Why don't race realist ever come up with solutions?

I noticed that race realist NEVER and I mean EVER come up with solutions. Sure they'll pull out their stats and their "proof" of the differences between races. They'll go on and on about how black people are so inferior. And yes I did say "inferior". Because when you spend all of your time saying people are intellectually dull and are criminals and genetically pre-disposed to violence, you are calling them inferior. But when it comes down to brass tax, when it's all said and done, they're silent when it comes to what they'll do with the info.

I mean they talk about it's very very important to talk about it. It's very important that everyone knows about it. But they rarely if ever say what is the end game. Like what are you actually going to do with this information. The data is really a means to an end. There has to be something you actually want to achieve with this data.

Yet I hear nothing. nothing and silence from even their most fervent supporters. The main excuse "it's just a claim". Some say stuff like "well this is to counter the policy decisions made by the government". Ok, so is the goal to have a policy based on race realist? And if you did, wouldn't this by nature be coercive? Wouldn't this by nature be against the ideals of libertarianism and conservatism?

We have to remember that Nazi's were leftist. They were socialist and strong interventionalist. They are the exact opposite of what a conservative is. Race realist always go on about leftist. So they couldn't be advocating for any social policy that comes from government, because this would contradict their conservative stance.

Though let's break this down, a race realist CAN'T philosophically be a conservative anyway. A conservative, or a classical liberal strongly believes in free will. Because without free will, you cannot be free. Most race realist are determinist, which is more aligned with their elitest viewpoints. Call race realism what you want, but it's a call and an advocacy towards elitism. It's at odds with freedom and free will. So because philosophically they're opposed to any foundation of classical liberalism or conservativism. They can't functionally be conservatives. They're more of strong authortarian leftist and socialist. Because their philsophical base is more in line with this thinking.

 

You restart the same thread every few months. Why don't you just post in one of the other, multiple threads you've started on this exact same subject?

 

Yes, because this board isn't full of rehashes

 

You do bring this Strawman up alot. Implying genocide or Eugenics is being suggested.
It's really very disingenuous/sleazy.

AS IF identifying a Fact (or problem) means you have make it socially acceptable or solvable.
There are Many/countless subspecies/Races of many animals.
They are not all equal in all respects.
There are relative advantages and disadvantages between groups.
"inferior" is subjective, but necessary for YOU to call some one a bigot.

There is no "solution" to tens of thousands of years of evolution until Genetic manipulation can equalize all... if that's even desirable.
Just think of that 'solution': the NBA would fall to 13% Black (their pop %age) instead of 90% (Track&Field/Sprints/Marathons too), and ie, Ashkenazi Jews would fall to 1/4 of 1% of the Nobel Winners from their current 25%.
The 'Black' crime rate would fall to the white, or even much smaller Asian one.

Groups have innate relative advantages and disadvantages.
I don't have to 'solve' it!
+

 

PS: I answered Thanos here, when he SPAMMED it up the last time.

What is the end game for race realist
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...r-race-realist.487663/page-13#post-1066916354
pg 13

and in the following post
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...r-race-realist.487663/page-13#post-1066926326

You try this BS regularly and get your Head handed to you.

In the above string, I also caught you Grotesquely and serially LYING.
So bad, it wasn't even sane.
Impossible to debate someone who just makes stuff up and changes his claims in every post:

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...r-race-realist.487663/page-14#post-1066931221
+

 

Taxonomy26 pretty much destroyed the OP already, but there's one part I think deserves extra commentary.

By your use of the word most (which is probably anecdotal anyway), you admit that not all race realists are deterministic. Which destroys any point you were trying to make regarding how they CAN'T be conservative because free will blah blah blah. It's all sophistry anyway, because you are conflating legal freedoms with free will. But even if free will, in the philosophical sense, is granted, it will always be limited by biology. I may be free in a legal, philosophical, and societal sense to jump six feet straight in the air, but if my genetics don't allow that, it ain't happening, and that doesn't mean I don't have "free will."

 

Don't put words in my mouth.

So if there is a subspecies of lions with duller claws, duller teeth, and a lot less speed, this subspecies is just as good as the lion who is fast, have menacing claws, and sharper teeth? Part of why the lion survive is a large part due to these characteristics.

Black people are humans. Bottomline. Black people are not as strong as a gorilla, as fast as a cheetah, or can swim like fish. Black people have the same physical limitations in nature as white people. The thing most prized in all human societies is intelligence. This is how humans survive. So when you state that one group of humans are intellectually superior. You're basically saying they're better human beings.

