[Debate] Racial Theories of the Altright.

[Brady]

I've been reading a lot of concepts that the alt-right believes in, and a lot of it seems self serving. If there are any white ethno-nationalists here, by all means feel free to voice your opinions on this thread.

When on alt-right websites, there is this idea that people from the different races are extremely similar and can/should be judged based on what they are rather than who they are. There's this idea of pride in one's racial accomplishments, which then begs the question; Are you willing to take responsibility for your race's more....evil accomplishments. Defining oneself by your entire race's achievements and doings across the centuries seems all well and good but it's like you guys are cherry picking.

When Black crime is soaring, which it is, you say that blacks have low IQ's and are just prone to criminality but if one were to point out pedophilia and school shootings, maybe even the horrors of the past that whites committed on non-whites, it's brushed off like it doesn't define white people. Seems like a picking and choosing situation here.

You guys romanticize this idea of the Romans being these strict and disciplinary people, and yet the Italians who came centuries later were like party animals in comparison to their more stoic ancestors. Clearly, being a descendant of a particular ethnicity doesn't determine the personality or behaviors of that person. It seems as though ideas come and go between particular groups and some ways of life are embraced and others are left behind.

This idea that some races are just defunct while the white race is supreme reminds me of the Romans, when they considered the Northern Europeans to be defunct, inferior, and bad to mix ones blood with. Despite the idea of the northerners being inferior, many northerners were capable of being civilized and assimilating. What you are doesn't define who you are, and I know the idea of it is amazing and nice and thinking that you're like your ancestors is cool and all, but don't you get bored of trying to be like people that are long dead?

 

[DrProof]

All I know is that all races are beautiful, and equal.

 

[Brady]

All I know is that all races are beautiful, and equal.

Others would disagree.

 

[Pumpkin Ninja]

They're not happy with their lives for whatever reason and so they romanticize older times simply because of their stories, art, conquests, etc. when objectively, the people in the past had shittier lives. They create an empathy gap in regards to other races in doing so. It's sad, really.

 

[Lyke]

What you are doesn't define who you are, and I know the idea of it is amazing and nice and thinking that you're like your ancestors is cool and all, but don't you get bored of trying to be like people that are long dead?

That is because the people who do that dont have anything to brag about in their lives, so this is the only thing making them feel special, which is pathetic.

 

[kimb]

Others would disagree.

I'd find myself with the others, although I'm not a member of the alt-right or any other far right fringe movement. It's a statement of fact that not all races are equal, and you don't have to be an ethno-nationalist to acknowledge this. It would be unwise to believe that humans, after millions of years of evolution across seperate continents on the globe, would result on par with one another; along with I.Q. as you mentioned, races vary physiologically and genetically giving each race distinguishable traits and attributes from one another. In my personal perspective, it's the variation in traits among races -- the inimitability, that makes each race beautiful.

I have no problem with the alt-right or anyone trying to enlighten people on the reality of race, but I do have a problem with the alt-right trying to use these truths to fuel their white nationalist propaganda and further their ethocentric narrative. One major flaw with the alt-right is that their entire ideology only works within a collective framework; they overemphasize on statistical averages in reference to race and use them as mapping tools to assess how the nation should operate while ignoring the "individual(s)" that make up the statistics and the nation. There's more variation among individuals within a given race than among different races collectively, and while all races follow general tendencies in a given factor, the margin of error of individual members within a given race that don't fall in line with the general rule is far too significant to be considered reliable; especially when dealing with such large populations.

Lastly, all interpretations of the white ethnostate "Utopia" the alt-right advocate for are unrealistic and are unlikely to ever come to fruition. You would need more than half the current white population to go alt-right to even see alt-right policies be enacted into government, yet alone to be able to overtake the government, which would be unreal seeing as an arguable majority of whites either prefer or are indifferent to living among other races of people. Even if they did manage to get over half the white population to go alt-right, they would still have to deal with the growing population of non-white minorities that represent 40% of the current U.S. population. Whether it be a successfully waged race war, or voluntary eugentics, neither exist within the realm of possibility.

