Sup Forums BTFO

How does this make you feel?
youtube.com/watch?v=LY2siKclhh0

Other urls found in this thread:

hooktube.com/watch?v=LY2siKclhh0
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Deniker
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Can you condense it for us? I don't want to watch 30 minutes.

didn't watch it. let me guess, it's that new scientism thing where white people aren't real. latest propaganda from the establishment indoctrination centers we call "schools"

some convoluted genetics aregument that constantly refers to argument from authority in its semantics and then concludes with the notion that "race doesn't exist" even though we can clearly and obviously define races using common sense and our fucking eyeballs.

black people: wide nostrils, dark skin, african ancestors
white people: narrow nostrils, pale skin, ancestors from the caucus regions apparantly

it's that easy

but some twisted cult of scientism logic says otherwise and i'm not impressed

Race isn't scientific, because we already have other scientific words to describe the same thing.

>youtube scientist vs youtube philosophers.

>SmegmaTubez
kek

Holy shit already bored of reading quotes. Surely there is no way these aren't quotemines.

>We should only listen to ideas that come from """acceptable""" sources

>Races don't exist!

>ecelebs
>Kekistani flag
>Sup Forums btfo
>How does this make you feel?
>1PBTID
Its like every terrible bait thread rolled into one

>All this green and not a single argument

Sage all e-celeb youtube septic scientist threads, find out the truth by reading books, journals and publications not listening to some confirmation bias circlejerks.

Interesting. Sam Harris had a great conversation with Charles Murray (the Bell Curve guy) and explained that while race is a valid scientific concept, it's much "blurrier" than our common social understanding of it. He hen went on to list a handful of examples of how some populations differ physically and genetically.

>I'm going to read off a bunch of quotes from people instead of directly refuting both the point and facts

oh boy...

I dare say the argument is:

"This is a terrible bait thread" and the evidence in greentext.

Do you just not read posts before replying anymore?

lol get fucked

right so... "no" is the answer to the actual question posed.

>5 hour livestream with some faggoty french nigger
>gotta suck this race realism dick
>30 minute refutation
>im not gonna watch a 30 minute video condense it for me
perfect example of Sup Forums confirmation bias

Well, this guys position is like, you can't just say the "white race" scientifically because the group isn't defined.... You have to specify the particulars of the genetics that you're talking about.... something like that.

It's been a few days since i watched it, but his other point is that the idea that "races are real" according to whoever he is rebutting is equivalent to the idea of "heredity"... except that race has ideological and emotional baggage, so it's not quite right from a scientific perspective.

You have to specify specific genes

Spencer is a homosexual and he has man tits. his haircut is his mask.

It's the same fallacies we've all heard before. Not watching it and still guessing what they are is more entertaining than actually sitting through it after you've seen the same shitty non-arguments for years.

>You have to specify specific genes

I think he makes good points. It's kind of hard to find the words for exactly why he's wrong... And that fact makes it worth listening to.

It's an opportunity for us to clarify our message.

So synonyms aren't real because we have other more scientific words? What kind of dipshit argument is that

There isn't a single way to draw the map, though.

obviously i can't do the argument justice in a single sentence. Watch the video if you want clarification.

>You have to specify specific genes
So it's the same retarded argument Kraut was pushing.
Finding exact genes aren't the only or the most important scientific method.

Yes there is. Do you really think there's no genetic difference between these geographically separated people?

>arguing against the basic bitch summary some idiot on an imageboard puked out instead of watching the video
so this is the power of the Sup Forums intellect

Theres is a lot of differences actually. What's a fallacy is dividing race into just 3 categories arbitrarily. With all the differences and variations between groups why not divide races into 5, or 10, or 70? Even race realists admit that races can be divided in more than just 3 clusters.

I'm only 6 minutes in and can confirm this guy is retarded.

Blatant appeals to authority galore. And the guy doesn't seem to understand that random genetic mutations occur and persist dependent on environment, which creates sub-classification, other words known as subspecies or races.

