BBE/IE: Christopher Cantwell

Started by bp_28, February 26, 2016, 05:18:27 PM

Previous topic - Next topic
[yt]aIbuwifp9c8[/yt]
This video is full of fail
"Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." - Frederic Bastiat.

Yeah, he seems to have gone full neo-Nazi there.

On a similar note, I think Stef is now a race realist:

[yt]K-lwKOOYgFo[/yt]

February 27, 2016, 08:37:24 PM #2 Last Edit: February 27, 2016, 08:41:10 PM by Travis Retriever
Hence why I've long jumped ship on the both of these two.

Question: What the hell is a "race realist" anyways?  The first Google results I got were from Rational Wiki (nope.avi) and metapedia (no).
"When the mob and the press and the whole world tell you to move, your job is to plant yourself like a tree beside the river of truth, and tell the whole world—'No. You move.'"
-Captain America, Amazing Spider-Man 537

Quote from: Travis Retriever on February 27, 2016, 08:37:24 PM
Hence why I've long jumped ship on the both of these two.

Question: What the hell is a "race realist" anyways?  The first Google results I got were from Rational Wiki (nope.avi) and metapedia (no).

What's wrong with Metapedia? (I ask because I'm completely unfamiliar with them.)

I would also be curious to know what the term race realism should/would/could entails exactly. By reading some of the things oyu can find by googling it, I find that i some aspects that label could perfectly apply to me, while the insistance about making it a social philosophy or associating it with people who assume a hierarchy withing subgroups of the human species doesn't necessarily follow and therefore makes it look like it's a political term rather than something created to have an optimal descriptive value.

I guess that that one discussion I had with Shane once relates to that topic, where my contention was that the term race applies well below the species level. I see only a handful of possible valid positions here
1) categorizing the living below the species level is not scientificaly relevant and therefore the concept of race is invalid, which incidentally renders the concepts of sub-species and the likes invalid too
2) The concept of race is perfectly fine in the casual use of language because  in a lot of cases, discrete categories are necessities
3) The concept of categorizing the living below the species level is scientificaly relevant and in that case it also renders 2) valid even for broader uses ( because it uses the same basic idea, sometimes as an analogy as in 'the race of champions' )

For the moment I'm in group 3. I know for a fact that scientists already categorize the living below the species level, and there are good reasons for that. Worst case scenario, the use in common language can't be accurate enough but still retains practical value.

That's the one reason I was objecting to the Bill Nye clip at the time. Saying that there are "no human races, only a human species" or "no human races but one human race" is like saying there are no dog breeds or no tiger sub-species. This stuff happens, populations diverge and get slightly or widely different, whatever. Evolution don't stop between the species level and the "next of kin" level.

Quote from: AdeptusHereticus on February 27, 2016, 09:22:31 PM
I would also be curious to know what the term race realism should/would/could entails exactly. By reading some of the things oyu can find by googling it, I find that i some aspects that label could perfectly apply to me, while the insistance about making it a social philosophy or associating it with people who assume a hierarchy withing subgroups of the human species doesn't necessarily follow and therefore makes it look like it's a political term rather than something created to have an optimal descriptive value.

I'm not altogether sure, but from what I gather they believe that the genetic differences between races are categorical and not just statistical.

Quote from: MrBogosity on February 27, 2016, 09:32:23 PM
I'm not altogether sure, but from what I gather they believe that the genetic differences between races are categorical and not just statistical.

That leaves Stefan out, then.  He's very clear about only talking about statistical differences between aggregates of people that don't predict anything about specific individuals.

If you think his position is racist, then you have to agree with him that the actions of many US universities (the ones that increase the grades of black students and reduce the grades of asian students when making decisions about admissions) are also racist.

Quote from: evensgrey on February 28, 2016, 11:18:55 AM
That leaves Stefan out, then.  He's very clear about only talking about statistical differences between aggregates of people that don't predict anything about specific individuals.

That doesn't seem to jive with the video I posted.

QuoteIf you think his position is racist, then you have to agree with him that the actions of many US universities (the ones that increase the grades of black students and reduce the grades of asian students when making decisions about admissions) are also racist.

I never said they weren't.

Maybe it's a bit much to ask but can someone who watched the Molyneux video point to specific segments that could illustrate his point ? I have to admit that the one reason I never got around to go deep enough into what he says is that in the few video a watched, it was taking him an insane amount of time to say very simple things ... So I thought "screw it".

I'm not necessarily asking for time stamps but rather, if you remember if it was after X amount of time, or between X and Y minutes ... Just general pointers ...

If I can reduce a 90 minutes Molyneux video to half its length (or more) it would be great, but if it can't be help then too bad for me.

February 28, 2016, 08:46:16 PM #9 Last Edit: February 28, 2016, 09:13:54 PM by Ibrahim90
Quote from: MrBogosity on February 27, 2016, 09:14:47 PM
What's wrong with Metapedia? (I ask because I'm completely unfamiliar with them.)

well, to give you an idea of what the website is on about, read this:

http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust


Quote3) The concept of categorizing the living below the species level is scientificaly relevant and in that case it also renders 2) valid even for broader uses ( because it uses the same basic idea, sometimes as an analogy as in 'the race of champions' )

For the moment I'm in group 3. I know for a fact that scientists already categorize the living below the species level, and there are good reasons for that. Worst case scenario, the use in common language can't be accurate enough but still retains practical value.

the next rank below species is called a "subspecies". There is only one taxonomic sub-species of Homo sapiens: H. sapiens sapiens. Any others have long died out.