TL;DR Not all races are equal, the alt-right is stupid, a U.S. white ethnostate will never happen.

 

[Sagebee]

I'd find myself with the others, although I'm not a member of the alt-right or any other far right fringe movement. It's a statement of fact that not all races are equal, and you don't have to be an ethno-nationalist to acknowledge this. It would be unwise to believe that humans, after millions of years of evolution across seperate continents on the globe, would result on par with one another; along with I.Q. as you mentioned, races vary physiologically and genetically giving each race distinguishable traits and attributes from one another. In my personal perspective, it's the variation in traits among races -- the inimitability, that makes each race beautiful.

I have no problem with the alt-right or anyone trying to enlighten people on the reality of race, but I do have a problem with the alt-right trying to use these truths to fuel their white nationalist propaganda and further their ethocentric narrative. One major flaw with the alt-right is that their entire ideology only works within a collective framework; they overemphasize on statistical averages in reference to race and use them as mapping tools to assess how the nation should operate while ignoring the "individual(s)" that make up the statistics and the nation. There's more variation among individuals within a given race than among different races collectively, and while all races follow general tendencies in a given factor, the margin of error of individual members within a given race that don't fall in line with the general rule is far too significant to be considered reliable; especially when dealing with such large populations.

Lastly, all interpretations of the white ethnostate "Utopia" the alt-right advocate for are unrealistic and are unlikely to ever come to fruition. You would need more than half the current white population to go alt-right to even see alt-right policies be enacted into government, yet alone to be able to overtake the government, which would be unreal seeing as an arguable majority of whites either prefer or are indifferent to living among other races of people. Even if they did manage to get over half the white population to go alt-right, they would still have to deal with the growing population of non-white minorities that represent 40% of the current U.S. population. Whether it be a successfully waged race war, or voluntary eugentics, neither exist within the realm of possibility.

TL;DR Not all races are equal, the alt-right is stupid, a U.S. white ethnostate will never happen.

I could agree with strength and speed certain races will have an edge in physical activities, but what real hard science genetic facts do you have that certain races are just smarter than others and it all comes down to the genetics?

 

[kimb]

I could agree with strength and speed certain races will have an edge in physical activities, but what real hard science genetic facts do you have that certain races are just smarter than others and it all comes down to the genetics?

I never stated it "all" came down to genetics. The general consensus of the science community (in the fields of genetics and anthropology) is that genetics are 50% to 80% of the determining factor when it comes to an individuals I.Q., whereas the other 50% to 30% are environmental factors.

What these means is your genetics determine your general threshold for IQ. In a comparable way, a child's height is primarily determined by their parents genetics, followed by the environment the child is raised in. Lets say a child is genetically predestined to have an approximate height of 5'11; if the child is raised slightly malnurished, they will not reach their potential height, have their growth stunted as a result, and up being 5'9 as they reach adulthood. If the same child is given the proper nutrients, they can reach their predetermined genetic height, but if given the perfect environment for growth with 7+ sleep, regular exercise, and a less stressed life, the same child can exceed their predetermined height and reach a height of 6'1 by adulthood. There's no amount of nutrition, exercise, or sleep, that could help the child go beyond the limits of their predetermined height of ≈ 5'11.

Generally, the same goes for I.Q. Being raised in a bad environment (cultural, societal, physical, nutritional, etc.) can curb your potential I.Q. threshold, whereas being raised in a decent to good environment helps to reach, and occasionally, exceed your potential I.Q., but you will never be able to exceed your maximum I.Q. threshold determined by your genetics. Either your born with it or you're not; and allow me to clarify, this isnt to imply that all individuals within a given race have the same threshold, or the same genetic potential.

 

[Multiply]

Generally, the same goes for I.Q. Being raised in a bad environment (cultural, societal, physical, nutritional, etc.) can curb your potential I.Q. threshold, whereas being raised in a decent to good environment helps to reach, and occasionally, exceed your potential I.Q., but you will never be able to exceed your maximum I.Q. threshold determined by your genetics. Either your born with it or you're not; and allow me to clarify, this isnt to imply that all individuals within a given race have the same threshold, or the same genetic potential.

