How They Plan to Shut Us Up.

submitted by [deleted] from (self.debatealtright)

https://www.bitchute.com/video/t90TlNgxWXv8/

You think the First Amendment will save us? Think again.

all 32 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]milkmender11 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (34 children)

They don't plan to shut you up. Not beyond a certain point. At this point the disillusioned white mongrels of the alt right (they were never the top-shelf genetic stock--that's why they throw their lot in with race & country in [current year]) are useful idiots for the establishment. They need a bogeyman to point at, an impotent and slovenly coterie of largely useless and economically impoverished white men to serve as the supposed 'MAGA hordes' that are apparently ready to descend on civilized America as soon as Trump activates his 'sleeper cell networks.' It's a fiction and the alt right is part of it. Honestly, the establishment created the alt right. They directed its evolution towards further-right nationalism (a far cry from Milo's original vision) as much as possible, so their bogeyman creation would resemble most closely the convenient characterization that they wanted it to posses. There are of course people within the alt right that keep their focus and try to incline others to do the same, but I imagine that those few luminaries are disillusioned at this point. When your movement is so... dull!... then the proof is in the pudding. It isn't going anywhere unless it is commanded to go there by the same folk it claims to oppose.

Aka... the alt right is a bunch of lethargic white guys who never fulfilled their (frequently impressive) potential and live off of dreams of some revolution that will never come.

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

Alt righters are in general very high IQ, good genes, well spoken, focus on fitness, good looking and have families or plan on making families.

Lefties, on the other hand, are mentally ill.

[–]milkmender11 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

From my observations, alt righters are indeed high iq. Probably a lot of them are on the spectrum. Analytical, smart, somewhat socially isolated. Their intelligence lends itself to good vocabularies but I might not call them 'well spoken' per se, because they can be somewhat oblivious to the conventions of speech. I haven't noticed any prominent trend in one direction or another on fitness--there are many more fat guys in your ranks than you seem to be aware of. They do seem much more family-consciois.

And yes lefties are a lost cause

[–]Saiditking 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Everything you claim is disputed by the fact the Jewish establishment has done everything humanly possible to censor and deplatform the alt right. They wouldn't do that if they weren't scared of it, and they wouldn't do that if they created it. We DO know what they do to "movements" they do create(or intentionally amplify), like Qanon or the alt-lite. They take them over and use them as controlled opposition, or to channel activism into harmless or absurd and damaging avenues.

Steven Crowder recently went on a rant detailing how Big Jew tried to trap him into a long term contract in which he would be forced to spew their talking points and he would be destroyed if he ever ran afoul of the ADL or upset Jewish sensibilities, not that he ever showed any inclination of doing that anyway, but it was illustrative of how after effectively banning the alt right in mainstream or even alternative media, Jewish power sets about channeling those people who would be attracted to it into a pro zionist pro Jew potempkin village version of the alt right.

[–]milkmender11 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You are looking at only one part of their strategy and choosing to see it as the whole. The establishment has most certainly NOT done 'everything humanly possible to censor and deplatform the alt right.' No, no, no, 100% wrong and you know it. The alt right is a household term specifically because the media intentionally inflated and promoted stories about this ragtag band of paleoconservatives (v2.0). They only censored in proportion with their platforming and promotion. It's funny, even as you say that the alt right was censored, lefties were upset that the media was promoting and popilarizing it! The undeniable fact is that there were many dozens, hundreds, and thousands of stories about the alt right and even hardcore lefties had to find a way to explain, with their own orientation, why the media they claim to oppose would 'take their side' on this issue. So they said it was part of a white supremacist plot to popularize the alt right, when actually the establishment did both the popularizing and the censoring.

Is it really a new concept that the house plays both sides and rigs the game? I miss old school 4chan. The alt right on saiddit is just a mirror image flip of reddit lefties. No more sophistication or critical thought

[–]EuropeanAwakening14 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (25 children)

Literally everything you said is false. You also deny that the White race exists. You're a creation of the system.

[–]DragonerneJesus is white 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

He gets everything he knows from the first page of google

[–]milkmender11 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

darn I already picked the other guy but if he declines you can have his timeslot

how you think those views would show up on google at all, I have no idea. I think you read half the comment, saw me paraphrase a media talking point, and assumed that it was my own point because you're more concerned with protecting your unexamined but comforting views than considering other perspectives. Classic alt right

[–]DragonerneJesus is white 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

What search engine do you use? What news outlets? What youtube channels do you follow? What social media sites do you use?

