@TheUserNameofPeace This is where you fall apart tho, and its probably the weakest arguement you can make.

To quote Jeffery Long:
" Specifically, human population structure strongly biases the outcome of analyses by violating two assumptions: first, that expected genetic diversity is the same in every population; and second, that divergence between all pairs of populations is equal and independent."

Like the picture of the FST values you posted that has those cited papers using genetic levels to support subspecies classifications, they all apply genetic technology to systems that have previously described subspecies and then look at the genetic differentiation between those groupings. Basically, they can only describe the differences between the already identified categories.

The problem with you in particualar is that you see a blog with citations then assume its making the claim the blog is making, so please stop.

@Deleted User he does it all the time, especially in politics. He cites, incel.wiki, althype, and jf as his reputable sources lol

@TheUserNameofPeace How so?

@TheUserNameofPeace Who did?

@TheUserNameofPeace The academics?

If race was biologically accurate id vouch for it.

@blanc welp you convinced me there

@TheUserNameofPeace nothing lol

@glamp i never said there wasnt differences

@TheUserNameofPeace "He literally can't cognize the facts"
Specifically how?

@glamp Dude just so you know its a really bad arguement to say those traits means race is justified. Also, just because race is intuitive to you doesnt mean science is.

@blanc Its an informal biological category. There are lower taxonomical frequencies such as sub species, however even that isnt universally accepted in mdoern taxonomy.

@glamp Again, science isnt intuitive.

@blanc human variation?

@glamp " i already explained why more variation within than between is a weak argument."
Actually, you havent. I explained Lewontins Fallacy already.

""Universally accepted in modern taxonomy" so we must go by what the consensus of academia alone says?"

The authority to academia can be observed and isnt picked arbitratrily, which explains the high standard of taxonomical classification.

"this holds true for humans and a subspecies of chimp."
Lol just no, the genetic variation of chimps isnt the same as humans, which is why there are is a justification of those subspecies of chimps via genetics and a justification for there not being a lower taxonomical frequency in humans.

"so when you have a daughter and she bring home a black man .... no problem him being the father of your grand kids"

<:varg:552804477590044674>

@esotericpazuzuism Answer is i dont care what race that guy is

@blanc wasnt really an arguement it was mroe of a straight answer to his question

@TheUserNameofPeace whats your counter to the counter lol

@David "Gaben" Cameron imagine using alt hype as a source

@David "Gaben" Cameron To be brief, The literature alt hype cites actually doesn’t support his claims. This is how people like @TheUserNameofPeace rationalizes his points.

@David "Gaben" Cameron read my counter to @TheUserNameofPeace , because he basically is making his arguement off the alt hype

@David "Gaben" Cameron you definitely can directly compare genetic variation in chimps and in humans, we can directly compare 99% of the two genomes. and there's more genetic variation within chimps and within humans than between them.

Wait...what? Are you saying that theres more genetic variation between two different species than a population within a species?

@David "Gaben" Cameron Basically, genetic variation is the difference in dna between individuals or populations.

@JFGariepy hi

bring back blood sports

@fuguer i know

@fuguer it was entertaining to me tho

Shaggys last name is Rodgers, which is an anglo name

daily reminder to not be racist

racism is real, people do discriminate based on race, even tho that category is illegitimate in human taxonomy

@Deleted User that dude will pass out in a marathon

@M'beke massive <:oof:399031884312739841>

@blanc i always thought it wasa person with skinny arms and legs with a beer belly

i have

its just okay

@Weaboo Kempeitai no they're not

what does self partnered mean

@Weaboo Kempeitai yes

theres been more conflict within races than between xD

Religous, national, and ethnic identity were more prioritized over biological differences back then, no one significantly antagnized someone for being a certain race until around the 17th century. Until then religion and language were the most important criteria of identity.

@Deleted User Its true that transportation what less effiecient, but the West knew about people living in Africa, Asia, and the Americas before the 17th century. Even Africans in Europe were assimilated into those societies wherever they were found, and no significant social meanings were attached to their physical differences.

There's a bunch of history books and documents that you can read for that @Deleted User . i can provide some if u want.

o ya i did mb

@Deleted User yeah way before 1900

@BasedChris the categorization of humanity by race did not exist back then, early western civlizations instead used political archetypes such as "citizens" and "barbarians". The insistence that people we're biologically different was due to ethnic and cultural differences. For example, the Irish were considered to be biologically different from other Europeans despite being phenotypically similar.

