Why I Care

[Sweitchland]

First, I'm observing what's happening in this argument. From what I can see, you don't have enough factual evidence to rival Kaczynskisatva's.
And while it is decent for a short claim, it does NOT intend to support a multi-page argument.
Kaczynskisatva is not my alt, my alt's are Hanisburg and Testing Dummies

First, you are incapable of satisfying my requirement. I told you to read the thread and evaluate, but you only keep repeating the same snipes about "you are wrong and Kaczynskisatva is right" with zero evidence or support. You can't even point out exactly where my arguments were "comedic standpoints", despite my posts still in the thread.

Second, sureeeeee I totally trust you, an account randomly going into the thread and tell me I'm wrong and Kaczynskisatva is right repeatedly.

If you don't have anything else other than variations of "you are wrong and Kaczynskisatva is right", then I suggest you should stop embarrassing yourself by leaving the thread before digging a deeper hole into failure.

I'm giving you one more chance, if not you're automatically on my Foe list. I don't have time to waste with people giving unoriginal non-answers.

If you really want me to, then I'll step out of this thread and leave ya'll to it.

[Limonovshchina]

I hope by 'kinda cringe' you mean an active terrorist threat which should be dealt with impunity. Otherwise it'd be arguably the understatement of the year

Way to overreact

Not really. That is what it has been since its inception and that's what it will be as long as it exists. It's immediately dangerous to the health and safety of all that its proponents oppose: people who are not white, sexual minorities, Jews in case of neo-nazis, Muslims and people to the left of conservatism politically, to name a few. It really has no right to exist as a movement.

First, you are incapable of satisfying my requirement. I told you to read the thread and evaluate, but you only keep repeating the same snipes about "you are wrong and Kaczynskisatva is right" with zero evidence or support. You can't even point out exactly where my arguments were "comedic standpoints", despite my posts still in the thread.

Second, sureeeeee I totally trust you, an account randomly going into the thread and tell me I'm wrong and Kaczynskisatva is right repeatedly.

If you don't have anything else other than variations of "you are wrong and Kaczynskisatva is right", then I suggest you should stop embarrassing yourself by leaving the thread before digging a deeper hole into failure.

I'm giving you one more chance, if not you're automatically on my Foe list. I don't have time to waste with people giving unoriginal non-answers.

If you really want me to, then I'll step out of this thread and leave ya'll to it.

You really don't have to entertain this random internet guy's demands, you know.

[Sweitchland]

You really don't have to entertain this random internet guy's demands, you know.

This argument might escalate pretty soon, and it was kinda my mistake to barge into this argument with only observations.

[Limonovshchina]

You really don't have to entertain this random internet guy's demands, you know.

This argument might escalate pretty soon, and it was kinda my mistake to barge into this argument with only observations.

No, he just likes arguing aggressively online. I suppose that's just the way he does it. Some people are like that.

[HISPIDA]

I hope by 'kinda cringe' you mean an active terrorist threat which should be dealt with impunity. Otherwise it'd be arguably the understatement of the year

Way to overreact

tell that to heather danielle heyer. oh, wait, you can't, because she was killed by white supremacists at c'ville. tell that to ahmaud arbery. oh, wait, you can't, because he was lynched. tell that to the 9 people shot to death at emanuel african methodist episcopal church. tell that to the 11 people shot to death at the tree of life synagogue. tell that to the 23 people shot to death at the walmart in el paso. tell that to the 51 people shot to death in the christchurch mosques.

[Sweitchland]

This argument might escalate pretty soon, and it was kinda my mistake to barge into this argument with only observations.

No, he just likes arguing aggressively online. I suppose that's just the way he does it. Some people are like that.

I suppose you're right.

[Vikanias]

White nationalism is kinda cringe ngl. It’s dog water dowsed in dog shit. I just wanna hang out with my homies of all races, not say “you genocided us!” And “No! You genocided us!” Over and over until,the universe dies, fuck white nationalism, fuck any races nationalism, just hang out with the homies.