What authority do you trust? As in, if you want to verify information, where do you go?

We both know your answer to every single one of those questions are NPC sources

[–]milkmender11 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Geez, it's worse than I thought. I don't use social media or youtube. I read BOOKS. BOOKS, dude. Not youtube. That you have actually forgotten that BOOKS are a viable source of education shows just how lost to social media you yourself are. You can't even imagine another person reading BOOKS at this point!!

I read books and take notes using a system, then I go back and read the book again, this time integrating my notes into a flashcard app. I then use spaced repetition to memorize the information as crystallized intelligence. I'm sure you watch reallt cool youtube videos though.

[–]EuropeanAwakening14 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Well, for one the alt right was formed out of Pol commentary/memes and thinkers like Spencer and Greg Johnson and others from the Charles Martel Society during the late oughts to early 2010s and began growing rapidly as a response to Obama/Trayvon/and the racial riots in 2015. It reached its culmination in 2017 during Charlottesville, where many of its websites were deplatformed from funding or taken down/banned from all major social media in the aftermath. The movement also fell apart due to infighting. The establishment worked with antifa and local police to shut down the Charlottesville rally. We know this for a fact because of the third party conducted Heaphy Report which detailed the actions of state and local law enforcement and government during the event. The system purposefully created a situation which would lead to violence in turn giving them the pretense to begin mass censorship of the movement. What evidence do you have that the alt right was created by the system?

Anyway, we don't really even refer to ourselves as alt right anymore. We've coalesced into basically a racialist third positionist/syncretic/anti Semitic movement.

So, what you're criticizing as the alt right doesn't even really exist anymore. The name of the subsaidit its just an historical name and doesn't really mean anything.

The rest of the "points" you made are just standard fare anti-White rhetoric that reads like you got it straight off of AngryWhiteMen or Salon or a Jew columnist at the NYT.

[–]DragonerneJesus is white 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I doubt he will reply. He has run multiple times in the past, whenever we make points he can't refute.

[–]EuropeanAwakening14 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

It's a she. A self described "biofemale."

[–]milkmender11 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

and don't you forget it, stud

Honestly I like alt righters. I can always tell who the MAGA folk in my lectures are. They are usually white, male, smart, kind of socially isolated, and eager to speak their minds while having enough sense to generally not do that. A lot of them get crushes on me, the based milf professor who doesn't buy the woke bs but doesn't buy their bs either. Too bad I'm a haaaardcore dyke

[–]milkmender11 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Right here bro. I have papers to publish (new book coming out too).

Please respond. Don't run away!

[–]milkmender11 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Just because you can point to some influences which you happen to prefer as the supposed progenitors pf thr alt right (Pol, Spencer, Johnson) does not mean that the establishment did not actively promote the alt right through mainstream media exposure and, more directly, FBI plants. I wasn't saying they invented the alt right wholesale, but that they correctly identified a harmless movement with no capacity for strong growth and subsequently turned it into a modern bogeyman to suit their own political ends. You assumed that just because Pol had something to do with the alt right at some point, that the establishment had nothing to do with it. You then go on to elaborate on your misinterpretation as if describing various snapshots of alt right history is relevant to the discussion rather than the result of your own error.

The movement didn't fall apart to infighting any more than it did to lack of initial cohesion, lack of a coherent narrative, lack of a common theme. When your movement is itself inflated by hostile media reporting, of course it doesn't have the organic cohesion that produces stable ideaologies. "Because infighting" is like me saying the moon is in orbit because it's big. Well, there's a lot more to it than that.

The Heaphy Report only proves my point. Establishment maneuvering to knock town the tower that their efforts cultivated. This is how propaganda works. You don't create a bogeyman and let it run rampant, you create it and manage it. You want to see the alt right as a shining example of the power of grassroots white racial unity, but it wasn't. You were useful idiots all along. You believe the government has a hand in everything EXCEPT this! Tell me, do you think the government does anything contrived and underhanded in other arenas? Oh, you do? But not here, despite the massive media attention paid to the alt right even when it was barelt a flicker?