 

Actually I'm not talking about legal definitions. But even if I were, legal definitions are based on some sort of philosophy. And you can't even assume that people are free unless you feel they own their decisions and choices. And your biology analogy was flat out bizzare. Free will means you control yourself, you control your decisions and choices. This does not say that you can control the world around you, or control reality. There is a clear difference in these concepts. With that said, a race realist basically asserts that people don't control their decisions. That their biology is written, and it dictates all decisions they make. Meaning techniclaly with a race realist mindset, you can't believe that free will exist. You must believe in some sort of genetic of biological determinism, and that people are biologically determined to make certain decisions. This is a big reason why a lot of race realist have abandoned libertarianism, and have moved more towards the alt-right. They cannot reconcile these ideals with libertarianism, because free will is central to libertarianism.

 

But that's simply not true. There are areas of this world where physical strength and athleticism are more important for survival than intelligence, and vice-versa. It's undeniable at this point that blacks have an advantage over whites in certain athletic activities, mostly related to running and jumping. Whites haven't won an Olympic running event against blacks in a very long time. There's a reason for this.

While projecting supremacism onto whites, it is actually blacks who have the supremacist position on this one. They don't deny they have athletic advantages, but they don't want to admit any disadvantage to other groups. They must not only be the best athletes, but they also have to be just as smart as everyone else (or smarter), even when there are many decades of data that shows that, on average, they are not.

 

Such an area doesn't exist. Even if humans are surviving in these areas, intelligence will always help more than it hurts. Remember no matter how athletically and physically gifted a human is, they can't take out a bear or a lion. So the only advantage human has in this world are our intellectual advantage. Stating that intellect isn't advantageous in some human societies is just pure conjecture. Even if humans lived in the jungle, they still need intelligence to survive against predators.

I'm not projecting supremacism onto whites. I'm stating race realist are basically stating that they believe whites are superior to blacks based on the idea that intellect is a universally valuable asset to humans. Which it is.

 

Sure, intelligence will help no matter where you are, but in some areas it is more required for survival than other areas.

You're making the argument that whites and Asians are no more intelligent than blacks, while maintaining that blacks are more athletic than whites and Asians. So basically blacks are just superior, is what you are saying.

I believe Northern latitudes required more intelligence for survival than Southern latitudes, which is why whites and Asians tend to be more intelligent on average than blacks. Virtually every IQ test ever administered supports this. That doesn't mean individual blacks can't be as smart, or smarter, but we are talking averages.

 

Again, there are no human societies where intellect isn't important. There is no place where physical abilities circumvents the need for intellectual achievements. These areas simply don't exist. So again, to state that whites are smarter than blacks it basically to state that whites are better than blacks

I never said who is smarter than who. I personally don't think there is any genetic component to intelligence. And when I say "no genetic component", I clearly don't mean extreme cases where people have mental disorders. I mean under the assumption that an individual doesn't have an overwhelming mental handicap, I don't think at this point it's genetic. Cultural, yes. Genetic, no.

As far as blacks being more physically gifted. I don't think blacks are. This is also cultural. A lot of black homes put a huge focus on physical abilities and atheleticism. But this is also southern culture in general. A ton of players in the NFL black or white are mostly from the south, where being physically strong are very important. Diet also plays a huge role in atheleticism.

Also some of the best in their sports do not have any natural physical gifts. For example, Michael Jordan is not some genetic beast of an athelete. He was very short, but he put in a lot of hard work into becoming a top basketball player. A lot of it has to do with what you do, not who you are or how your were born.

Are blacks taller than Asians on average? Yes. But that's mostly true for American blacks. Notice blacks in Africa aren't particularly tall, and majority of them would make terrible basketball players.

I know you're talking about averages, which is of course another big problem. But without any sample data released on who participated in this IQ test, if the trend still continues, and various other variables (which probably aren't measured), it's still an incomplete study. And I have searched high and low for sample data. The is an article that points towards NLSY datasets, but I can't find any info on their site that list IQ scores.

There is a twitter here from Murray: https://twitter.com/charlesmurray/status/690528811537059841

But I'm imagining not everyone gets this dataset, and he still hasn't released it to the public.

