What are your arguments against "race is a social construct because the category of race does not correspond to biologically meaningful groups/entities" and "skin color differentiation is real but that doesn't mean that people with different skin colors are different races"?

submitted by [deleted] from self.debatealtright

[deleted]

all 27 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]DragonerneJesus is white 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

She is arguing against reality. "Skin color is real, but here are no biologically meaningful groups that correspond to those real differences" this is an empirical claim that can be tested and has been tested. There is a 99% correspondence between selfidentified race and genetic clusters.

These people are just lying to you and you honestly shouldn't waste much time looking into this. If you're new and still redpilling yourself from all the lies, then congratulation you are a part of the few intelligent people that are able to see through the lies.
Now you have to realize that most people are NPCs that can't see the lies and wont accept the truth. You also have to realize that these lies are being told for a reason and that those telling these lies are extremely powerful.
A good idea is to learn about internet privacy, learning that most people in power are not your friends nor will they listen to the truth, they are on top because they tow the party line of the powerful elite. To bring down these liars we will have to infiltrate their ranks and doing so require that we lie publicly and get in positions of power as sleeper soldiers.

If you're white, they lie about this to genocide your people. It is your duty to stop them. If you're nonwhite, consider helping us because it is the right thing to do.

[–][deleted]  (1 child)

[deleted]

    [–]DragonerneJesus is white 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    I would.

    [–]cisheteroscumWhite Nationalist 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (30 children)

    We literally just did this the other day?

    [–]antireddit 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (15 children)

    Its salos/blork3d. He does this literally every day. Im honestly not sure why. As near as I can tell hes obsessed with controlling the narrative.

    Thats why he continually links to reddit posts he agrees with but depending on what sock puppet account hes using sometimes pretends not to.

    He knows these questions have been answered repeatedly, sometimes a day or two prior, but he isnt posting to get answers. Hes making a statement

    [–]CuteAsDuck 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

    I think you're making too many assumptions. I'm 1) a woman, 2) not sure where you got salos/blork3d from. I've only posted in this sub for about 3 times now and it's only been about race because I still get confused on the matter when everywhere I go I see "race is a social construct", "race means nothing", etc, etc.

    [–]EthnocratArcheofuturist 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

    "race is a social construct", "race means nothing"

    They're lying or misrepresenting the data. Race is real. Even liberal geneticists know that the social constructionist narrative - which is mostly backed by social scientists and not geneticists by the way - is going to collapse: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/23/opinion/sunday/genetics-race.html

    [–]CuteAsDuck 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

    The article is interesting to me. It's been difficult to find unbiased articles like this, written by actual scientists, so I appreciate you sharing it with me!

    [–]oneinchterror 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    That article is far from unbiased. Even Reich has to put in a million little qualifications and disclaimers to his statements in order to cover his ass. It's definitely a step in the right direction though.

    [–]DragonerneJesus is white 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    David Reich is a jew and he is not unbiased. For obvious reasons.

    The entire article is about how jews can't ignore the scientific results about race much longer because otherwise the battlefield is entirely granted to us. Ironically, you turned to us, as the article warned about would happen, if the jewish mainstream kept ignoring the genetic science, which they've done.
    Of course they are trying really hard to use their word salats to "refute" reality and this subject is actually what redpilled me to their dishonest methods.

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

    2) not sure where you got salos/blork3d from.

    A handful of people here always accuse people like you of being a salos/blork3d alt. I think you might be genuine so I'll explain. This comes from the old Reddit community. Salos is a guy who makes various republican shilling accounts on saidit. From the moderation log he has been banned on saidit numerous times.

    About 4 years ago blork3d was banned on the old Reddit community, which was my old account, and the moderators here have been aware of this fact for over 9 months now since I've come to the saidit community, and they have no problem with me debating here now. People also confuse salos for being blork3d because shamefully, I had also made new alts to bypass the ban years ago on the Reddit community.

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

    Thank you for your explanation! I didn't know of this history, so I was really confused when someone came out of nowhere to accuse me of being "salos/blork3d". At least now I'm not confused!

    [–]literalotherkinNorm MacDonald Nationalism 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Here's a thought experiment I find useful and helpful for anyone who wants to get started on thinking about race. Ask yourself a simple question. Why wouldn't evolution have the same impact on human mammals as it has on all other species in existence. Within all animals we see sub-speciation and divergent evolution -- i.e. the development of 'races' -- in populations that share common ancestry but have been separated and exposed to different environmental pressures, founder effects etc. So the claim that this WOULD NOT occur in humanity is unusual and quite extraordinary given that you would expect in any standard theory of evolution for humans to be impacted the same way all other animals have been.

    That's the first question to ask yourself. If humans are not racially divided then you need an entirely new theory of evolution to explain that and someone needs to tell you why otherwise they're just liars or dogmatic egalitarians.

    [–]antireddit 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

    How did u find this sub? Why did you go straight to the debatealtrightsub? No other posts from you on saidit on a recent account. Same content, same questions, same style as blork3d, who has made literally dozens of names and does the same posts.

    Honestly I dont even care what someone considers race to be. Being white is a thing, being black is a thing. I know this because the media never shuts the fuck up about it for 2 seconds while inciting black hatred of whites and white guilt 24/7. Thats all that matters. Call it a social construct, biological reality, call it a banana, I dont care. Its a daily reality now. We tried for a colorblind society and the Jews shoved it back in our faces due to their never ending divide and conquer bullshit. Race matters if for no other reason than the Jewish media mafia that lords over us says it matters, BUT since they wont shut up about it we might as tell the truth about what it is, because they sure as hell wont.