I'd love to see the research that says IQ is even real. Then I'd like to see research about an IQ threshold. And then I'd like to see research about certain races having a specific IQ threshold. Cite them sources bruh bruh.

 

[kimb]

I'd love to see the research that says IQ is even real. Then I'd like to see research about an IQ threshold. And then I'd like to see research about certain races having a specific IQ threshold. Cite them sources bruh bruh.

If I had to assess your response I'd say you're offended by my statements, you have little to no knowledge on the topic of I.Q., have made zero effort to look into the topic, but you were emotionally driven to reject my statements as fact. The fact that you entered the thread with complete disbelief of I.Q. then follow up with a request of sources on integral facts on I.Q. in the same breath shows to me that you've already formed an opinion without looking at facts and evidence, which is irrational.

I.Q. is an established reality, it would be too much of a hassle to find credible that focused around the topic of I.Q. that doesn't refer to I.Q. with the presupposition that the readers already aware of what I.Q. is. I can provide you research on I.Q. thresholds, but I don't see what purpose that would serve if you don't even believe in I.Q. The way I see it, you either accept I.Q. as a reality so we can continue this discussion, or continue to be willfully ignorant and hold the positions that you hold.

 

[Sagebee]

I never stated it "all" came down to genetics. The general consensus of the science community (in the fields of genetics and anthropology) is that genetics are 50% to 80% of the determining factor when it comes to an individuals I.Q., whereas the other 50% to 30% are environmental factors.

What these means is your genetics determine your general threshold for IQ. In a comparable way, a child's height is primarily determined by their parents genetics, followed by the environment the child is raised in. Lets say a child is genetically predestined to have an approximate height of 5'11; if the child is raised slightly malnurished, they will not reach their potential height, have their growth stunted as a result, and up being 5'9 as they reach adulthood. If the same child is given the proper nutrients, they can reach their predetermined genetic height, but if given the perfect environment for growth with 7+ sleep, regular exercise, and a less stressed life, the same child can exceed their predetermined height and reach a height of 6'1 by adulthood. There's no amount of nutrition, exercise, or sleep, that could help the child go beyond the limits of their predetermined height of ≈ 5'11.

Generally, the same goes for I.Q. Being raised in a bad environment (cultural, societal, physical, nutritional, etc.) can curb your potential I.Q. threshold, whereas being raised in a decent to good environment helps to reach, and occasionally, exceed your potential I.Q., but you will never be able to exceed your maximum I.Q. threshold determined by your genetics. Either your born with it or you're not; and allow me to clarify, this isnt to imply that all individuals within a given race have the same threshold, or the same genetic potential.

So based on your analogy a persons intellect is capped at a certain point what proof do you have for this statement


And based on what the stats you stated genetics and environment can potentially play a equal part in someone's intellectual potential.

While a person can't do anything to improve their height they have a near limitless opportunity to improve their understanding.

What I do think is some people will to a certain degree have innate better analytical and even creative skills it doesn't mean someone can't learn to be better than them in it with practice and experience. This also doesn't hinder a persons intellectual potentials if their early comprehension skills aren't equal to their peers. In my early years of schooling like most kids i didnt care about my education and most my early teachers didnt care to teach, I didnt start care about learning until i actually had teachers that really cared to teach. Many freshman in college that have to start with those remedial math and English courses pretty much forcing the college to catch the person up to what they should of learned in their 13 to 15 years of prior education. Tbh the biggest caps to a person's intellect is their environment and themselves the brains is the muscle in the body where a person unlimited potential for growth.

 

[SSStylish]

can/should be judged based on what they are rather than who they are.

Wrong. That's not what /pol/ thinks.

They also don't have a problem with admitting, that Ashkenazi and Asians are smarter on average than Europeans.

People are also just fed up with the identity politics etc. That's why they semi ironically praise "the good old times".

 

[kimb]

So based on your analogy a persons intellect is capped at a certain point what proof do you have for this statement



And based on what the stats you stated genetics and environment can potentially play a equal part in someone's intellectual potential.