Your points are just tired recapitulations of known alt right fallacies, though. Whiteness does not even cohere as a race to begin with. Happy to have the debate with you but I've gotten tired of knocking down the same unscientific arguments from white nationalists, I'll do it again for you though.

[–]milkmender11 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

Then debate me. Let's begin. Address one of my claims and provide a counterargument.

I don't really have the time to engage with alt right folk, but once or twice a year I pick someone to tear apart intellectually, just to see if the alt right has improved any of their talking points (it's been more of a continuous decline). I pick you

I just reccommend that you avoid the subject of genetics entirely because that discussion in particular will be extremely one-sided. I did talk to an alt right guy a few years ago who was getting his PhD in biostats, he did alright. Still lost to me, but I already have my PhD, so.

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

Let's pick genetics then. Any unsupervised machine learning algorithm will cluster peoples genetics into clusters similar to what we know as "races".

Swedes are more genetically similar to each other than they are to negros.

A European is on average around 100,000 years of evolution separated from negros.

[–]milkmender11 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Incorrect. Those algorithims are very much supervised. Let's take STRUCTURE as an example (but they all work this way). A human MUST tell the algorithim what k to produce. You can try to pass the buck to instead give the algorithim a way to calculate k, but it will still being doing so with the criteria a human gave it. The problem isn't that there is some undiscovered objective k value. The problem is that the way ML packages are set up to begin with makes the assumption of k mandatory.

We can genetically distinguish Scots within their own village and classify them into different races. Swedish folk in one town are more genetically similar to another than they are to Swedish folk generally. It's all a matter of how closely you choose to zoom the telescope in. You NEVER find a hard boundary on this topic until you zoom out enough to find an actual subspecies, which unfortunately for you is not a well defined concept in genetics.

A European is not on average 100,000 years of evolution seperated from anyone. You couldn't even calculate a variable like that. It is a meaningless number. You would have to estimate when a population diverged, then try to extrapolate how much influence genetic drift, convergent evolution, and local extirpations produced genetic alignment even amidst two distinct breeding populations. Then you would have to translate that speculative metric of diversity (itself a difficult calculation--do we count repeats in the code? Inversions? Transpositions?) from 'genetic difference' into 'years,' as if the rate of human evolution were a static variable that tracked well onto time. Which it certainly does not, given that the past 100,000 years of evolution were immensely consequential only at highly staggered intervals. Sometimes evolution moves in leaps, sometimes in baby steps, sometimes not at all. But all of this is going way over your head I'm sure. Standard alt right

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

Incorrect. Those algorithims are very much supervised.

You don't know what the terms even mean. Please read up on what a supervised algorithm is.

A human MUST tell the algorithim what k to produce.

That's not supervised.

We can genetically distinguish Scots within their own village and classify them into different races. Swedish folk in one town are more genetically similar to another than they are to Swedish folk generally. It's all a matter of how closely you choose to zoom the telescope in. You NEVER find a hard boundary on this topic until you zoom out enough to find an actual subspecies, which unfortunately for you is not a well defined concept in genetics.

Welcome to the alt-right. You perfectly described our beliefs about race.

A European is not on average 100,000 years of evolution seperated from anyone.

I have this number from the experts in the field, David Reich and Svante Päabo, from one of their lectures.

[–]milkmender11 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I know exactly what supervised learning is. YOU are the one taking a specific computer science term ('supervised') and pretending that it connects back to the dictionary definition. It doesn't. Those algorithims ARE supervised in that humans provide the k value. They correspond to the dictionary definition of supervision, which is the one you were trying to shoehorn in under the guise of the specialized term. That's what I was calling you out on. The k value is determined by humans in 100% of cases. Find me one where it wasn't. I have citations ready to take down that argument from the last time an alt righter lost this exact same debate to me--and he was a grad student in computational statistics. Smart guy! Still wrong.

Welcome to the alt-right. You perfectly described our beliefs about race.

You actually want to talk about subspecies?? Eh... let's not. You can take that move back. I would take your queen with that so I'll pretend you didn't even say this. I mean, unless you DO want to talk about subspecies. Your call.

I have this number from the experts in the field, David Reich and Svante Päabo, from one of their lectures.