QuoteThat's the one reason I was objecting to the Bill Nye clip at the time. Saying that there are "no human races, only a human species" or "no human races but one human race" is like saying there are no dog breeds or no tiger sub-species. This stuff happens, populations diverge and get slightly or widely different, whatever. Evolution don't stop between the species level and the "next of kin" level.

No one is implying that by saying man is one race. Of course humans evolved and diverged to an extent. variations based on the environment are to be expected therefore (for example, skin color and immunology).

But these are minimal, tend to overlap considerably, and don't fundamentally affect the structure of the human brain (which hasn't really changed in 60,000 years--save in size, which worldwide has fallen). The reason is because what people call "races" didn't appear till the last 10-15,,000 years or so, and were in flux for millennia (which is why some human remains--like Kennewick man--have DNA similar to today's native Americans, but have faces that seem non-native: Kennewick man looked more like the Ainu in Japan.). Those cows are the same: all one breed, but differing colors, and slightly different builds.

I would also remind you that human populations were, throughout much of the history of our species, were insanely small: it took 60,000 years to go from ~10,000 people, to ~5 million. This will further weed out human genetic diversity (so yeah, inbreeding was a serious problem--especially in out of Africa populations).
"All you guys complaining about the possibility of guy on guy relationships...you're also denying us girl on girl.  Works both ways if you know what I mean"

-Jesse Cox

Quote from: Ibrahim90 on February 28, 2016, 08:46:16 PM
the next rank below species is called a "subspecies". There is only one taxonomic sub-species of Homo sapiens: H. sapiens sapiens. Any others have long died out.

That's not how it is nowadays. This denomination is not used anymore and the term sub-species doesn't even have an accepted definition. It's pretty much dependant on the person doing the research as far as I know. Well, it's below the species level and ... There is some form of isolation that fixes some traits ... That's pretty much it.


Quote
But these are minimal, tend to overlap considerably, and don't fundamentally affect the structure of the human brain (which hasn't really changed in 60,000 years--save in size, which worldwide has fallen).
You'll have to explain to me why this is relevant in this discussion because I don't understand ... "Minimal" by what standards ? How often statistical differences do not overlap between sub-species ? Why would the size of the human brain be a good indicator of anything for the purpose of this discussion ?

In any classification of the living there are only two parameters that are necessary together : The individuals in this population must share characteristics that they do not share with other populations in the same group and they must transfer those caracteristics to their offsprings. And that's pretty much what the concept of race is supposed to be. Anything else is just chronology as in "which group appears before/after the other".


QuoteThe reason is because what people call "races" didn't appear till the last 10-15,,000 years or so, and were in flux for millennia (which is why some human remains--like Kennewick man--have DNA similar to today's native Americans, but have faces that seem non-native: Kennewick man looked more like the Ainu in Japan.). Those cows are the same: all one breed, but differing colors, and slightly different builds.

Again, why this standard specifically ? Is there a rule in those scientific fields that says that any sub group that appeared that soon in history is not eligible to be described as a sub group ? Is there a mechanism that we know of that prevents sub groups to form that quickly ?

QuoteI would also remind you that human populations were, throughout much of the history of our species, were insanely small: it took 60,000 years to go from ~10,000 people, to ~5 million. This will further weed out human genetic diversity (so yeah, inbreeding was a serious problem--especially in out of Africa populations).
The reason why the diversity is reduced or raised really does not matter for the purpose of this discussion.

What matters is : Do sub groups, in which all individuals share characteristics that they do not share with other population in the same group and that are always transfered to the offspring, exists in the human population ?

I mean what is the definition of the word "race" for you ? Does it involve something else ? Any of the standard you proposed  ? And if yes : why ? Because the word was invented way before the study of biodiversity and it really only meant what I said. Basically, a lineage within a bigger lineage. The point about it is that even with all that new knowledge, it still have descriptive value.


February 29, 2016, 01:05:49 PM #11 Last Edit: February 29, 2016, 01:11:49 PM by Travis Retriever
Quote from: MrBogosity on February 27, 2016, 09:14:47 PM
What's wrong with Metapedia? (I ask because I'm completely unfamiliar with them.)

http://www.cracked.com/article_17341_5-terrifying-bastardizations-wikipedia-model_p2.html
#1 explains it better than I could...

EDIT:  nvm.  Ibrahim90 beat me to it.  Thanks, bro.
"When the mob and the press and the whole world tell you to move, your job is to plant yourself like a tree beside the river of truth, and tell the whole world—'No. You move.'"
-Captain America, Amazing Spider-Man 537


Quote from: MrBogosity on February 29, 2016, 03:42:40 PM
How on Earth did RationalWiki avoid making that list?

RationalWiki (rather like Encyclopedia Dramatica) is mostly just stupid, as opposed to frightening (such as articles that are simultaneously favorable to both Hitler AND Stalin, Europes most prolific mass murderers).

March 02, 2016, 02:37:13 PM #14 Last Edit: March 02, 2016, 02:39:50 PM by Travis Retriever
Quote from: MrBogosity on February 29, 2016, 03:42:40 PM
How on Earth did RationalWiki avoid making that list?
Because cracked has a serious SJW-ish bias.  Okay, to be fair, this was back in 2009, back when Cracked was actually still good.  But still.

Quote from: evensgrey on March 01, 2016, 07:56:49 AM
RationalWiki (rather like Encyclopedia Dramatica) is mostly just stupid, as opposed to frightening (such as articles that are simultaneously favorable to both Hitler AND Stalin, Europes most prolific mass murderers).
And yet Wikifur still made their list...
"When the mob and the press and the whole world tell you to move, your job is to plant yourself like a tree beside the river of truth, and tell the whole world—'No. You move.'"
-Captain America, Amazing Spider-Man 537