you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]StBlops2cel_is_Lord 11 insightful - 5 fun11 insightful - 4 fun12 insightful - 5 fun -  (10 children)

Yeah, let's turn this into Reddit 2.0, where talking shit about white peepo is the main topic. Reminder: practically everything in common use, starting with your computer, the electrical service, and the internet, was invented by white peepo.

[–]wizzwizz4 7 insightful - 5 fun7 insightful - 4 fun8 insightful - 5 fun -  (9 children)

I didn't know that Al-Khwarizmi (inventor of the algorithm), Banū Mūsā (co-inventors of perhaps the first programmable machine), Ismail al-Jazari (inventor of the first programmable computer), Pāṇini (whose work on formalising Sanskrit linguistics formed the core principles of BNF), Percy Ludgate (inventor of the second type of Analytical Engine), Wang An (co-inventor of core memory), Sasaki Tadashi (inventor of the single-chip CPU, and who took some unnamed female software engineer's 4001 / 4002 / 4003 / 4004 model from the local university to Intel), Shima Masatoshi (designer of the aforementioned 4004), Manuel Blum (inventor of axiomatic computational complexity theory), Yogen Dalal (co-author of TCP) and Toh Chai Keong (inventor and creator of that "hotspot" thing your phone can do) were white.

Guess I still don't understand this "race" you seem to be so obsessed with categorising people into.

[–]StBlops2cel_is_Lord 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (3 children)

They stole those credits from Jews, and you know it

[–][deleted]  (2 children)

[deleted]

    [–]StBlops2cel_is_Lord 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

    Jews made everything good

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

    Pretty sure he's being facetious!

    [–]OnlyforR 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

    Banū Mūsā (co-inventors of perhaps the first programmable machine)

    No.

    Ismail al-Jazari (inventor of the first programmable computer)

    No.

    Pāṇini (whose work on formalising Sanskrit linguistics formed the core principles of BNF

    No.

    Percy Ludgate is white. Manuel Blum is at least half-white.

    Sure, for the rest. I'd gladly give you the list of white contributors, but it would be a little tiring to type out.

    [–]wizzwizz4 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

    Pāṇini

    No.

    Seriously‽ The first one is probably just a curio, the second… you could argue somebody else would've come up with the idea, but "first inventor" is a significant enough concept in our culture that it has legal protection in over 50 countries…

    … but how can you say the founder of modern linguistics didn't develop the core principles of BNF? There are literally two differences between his grammar formalisation and BNF:

    • The definition's on the left, without a ::= symbol; and
    • It doesn't have a trivial one-to-one mapping between canonical representation and digital representation (i.e. you need to use a pen, not a keyboard, to write it).

    That's just utter ignorance.

    Percy Ludgate is white.

    Since when are Irish people white‽ The KKK, a white supremacist organisation, was anti-Irish (back when people used to take it seriously, anyway).

    Manuel Blum is at least half-white.

    He was born in bloody Venezuela!! Is it that hard to imagine that the inventor of the CAPTCHA

    I'd gladly give you the list of white contributors,

    The list? As in, everyone? I must admit, you'd find it easier, given how American and European contributors were better-documented (a Japanese uni student invented the ROM / RAM / LSR / CPU split, and we don't even know her name), but it'd still take a tremendous amount of research, and it'd take… well, I don't know how long the Saidit comment limit is now, given how long it's been since I've helped with the code, but certainly you'd need multiple comments.

    To get back to your original point… can you actually give an example of:

    practically everything in common use […] was invented by white peepo.

    I'd be surprised if you can find more than ten examples; most things in common use are the work of more than a single small team, and anything larger than five people probably isn't just white people (for whatever definition of "white" you're using), even in a majority-white area. Heck, even the original UNIX wasn't just the work of white men!

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

    ''To get back to your original point… can you actually give an example of:''

    That's not my original point, since as you can see, it was not my point, or my post, at all. However, a lot of things in use today are the creation of white people simply because a majority of human inventions were made past the 16th century when Europe shot ahead of the rest of the world. Murray's Human Accomplishments (2003) gives a good overview of this.

    It does not follow that the Irish were not considered white because the KKK was anti-Irish, assuming that's even true. You can find caricatures of Italians and Irish people in old newspapers, but from this it does not follow that the Irish and Italians were not considered white. For one Italians and Irish were both allowed to immigrate in a time where only ''free white men'' were accepted. Furthermore, anti-miscegenation laws dit not apply to Irish and Italians. If they had been considered non-white, anti-miscegenation laws would have applied to them, but they didn't. Finally, contemporary cluster analysis place Irish and Italians firmly within the European (or white) cluster, so there's no basis to think of Irish (or Italians) as anything but white, either from a contemporary genetics standpoint or from a historical standpoint.

    The ''Irish were not considered white'' is a meme propped up by leftist activists with the explicit intent of delegitimizing the white racial classification by making us think that people we consider white today were not considered white before, and so giving us the impression that the classification is heavily culturally loaded, and easy to change, when in reality, it's actually quite stable. The other intent is to use the successful integration of the now classified as non-white Irish and Italians as evidence that other non-white immigrants will be able to integrate successfully, which of course is no evidence at all, but is especially duplicitous when these activists themselves, in private, consider Irish and Italians to be white, and when they also know that pretty much everyone think of Irish and Italians as white. A short read on this subject, even though the author is a lefty : https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/03/22/sorry-but-the-irish-were-always-white-and-so-were-the-italians-jews-and-so-on/

    ''He was born in bloody Venezuela!!''