I hope by 'kinda cringe' you mean an active terrorist threat which should be dealt with impunity. Otherwise it'd be arguably the understatement of the year

Aren’t all race nationalists terrorists? And by kinda cringe I meant that it’s kinda cringe, I ain’t playing some politics. And why are people taking my post so seriously, is it becuase no one likes hanging out with the homies becuase they are white or black? Or I’m just right and people are overreacting to me saying ‘kinda cringe’

[Limonovshchina]

I hope by 'kinda cringe' you mean an active terrorist threat which should be dealt with impunity. Otherwise it'd be arguably the understatement of the year

Aren’t all race nationalists terrorists?

I haven't heard of Hispanic or Asian nationalists being active terrorist threats claiming lives in the recent decades. Out of black nationalists, some might call the Black Panther Party a terrorist group, which I'd still probably deny and call a stretch. Black supremacy by itself is a threat of course, but I'm not in the know of them committing acts of terror at least in the West. Africa might very likely would be a different story.

And by kinda cringe I meant that it’s kinda cringe, I ain’t playing some politics. And why are people taking my post so seriously, is it becuase no one likes hanging out with the homies becuase they are white or black? Or I’m just right and people are overreacting to me saying ‘kinda cringe’

Yeah, sure, there's nothing to it. I just felt like reminding the homies what the not-so-homies among the homies have really been up to, ya dig?

[Vassenor]

Aren’t all race nationalists terrorists?

I haven't heard of Hispanic or Asian nationalists being active terrorist threats claiming lives in the recent centuries. Out of black nationalists, some might call the Black Panther Party a terrorist group, which I'd still probably deny and call a stretch. Black supremacy by itself is a threat of course, but I'm not in the know of them committing acts of terror at least in the West. Africa might very likely would be a different story.

And by kinda cringe I meant that it’s kinda cringe, I ain’t playing some politics. And why are people taking my post so seriously, is it becuase no one likes hanging out with the homies becuase they are white or black? Or I’m just right and people are overreacting to me saying ‘kinda cringe’

Yeah, sure, there's nothing to it. I just felt like reminding the homies what the not-so-homies among the homies have really been up to, ya dig?

So how are we defining groups like the Tamil Tigers?

[Limonovshchina]

I haven't heard of Hispanic or Asian nationalists being active terrorist threats claiming lives in the recent centuries. Out of black nationalists, some might call the Black Panther Party a terrorist group, which I'd still probably deny and call a stretch. Black supremacy by itself is a threat of course, but I'm not in the know of them committing acts of terror at least in the West. Africa might very likely would be a different story.


Yeah, sure, there's nothing to it. I just felt like reminding the homies what the not-so-homies among the homies have really been up to, ya dig?

So how are we defining groups like the Tamil Tigers?

Good question. Even better questions would be "is this the cold war" and "do you live in Sri Lanka". That is, relevance. The LTTE no longer exists, much like the ETA no longer exists in the West or the numerous communist terrorist groups of that era no longer exist. Otherwise the answer to your question would be obvious.

[Vassenor]

So how are we defining groups like the Tamil Tigers?

Good question. Even better questions would be "is this the cold war" and "do you live in Sri Lanka". That is, relevance. The LTTE no longer exists, much like the ETA no longer exists in the West or the numerous communist terrorist groups of that era no longer exist. Otherwise the answer to your question would be obvious.

Yes, but your "in the recent centuries" remark seemed to imply we were talking about historical groups as well as currently active ones.

[Limonovshchina]

Good question. Even better questions would be "is this the cold war" and "do you live in Sri Lanka". That is, relevance. The LTTE no longer exists, much like the ETA no longer exists in the West or the numerous communist terrorist groups of that era no longer exist. Otherwise the answer to your question would be obvious.

Yes, but your "in the recent centuries" remark seemed to imply we were talking about historical groups as well as currently active ones.

I did say centuries when I meant decades, sorry. Recent decades.