So you think the Irish are a different race?

Then we agree

im talking about significant phenotypical features that vary between the Irish and other "white" populations.

@BasedChris You think the conflict in Europe to the Irish was based on this nasal difference? It was based on language, culture, ethnicity, religion, etc. Also, nasal differences in Europe vary much more than the Irish. Not saying that it doesn't exiist (although it is exaggerated), but it wasnt a siginifigcant social meaning.

@blanc "Lastly, late romans wrote extensively on the phenotypic differences with Germans and it wasn't rare for a roman to advocate banning racial germans. Legalizing immigration for german won just barely, and only if they turned into cultural germans"

the racial archetype gradually developed out of a wide variety of sources that explained human differences as based on ideas of blood, physiognomy, climate, land, soil, and language. This is because different cultures such as the Romans who linked the physical and cultural human characteristics.

"Greek citizens were racial greeks and nothing more. No database for which greeks were greeks mate."
No database but you seem to be confident that they were racial Greeks (whatever that means).

@Roko The categorization of biological humans were present since Aristotle

daily reminder to not be racist

imagine antagonizing someone for not being racist

@Deleted User "black people are biologically and culturally different"

lol africa is the most ethnically and genetically diverse area for humans on earth

@Deleted User see you later, I have to go make a straw man for thanksgiving decorations, oh wait, there's one already here

?

https://tenor.com/view/seriously-sideeye-confused-gif-8776030

idk what makes kfc chicken special

can transgendered women give birth?

@fuguer because gender theory is based on the concept of gender being socially constructed, while race is a biological category.

@fuguer why would getting pregnate be a social construct?

@JFGariepy its the abstinence of masterbation for a month

capybara's are the peak of evolution

@Epic Style goteem

daily reminder to not be racist <:ahem:639979147782914084>

you dont need a high iq to succeed in what you do <:Chadnpc:640003143802814484>

daily reminder to not be racist

no its not

imagine being racist

cant relate

im being real

ive been here before that guy

ive been here a while

why would jf ban me

"Stupid things"

*facts

racism is irrational

not only biologically but socially

"indoctrination" more like academic studies and evidence

O asked MMW for an academic study and he links me an Alt Hype blog

The onus is on him to provide an academic study, not a racially motivated blogger known for being a RR.

Imagine linking the Alt-Hype as your academic literature.

me?

yes...

rationalwiki lol

no

Sure

Just find an academic article that substantiates your argument .-.

@Deleted User Can you tell me when i strawmanned?

@Nerthulas You're assuming the Alt-Hype's citations support his claim lol. Just because it has citations doesnt make it a legit academic study. Thats the most frustrating part with ppl like MMW

With the alt-hype , the studies he cites cannot be used to justify pre-existing categories. they can only describe the differences between the already identified categories, and frequently in these studies the low genetic differentiation and lack of isolation between subspecies is used to argue that the subspecies are invalid units for the system (fst for example)

"I don't know what point this guy don't believe in evolution"

lol

@Nerthulas categories not substantiated in the studies. for example, comparing human fst to the fst of different subspecies like wolves, zebras, buffalo, etc.

"clearly there are groups, and clearly there are genetic differences between them"

Science isnt intuitive. Not saying there isnt genetic variation between populations, but the markers that are "easily recognizable" are actually adaptation phenotypical traits that account for little of the genetic variation between humans.

"all they're saying is that if fst were to be accepted as a standard for the presence of subspecies classification, then humans would meet that standard"

It wouldnt, because primate taxonomy has experienced a major drop in subspecies classification and an increase in identified species based on new data and a more robust concept of species that aims to identify independent evolutionary lineages as the smallest unit in taxonomy.

Its not, so we agree humans dont cluster into racial categories

What did I say that is "you're off in your own world..."?

I was referring to the classification of subspecies in humans via fst.

@Banjod yikes

Race itself is an informal category, taxonomically speaking

@Banjod We classify different animals in accordance to their genetic difference between populations.

"the groups are valid because we can recognize them"

So they're determined via what? Phenotypical traits?