Here's the most basic question for liberals: if all races come from different backgrounds and built wildly differing societies, how can they be equal? In addition, if this promotes ""diversity"", then does that not imply difference, and difference inherently means one is objectively better than the other. Why is it so hard for you to believe some races are smarter and have better qualities than others?
this is the most basic tenant of race realism (not racism)
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
sci-news.com
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
It's pretty simple. No science demonstrates your claims. Try again, brainlet.
...
>more non-scientific image spam
Anything else?
I am a socialist, is this question not directed at me?
...
>and difference inherently means one is objectively better than the other
>if
why is it so hard to escape race baiters and stormfags?? you already have /pol, /int & /r9k, how many more boards are you going to force out of us?
If we live in a capitalist society where your worth is decided by the rarity of the services you can provide then it does.
>another amerifat who doesn't know what liberlism is
>in capitalist America being a tall nigger who can throw a ball is considered a marketable skill so 70 IQ niggers in the NFL are superior to white people because muh (((free market))) decided
You said so, not me.
Kek
Well, yes, are you denying that congoïds and capoïds are better at sports than other human ethnic groups? That does show some superiority in the matter doesn't it?
I'm not a liberal. But...
>if all races come from different backgrounds and built wildly differing societies, how can they be equal?
Because all individuals have the ability to be happy and sad, to feel pleasure and to suffer, irrespectively of their other personal or racial abilities and achievements.
All can feel, equally.
And thus Albert Einstein's happiness had the same subjective value as that of some impoverished black farmhand from Mississippi.
So if society is to support people's pursuit of happiness it follows that it should ensure equality in that regard.
Obviously equal never meant identical or interchangeable.
>LaDaveon Drankalicious J'Clorox Muhammad III the Baltimore Ravens linebacker and 3-time convicted felon earns $8,000,000 per year + bonuses + endorsements
>John Smith the renowned cardiologist earns only 600,000 per year
>the doctor is objectively inferior to the nigger because muh capitalism
This is your brain on America.
"race realism" is a word invented for the sake of people who don't want to call themselfs "racist" because that's taboo.
other than that you could say that there are more variables than IQ and testosterone when it comes to civilization making but what do I know lmao
Yes and no. Racism implies prejudices that aren't based in reality, racial realism implies facts. Is saying that blacks commit significantly more crime than white people regardless of economic background racist?
No, I'm saying that before "racist" started to be a taboo word there wasn't even this question of seperating the observations and/or stereotypes from legislation.
Let's be clear here, our society doesn't like to face up to these issues, but reactionaries also are never these humble scientific types who just "state the facts".
I don't think a real humble debate could ever come about with this subject, it can only be shit throwing.
Prejudices based on reality are still racist.
Refusing to hire a black person because of the fact that black people commit more crime, for example, is an act of racism.
these people you guys are talking about are not the average no matter what race
>Why is it so hard for you to believe some races are smarter and have better qualities than others?
why do you believe that?
just look at germanics, they didnt any civ before the romans
slavs didnt have a written language until ERE gave them one
Which is completely irrelevant to the argument.
Because the races are divergent enough to basically be considered different sub species if you believe anything else you're pretty much a creationist.
Studs is so comfy
Slavs used Latin script before they used Glagolitic, Cyril and Methodius are kind of a meme.
and thank god they did it too.
Look at the british and french nigros with thier shitty "conventions" vs Russian with its almost completely pure, long and phoneticly true words.
Not saying John Smith doesn't have an edge somewhere else, just that around the globe, Africans are used in running sports because they are ON AVERAGE superior at them. That doesn't mean asians are not superior for some intellectual tasks, or western caucasoïds for, say, analytics or creative thinking.
>Slavs used Latin script before
source?
>evolution stops at the neck
>god dun it
Which one are you?
>capable of interbreeding
isnt not being able to interbreed what defines different species?
No.