[Vikanias]

I haven't heard of Hispanic or Asian nationalists being active terrorist threats claiming lives in the recent decades. Out of black nationalists, some might call the Black Panther Party a terrorist group, which I'd still probably deny and call a stretch. Black supremacy by itself is a threat of course, but I'm not in the know of them committing acts of terror at least in the West. Africa might very likely would be a different story.


Yeah, sure, there's nothing to it. I just felt like reminding the homies what the not-so-homies among the homies have really been up to, ya dig?

In Africa it’s IS a different story, I may be wrong and the sources outdated but Gangs often kill albino people, yeah they ain’t white per say but they do get killed for the colour of their skin.

[Limonovshchina]

I haven't heard of Hispanic or Asian nationalists being active terrorist threats claiming lives in the recent decades. Out of black nationalists, some might call the Black Panther Party a terrorist group, which I'd still probably deny and call a stretch. Black supremacy by itself is a threat of course, but I'm not in the know of them committing acts of terror at least in the West. Africa might very likely would be a different story.


Yeah, sure, there's nothing to it. I just felt like reminding the homies what the not-so-homies among the homies have really been up to, ya dig?

In Africa it’s IS a different story, I may be wrong and the sources outdated but Gangs often kill albino people, yeah they ain’t white per say but they do get killed for the colour of their skin.

I was referring to the attacks on white South African farm owners and similar events in Zimbabwe often brought up as examples of anti-white racism. Of course, albinos tend to also get attacked for more spiritual than just racial reasons.

[Bear Stearns]

is everyone ignoring that OP just said his experiences were shaped by a life as a hardened criminal and involvement with gangs

[The Reformed American Republic]

In Africa it’s IS a different story, I may be wrong and the sources outdated but Gangs often kill albino people, yeah they ain’t white per say but they do get killed for the colour of their skin.

I was referring to the attacks on white South African farm owners and similar events in Zimbabwe often brought up as examples of anti-white racism. Of course, albinos tend to also get attacked for more spiritual than just racial reasons.

In Zimbabwe, farm confiscations and attacks often were racist.

[Ayytaly]

This is some thinly-veiled justification for Anglo-Saxonism.and its ill-effects on Ireland, America and Oceania.

[Kaczynskisatva]

Aren’t all race nationalists terrorists?

No. Some of them are freedom fighters, and some of them are ruling parties.

For white people, race nationalists are usually not terrorists, they are just proles who are discontent with their displacement within the globalist system. They're effects of the same cause which causes Antifa type radical anarchists / Marxist-Leninists / whateverists. The unrivaled elegance of the Western system, or at least the American system, is that it keeps these people distracted by the choices between so many different brands, such that they can never cooperate on anything and will fight each other when any problem arises.

This is probably the best explanation for why so much of Europe is doing lockdown protests on a weekly basis, and the Americans aren't, in jurisdictions with similar restrictions. If you literally went door to door in America slapping people's dogs with steel dildos, someone would say it was bad, and then someone else would feel obligated to say it was good, and slapping dogs with steel dildos would become a polarized issue that was about as acceptable to the randomly selected prole as trans bathrooms. A major news network would be bringing on serious business talking heads to explain why the dildo slapping was our values and who we are, and why anti-dildo-slappists were extremely dangerous to our democracy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZggCipbiHwE

This environment comes with the cost that, if nothing is universally acceptable, nothing is universally unacceptable. So, ethnostate memes get to encroach upon the Overton window to the same degree as the idea of enforcing anti-Trust legislation against Google.

The ravenous public appetite for salacious ignorance has something to do with it. The funny thing here is that, no one wants to make the strong argument, which is that white culture exists and has always been idealistic, and trying to include everyone available into the latest version of the universal ideal, and therefore, ethnostate politics are objectively anti-white culture. They do not want to do this, because this would require them to acknowledge that white people exist, and have a culture.

