Critique of the alt-right and why you must accept “blackpills”

submitted by marc_gee from self.debatealtright

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Vegethu 1 insightful - 3 fun1 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 3 fun -  (4 children)

A few questions here from me and critiques.

Why shouldn't there be outrage over police brutality? If this is a country of freedom how can anyone allow police brutality?

24 Hr anti-white TV? Can you prove this?

Diversity is of benefit though, especially economically. I do have sources on this fact, what proof do you have to back your claim.

What good justification is there for oppossing diversity. Many Republicans have called out against ANTIFA and BLM, and diversity such as Trump and Carlson to name a few.

And lastly, who are "the elites", and what are they doing?

[–]FoxySDTWhite Nationalist 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Diversity is of benefit though, especially economically. I do have sources on this fact, what proof do you have to back your claim.

Tatu Vanhanen in his book Ethnic Conflicts: Their Biological Roots in Ethnic Nepotism analyzed 176 countries in period from 2003-2011. He found that Ethnic diversity has 0.812 correlation with ethnic conflict. Meaning that more diverse countries tend to have more violent conflicts in them.

He summarized his findings:

As explained in Chapter 1, the original cause of conflicts is in the fact that we are bound to the endless struggle for permanently scarce resources. The theory of ethnic nepotism does not explain the evolutionary origin of conflicts, but it explains why many kinds of interest conflicts tend to become canalized along ethnic lines in ethnically divided societies. The evolutionary roots of nepotism are assumed to be in our genome because it has been genetically rational to support relatives. Ethnic nepotism is an extended form of family nepotism. On average, the members of an ethnic group are genetically more closely related to each other than to outsiders. Because the rules of ethnic nepotism are engraved in our genes by evolution, it is hardly possible to eradicate this behavior pattern from human nature.

Ethnic diversity has -0.40 correlation with life satisfaction, -0.55 correlation with national wealth and -0.66 with life expectancy. [1]

Finally, there are studies, often experiments, which look at how well small groups perform. Hulsheger and Anderson (2009) meta-analyzed 8 studies and found background diversity correlated at -.133 (95% CI: -.318:+.052) with innovation.

Williams and O’Reilly (1998) came to this conclusion in their review of the literature:

“There is substantial evidence from both laboratory and field studies conducted over the past four decades that variations in group composition can have important effects on group functioning. These studies show that increased diversity, especially in terms of age, tenure, and ethnicity, typically have negative effects on social integration, communication, and conflict.”

[–]Vegethu 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Tatu Vanhanen in his book Ethnic Conflicts: Their Biological Roots in Ethnic Nepotism analyzed 176 countries in period from 2003-2011. He found that Ethnic diversity has 0.812 correlation with ethnic conflict. Meaning that more diverse countries tend to have more violent conflicts in them.

The issue I have with Tatu Vanhanen and even his colleague, Richard Lynn, is that the methodology they use to come to their conclusion is deeply FLAWED. When comparing IQ between Whites and blacks Lynn himself admitted he used mentally retarded, disease ridden, and starving Africans as a control instead of controlling for Africans with comprable health and environment to Europeans.

There have been many criticisms of Lynn and his work over the years. The main critiques come from Jelte Wicherts and his team of Dutch researchers. The argument is mostly that Lynn uses samples from diseased, starving, illiterate, not smart enough, or otherwise disqualifiable African populations, and that this understates the true IQ of Sub-Saharan Africa. Jelte Wicherts criticized Lynn’s selection of studies. He argued that Lynn included studies with developmentally disabled, with people who didn’t understand the test, with people who have HIV, malaria and parasites. Lynn’s response was basically that those things represent black Africa, and to exclude those studies is to, in essence, exclude the problems of Africa. And Lynn and Wicherts went back and forth on that.

Again, the probable with the methodology of people like Lynn and Vanhanen is that much of their racial theories depend on the Race and IQ issue but their controls for these citations are deeply flawed.

Finally, there are studies, often experiments, which look at how well small groups perform. Hulsheger and Anderson (2009) meta-analyzed 8 studies and found background diversity correlated at -.133 (95% CI: -.318:+.052) with innovation.

I clicked this link and it just gave me an error. So i Googled it. \it says nothing about diversity, perhaps you could spare another link. When i googled it it said nothing about diversity unless i googled the wrong study.

Williams and O’Reilly (1998) came to this conclusion in their review of the literature:

I wish you would have cited something more recent than 1998, but ok.

Having read this source you've cited it seems to gibve a very nuanced answer to the question of diversity.

In the conclusion of the study it is argued that heterogeneous groups ALSO struggle with much emotional conflict that impedes group functionality. The study you cited iutself claims that diversity is a "important social value in our society".