There is no cut and dry method to defining what a species is. Depending on the author, you'll get different classifications of certain animals. Take Zebras and horses. There are different subspecies of Zebra who can't produce fertile offspring due to a different number of chromosomes, yet they're still Zebras. But there are Zebras who can produce fertile offspring with horses.
Animals that cover a large area are almost always categorized into different subspecies, even if the differences are miniscule, for example slightly different coloration. With humans, you have large genetic distances, admixture (for example neanderthals), and real morphological differences. The difference in skull shape alone would be enough to put them in a different subspecies, if not species. The only reason they are the same subspecies is politics.
>Capoid
Name one Khoisan person who's good at anything physical in the modern age.
>Congoid
Name one Mbuti Pygmy or Masaai athlete.
What subspecies would Afro-Americans (African Americans, Afro Canadians, Afro Caribbeans, Afro Latinos, etc) be? They're too mixed to be considered West Africans anymore, but they aren't usually mixed enough to be considered Western or Southern European genetically. What about the insanely genetically diverse Sub-Saharan Africa? Are you really willing to tell me that they're all different subspecies?
aren't there like only a few 10 thousand Khoisan?
for the Masaai(actually he has an incredible amount of medals holy crap).
en.wikipedia.org
The pygmies are all manlets
kill them all, I say
Because humans are equal but culture is not.
>liberals
ffs fucking burgers you ruined the word liberalism. You can be right wing and liberal. Liberalism is loterally considered right in Europe. Republicans have liberal market policies etc
Psychology via the IQ metric, biology via organ weights and development disparities, sociology via statistics, using basic observation(the most fundamental of sciences) and seeing that some groups of people are objectively taller on average than other groups of people as just the tip of the iceberg as to what your eyes can tell you, I mean is none of this "science"? Are you religious by chance?
The cognitive dissonance is fierce with some people. You remind me of a creationist being presented with literature on natural selection.
en.wikipedia.org
sci-news.com
Your skull shape part falls flat, as the differences between every subspecies of Homo erectus, particularly the ones in Georgia at the time, make Homo sapiens look like nothing. I would honestly say we need to fix our definition of species and subspecies, as I lean more to the idea that Homo sapiens, Neanderthals, Denisovans, and the two unknown in the fossil record species that interbred with the ancestors of certain Central African groups (mainly Pygmies) and the Once/Jawara are all the same species, but different subspecies, making Homo heidelbergensis a possible archaic common ancestor or a very archaic Homo sapiens.
As for zebras, they're actually three genetically distinct species belonging to two different subgenera, Hippotigris and
Dolichohippus.
There's around 50,000 to 70,000 of them left, much more if you include the mixed race populations of Southern Africa that have way more Khoisan ancestry than Bantu, West European, or even South Asian.
>David Rudisha
Okay, point made towards him, holy shit.
>killing the Pygmies
Congolese detected
Pygmies are also distinct from other Africans too user, it's not just Europeans you should be comparing them too.
Not him but Homo Erectus classification spans nearly two million years and is more of an umbrella term than anything, as opposed to Sapiens where you've got common ancestry around 100k years for 99% of the population and 100% of the population if you exclude small and isolated groups in SS Africa. That being said I don't have any issue with sub species terminology being used in either Erectus or Sapiens so long as it is based in genetic data personally, I simply do not care. If humans were pets we would call them at the very least different breeds based off of numerous characteristics.
I just don't understand the mental walls people have about this kind of thing. Dogs hold a common ancestor 10x as recent as many Sapiens groups and look at the variety in behavior, mental capacity, physical prowess etc. etc. but of course humans are the same.
Well, it depends on what you consider to be "better". From an evolutionary, sheer power based perspective (many would use this concept of superiority while observing other animals, but somehow it's tabboo to say this about humans...) the european is vastly superior to the, let's say, sub-sahaaran african. It's a question of: "if the european wanted to exterminate the african, would he be able to?" That's certainly a Yes. But would the same thing happen if africans tried to exterminate europeans? Obviously not. They wouldn't be able to even If they tried
>if humans were pets we would call them at the very least different breeds based off of numerous characteristics.