 

Oh, the high jump analogy was too physical for you? Well, there are biological factors which influence decision making as well. Some people are biologically more prone to risk-taking. Some people are more genetically predisposed to drug or alcohol addiction. Does that mean that they don't have free will?

 

Actually a partial solution is already being implemented, via the criminal justice system, where African-Americans are over-represented.

 

Everyone has a different personality. Right. But at the end of the day, you still make the decisions. Sure emotionally maybe not taking a risk seems to make more sense to your. But people go against their nature every single day. So at the end of the day, people own their own decisions, not matter what they're predisposed to do. A race realist does not believe a person owns their own decisions. That if their were predisposed to do something, they WILL do this very thing. They feel it's fruitless to even suggest that people can go against their very nature. And as such most race realist do not believe humans have free will. If humans have free will, then race realism is basically irrelevant. you can't predict what any given human will do in any given situation.

 

Yes mostly for victimless crimes like dealing and using drugs. So artificially make something illegal, overstaff police in this area, and then say "blacks commit all the crimes". when in reality most drug users these days are white, yet we haven't seen quite the imperative to ramp up police presence in these areas or neighborhoods.

 

It sounds like you are either misrepresenting their position, or taking the most extreme position you've ever heard, and applying it to all race realists. A "realistic" position is that, in the aggregate, people genetically predisposed to, say, alcoholism will in fact drink to excess more than a group who are not so predisposed, with a high degree of certainty. Now of course this doesn't mean that it will be true in each individual case, nor does it mean that the people didn't own their choices. But when you aggregate the probabilities, you can make a very accurate prediction. So, for example, if a race realist makes the generalization that "black people can't stop committing crime", it is highly doubtful that he would mean that each individual black person is unable to control himself. Rather, he would be saying that as a whole, you can predict the predominant actions of the group.

 

It's not only obvious what's in your mouth, you post this same Fallacious garbage regularly, even after getting gutted. See my previous posts and links to previous discussions.

Precisely. That is why Other societies/races developed faster and were able to Colonize and Enslave Africans.
Intellectually, Euros had "sharper claws", and still do.

Afros are regularly devastated by things like AIDS and Ebola, which would wipe out Half the continent were it not for 'White' help.

Only compassion of the last century has saved them.
For the first time in the history of Nature/evolution, a stronger subspecies/race has stopped wiping out a weaker one whose intellectual 'claws and bite' are weak.
The same with welfare and AA within the USA.
But you can't reverse genetic disadvantage with a few bucks.

Huh?
This is vacuous/nonsensical and shows complete lack of understanding, and you, Unwittingly, remain evidence of my point.

Black people remained hunter gatherers with easy food and weather out the door.
Until 100 years ago, when colonized by Euros/ Whites (and more recently Chinese/Asians) sub-Saharan lived in Huts.. FOREVER, and in good extent, still do.

When some groups left Africa they faced more challenging weather (winters) and food gathering/storing.
App, and merely, 10,000 years ago, Euros and Asians started agricultural developments, Cities, etc.
Creating much more interaction, and demand for ie, weights and measures, reservoirs, roads, and other sophisticated trading/lingual needs.

Blacks, by and large, never had a written language, never built anything serious pre-contact, and hadn't even invented or used the wheel.

So while societal needs look relatively similar today, they were NOT for the long periods it takes to develop into Race, and it's accompanying mental and physical differences.

You really whiffed on most of my post, which I suppose is better than your Horrendous attempts in previous strings. See the links in my last showing how Despicable/Obtuse they were.
+

 

A sharper clawed lion is a better lion. So a statement that Europeans are smarter than Africans is the same as you stating that Europeans are superior to Africans. You really can't get around this.

Again stating your superiority.

None of this has anything to do with the topic of course. The topic was 1. What do people plan to do with race realism? What is the proposed solution. And how is race realism compatible with free will. Free will being the foundation of western societies and the foundation of conservatism.

So lets break this down, you claim that Africans live in hunter gatherer societies, and somehow these are great societies where intellect isn't as useful. But let me ask you a question, if Africans were a little smarter, would that be a liability or a benefit? Couldn't you kill more animals with better weapons? So intellect only increase the viability of a hunter gatherer society. This is not a case where intellect isn't important for this type of society. It's very important, because this makes hunting less risky and far more efficient.