Yes, scientists make bullshit claims that they are rightly called out for. Some people, such as yourself, are hoodwinked. I gave examples of specific scientific processes that would need to be settled to even begin to assess this metric of difference in years, do you have an appropriately technical rebuttal? How would you account for genetic drift in this calculation of years of difference? Are you factoring in inversions, transpositions, and repeats of genes? You know, the genetic similarity between humans and chimps can vary wildly, 10% or more, based on how you choose to quantify what a single gene is. There are position effects, VNTRs, etc etc. Genetics is a lot more complicated than you realize.

Look, you are clearly smart. You remind me of some of my brighter students. I wish lefties put in even a fraction of the thought that you have put into genetics. But the truth is that this field is WAY more complex than you realize. Of course genes modulate behavior and that behavior can be predicted based on ancestry. But that doesn't mean that race is a scientific concept in genetics, it isn't. It's a social science concept. I'm not here to tell you that you can't predict a person's temperament by looking at them. You probably can. But your annoyance with the fact that society refuses to say that out loud does NOT mean that you get to play fast and loose with genetics as a science.

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

I know exactly what supervised learning is.

You clearly do not. Please learn what supervised vs. unsupervised is.

I will repeat this since you did not refute it and you simply agreed with our position on race:

We can genetically distinguish Scots within their own village and classify them into different races. Swedish folk in one town are more genetically similar to another than they are to Swedish folk generally. It's all a matter of how closely you choose to zoom the telescope in. You NEVER find a hard boundary on this topic until you zoom out enough to find an actual subspecies, which unfortunately for you is not a well defined concept in genetics.

Welcome to the alt-right. You perfectly described our beliefs about race.

As for this:

Yes, scientists make bullshit claims that they are rightly called out for.

I agree, that I have not myself done the calculations, and that I will have to defer to the authority of Svante Paabo for the claim of 100k years of divergent evolution between Europeans and Subsaharan africans (on average)- that is not to say zero gene flow has happend. Considering he's politically on the opposite side of the spectrum of me, he is likely UNDERESTIMATING, if anything. But to confirm I would have to do the calculations myself, which I'm not going to do- at least not this year.

Of course genes modulate behavior and that behavior can be predicted based on ancestry. But that doesn't mean that race is a scientific concept in genetics, it isn't. It's a social science concept.

The social science concept "race" is very different from the biological concept "race". One is based on ancestry and genetics (biological race) and the other is based on how people PERCEIVE you.
South Indians look black, so they would be black in social science BUT they are not black according to the biological concept of race. And they weren't grouped with negros either, historically.
I think you come to this debate with preconceived notions and are highly influenced by our modern culture.

Look, you are clearly smart. You remind me of some of my brighter students.

Thank you

[–]DragonerneJesus is white 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

https://saidit.net/s/debatealtright/comments/851p/the_depressing_story_of_the_american_continent/ua42

This user has been here before arguing genetics and he doesn't even grasp basic concepts such as mixed race. It reminds me of the recent study that tried to debunk the concept of race by using the argument that mixed race people exist-- literally, that's the level of sophistication we're dealing with here.

Leftism is a mental disorder.

[–]milkmender11 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

I am a geneticist. Race is not a scientific concept in genetics. There are some papers that tried to argue for a definition of race by using machine learning software packages, but these arguments relied on statistical analysis and hinge entirely upon feeding a computer the number of races you want to see. Race is politically and historically important, but it is not a scientific term in genetics. It has no definition in genetic science. There have been many proposed definitions that all suffer from the same problems, the biggest one being that there is no objective measurement of racial division in humans. The subspecies concept is the closest thing approaching a definition of race that one might use in genetics, but it doesn't apply to humans. Some of the more sophisticated 'Race Realist' thought involves trying to compare the fixation index for humans against the fixation index for known subspecies of some animal populations. The fixation index is a calculated variable in genetics that measures the extent to which genes are ubiquitous within a species ('at fixation,' as opposed to various alleles). That is a misguided effort for a variety of reasons which I won't bother to spell out because I have probably lost you already. It was a good attempt on their part though, or at least shows a slightly better understanding of genetics science than I usually see from the alt right. I'm usually dealing with people at a different level. Around about say... well, your level.

