same.

No guarantees is step one of correlational studies. We have to admit this and move on. Second, you can look at different parenting styles and given you already said there are cultural differences we can obviously connect a black upper class and white upper class family who have lived in that culture for a generation or two.

- - - Updated - - -

Statistics without context are meaningless. They can be used to misidentify a source of a problem, can oversimplify a situation, and tell you nothing about how and why this situation occurs, leading one to make incorrect conclusions.

The same "predictive statistics" do not factor in or out variables, they're just numbers.
How? You just did what I was talking about. You just removed it with no applicable reason or method to remove it.

No, they do just that. They take several variables and isolate the predictiveness of one of them by factoring others out. (I might be conflating analysis with correlations but you should get my main point).

Researchers do the research and look at variables which contribute and confound. I simply saw african americans as having a different political history, so we can avoid that by looking solely at africans.

I mean you can isolate any number of things. I think recently they found a group of a hundred or so genes which predict IQ - this would obviate our need to file through 'how african is a person'? and go straight to certain genetics, then look at the distribution of such a gene in a population.

[Noxx79]

Although these albino people are considered a genetic defect and often shunned.


I'd be interested in some kind of genetic/cultural theory. Culture is all sorts of things including morays, preferences, proclivities, sensibilities. But where does this come from? There's a certain amt of social conditioning, but what if our sensibilities and preferences are predisposed? If sexuality is something you're born with, and if we adapted to prefer certain foods like sugary and fatty ones, wouldn't culture in a broader way represent the preferences in us which were already there?

- - - Updated - - -



No guarantees is step one of correlational studies. We have to admit this and move on. Second, you can look at different parenting styles and given you already said there are cultural differences we can obviously connect a black upper class and white upper class family who have lived in that culture for a generation or two.

- - - Updated - - -



No, they do just that. They take several variables and isolate the predictiveness of one of them by factoring others out. (I might be conflating analysis with correlations but you should get my main point).

Researchers do the research and look at variables which contribute and confound. I simply saw african americans as having a different political history, so we can avoid that by looking solely at africans.

I mean you can isolate any number of things. I think recently they found a group of a hundred or so genes which predict IQ - this would obviate our need to file through 'how african is a person'? and go straight to certain genetics, then look at the distribution of such a gene in a population.

Again, you have to have cause and ability to factor then out.

Tell me the slavery equation to change the predictiveness of criminal activity.
Tell me the formula you use to remove subconscious racism from job opportunity percentages in a western democracy.

Tell me why you're factoring them out as a variable and not a cause.

It's easy to say "oh just factor all that out". But much much much more difficult to do so, if not impossible, to do so in practice.

[Kraenen]

Again, you have to have cause and ability to factor then out.

Tell me the slavery equation to change the predictiveness of criminal activity.
Tell me the formula you use to remove subconscious racism from job opportunity percentages in a western democracy.

Tell me why you're factoring them out as a variable and not a cause.

It's easy to say "oh just factor all that out". But much much much more difficult to do so, if not impossible, to do so in practice.

No, you don't. Not for predictive stats. For a true experiment it would be impossible.

Prove to me in an objective, measurable sense the damage done by slavery and racism in job opportunities. That's our variable we factor out. If there is none, you have less of an argument for the damage done by slavery unfortunately.

[Noxx79]

No, you don't. Not for predictive stats. For a true experiment it would be impossible.

Prove to me in an objective, measurable sense the damage done by slavery and racism in job opportunities. That's our variable we factor out. If there is none, you have less of an argument for the damage done by slavery unfortunately.

Ok. Slavery existed. To assume or even consider that there was no effect is extremely unscientific. You're ignoring a major societal disadvantage just because you say so.

[Kraenen]

Ok. Slavery existed. To assume or even consider that there was no effect is extremely unscientific. You're ignoring a major societal disadvantage just because you say so.

What? Where?? Seriously, where did I say there is no effect of slavery?

[Noxx79]

What? Where?? Seriously, where did I say there is no effect of slavery?

:rollseyes: Really?

Again. Youre saying that if you can't prove some magical formula that slavery had a negative consequence, that consequence doesn't exist. You literally just said that in the post before mine.

I'm saying slavery existed. Provide me a valid reason why you can discount it as a variable. Prove to me in an objective, measurable sense that you can discount slavery as variable.
We're clearly both in agreement it had an effect. Prove why you can discount it.

[Deleted]

It essentially explains that race doesn't make sense from the biological standpoint, and it is merely a social construct.

Yes, we socially construct black people to have a greater propensity for sickle cell anemia.
Powerful stuff those constructs.

[Kraenen]

Again. Youre saying that if you can't prove some magical formula that slavery had a negative consequence, that consequence doesn't exist. You literally just said that in the post before mine.

I'm saying slavery existed. Provide me a valid reason why you can discount it as a variable. Prove to me in an objective, measurable sense that you can discount slavery as variable.
We're clearly both in agreement it had an effect. Prove why you can discount it.

You really need to read my posts again.

I'm saying slavery existed and you can factor its effects by objective facts and numbers. You are trying to discount this, if anything, and insert some magical formula. If you keep misconstruing me I'm going to ignore you.

[Deleted]

It's absolutely unethical, not to mention explicitly racist, because there is literally zero evidence to back that claim. To begin to make that argument, it's necessary to do two things;

Let us for argument sake say we have incontrovertible evidence here, Is it still unethical?

