you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]milkmender11 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 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.

[–]EuropeanAwakening14 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

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

[–]milkmender11 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 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 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.