Funnily enough, here on saidit most of the race realists I debate quickly realize that they need to try and get away from the genetics discussion because they immediately are out of their league. So they maneuever the conversation to history, politics, society. Which is hilarious, they go the route of the postmodernists. It's a more fruitful realm of debate for them though, I don't have as much to say about all that.

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

I am a geneticist. Race is not a scientific concept in genetics.

Take two Bantu people native from Africa and drop them in Norway. Ask them to produce a child.

If the child doesn't come out with fair skin, a larger brain capacity, different shaped skull, blonde hair and blue eyes like the rest of the natives living in Europe, then what non-genetic explanation is at fault? Money? Politics? Schools?

Sorry but it's a complete embarrassment to say that race has has no relation to genes. Implying otherwise is to say the people who can give birth to fair skin blond hair kids naturally, is some kind of coincidence or pure luck. Those same Europeans have been giving birth to kids who look like exactly them for thousands of years.

[–]milkmender11 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Strawman. You are talking about basic Mendellian genetics. Nobody here ever said that doesn't exist. Your conflation of that with a nonexistant genetic concept of human race is your own error, not mine. If you assume that other people have made the same error, then of course you will be unable to see your mkstake.

I never said race has no relation to genes. Of course it does. Guitars have a relation to genes. The shape of a guitar is crafted to match a human anatomy that is genetically determined. But guitars are not a scientific concept in genetics. EVERYTHING about humans implicates genetics. That doesn't mean everything is a scientific concept in genetics pertaining to human beings.

You're not going to win this, bro. You'll learn a few things, but you won't win.

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

I never said race has no relation to genes. Of course it does. Guitars have a relation to genes. The shape of a guitar is crafted to match a human anatomy that is genetically determined. But guitars are not a scientific concept in genetics.

A guitar is not even a biological creature. Trying to mold it to look like a Human is just producing a fake copy of one.

The people who live and are native to Norway are real. Bringing a clearly Black Person from the heart of Africa and asking them to produce a White baby in front of them is an impossible task.

Evolution explains these blanks perfectly. Europe and Africa have enough environmental differences and pressures, that over thousands of years, natural selection took over and 2 different groups (or more accurately, "Races") where a result of this.

EVERYTHING about humans implicates genetics.

And those Humans can be easily classified into smaller and more identifiable groups because of that.

Notice how the conversation focused entirely on what is natural? I don't actually care about wealth status or levels of education received. That's how powerful the scientific concept of race is. You just can't pay a Black Couple a million dollars to have a White baby. There is no money in the world that can change genes like that...

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

Race is not a scientific concept in genetics.

According to which authority? You? Who made you the supreme authority of science? Science knows no consensus nor authority. Sorry to take away your religion and your church.

There have been many proposed definitions that all suffer from the same problems, the biggest one being that there is no objective measurement of racial division in humans.

There is no such thing as "objective measurement" for anything.

Genetic clusters of races perfectly match the historical concepts in science known as human races. The fact that this is the reality we live in is something you have to deal with in order to debunk the concept.
I can pull up a 1933 scientific map of the human races and they will correspond to the genetic maps that are generated by unsupervised machine learning models.

Your "so-called" rebuttal is entirely semantic and without substance. It is a political position, not a scientific one.

[–]milkmender11 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

According to which authority? You? Who made you the supreme authority of science? Science knows no consensus nor authority. Sorry to take away your religion and your church.

Ok. Then define race scientifically within genetics. Not a fringe paper, a pet theory. Provide the established scientific definition of race as it is understood in genetics.

There is no such thing as "objective measurement" for anything.
What are you now, Heidegger? If we are doing science, we MUST presume objective measurements. At the very least we can take an anti-realist philosophy and accept that our presumptions may ultimately be wrong, but we still have to do it for science to work. Did you want to talk science or philosophy?? Well, it wouldn't be the first time that an alt righter tried to get me off the science and onto some other topic. Honestly, that's EVERY time. And it is indeed a smart move, because you weren't going to win on the science.

Genetic clusters of races perfectly match the historical concepts in science known as human races.

DING DING DING!! Lol. Honestly, I didn't write the prior paragraph before seeing this part of your post. No lie. I just know from many of these debates that yall always try to move the conversation away from science and to philosophy or HISTORY, as you do here. Since when does history change scientific facts? History is a humanity, not a science. Of COURSE clusters match historical partitions because HUMANS SET THE K VALUE. They intentionally male the clusters resemble historical categories. This happens in 100% of all machine learning cluster operations for race. You can pass the buck by asking the algorithim to calculate its own k... based on the parameters you provide. Which is just providing k with extra steps.