If anything, this should be the case. Dog breeds are all the same subspecies of the grey wolf (though they came from a now extinct subspecies of that which was already somewhat "dog-like"), and they all look and act significantly different from each other, and all are made to do varying tasks. However, here lies the second problem.
>Dogs hold a common ancestor 10x as recent as many Sapiens groups and look at the variety in behavior, mental capacity, physical prowess etc. etc. but of course humans are the same.
If it wasn't for us, the dog subspecies wouldn't look or act nearly as different as they are today, we did create them via artificial selection after all, so that's not the perfect comparison. I think people are more apprehensive to say the same about mankind because there are plenty of people all around the would who subvert our expectations of them. If you get random people from different races and ethnicities from say, a high school or college, you'll find many of those people having more in common with people who aren't like them physically than you would with people who are like them in that regard. It's definitely not always the case, but it's something to think about.
Liberalism in Europe is what Americans call Libertarianism. t. American
Those are a lot of weasel words that mean nothing, user. I hope you know this.
that word has come to mean different things in america. it's not that he doesn't know what it means he's just speaking a different language than you basically
I don't think anyone is committed to saying that all people are equal in their intelligence, etc. And some of those differences may well fall on racial lines (though I don't think a "race" is a very well defined concept).
The point isn't that all people are in every way equal, it's that all people have the same *moral* worth, which they have just by being human beings.
Even if white people were all idiots and black people were all super-human, black people would have a moral obligation to treat white people with respect, and to form a government only with the consent of everyone involved.
Since this is a moral duty, the consequences of such an arrangement are irrelevant. If the super-human blacks were able to live better lives without the whites, they'd still be obligated to live with them as moral equals.
Human "races" do not exist.
>being this spooked
The linguistic idiosyncrasies of this community are just delicious.
Link me a scientific link where race is stated as a fact by consensus.
Protip: Race doesn't exist.
Equality is equality of opportunity you stupid alt-right retard.
Yeah, equality doesn't exist. That's why you're a mouth-breathing obese sperglord who talks to himself because he can't go without stuttering for even a second when speaking to another person.
Dogs had pressures that caused certain traits to be selected, the same is true for humans. You are correct that it isn't the perfect analogy but it isn't an imperfect one either.
>Link me an argument from authority detailing something you have said absolutely nothing on or else you are wrong because inverse error works for some reason when I use it in an argument
I wonder what it would be like to not know how to form an argument. Feel free to attack any of the points I have made if you like, something you have completely avoided doing for some reason in favor of bringing up a random irrelevant request. I think maybe because you can't? Cognitive dissonance is weird. What's your stance on creationism vs natural selection? I'm curious.
>difference inherently means one is objectively better than the other.
Are you fucking retarded?
t. conservative
>literally no scientific fact race
Nnnnnnnope. Try again, brainlet. Race doesn't exist.
There can only be perfect and imperfect. To say something isn't imperfect is to say it is perfect.
>Dogs had pressures that caused certain traits to be selected, the same is true for humans
The pressures are completely different. Humans intentionally bred certain traits in dogs to drastically change how they looked and acted in a way which would never happen in nature. The scope of human intervention in dog breeding is so immense that it cannot be compared to the sorts of selective pressures that humans undergo.
>the concept of race is socially constructed therefore there are no differences between human populations.
Durrr
>come from different backgrounds and built wildly differing societies, how can they be equal?
this has been explored ad nauseum, there are many social, environmental, and historical mechanism that historians use to explains this. if you don't agree with them don't go making a thread that just asks the same question over and over
>and difference inherently means one is objectively better than the other.
um no not at all
>he uses subjective measurements like IQ to define human interrelationships
you're just as spooked you sad little child
why didnt hitler just make the a-bomb and nuke london?
different guy, a lot of people would say that all cultures are also equal, it's a big statement to say that some are better than others
personally I'd say most of them are equal but some are kind of fucked up
>Psychology via the IQ metric
I believe you mean intelligence and not psychology since that would make no sense. The problems being that IQ tests only test for certain capabilities and ignore many others which is why the IQ test is considered an extremely unreliable measure of intelligence by pretty much everyone, scientists included.