His argument is basically: because orange exists, red and yellow mean nothing. When in fact, all colors are social constructs, but are still real observable colors that can be defined.

If you want an objective definition of race, look at genetic clusters and define races as the collective genetic identities that arise.

Didn't watch, disliked. Go shill your trash on Reddit.

Great, we have fresh Youtube Academics™

The guy who made the video is just some idiot too.
You could do that but that doesn't exactly refute race realism.

Stop fucking bumping and giving these fuckers views. Race is rel, deal with it rest of the world.

except the guy who made the video has a 30 minute argument not some fucking single sentence summary of something he doesnt even fully grasp

I don't know what kraut argued, but I already said you should watch the video if you want the full argument.

>Do you really think there's no genetic difference between these geographically separated people?

There is a difference, but there's a question of how you categorize the differences. He does not deny the existence of genetic drift.

Well by that logic, everything is a social construct. Terminology, terms, language, ideas, concepts. Anything that isn't defined by God and you have no evidence of God defining something specifically, is a social construct.

This is a very stupid argument to argue desu senpai

If you want to get hyper specific and parse semantics then many things considered science aren't actually science because it is impossible to apply the scientific method directly.

I'll wait for JF to destroy him, honestly.

It doesn't, but it does deny edgy race supremacists the use of race realism to move forward their segregation agenda.

>Thank god at last an acceptable source

>giving dishonest pieces of human garbage views
Let's hooktube that.

hooktube.com/watch?v=LY2siKclhh0

how?

>Well by that logic, everything is a social construct
This is true, almost everything is a social construct. That doesn't make it meaningless or useless.

This is caused by the dubitable nature of reality. The only things that are not constructs are the thinking thing and mathematics.

Too bad for him.
If it's a question of semantics why did you post this on here? It should be obvious that most peoples definition of white is kinda arbitrary.
It doesn't. White nationalists have no interest in dividing whites into further sub-categories. They've made up their mind on the definition.

>we have other words that describe the same phenomenon
oh wow riveting

>channel name: One Species
lol.

I'd say this is the key point of the argument in the video:

>If JF wants to affirm biological racial divisions as a valid biological taxonomic tool, he will have to provide rigorous scientific proof. In the abscence of that proof, he can advocate race-realism as a purely ideological and political position, but not as a scientific one.

But that posits a bit of a false division between "scientific" and "non-scientific." Actually, no such firm division exists. Things can be defined "scientifically" in many different ways. That's part of why these debates exist in the first place; there are active disputes over how to define things, what genomic tools should be used to define things, how the findings should be interpreted, etc.

That's not actually terribly relevant to the existence of "race" as a fact of biology. "Race" will be constructed a lot more precisely in the future as more and more GWAS (genome-wide association surveys) are completed. And yet, we've known long before genetic science that there were biological differences between "strains" of man - skull/skeletal shape, etc.

Observations of differences in group behavior have been made for many hundreds of years. Those observations were not "scientific," but they end up comporting with certain things observed in modern times using scientific methodologies, like psychometrics/IQ. The lack of such scientific measurements in earlier times did not mean that the differences were undefinable; it just meant they were defined via deduction and group consensus. And that's all you'd need to create and determine the boundaries of a theoretical "ethnostate."

The argument against race realism is always against a strawman.

Race realism is this:
>there exist races, these races have lived seperately for long enough such that when studying the DNA we find that individuals from different regions, clusters to their regions. This means that correlation within these clusters of any selected phenotypical property are high. So skin color has high correlation between individual within a genetic cluster (i.e. race).

Here is the strawman:
>Ummm colors are races haha that's not a good way to categorize people xD

>This is caused by the dubitable nature of reality. The only things that are not constructs are the thinking thing and mathematics.

No. By the "social construct" shtick even mathematics are social constructs. Pythagorean theorem? That's a social construct too. IF one argues that something IS social construct, then everything that has been defined by people -it's definition is agreed upon by a group of people- is by the very definition a social construct. That's why it's a garbage argument.