This study acknowlegeds the drawbacks of diversity but advocates for organisations to minimise the negatives and exploit the positives. It doesnt make the claim that there are no positives.

Also this study accounts for several types of diversity that being diversity in age, backroud and sex. Unless I'm missing it there doesnt seem to be anything here about Racial or cultural diversity, if it is here. Can you point what pages or sections I may have missed?

Also it seems the study (under the heading "defining Diversity") indicates that prejudice and biases about a particular group. So my solution to the issue is to mitigate the amount of biases the group majority may have towards the group minority.

Moreover in this study that you've cited under the heading "Information and decision making" on page 86-87 it clearly states:

Information and decision-making theories proposes that variants in group compositions can have a direct positive and increase in skills, abilities, information, and the knowledge that diversity brings, independent of what happens in the group process.

This study doesnt seem to say in totality what i think you're advocating for in fact just the opposite.

[–]FoxySDTWhite Nationalist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The issue I have with Tatu Vanhanen and even his colleague, Richard Lynn, is that the methodology they use to come to their conclusion is deeply FLAWED. When comparing IQ between Whites and blacks Lynn himself admitted he used mentally retarded, disease ridden, and starving Africans as a control instead of controlling for Africans with comprable health and environment to Europeans.

Lynn made numerous responses to Wicherts where ho pointed some low-quality studies he used to estimate African IQ. Like the one for Sierra Leone.[1][2][3]. It is also worth noting that Lynn's national IQ estimates have 0.876 correlation with PISA scores so they are pretty valid. The text you quoted explains why Lynn was justified in using those unhealthy samples of Africans. I won't dwell on this any further since it is irrelevant. Vanhanen didn't use Lynn's national IQ data to estimate the relationship between diversity and ethnic conflict. Your argument boils down to guilt by association: "Vanhanen is Lynn's co-author and Lynn has flawed research therefore Vanahnen's must be flawed too." This is no argument.

I clicked this link and it just gave me an error. So i Googled it. \it says nothing about diversity, perhaps you could spare another link. When i googled it it said nothing about diversity unless i googled the wrong study.

Sorry, here it is. They didn't mention diversity in the abstract but in Table 1 they have it as "background diversity".

In the conclusion of the study it is argued that heterogeneous groups ALSO struggle with much emotional conflict that impedes group functionality. The study you cited iutself claims that diversity is a "important social value in our society".

Not sure what you mean by "also". Heterogeneity is another word for diversity. And yes, even I agree that it is important social value too, anyone who spend some time in America knows that diversity is great social value but that doesn't tell you whether it has positive impact.

Also this study accounts for several types of diversity that being diversity in age, backroud and sex. Unless I'm missing it there doesnt seem to be anything here about Racial or cultural diversity, if it is here. Can you point what pages or sections I may have missed?

on page 82: "...age, sex, race/ethnicity..."

Moreover in this study that you've cited under the heading "Information and decision making" on page 86-87 it clearly states:

Information and decision-making theories proposes that variants in group compositions can have a direct positive and increase in skills, abilities, information, and the knowledge that diversity brings, independent of what happens in the group process.

Yes and on page 83 they state: "Researchers have used a number of theories to explain the effects of diversity on organizational process and performance. Different theories often lead researchers to offer plausible but contradictory predictions of the effects of diversity on groups and individuals. This section begins with a brief discussion of the three most common, on theoretical bases for investigating diversity:..."

On pages 85-86 they describe negative effects diversity can have. They were just presenting views of other researchers in the field, like many studies do. They weren't reporting results of their study.

This study doesnt seem to say in totality what i think you're advocating for in fact just the opposite.

They are very clear in their conclusion:"Overall, this research offers convincing support for the argument that variations in group demography can have both direct and indirect effects on group process and performance. Under ideal conditions increased diversity may have the positive effects predicted by information and decision theories. However, consistent with social categorization and similarity/attraction theories, the preponderance of empirical evidence suggests that diversity is most likely to impede group functioning. Unless steps are taken to actively counteract these effects, the evidence suggests that, by itself, diversity is more likely to have negative than positive effects on group performance. Simply having more diversity in a group is no guarantee that the group will make better decisions or function effectively. In our view, these conclusions suggest that diversity is a mixed blessing and requires careful and sustained attention to be a positive force in enhancing performance. "

They apparently want diversity to work so they at the end say it could beneficial if done right similarly like you said that we need to "mitigate biases". But I'm skeptical of this. US spends billions of dollars on diversity trainings and multicultural education and whatever else with no results. I can't imagine what should be done to make diversity work that hasn't been tried already.

[–]EuropeanAwakening 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Now that your shitty arguments have been trashed, can you tell us why you think White people should become hated minorities in our own countries? That is the result of what you are advocating, so I just want to know why you think this way.