1> First, you must scientifically exclude (meaning can demonstrate a non-relationship through clear data analysis) any other obvious factors as non-contributing to the issue in question, because otherwise, all you're doing is noting a correlation, not a causative relationship. It's as "valid" as claiming that the prevalence of piracy dictates global temperatures. There's a correlation there, but not for any causative reason.

yeah, the data has been run to exclude factors like socio economics dude - Oh an just to be clear, I do not propose that it must be genetic, i merely vehemently insist it could be.
And we don't know anything as to why but, we Know black people test worse.

2> Second, and this is critical, you need to be able to determine a means by which your proposed correlation can be causative. In this case, some actual genetic inferiority in that group.

No, that's nice and helpful, but, once a statistical model has been achieved, relevant factors accounted for, this is superfluous.
We don't need the exact DNA sequence responsible for sickle cell anemia to prove it - Very helpful yes, but not required.

And neither has even remotely ever been demonstrated or claimed by anyone who was not pushing a propaganda piece on behalf of some racial supremacist or another. Because there is no evidence that meets either standard, let alone both. Meanwhile, we do have plenty of such evidence for other factors, like socioeconomic status and the like.

Which why those have been accounted for.

That's not relevant. If "blacks" had the athletic supremacy you're claiming, they'd still rise to the top of any nation's athletics programs where those nations had any appreciable black population.

Yes, its relevant, because there are no appreciable African populations in the vast majority of countries upon this earth.

That's clearly not true, because your base premise is malarkey.

Allan Wipper Wells MBE (born 3 May 1952) is a former British track and field sprinter who became the 100 metres Olympic champion at the 1980 Summer Olympics in Moscow.
The last white guy to win an olympic gold medal in 100 meter track - (as far as i know, no Asian or Hispanic has ever won one).
The apex of performance, and a black guy has won the last 9 times -

In certain very specific niche competitions, some characteristics give just the very slightest of edges, which can make the difference at that peak performance level, in that one specific niche. The same kind of way that darker skin with more melanin is more resistant to the ravages of the sun. Nobody's disputed those things, it's the generic claims of supremacy in some respect or another that are utter malarkey. "Blacks" aren't "more athletic". Whites and asians aren't "smarter". That's garbage that's dredged up straight out of 19th Century racist propaganda, not anything remotely scientific.

Ever had a drink with an Asian?
Ever offered an African a glass of milk?

- - - Updated - - -

Simple example demonstrating that races do not exist.

A member of "Negroid" race and a member of "Caucasoid" race have sex and produce a child.
The child has inherited characteristic from both "Negroid" and "Caucasoid" race.

yeah - And if that child is ever in need of a transplant, of say, bone-marrow - That child is just going to be screwed.
But races do not exist, fuck medical science.

[Endus]

Let us for argument sake say we have incontrovertible evidence here, Is it still unethical?

I really see no reason to entertain your circular argument.

yeah, the data has been run to exclude factors like socio economics dude - Oh an just to be clear, I do not propose that it must be genetic, i merely vehemently insist it could be.

Largely, when they find ways to quantity sociocultural phenomena, these "racial" distinctions in the data vanish.

Ever had a drink with an Asian?
Ever offered an African a glass of milk?

I have no idea what the hell you're getting at with either of these, but the answer would be "yes" to both. It's particularly silly since if you're getting at lactose intolerance, with the latter, not only is there no real genetic reason, but I'm probably what you'd call "white", and I was lactose intolerant for years.

[Kraenen]

That article basically said AAs have more chance of being lactose intolerant and that they should just push right through it with more milk every meal.

(East) Asian alcohol consumption -> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_flush_reaction

Alcohol flush reaction is best known as a condition that is experienced by people of East Asian descent. According to the analysis by HapMap project, the rs671 allele of the ALDH2 responsible for the flush reaction is rare among Europeans and Africans. 30% to 50% of people of Chinese and Japanese ancestry have at least one ALDH2 allele.[10] The rs671 form of ALDH2, which accounts for most incidents of alcohol flush reaction worldwide, is native to East Asia and most common in southeastern China. It most likely originated among Han Chinese in central China,[11] and it appears to have been positively selected in the past. Another analysis correlates the rise and spread of rice cultivation in Southern China with the spread of the allele.[2] The reasons for this positive selection aren't known, but it's been hypothesized that elevated concentrations of acetaldehyde may have conferred protection against certain parasitic infections, such as Entamoeba histolytica.

You're literally anti-science Endus!

[May90]

Although these albino people are considered a genetic defect and often shunned.


I'd be interested in some kind of genetic/cultural theory. Culture is all sorts of things including morays, preferences, proclivities, sensibilities. But where does this come from? There's a certain amt of social conditioning, but what if our sensibilities and preferences are predisposed? If sexuality is something you're born with, and if we adapted to prefer certain foods like sugary and fatty ones, wouldn't culture in a broader way represent the preferences in us which were already there?

Well, yes, they are shunned because of prejudices. There is nothing wrong with them, but due to separation into races with expected characteristic, they become a very oppressed minority group (and I mean VERY oppressed; in some African states they are actually hunted down and killed by simple folks due to silly superstitions). It is a good example of why putting race into equation is a very dangerous and malicious act.

yeah - And if that child is ever in need of a transplant, of say, bone-marrow - That child is just going to be screwed.
But races do not exist, fuck medical science.

Screwed how? And if you think that any transplant from the same race, or no transplant from other race, would work, then you know little about medical science, really.

[Heladys]

There are plenty enough of them posting here, how could you not notice?