The other problem is, and this is a huge one is that you can't take the results without considering the input, this is fundamental to the idea of the scientific experiment.
We do see differences in IQ based on ethnicity in some cases but these are far more easily explained via societal causes, not biological.
The Japanese started growing a lot taller after WW2 because of the increase in nutrition. This shows that their pre-WW2 height was not a genetic limit. There is no evidence that any ethnic groups has an innate intelligence that is weaker than any other ethnic group. The entirety of the scientific community agree that those differences are from external forces.
>using basic observation(the most fundamental of sciences) and seeing that some groups of people are objectively taller on average than other groups of people as just the tip of the iceberg as to what your eyes can tell you
"Basic observation" is not a branch of science, nor does it supersede the actual rigorous methods used by scientists. It's like saying that using some common sense you can just ignore thousands of years of advanced in mathematics to hold a mathematical opinion contrary to that tradition. And using your eyes to understand things would only be the hypothesis. You could gain the idea that because you see the way people act that some groups are less intelligent. That's only the hypothesis. It then needs to be tested, which it has and the results do not support your hypothesis so you have to throw away that idea, this is one of the most basic elements of the way science works.
>I don't understand the difference between race and ethnicity
>interbred
I don't know about other (sub)species, but he only fertile combination of human/neanderthal interbreeding was a daughter coming from male neanderthals and female homo sapiens. The genetic distance between them was already pretty big.
roast.
+1
It's pretty fucking evident there's wilful ignorance going on here.
No sweetie,some cultures are better than others. Society is a racial construct.
Because people from the same "race" created vastly different cultures and civilizations.
>Vastly
No friendo,you're thinking of the differences between blacks and asians
t. barely passed high school
>Strawmanning this hard
Pathetic.
>Strawmanning
Maybe you should look up what terms mean before using them. You mean ad hominem you mong.
I was actually thinking about the difference between Romans and Germanics in ancient times.
>difference inherently means one is objectively better than the other.
By some measures, perhaps, but not necessarily in others--it depends on what criteria you are measuring them up against. One race may be better than other races at some areas, but weaker in other areas.
>how can they be equal?
We assume they are equal for the sake of allowing for individual differences within races. For instance, even if the members of one race are on average smarter than the members of another race, that does not necessarily imply that every member of the former race is smarter than every member of the latter.
Or how everyone from the well off parts of Europe considered the Balkans as a savage place.
Masaai aren't "Congoid" retard
I can get behind the idea that there's only one race, but that's excluding abos.
Abos aren't fucking human
Unless you have massive selective pressures when boss men, of the transitioning neolithic, unleashed their Machiavellianism to control weaker men (literally, monoculture grain diets suck) to sack the strongholds of other boss men and grab their surplus of resources (slaves, women, and grain) so that they can ransack even larger concentrations of resources under different boss men....
The past ten thousand years have been relatively intense in comparison to evolution under H&G tribes.
CONT.
Or in a sense, we evolved killer hardware that was beneficial in an environment of killer software.