So you're not proving your case. There is no human society that isn't better served by smart people, period. You claim is that intellect isn't really important to every human society, but it clearly is. So again, when you say that whites are smarter than blacks, you're stating that white are superior to blacks. Unless you can prove that somehow being slightly stronger on average that whites somehow, someway nullifies the need for intellect. Intellect being a proven fundamental survival tool for all humans. And the more intellect any society has, the better off the society is.


The rest of what you wrote is just hyperbole about European superiority. And really has nothing to do with the topic. Unless you can prove that some human socities are better off without intelligence, then the burden of a race realist claim is that they are basically stating outright that whites are superior to blacks. In terms of survival, blacks athletic abilities give them no fundamental advantages in nature. As they're still many times weaker than other animals, even blacks have to use intellect to survive.

 

I think I'm missing something crucial to your point. What does "race realism" have to do with free will? I'm not seeing any sort of connection to that nor to your argument about conservatism.

 

Correct!
Euros do have Higher IQ/sharper claws, they are better suited for what has become technological world.
Can they out-run or out-jump other races, whose skills never evolved away from those primitive attributes? no.
As I said, all groups have relative advantages and disadvantages. It's you throwing around words like 'superior', trying to pin the R word on people.

Only in IQ, and what I said is true, so you Cannot refute.
It's a fact.
You're really in a bind.

Well, before we get to what to do about a problem, we have to agree what it is.
And since you do not, I've had to prove it to you... and I did, UNREBUTTED.
So you You just call the facts racist/"superior.", and now attempt 'irrelevant'.
You can't handle the truth.

It's always a benefit to be smarter, but not as much of a need as it was in more difficult circumstance/Weather/Cities/Trade/interaction of the Northern migrants.
(how many ways can you spear an antelope, instead of starting a farm, buidling an aqueduct, Power Plant, Banking, etc)
As I showed in my last post and you had to Cut off/omit since I did demonstrate why
Again:

`
And, of course, there is the matter of 100 Years of consistent IQ tests proving my point, regardless of dispute about any cause.
+

 

Not sure what you're not understanding. But let me break it down.

Race Realism is a claim that that humans are NOT in control of their biologically determined nature. This is why they throughly try to eliminate environment as a factor for certain states they see with races. To believe that you must somehow accept a premise that humans somehow have no control over their decision making. so they must not accept that free will actually exists in some way. Or that free will is limited or negligable. Race is more important that someones ability to reason, or their response to their immediate surrounding. This contradicts contemporary conservatism is very fundamental ways.

The typical conservative in the West believes that humans own themselves. It is a huge emphasis on individualism, and many of the laws and decision making. This is basically what capitalism, free markets, and classical liberalism is built on. As is much of what we consider Western philosophy. So it's a flaw to think that race realist are somehow compatible with fundamentals of conservatism (classical liberalism)

 

There is no benefit to being able to out jump other races. It's laughable that you think jumping higher on average somehow has the same benefit as being smarter. But you don't believe this, let's be real.

Not all abilities have the same utility. Athletic ability does not have the same fundamental utility as intellect. Period. When you say whites are smarter than blacks, you're saying that whites are better than blacks. You're saying whites are more important to mankind than blacks. You're saying whites are more useful than blacks. You're saying whites are superior to blacks. Throwing a bone or 2 and saying "oh but blacks make better athletes" is disingenious. Atheleticism have such limited utility.

For one when you say someone is physically superior and that has the same usefulness as being intellectually superior, you have to prove how any human is better off having more physical strength than having intellect. This is what you dodge. There are no cases where a human's physical ability is somehow more important than their intellectual abilities. Such a case does not exist.

And again, if we're going to say atheletic and physical abilities are just as important. Then we have to think, how does having greater physical abilities work in nature. In a society where you're likely to deal with other animals, just pure physical strength won't do. The weakest bears, lions, tigers, and other animals are many times stronger than probably the strongest human being. Humans cannot survive nature on pure strength because so many other mammals have decisive physical advantage over us.

So again, when you say "it's not superiority", you're back tracking on your position. You can't have it both ways. if you accept race realism as reality, then you have to also believe that blacks are inferior to whites.

You have not proven what are any real benefits to humans races being physically stronger. At all. These physical gifts are not at all useful in hunter gatherer societies. The only way humans survive is by being smarter than the other animals. So a physical upgrade doesn't help humans much at all, unless we were somehow able to become stronger/faster than other mammals.

 

addiction is not genetic, it's learned behaviour.

 

race realists tend to 'rob' others of agency, insisting that genetics determine behaviour.