"Just look at the skeptic community and their views on race and IQ. Denial, denial, denial, obfuscate, obfuscate, obfuscate! And when they finally lose the debate they say "Well let's say that it's true. What does it matter? How does it help?" Oh c'mon. What if the Christians had said "Sure we accept the logical argument that there's no god but how does it help?" And [their critics] would say "Well it doesn't matter what helps. It matters what's true." But now that it's race and IQ it's gotta be somehow mysteriously pragmatic and productive in a long way and in ways that I can't understand. It's ridiculous. It's embarrassing to see people that staunchly in denial about such an essential issue and bleating on about how "OK well maybe it's true but what does it matter". Who are you to say what the fuckin truth matters or not? You're not the arbiter of what's true and what's value."
"Just look at the skeptic community and their views on race and IQ. Denial, denial, denial, obfuscate, obfuscate...
Other urls found in this thread:
thealternativehypothesis.org
twitter.com
I'm not in the mood for this today
Shut up Yankee.
What I can't figure out is why Molymeme hasn't been arrested by the RCMP. He has crossed the line so many times.
It's okay snek.
Clearly we need new data. Also better research into what exactly effects I as most of it is affected by environment more then genetics.
t. Shitskin
We have 100 years of data you tard.
>Old data is better then new data
t. Cuck scared of being proven wrong
What policy should be put in place if we consider that there is an average difference in IQ between different races?
Wow you're dumber than I thought. Rushton worked all the way up to 2011. 100 years of data means from 1917 to 2017. You are truly stupid, and probably do poorly on IQ tests.
Allow voluntary association, ie. cease programs which force majority-white communities to "accept" non-whites and let whites keep their neighborhoods white if they so choose instead of forcing whites to move en masse just to avoid low IQ and criminal populations.
Cease affirmative action, or at least reform it such that you're not throwing money at a problem that money isn't solving.
Also, race realism also destroys the white privilege narrative so that's nice.
>Lets use old dated data.
>T-that will prove them negros wrong!
Cuck
You don't think affirmative action has brought the african american's IQ up on average, by a lot, the last 100 years?
You think the proper solution is to create a bigger IQ disparity?
>You don't think affirmative action has brought the african american's IQ up on average, by a lot, the last 100 years?
No. I see no evidence of that, except a narrowing of around 2 points that could just as easily be attributed to increased white admixture in the US black population.
thealternativehypothesis.org
You think that because there is a gap that that means that the average black person today isn't smarter than the average black person 100 years ago? Your statistics have nothing to do with what I said.
If there is a gap between white and black people, but both white and black people are smarter than they were 100 years ago (true, according to your source), then black people are necessarily smarter than they were 100 years ago. Seems preferable to me to have on average smarter and smarter black people / minorities than stupid ones. Even if they don't live in our neighbourhood they are going to exist somewhere and having low IQ savages running around anywhere in the world is a big problem.
You need your head checked. Charts dont magicaly change from a set stance for hundreds of years, you the exact opposite of the original data without something catastrophic happening. Lets here some of this "new data"
>OK well maybe it's true but what does it matter
I'd like to defend the skeptics who ask this question. I do think race realism is true, and I am also unsure if it matters. The reason this question is more relevant here than in the case of Christians vs atheists is that usually race realism is invoked in the context of a political discussion, and politics (unlike religion) is all about policy. So the question can be re-phrased "What (if any) policy changes should we make in light of these discoveries on racial differences, and what is the argument for these policy changes?" I think this is a very good question that is not asked often enough by the Alt-right. They spend so much time arguing for racial differences (indeed, there is a lot of evidence for it and it is very taboo, so this makes sense) but then just assume that, once these differences are revealed, everyone will just say "oh yeah, we should purge our society of all the impure races, build a wall, dismantle the welfare state, end feminism, etc." This conclusion simply doesn't follow, at least not as far as the alt-right has shown thus far.
>You think that because there is a gap that that means that the average black person today isn't smarter than the average black person 100 years ago?
Read the article. IQ is a proxy for g. The flynn effect is comprised of IQ subtests that are NOT g-loaded so there isn't much evidence that general intelligence among blacks has risen. Also check out the article specifically on the flynn effect for more information.
>Your statistics have nothing to do with what I said.
What you said wasn't clear.
its not a mystery that the skeptic community is worthless
what should policy be? legitimate question. but most of the time it's not asked in good faith. it's just a moralizing smear used in the middle of a debate on racial differences that they've just lost.
although I think the "oh my what shall we do with this information?" reaction is a bit of a joke. I just listed 2 obvious as fuck ones that are only viewed negatively by the SJW's whose opinions we won't change in the first place.
Skeptic community is just another Marxist front.
the septic community are the alt light.
there baby's first redpills nothing more and nothing less.