Message from @RyeNorth
Discord ID: 483576342449881098
race realism just seems like the practice of selectively deciding that correlation = causation when it suits you
but i do find it humorous that race realists unironically argue that they are inferior to asians
I mean what points can be said to debunk race realism. Like Kraut and tea's video on it. I know it was pretty bad but some arguements would be nice
```race realism just seems like the practice of selectively deciding that correlation = causation when it suits you```
usually i just stick with the argument that socioeconomic factors early in life have a proven effect on intelligence and that they don't account for that at all
i think you are right
i just got censored by Mee6
ree censorship
like, most of the race realist argument is that black americans have lower average IQ than white americans and claims that it's a biological factor
which doesn't account for the absolutely massive cultural and socioeconomic difference between black and white americans
IQ is BS that is all
because you could draw the same graph and argue that poor people are biologically inferior to rich people
Thanks! I will keep not of these
👍🏻
!rank
oh well i guess vids dont embed here but this is a new Jordan Peterson vs Sam Harris debate above ^^^
Race realism is really just a study of evolutionary differences...
Basing it around skin color, however, is extremely arbitrary.
It's evolutionary. People select for traits suitable to their environment.
Darker skin develops around the equator. Lighter skin tones developed further away.
Where the whole thing goes wrong is when people ignore the cultural influence.
Race realism isn't so much of a problem - and shouldn't even really be that much of a taboo - compared to race determinism.
Non-white people are more likely to be lactose intolerant. Darker skinned people are more likely to tolerate sun exposure better than a white person.
White people more frequently can't handle spicy foods, as those are generally preferred in more temperate climates.
The funny point to all of this is, all of these traits are related to one another. They're physiological differences that equate to consistent environmental selectors. People who try to sell you identity politics along the lines of race realism, however, aren't accounting for the true deterministic factor, Culture.
I'm a culturist.
I'm not sure what the parameters are of that label, but most likely I am too.
I am more likely to trust someone who I know holds principles like mine regardless of what they look like, as opposed to trusting someone who looks like me based solely on that fact.
Webster doesn't have the definition that I'm using it for so I guess that means we get to make up new meanings too.
presumably, someone who values cultural identity over arbitrary identity.
Although whatever this is has it as ```One who holds prejudices against a culture``` https://www.wordnik.com/words/culturist
I do think that's far more fair than prejudice against a race.
Culture is far more connected to a person's character than skin color.
Culture can change but race can't.
There's also the point of accepting that culture is different in different parts of the world.
I can accept that some Asian cultures have no problems eating dog, for instance. In the United States, though, I do take some issue.
Yeah. People can do whatever where they are from but if they come to the west I think they need to assimilate.
(Food is the first and foremost thing I go to when I think of culture)