War is the main app of the brain unless you're a hermit. But even then, you have a private sort of war against what society considers to be worthy of sacrifice and supplication.
well now user, thats complicated
firstly define 'better'
second define the criteria on which you base this
third defend that criteria from the alldewouring fleisch-machine that is postmodern deconstructivist thought
then if all three have passed mustard you need to get some interpretations and conclusions together, what are those, what is to be done now, why?
are you implying something should be done? are you proposing a system or a set of values or a course of action or a new order of things?
i mean, other than trolling and all that, whats your point?
because there is a point right, theres 'some people' you consider better than 'other people' and also 'some people' you consider inferior to 'everyone else', and theres something youd like to do about that
i get into a lot of conflicting crap with libtards around this because i simply cant wrap my mind around how they can interpret difference as a proof of equality, i could drone on and on about how humans as phenotypes are defined by their qualitative and quantitative differences and how this has concrete ramifications in concrete situations, but you are posing a worse problem tho, since they are just shoehorning concepts and doublethinking and while all that is false and hypocritical and absurd and all that, what you are aiming at is a little more problematic than just a mild cognitive dissonance, isnt it
Would you deny the existence of German Shepherds and Corgis as separate breeds just because a Corgi-GS mix exists?
see but none of that is the issue
the issue is weather based on that deduction corgis should get better veterinarian services and allowed to shit in the park as opposed to shepherds or the other way round, should they then be allowed to be walked in the same areas or should they be segregated, simply does difference imply they should be treated differently and if so how so? if one is declared inferior in some way does that mean its entitled to better or special treatment to even things out or shoud they be eutanised, and who decides this, do we ratify a international concensus on the solution to the corgy problem or should it be up to the local community council to decide and based on what criteria and which facts and whos gonna interpret them, or should it all be put down to public vote? it gets realy absurd realy fast
since both 'sides' hold implicitly absurd positions that cannot into corelation with reality no usefull conclusion can be made untill both positions are completely discarded, but then where do you even start from
when people start seriously going into crap like that with implicit agendas thats realy dangerous, one way or another, because value judgments are implied, and value judgments point to courses of action, and these end up in things like humane relocation, segregation and ethnic clensing
OP started this fucking bait thread with the notion of 'better' - and thats it, no further constructive discussion is possible from that point on, because why would corgis be better than shepherds, in what situation, what for, how, why, what of it?
German shepherds are not better police dogs you Corgiphobe.
youre right, they are just underrepresented, maybe there should be 40% corgi quota
Race is a social construct but people who fall into different socially constructed racial categories have different IQ's due to a mix of biological and external factors. Therefore they will never have equitable social and economic outcomes.
>difference inherently means one is objectively better than the other
No it doesn't.
It's almost like there's more to biology than external appearances.
>the IQ test is considered an extremely unreliable measure of intelligence by pretty much everyone, scientists included.
This is wrong though.
If you remove all measurements and standards, then everyone is equal, sure.
If you start measuring things, like how well a culture and civilization can clothe and feed, or engage in warfare, then clearly there are differences.
Some measurements are almost universally agreed upon. Everyone likes and desires something like food, right?
For some reason some people pretend to ignore these objective measurements.
Some people try to make up for this by claiming that it's not the results per say that count but that everyone at least has the capability to reach the standards set.
You are confusing race and cultural again Cletus.
Because race itself is just physical features, which have no effect on a persons ability. This makes everyone equal.
Ethnic background is different though, because someone born in a third world nation is not equal in many ways to someone born in a first world nation.
If you raised a newborn white child in an poorer African village that child would grow up just as impoverished and uneducated as the other Africans. He would call himself African and speak that local language.
If you raised a black child in an American suburb with upper middle class parents that child will grow up with advantages to others, speak English, call himself American, etc.
Race has nothing to do with equality.
Twin studies you disingenuous cockslurp
>(You)
Really?
Why does a black child need to be raised in a white society to be successful, are you implying black people are incapable of creating a successful society? If a white child is born into a black society why will he be "impoverished and uneducated" are you implying a black society is incapable of feeding and education themselves?
OH FUCK HES GOTTA INFOGRAPH!
when /pol/ fags get called out, they just rattle off one of the logical fallacies they remember from the sticky on /pol/ without really knowing what any of them mean
>There is no evidence that any ethnic groups has an innate intelligence that is weaker than any other ethnic group
Do people actually believe this?
None of this has anything to do with liberalism, you chimp.