For example if not every single one of us can conclude INDIVIDUALLY and without no input whatsoever, that the Pythagorean Theorem is correct, then it is a social construct.

>They've made up their mind on the definition.

Bullshit they have. They still cant decide if white is genetic or a state of mind. If you ask Jared Taylor if Jews are white he might tell you something different if you ask David Duke. They haven't made their mind on shit because white as a concept differs very greatly from europe than from the west.

>If it's a question of semantics why did you post this on here?
I didn't post it. But it's important because it may be the case that we will not face resistance if we frame the argument from a semantic position that the other side understands.

Semantics are important when you're trying to spread a message to new people. If you say it in a way that is easily misunderstood, you won't find much success.

thinking and mathematics are little more than heavily implied

Exactly. It's a garbage argument and it can be debunked easily by calling the opposition to define WHERE social constructs begin, where they end, and who has the authority to define them.

If race isn't real why was Rhodesia a successful colony under European rule and Zimbabwe a laughable failure under African rule?
Africans were not born to lead. They were born to eat mud cookies.

>t. Redneck that works in a McDonalds under a black manager.

>projecting
Wow, that's so mature

You know that's funny I was just reading about Harvard's task force for diversity and some folks are up in arms about race and ethnicity not being specifically mentioned in the name of a new center that uses the terms identity, culture and politics. The argument from these fine diverse scholars is that race and culture are VERY IMPORTANT to identity.
Maybe someone needs to start a campaign to disband these "diversity" committees since race doesn't exist; see how quickly they yelp about how you're erasing their culcha!

Just let him vent. Africans are more emotional and aggressive. I would be mad as hell too if my lineage was not only people who never built anything, but people who actively destroyed things that were built and given to them.

Which is not at all something you need to even think about since you can just throw genetic information into the fucking blender and set it to cluster analysis. And voila, you get the same exact categorization we use colloquially.

enough of the debates.

you cannot say these two specimens are the same species.

The reason they don't want Jews in their country is based on something else entirely. It's an exception they make for some reason.
Their enemies do understand what white means as far as I know.

>So synonyms aren't real because we have other more scientific words? What kind of dipshit argument is that
a talmudic one, that leftists use all the time

does he ever address that we have different shares of heritage from other human species such as Neanderthals and Denisovians? Blacks have no DNA from these people, while everyone else does

>even mathematics are social constructs
No, mathematics is logically sound and perfect, even without observation and consensus. 1+1 will always equal 2. Sqrt(A^2 + B^2) will always equal C. The only other thing that can be perfect and without uncertainty is that one is a thinking thing. Everything else can be doubted as they can only be observed in imperfect form.

I'm not saying races do not exist, I'm simply saying that "it's a social construct" is never a good reason to declare something meaningless or fallacious.

>human skull is different
>not different race

...

this is homo erectus, reconstructed from skeleton found.

look familiar?

>exception

It's that what you call everything you cant find an explanation to? There are no clear definitions on whites. Even you admit it was arbitrarily in your other post.

Yeah, you actually have to argue your position here.

Where do this brainlets get their confidence from?

>I'm not saying races do not exist, I'm simply saying that "it's a social construct" is never a good reason to declare something meaningless or fallacious.

We agree. But what i am stating is this: everything that can be defined, is a social construct as well, because the act of defining is socially constructed. Everything you use to even communicate an idea is socially constructed, therefore EVERYTHING BAR NOTHING OTHER THAN GOD HIMSELF DECLARES AS TRUE, is a social construct. Maths not excluded

I am merely extrapolating their logic just to prove their stupidity.

The reason they don't want Jews in their country is not based on their definition of white. Just ask around on Sup Forums why everybody hates Jews.

dunning-kruger effect.

Native australian on the left

>Sup Forums is one person

Now you're just newfagging

You mean like BLM niggers throwing white students off campus?

I didn't imply that you retard.