    ??? Lol. What do you think hispanics are? The populations of South America are mostly a mix of Amerindians, Europeans and Africans, some are more Amerindians, some are more Europeans, some are more Africans, and so on. Unless he's a full-blooded Amerindian or African, which he's clearly not, then he's white to some degree, and looking at him, it seems obvious to me he's mostly white if not fully white. I can't find any solid biographical info of him online, but signs points to him being mostly white, and certainly at least half-white.

    ''I'd be surprised if you can find more than ten examples''

    Yea this is correct, many inventions and scientific discoveries today are the work of small and medium teams, teams mostly composed of Whites, Jews, Asians, Indians and occassionally mixed people and Middle-Eastern people and rarely, but sometimes, Africans. This changes nothing about the disparity in contributions between the races and between individuals.

    This was not always true however, and many inventions and discoveries made between, say 1400 to 1800, were often the work of single individuals, many of whom were Europeans.

    [–]wizzwizz4 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    Unless he's a full-blooded Amerindian or African, which he's clearly not, then he's white to some degree,

    I'm going to ignore most of the rest of your post, because those parts are hard to argue with (either because they're right, like "a majority of human inventions…", or because they seems to be buried in a large structure of dubious conclusions that I don't feel like unpicking enough to give a coherent response, like "… to use the successful integration…" – though that might actually be true in the US; I've stopped keeping track of your incomprehensible excuse for politics).

    How much "white" do you need to be considered "white"? If any "white" ancestry makes you "white", then "whiteness" is infectious. That's how the US defined "Native American", iirc – unless both your parents were "Native American" (by their classification), you were instead "white" (or whatever – the important this is, the "Native American" population, according to the government, could only shrink without exclusive interbreeding; either way, cultural genocide).

    This changes nothing about the disparity in contributions between the races and between individuals.

    You haven't actually shown such a disparity. We should probably agree on some definition of each "race" (I'll go with yours, since you seem to have a concrete definition, but you'll have to explain it to me), but according to my general fuzzy idea of what a "race" is this is obviously false. (Now, it might be true in the USA, land of the free, where access to education is strongly divided along racial lines… but I assume you're accounting for such confounders.)

    This was not always true however, and many inventions and discoveries made between, say 1400 to 1800, were often the work of single individuals, many of whom were Europeans.

    And between, say, 600 and 1000, they were often the work of single individuals, many of whom were Arabs. Historically, invention follows the wealthy, with leisure time to spend on such things – often during wartime, but computer tech and maths aren't wartime occupations when they're purely intellectual endeavours.

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

    Well the point about integration is that, as you know, Western countries, and esp. new world Western countries have accepted succeeding waves of immigration. The integration into general society of these immigrants is, presumably, important, because if individuals are not properly integrated society's health will suffer as a result. Now, if it was the case that an immigrant's race was a strong predictor of an individual's future integration, then trying to convince people that individuals who integrated successfully in part thanks to their specific race (say, race A) are in fact not of that race at all in order to convince people to accept immigrants from other races, would be a deceitful tactic, since it would make people think that being of race A does not contribute to an immigrant's ability to integrate, when in reality it would be a significant factor, and so this might convince people to accept large amount of immigrants of different races (say, race B, C,) who might not be able to integrate well at all in part because they are not of race A.

    Now, regarding the definition of ''white'', I think you're making this more complex than it should be, and I suspect this might be because you've internalized leftist historiography of right wing racialist ideas (like when you mentionned that Irish are not white). Nobody here, I'm pretty sure, agrees with the ''one drop rule'' or think that if you're 1/18 white that suddenly makes you white. Clearly, if a thing is made up of two or more than two parts, for you to consider it mostly made of one part, that part would have to represent 50%+ of the thing, right? And ideally, something in the 70-80% range, correct? If you ordered a custom-made table, one half made out of birch wood and the other made out of oak wood, you would probably simply describe your table as half-oak and half-birch, but if it was 60% birch and 40% oak, you might be tempted to call it a birch table with a good portion of oak wood in it, and if it was 85% birch and 15% oak, you'd probably call it a birch table with some oak wood in it. So to be considered simply ''white'', you'd minimally have to be 50% white, and probably everyone would agree you were white if you were 85% white. There is some interpretative wiggle room here, but it's not much, clearly nobody can think of you as mostly white if you're 10% white, and basically nobody would consider you non-white if you were 90% white. So is Manuel Blum white? I don't know, we'd have to look at his ancestry, but looking at him, he seems to be mostly white, and so he probably is. Unless you have access to his genealogical record, or you think his physiognomy doesn't seem European (physiognomy is an imperfect proxy for racial classfication, but it works well enough), then you'd have to agree with me here.

    ''You haven't actually shown such a disparity''

    In terms of scientific discoveries and inventions? Well, no, because to conclusively show that would be an herculean task, but I don't have to be held to such a standard in the context of this discussion. It's common knowledge that some places were hotbed of civilization and some places not so, that Europe shot past everyone else starting from 1500 (and according to Comin, Easterly, and Gong (2010), Europe was actually not lagging behind the Middle-East during the Middle-Ages) and that this resulted in a majority of today's inventions and scientific discoveries resulting from the work of white Europeans, simply because many more discoveries and inventions were made during 1500 to today than were made before that point, even if you added up everything up, at a time when Europe became world dominant.

    Now I'm not too sure what this reply chain is about ; if it's about European contributions to science and technology, then it's basically uncontroversial to say that they're very important generally and especially so starting from the 1500s, where Europe became dominant, and I think you'd basically agree with me here.

    If it's about what the alt-right thinks of race, you can read stuff from here http://www.humanbiologicaldiversity.com or here https://www.unz.com/jman/hbd-fundamentals/.