yo

not much, in Politics arguing about gun shit

btw got a debate question @everyone can Foucault's theories be applied to Authoritarianism?

lol

I've written an essay describing why they can, lemme find it

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_QKciJYhi1k

hello there. new here, read rules and roles. how to start doing staff? what topics are the most discussed and/or "main"?

we just go from point to point

@Farao Ramses II race realism like 19th century anthropology is actually becoming more popular within the scientific consensus due to genetic research being done and PCA analysis on fst distance

Intriguing.

19th century anthropology is being vindicated

I believed we discussed that before though.

maybe

We talked about sub-populations and what not.

I don't recall the exact details or meat of the conversation, but I do recall that it didn't change my stance in regard to my politics, considering an appeal to the science was very much an appeal to nature.

In other words: to me it seems like one giant naturalistic fallacy.

no, not really, categories are only justified through the utility but the common argument against race realism is that it doesnt comport with nature

now its obvious it does

now what you ought to do with that information is different

I conceded that point to an extend if I recall correctly. But again: unclear on the details.

but whatever utility you do or dont derive, the category agrees with ontological justified categories of observation

To me it seems silly we should enforce any racial policy solely based on the fact that apparently their are some real genetic differences between certain races/sub-populations.

sure, i wont contest what you think ought to be done or not on tis

And I won't contest the science of apparent genetic differences between certain races/sub-populations, for I am no genetic scientist.

Nor am I all too well informed on the subject.

It's just that I deem people's individual liberties to be of more import. Unless you could demonstrate to me that having such genetically diverse sub-populations live together in one society, would be catastrophic, I am not convinced we ought to worry all that much.

And that being catastrophic solely or mostly due to their severe genetic differences, I have to clarify.

it has a negative effect on social cohesion, political stability and positive political participation

but you probably care for liberty more

which is fair enough

Social cohesion was fucked before the brown people arrived, so I am not that worried.

if you accept the iq evaluations then it affects crime rate, poverty, productivity and so on

I am not so certain about those though. Besides, there are plenty a white population filled with mentally underdeveloped folks, so yeah.

Although that is an anecdotal argument.

Still.

I see humans foremost as individuals and will judge them based on their individual character and individual abilities.

iq isnt concrete across ethnicities, its average

I am not following that statement, please clarify.

so basically of course youll see differences within a common population, some white people with higher and some white people with lower iq

Ah, in that sense.