Failing to acknowledge this is failing to agree to basic underlying premises of demonstrated reality, and just encourages people to migrate to fringe positions because they view the mainstream position as unable to articulate itself. It also fails to offer a good solution to the alienating conditions that are driving people to radicalism across the board, and not just to this radicalism in particular. In fact, it also denies that these conditions exist, and sort of implies that these radicalisms exist because of the individual moral failures of their participants, who are apparently less moral than the people in previous times who were less radical, and does not explain the reason for this, either. Time spent saying that a behavior is bad, is usually less informative than time spent examining why it is happening.

This is an okay-ish strategy for the mass media that gets shoved down everyone's throat like a foie gras goose, since when you run the media, you can just aggressively deny that things exist, and some people will go along with it. If their lizard hindbrain mistakes the media apparatus for an organic group they belong to, they will respond to being shamed by it and adjust their thoughts accordingly. But, imitating this strategy in conversation with real people does not render the same result, because they get to talk back at you, and demonstrate that things like white people, white culture, and rising alienation are all real things, using simple words.

-

As for the other guy - I don't know, I hope he gets over his issues. I transformed something about "close genetic distance between human groups means there's no functional difference between them" into the same thing on chimpanzees to show that it wasn't sufficient to the case, and he actually comes back to me with something about chimpanzees. I just can't spend all day on someone who aggressively and proudly misses the point. If you wanted to test the hypothesis that there were no functional differences between human racial groupings, there's actually a lot of data on how different racially grouped human populations perform a lot of different functions, and you can just look at that yourself.

Preferring theory over observational data, when data is available, is a weird thing which I am only aware of being done to defend bad theories. Good theories can just defer to data.

[Vikanias]

Aren’t all race nationalists terrorists?

No. Some of them are freedom fighters, and some of them are ruling parties.

For white people, race nationalists are usually not terrorists, they are just proles who are discontent with their displacement within the globalist system. They're effects of the same cause which causes Antifa type radical anarchists / Marxist-Leninists / whateverists. The unrivaled elegance of the Western system, or at least the American system, is that it keeps these people distracted by the choices between so many different brands, such that they can never cooperate on anything and will fight each other when any problem arises.

This is probably the best explanation for why so much of Europe is doing lockdown protests on a weekly basis, and the Americans aren't, in jurisdictions with similar restrictions. If you literally went door to door in America slapping people's dogs with steel dildos, someone would say it was bad, and then someone else would feel obligated to say it was good, and slapping dogs with steel dildos would become a polarized issue that was about as acceptable to the randomly selected prole as trans bathrooms. A major news network would be bringing on serious business talking heads to explain why the dildo slapping was our values and who we are, and why anti-dildo-slappists were extremely dangerous to our democracy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZggCipbiHwE

This environment comes with the cost that, if nothing is universally acceptable, nothing is universally unacceptable. So, ethnostate memes get to encroach upon the Overton window to the same degree as the idea of enforcing anti-Trust legislation against Google.

The ravenous public appetite for salacious ignorance has something to do with it. The funny thing here is that, no one wants to make the strong argument, which is that white culture exists and has always been idealistic, and trying to include everyone available into the latest version of the universal ideal, and therefore, ethnostate politics are objectively anti-white culture. They do not want to do this, because this would require them to acknowledge that white people exist, and have a culture.

Failing to acknowledge this is failing to agree to basic underlying premises of demonstrated reality, and just encourages people to migrate to fringe positions because they view the mainstream position as unable to articulate itself. It also fails to offer a good solution to the alienating conditions that are driving people to radicalism across the board, and not just to this radicalism in particular. In fact, it also denies that these conditions exist, and sort of implies that these radicalisms exist because of the individual moral failures of their participants, who are apparently less moral than the people in previous times who were less radical, and does not explain the reason for this, either. Time spent saying that a behavior is bad, is usually informative than time spent examining why it is happening.

This is an okay-ish strategy for the mass media that gets shoved down everyone's throat like a foie gras goose, since when you run the media, you can just aggressively deny that things exist, and some people will go along with it. If their lizard hindbrain mistakes the media apparatus for an organic group they belong to, they will respond to being shamed by it and adjust their thoughts accordingly. But, imitating this strategy in conversation with real people does not render the same result, because they get to talk back at you, and demonstrate that things like white people, white culture, and rising alienation are all real things, using simple words.