While a person can't do anything to improve their height they have a near limitless opportunity to improve their understanding.

What I do think is some people will to a certain degree have innate better analytical and even creative skills it doesn't mean someone can't learn to be better than them in it with practice and experience. This also doesn't hinder a persons intellectual potentials if their early comprehension skills aren't equal to their peers. In my early years of schooling like most kids i didnt care about my education and most my early teachers didnt care to teach, I didnt start care about learning until i actually had teachers that really cared to teach. Many freshman in college that have to start with those remedial math and English courses pretty much forcing the college to catch the person up to what they should of learned in their 13 to 15 years of prior education. Tbh the biggest caps to a person's intellect is their environment and themselves the brains is the muscle in the body where a person unlimited potential for growth.

This is honestly depressing, and I mean this in the most literal sense. Sagebee, I suggest you at least have knowledge of the integral fundamentals of I.Q. before trying to debate this topic. Everything you've stated is absurd; you're asking me for evidence of an individuals intelligence being capped and assert that intelligence is an exponential variable when that contradicts the core of developmental I.Q. theory; PSY 101. I.Q. is not exponential, years of refining and practice will never turn anyone into Einstein, you're either born extremely gifted, or you're not. There are no redeeming qualities in your response; it's entirely based around baseless assertions and an a personal anecdote, which (your anecdote) does nothing to disprove the hereditary factors of I.Q. Maybe I'm wrong and everything I've studied and learned from my years of study in psychology is all bullshit, but it's far more likely that you have no idea what you're talking about.

I'll give you some sources to chew on because I don't want to leave you entirely in the dark, but holy shit, you have a lot of reading to do before you can hold a valid opinion on this topic, or at least before I can take you seriously.

The Basics (What is IQ, developmental theory)
I.

You must be registered for see links

II.

You must be registered for see links

III.

You must be registered for see links

Hereditary vs Environmental
I.

You must be registered for see links

II.

You must be registered for see links

(50-80% figure)☆

Race and I.Q. (I.Q. variation)
I.

You must be registered for see links

(in depth look at "The Bell Curve" 50-80% figure)

I.Q. Threshold
I.

You must be registered for see links

 

[Sagebee]

This is honestly depressing, and I mean this in the most literal sense. Sagebee, I suggest you at least have knowledge of the integral fundamentals of I.Q. before trying to debate this topic. Everything you've stated is absurd; you're asking me for evidence of an individuals intelligence being capped and assert that intelligence is an exponential variable when that contradicts the core of developmental I.Q. theory; PSY 101. I.Q. is not exponential, years of refining and practice will never turn anyone into Einstein, you're either born extremely gifted, or you're not. There are no redeeming qualities in your response; it's entirely based around baseless assertions and an a personal anecdote, which (your anecdote) does nothing to disprove the hereditary factors of I.Q. Maybe I'm wrong and everything I've studied and learned from my years of study in psychology is all bullshit, but it's far more likely that you have no idea what you're talking about.

I'll give you some sources to chew on because I don't want to leave you entirely in the dark, but holy shit, you have a lot of reading to do before you can hold a valid opinion on this topic, or at least before I can take you seriously.

The Basics (What is IQ, developmental theory)
I.

You must be registered for see links

II.

You must be registered for see links

III.

You must be registered for see links

Hereditary vs Environmental
I.

You must be registered for see links

II.

You must be registered for see links

(50-80% figure)☆

Race and I.Q. (I.Q. variation)
I.

You must be registered for see links

(in depth look at "The Bell Curve" 50-80% figure)

I.Q. Threshold
I.

You must be registered for see links

Fiji your literally saying since you can't prove your point on how empirically it's proven that a person's intelligence is capped genetically that the issue is with me not understanding. If I'm not understanding something and you do then prove your claim then. Because you just telling me to teach myself why your right if your right then you should be able to back it up with facts.

Also again your analogy is faulty again Einstein is who he is based on his accomplishments and that's why he's viewed gifted, I remember learning that in his early years Einstein actually had issue with schooling.