    [–]CuteAsDuck 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

    I found this sub because I posted a question about race vs sex in GCdebatesQT. Someone told me this place is more appropriate: https://saidit.net/s/GCdebatesQT/comments/7md5/gc_if_race_and_ethnicity_are_social_constructs/snuz

    https://imgur.com/Z132Dng

    Just because my writing style happens to be similar to someone else, doesn't mean I am them.

    [–]antireddit 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    Ok fair enough. Just realized your account isnt brand new like the last 20 names that asked basically the same question.

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

    It's alright. People ask similar questions sometimes. It's fair you were cautious, and I thought you deserve to know how I ended up here in the first place.

    [–]CuteAsDuck 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

    This seemed to be different in that they accept skin color can be differentiated and is biological, but 1) "it still does not mean someone is of one race based on their skin color", and 2) "skin color is the only main trait categorizing people into races. The lack of any other trait means categorizing people based on their skin color does not correspond to meaningful biological groups that exist outside the human social constructs".

    The premises are not properly connected to their conclusions. Shouldn't the conclusions that come from accepting skin color as a biological phenomena be, people can be categorized into one race based on their skin color? How can that categorization be a social construct when it is based on a biological phenomena?

    [–]DragonerneJesus is white 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

    "Shouldn't the conclusions that come from accepting skin color as a biological phenomena be, people can be categorized into one race based on their skin color?"

    Yes "How can that categorization be a social construct when it is based on a biological phenomena?"

    It can't, which is how you know they're lying.

    Their position is based on lies.

    This picture goes through many of the typical lies that they make:
    https://i.imgur.com/pVuB9Ho.gif

    I noticed that you're a woman, so I just want you to be aware that if you mate with an african, then you put your lineage back by approximately 400 thousands of years. Possibly more if you're "unlucky". This setback is almost PERMANENT meaning that your descendants will be doomed for thousands of years. I don't say that lightly and I don't say that to be "racist". I say it because I care about you and because I want the world to be a better place.

    They use obfuscation and confusion to argue their positions. Forexample they say that blacks don't exist because black africans are different from black indians and black australians but that's just nonsense. The fact that these groups are different is the proof you need to talk about race in the first place: Yes, people are different. Yes, race is more than skin color. Yes, races exist.

    [–]SoylentCapitalist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

    I just want you to be aware that if you mate with an african, then you put your lineage back by approximately 400 thousands of years. Possibly more if you're "unlucky". This setback is almost PERMANENT meaning that your descendants will be doomed for thousands of years.

    Come on now. I agree she shouldn't mate with an African, and she should know the consequences of doing so if she does, but you're exaggerating to a degree it's dishonest. Humans didn't even migrate out of Africa until ~200,000 years ago. To say that it's almost permanent is false because after a couple more generations the offspring would be 87.5% white if they marry back into the race, which is white passing even with black DNA. There are also Africans that have a higher IQ than she does. On the individual level, this "setback" could be eugenic if the African in question is of superior intelligence. Why I say she still shouldn't is because the African in question is far more likely to be dysgenic and if too many people started mixing then they could no longer be white after a few generations.

    [–]DragonerneJesus is white 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

    I am not exaggerating at all, in fact. It is a complicated topic and I don't have a ready able picture to explain it like in the previous example, but to put it simple:
    Africans don't have neanderthal ancestry.
    The majority part of our genetics come from Africa but that does not mean that we share all of that genetics with all Africans - in fact we do not at all. Our ancestors are but a small part/subgroup of the ancient African humans.
    Africans have 2-19% VERY ANCIENT ghost population dna (800k years old)
    Based on skull morphology, africans resemble 1.2-0.6 mia humans.

    400.000 is not an exaggeration at all. Also common ancestor is just that: 1 common ancestor. 1 out of millions ancestors. It is just jewish manipulation.

    87,5% white is not white. It is white passing, but not white. It is 100k thousands years behind in evolution. And that is if her descendants are lucky enough to marry kids that are 100% white. You think whites will be available everywhere free for all in the future?
    This mixing is very temporary and expect things to revert back sooner rather than later. I wouldn't get children with someone who is 12,5% black. It would be genetic suicide.

    Africans that have higher IQ don't matter, because of reversal to the mean. She could be a dumb white and she still shouldn't get children with an intelligent black. It would be beneath her.

    [–][deleted]  (1 child)

    [deleted]

      [–]DragonerneJesus is white 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      You dont know what youre talking about. Every single sentence in that message is wrong or display a fundamental misunderstanding of genetics.

      [–][deleted]  (4 children)

      [deleted]

        [–]DragonerneJesus is white 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

        Your math is also wrong as 87.5% white would be 50,000 years behind according to your 400,000 claim.

        1: Learn math
        2: Learn population genetics

        [–][deleted]  (2 children)

        [deleted]

          [–]DragonerneJesus is white 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

          I will allow you to find your own mistake by reading what I've written. I am not going to repeat myself.

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

          Again, ask this thing: https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-europe-49599148

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

          I'd probably link them this: https://thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/04/15/race-is-a-social-construct/

          If they aren't willing to seriously engage with it or they simply dismiss it out of hand, they aren't really worth your time in the first place.