-

As for the other guy - I don't know, I hope he gets over his issues. I transformed something about "close genetic distance between human groups means there's no functional difference between them" into the same thing on chimpanzees to show that it wasn't sufficient to the case, and he actually comes back to me with something about chimpanzees. I just can't spend all day on someone who aggressively and proudly misses the point. If you wanted to test the hypothesis that there were no functional differences between human racial groupings, there's actually a lot of data on how different racially grouped human populations perform a lot of different functions, and you can just look at that yourself.

Preferring theory over observational data, when data is available, is a weird thing which I am only aware of being done to defend bad theories. Good theories can just defer to data.

Do not speak to me unless you watch this video, it explains my ideas flawlessly

https://youtu.be/QB7ACr7pUuE

[Picairn]

As for the other guy - I don't know, I hope he gets over his issues. I transformed something about "close genetic distance between human groups means there's no functional difference between them" into the same thing on chimpanzees to show that it wasn't sufficient to the case, and he actually comes back to me with something about chimpanzees. I just can't spend all day on someone who aggressively and proudly misses the point. If you wanted to test the hypothesis that there were no functional differences between human racial groupings, there's actually a lot of data on how different racially grouped human populations perform a lot of different functions, and you can just look at that yourself.

Preferring theory over observational data, when data is available, is a weird thing which I am only aware of being done to defend bad theories. Good theories can just defer to data.

Congratulations, you still proudly don't understand how evolution works. How many times do I have to hammer the facts in your head until you finally understand that chimps and humans have radically different genes due to their divergent evolutionary paths, thus your whole analogy is bunk? Comparing chimps to humans versus comparing humans to humans, I don't understand how someone can continue to be this dense.

As to the "different functions" of racial groups, kindly clarify and point out where exactly black people differ from white and Asian people, and vice versa. Don't tell me about data when you have none to show. Otherwise, take the L and go home.

Can you even define what a race means i.e. what qualities are needed to be seen as "white"?

[Kaczynskisatva]

Well, just for style, I'm going to point out one thing that you already know, to yourself:

There are genetically identifiable human populations which are functionally retarded, based on single protein mutations. Having 200+ repeats of FMR1 (instead of the normal 5 to 44 repeats) for example, will mutate a single protein, and cause a person to be, on average, retarded.

The genomic-statistic difference between these people, and other humans, is trivial. They are 99.9999% genetically similar (give or take a few decimals) to an identical copy of themselves, without this mutation, who is not retarded and functions normally.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FMR1

Therefore, genomic-statistic differences between humans do not correlate to functional differences, which should be measured directly, because single changes in single gene expressions can completely change the functional range of the subject.

There's probably a thread-recursive joke to be made here about "the anatomy of retardation" since you have chosen to spend some time out of your day to ask me to explain to you something you already knew, but were pretending to not understand, or did not realize that you knew and that it was related to another thing you were making insufficiently-backed claims about. You are free to continue making that joke, by posting "give me evidence to support a competing hypothesis" responses to "you have provided insufficient evidence for your own hypothesis" objections, and by posting in your style in general.

[Picairn]

Well, just for style, I'm going to point out one thing that you already know, to yourself:

There are genetically identifiable human populations which are functionally retarded, based on single protein mutations. Having 200+ repeats of FMR1 (instead of the normal 5 to 44 repeats) for example, will mutate a single protein, and cause a person to be, on average, retarded.

The genomic-statistic difference between these people, and other humans, is trivial. They are 99.9999% genetically similar (give or take a few decimals) to an identical copy of themselves, without this mutation, who is not retarded and functions normally.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FMR1

Therefore, genomic-statistic differences between humans do not correlate to functional differences, which should be measured directly, because single changes in single gene expressions can completely change the functional range of the subject.