I'm not saying that there are 0 races. I'm saying that there are anywhere from 0 races to as many races as there are genetic profiles, and there are precisely 0 scientific techniques to make any of those numbers more empirically justified than any other. You are astute in that you seem to realize that you MUST leave science and look to history in order to find the k that you want. Geez this is a mirror image of the same conversation I have with every alt righter on this subject. You guys are always so smart but it works against you sometimes. There really is no substitute for cracking open a modern genetics textbook.

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

Ok. Then define race scientifically within genetics. Not a fringe paper, a pet theory. Provide the established scientific definition of race as it is understood in genetics.

You have it backwards. No wonder you're confused. Race is the caucasian race, and within it we have the english race, the scottish race, and so on. It is based on divergent/common ancestry and you can zoom out or in as you please.
We then see if genetics correspond to and agree with our understanding of race, and wouldn't you know? It perfectly does. We aren't imposing a structure onto the genetics to make it fit our understanding of race. We aren't creating a definition based on our knowledge of genetics. In fact, the strength of the concept of race is that it came BEFORE genetics but even then, genetics confirm our concept. This is the strength. This is called scientific. No overfitting, no ad-hoc changes based on empiri, etc. Simply does the 'model fit the new data' and yes it does.

If we are doing science, we MUST presume objective measurements.

Not how science works. Any measurement is based on presumptions and earlier hypothesises. You might consider something "objective" but it is only within your paradigm.

I just know from many of these debates that yall always try to move the conversation away from science and to philosophy or HISTORY, as you do here.

No. I did not invoke history. I invoked the scientific understanding of race before our universities in the west were taken over by marxists after ww2.
"historical concepts in science known as human races"
If you have problems with reading comprehension, then try to re-read paragraphs to increase your comprehension.

If you haven't noticed, I don't subscribe to your "scientific" (political) priests or so-called authorities or "consensus". I adhere to actual science. If you want to debunk the concept of race, then don't change the definition or the concept, and then debunk that. This is a strawman and entirely semantic. Instead work with the definition and understanding that scientists used before your "priests" changed the definitions.

Of COURSE clusters match historical partitions because HUMANS SET THE K VALUE. They intentionally male the clusters resemble historical categories. This happens in 100% of all machine learning cluster operations for race.

This simply shows that you do not even understand what an unsupervised algorithm is or how machine learning works. Why do you think I said unsupervised instead of using the word supervised algorithm? It is specifically to avoid what you are postulating here, but you fail to understand the distinction- likely because this is not your field of expertise.
To make it easy for you to understand: we aren't intentionally making the clusters resemble historical categories. Literally the opposite. If you continue to fail to see the distinction here, then please let me know, and I may spend some time to elaborate on the basics of machine learning.
There is in fact ZERO reasons why the clusters should or ought to or would resemble the historical clusters IF race was not a thing. But because race is a real thing, then the clusters do resemble historical categories. Please take some time to consider these two sentences thoroughly.
Your confusion might also come from a lack of ability to understand conditional dependencies. Have you ever taken any courses in conditional probability?

There really is no substitute for cracking open a modern genetics textbook.

Appeal to authority. I don't adhere to your religion or your priests.

Your problem is that our human genetics perfectly match the historical categories, and your only arguments so far have been appeal to authority, consensus, semantics, and worst of all: complete lack of understanding of the basic algorithms used in the field of genetics. I'm looking forward to you coming with any scientific arguments.

[–][deleted]  (3 children)

[deleted]

    [–]milkmender11 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

    See, one of you accuses me of getting all of my views from the front page of google. YOU jokingly accuse me of being Spencer. The alt right can't even fucking agree on their mockingly derisive insults anymore. Those are opposite attacks. Geez, you people used to be smart. I used to come gere for engaging debate with people who cared enough to learn about what they discussed. Now the alt right is so disjointed, they can't even figure out what the nature of their disagreements are.

    [–][deleted]  (1 child)

    [deleted]

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

      Reading his comment with spencers voice makes me think you could be right. It fits his manner of speaking.