>Channel name: one species

>Sup Forums are just a few people

Better?

Filter him and don't reply.
You could have a more educated discussion with a brick wall.

Everybody hates Jews.

white people are europids.

there are sub-species within the europid group

Mediterranid
Pontid
Dinaric
Alpine
Nordish

ashkenazi jews have been found to have strong Armenid ancestry, so yes they are khazers

So much for the free market of ideas. Guess your IQ is not adapted for the west mutt.

Absolutely. It's the frame problem, you can view the same thing from an infinite amount of perspectives. Which one you choose to run with is ultimately arbitrary, and this goes for fucking everything. It's a completely empty criticism, and again applies to fucking everything. The relevant point would be asking whether the classification is based on something real and significant, and with race it is clear. Race is real. Genetic analysis sorts people into distinct categories with an extreme degree of accuracy. The near perfect correspondence with all current and previous categorizations of man proves its significance.

So race is both valid, and relevant. You'd have to be a complete idiot to go down this road in combating "racism" or whatever else the agenda is.

>everything that can be defined, is a social construct as well, because the act of defining is socially constructed. Everything you use to even communicate an idea is socially constructed
Correct, but we do not communicate or define math. We communicate and define our ideas, based on our understanding of math. Math is an indubitable universal constant, just as god and the observer.

We have digressed from the main point.

No true scotsman

Ready to admit you suck at this?

lmao

yes the good old loki's gamble

>1+1 will always equal 2
No, that's a matter of definition. It's dependent on your definition of 1, of 2, and of the mathematical operation of addition. All "social constructs". 1+1 is only 2 because it is defined as such, another "social construct".

Makes me feel like AH is gonna destroy this faggot .

Take that as a yes. Thanks for playing: )

>we're reaching the levels of cringe that shouldn't even be possible

There are 3 universal truths that these strawmen always forget.

#1: Every race is different.
#2: Race mixing is unhealthy on a genetic level.
#3: Statistically speaking, the majority of people hate jews.

>That's not actually terribly relevant to the existence of "race" as a fact of biology. "Race" will be constructed a lot more precisely in the future as more and more GWAS (genome-wide association surveys) are completed. And yet, we've known long before genetic science that there were biological differences between "strains" of man - skull/skeletal shape, etc.

I pretty much agree with you that there objectively is a definition of race that will be supported by biology and that basically everyone will agree with-- as a biological category.
On the other hand, Richard Spencer himself says that "whiteness" is partially cultural/historical/ideological.... So I think the video makes a good point that race realists are not categorizing exactly along biological lines, but along tribal lines, to some degree.

I think both sides are correct in a way...So there's going to be an inherent confusion when people hear you talking about race.... And i think we might benefit from changing the language we use to advocate for race realism.

That's a nice argument Boris. Real mature

map btfo

by

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Deniker

french zoologist that did extensive study on genetic ancestry of europeans.

he excluded the Armenoid race from being european. as they were too dis-simaliar and unrelated in both ancestry and genetics to people of continental etc.

It's not that complicated. The spook is a white nationalist. He wants a white nation. Race is one part of that.

You're the one embarrassing everyone here, not me buddy.

Symbolic procedures are social constructs, but mathematical truths, which we formulate these procedures, are not. Math transcends the physical realm and does not need social interaction, or even singular observation, to make it exist. It isn't a social construct, it is an imaginary construct that we base our constructs on.

Agreed. When a faggot here in Greece tried to argue the social construct angle, i asked him to define social constructs. I would proceed to ask him what is not a social construct and who gets to define what is social construct and what isn't, but his brain was fried in the first question so i just mocked the poor faggot for 10 minutes while he was making an ass of himself.

>Correct, but we do not communicate or define math.

False. When i am writing down 2+2=4 and you are able to read it, i have communicated this equation.
>We communicate and define our ideas, based on our understanding of math.

False. You cannot express the concept of "love" on maths.

This is why the "social construct" angle is so stupid, because it invalidates EVERYTHING, even maths.