There's probably a thread-recursive joke to be made here about "the anatomy of retardation" since you have chosen to spend some time out of your day to ask me to explain to you something you already knew, but were pretending to not understand, or did not realize that you knew and that it was related to another thing you were making insufficiently-backed claims about. You are free to continue making that joke, by posting "give me evidence to support a competing hypothesis" responses to "you have provided insufficient evidence for your own hypothesis" objections, and by posting in your style in general.

How does this in any way support racial divisions? You know full well that FMR1 mutations do not make a person taxonomically different from a Homo Sapiens human, correct?

If there are inherent differences between races to justify the racial caste system, you would see this reflected in the genes. If separate racial or ethnic groups actually existed, we would expect to find “trademark” alleles and other genetic features that are characteristic of a single group but not present in any others. And yet, there is no such thing, while human groups clustered in geographical locations, only 7.4% of over 4000 alleles were specific to one geographical region. Furthermore, even when region-specific alleles did appear, they only occurred in about 1% of the people from that region—hardly enough to be any kind of trademark. Thus, there is no evidence that the groups we commonly call “races” have distinct, unifying genetic identities. In fact, there is ample variation within races, so much so that genetic variability within racial groups are greater than amongst them. Phenotypes thought to be "inherent" to a race are present in other races, such as blond haired, blue eyed Uyghurs, Indians, Yazidis, etc. Classifications of races are also incredibly incoherent, often depending on the wishes of the classifier such as the infamous one-quarter, one-sixteenth, and finally one-drop rule in determining African Americans ancestry in the Jim Crow South.

So do tell me again how there are distinct biological differences between races. Your "objections" constituted an ignorance of evolution, and did not provide any data on the supposedly "inherent" variations between races, nor have you clarified what "functions" are unique to each race. By continuing to dig a deeper hole into flawed analogies and ignorance of science, you have made the referred thread-recursive joke about "the anatomy of retardation" come to life, a self-inflicted wound I would say.

[Kaczynskisatva]

You are free to continue making that joke, by posting "give me evidence to support a competing hypothesis" responses to "you have provided insufficient evidence for your own hypothesis" objections, and by posting in your style in general.

So do tell me again how there are distinct biological differences between races.

So, you can literally pick any attribute which is variable between people, like physical height or skin pigmentation, then examine different nationally prescribed or racially described groupings, and see if there are different averages. Then, as a follow-up to this, you can investigate how much of a genetic basis there is for your chosen attribute of study, and how much of an environmental basis there is for the attribute.

This is pretty simple to do. You can do this for yourself, if you are interested in the question. You do not really need genomic-statistical theories to predict the distributions of attribute-predictive genes, when you can compare direct data on attribute expression between any arbitrarily defined population groups, and then examine if there are any genes known to predict that attribute. This is enough for a strong causation hypothesis, but you can follow up by checking if the expression frequency of any identified attribute-predictive genes has been directly measured in your compared populations.

It doesn't really matter to me, in the boundaries of this thread, what you're interested in studying, or what results you get out of that. What matters, is that there is a general method for these kinds of problems, it's the same one you use for plants, and you've just been served with it.

[Picairn]

So, you can literally pick any attribute which is variable between people, like physical height or skin pigmentation, then examine different nationally prescribed or racially described groupings, and see if there are different averages. Then, as a follow-up to this, you can investigate how much of a genetic basis there is for your chosen attribute of study, and how much of an environmental basis there is for the attribute.

Haven't I told you that phenotypes thought to be "inherent" within a race are present in other races? And that only 7.4% of over 4,000 alleles are unique to one region, in 1% of that region's population?

What matters, is that there is a general method for these kinds of problems, it's the same one you use for plants, and you've just been served with it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category: ... nt_species

Meanwhile, all living humans belong to the same species: Homo Sapiens. Dumbest comparison ever.

[Reploid Productions]

(Image)

The rest of your post was fine, the inclusion of this goes straight into flaming/flamebaiting. You can make your arguments without insulting insinuations about your opponents' intelligence. I recommend you review the site rules at your earliest convenience.