Also just a cursory Google search will show why iq isn't a reliable metric of intelligence or the factors in disparity when it comes to iq from many reputable scientific sources.

Also in your initial post you said that the effects of genetics and environment can range anywhere from 50 50 to 80 20. That doesn't show at all for one the certainty the impact or that genetics is a bigger factor.

And the nature versus nurture debate is a hotly contested issue till this day so how can you say there's a consensus.

You must be registered for see links

If I got something wrong in this then prove your point.

 

[Sagebee]

If I had to assess your response I'd say you're offended by my statements, you have little to no knowledge on the topic of I.Q., have made zero effort to look into the topic, but you were emotionally driven to reject my statements as fact. The fact that you entered the thread with complete disbelief of I.Q. then follow up with a request of sources on integral facts on I.Q. in the same breath shows to me that you've already formed an opinion without looking at facts and evidence, which is irrational.

I.Q. is an established reality, it would be too much of a hassle to find credible that focused around the topic of I.Q. that doesn't refer to I.Q. with the presupposition that the readers already aware of what I.Q. is. I can provide you research on I.Q. thresholds, but I don't see what purpose that would serve if you don't even believe in I.Q. The way I see it, you either accept I.Q. as a reality so we can continue this discussion, or continue to be willfully ignorant and hold the positions that you hold.

Again there's many reputable scientific sources of the opinion that either iq tests have no merit on intelligence or that it shows the factors that contribute to such scores.

 

[SSStylish]

Again there's many reputable scientific sources of the opinion that either iq tests have no merit on intelligence or that it shows the factors that contribute to such scores.

Why is I.Q. such a good indicator of a persons success?

Why are so many chess GM's high I.Q. Ashkenazi?

Why are so many Kenyan (generally low I.Q.) kids unable to recognize themselves in a mirror when asian, white and ashkenazi children can do so at an earlier age?

 

[Sagebee]

Why is I.Q. such a good indicator of a persons success?

Why are so many chess GM's high I.Q. Ashkenazi?

Why are so many Kenyan (generally low I.Q.) kids unable to recognize themselves in a mirror when asian, white and ashkenazi children can do so at an earlier age?

All you posted is your own anecdotal proof not that iq tests have real merit on intelligence or it's factors

And that's very cute what you said about Kenyans:lol I guess that's proves Obama is intellectually inferior to his predecessor and successor, but can you prove it's because of genetics or environment and how they're raised

 

[SSStylish]

All you posted is your own anecdotal proof not that iq tests have real merit on intelligence or it's factors

And that's very cute what you said about Kenyans:lol I guess that's proves Obama is intellectually inferior to his predecessor and successor, but can you prove it's because of genetics or environment and how they're raised

How is that not enough to prove that I.Q. is real? You didn't provide an answer to my questions. You simply dismissed it because it doesn't fit your narrative.

Bold: I said no such thing. Do you know what an average is? It's also not cute but a fact.

 

[Sagebee]

How is that not enough to prove that I.Q. is real? You didn't provide an answer to my questions. You simply dismissed it because it doesn't fit your narrative.

Bold: I said no such thing. Do you know what an average is? It's also not cute but a fact.

So does that mean if your good at chess that must correlate in you being smart in all other aspects? Does that factor in a person's experience playing.

And one reason why it's hard to truly measure intelligence is based on what as people we define it is and not accounting for the different ways one uses their intelligence. Let's say a person who doesn't care to put his intelligence in his academics but uses his or her analytical skill in being one of the best football players is that not a type of intelligence.

And the point I was making to you about the Kenyans is if that's the case what's the true factors on why that is and if you say it's genetics and not environment what's your proof.

 

[Sagebee]

How is that not enough to prove that I.Q. is real? You didn't provide an answer to my questions. You simply dismissed it because it doesn't fit your narrative.

Bold: I said no such thing. Do you know what an average is? It's also not cute but a fact.

It's a fact that kenyans can't recognize themselves in the mirror? Or you saying in a degrading way they're just stupid