/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10019507
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racism

>>10019507
imagine being interested in racial """science"""

>>10019517
It's weird.. All they seem to do is slander the arguments that support racial differences without providing counter arguments.
Is anybody else puzzled by this?

>>10019534
>slander the arguments that support racial
or rather slander the people with arguments that support racial differences.

>>10019534
You are under the assumption opponents must beat you with their arguments.
What your shelterws suburban pussy ass doesn't know is that they often prefer using a stick instead. And it works better you won't be making any arguments after that.

>>10019546
So you are saying their position is inherently weak, so they need to use force?

>>10019554
He is saying exactly that.

>>10019546
>>>/pol/

>>10019527
imagine denying human biodiversity

>>10019738
>implying you are a biologist or have any specialized knowledge in any field whatsoever

>>10019507
{sigh} Looks like another attempt to "Decolonize Science"

>>10020613
As for 'Influencing' Science - check out this gem of a video - http://vms.fnal.gov/asset/detail?recid=1954943 - where Intersectionally is introduced to people that work in Particle Physics. Check out what happens when the presenter is asked a very pointed question at 1:02 Mark

>>10019710
reread

>>10020630
Hey man sorry dont have the data on my phone to check but curious, what is asked and how do they reply? Ty

>>10019507
>What is this new branch of science called "scientific racism"?

Its basically white supremacist code for, "let's try to convince decent and moral, non-hating, non-racist white people that black people are sub-human so they'll be more susceptible to our goal of ethnic cleansing the blacks".

Its why you see all these racist threads about black genes or intelligence on /sci/ nowadays. Pol fags want regular people to strip blacks of their humanity just like they have.

>>10021764
Thing is that there are plenty counterarguments against race realism, but the left starts slandering immediately. For example, why do black people have a lower iq generally?

>>10021764
>Its basically white supremacist code for, "let's try to convince decent and moral, non-hating, non-racist white people that black people are sub-human so they'll be more susceptible to our goal of ethnic cleansing the blacks".

0/10

>>10019507
Yknow damn well

>>10021792
>>10021781

>"Dude, stop slandering and strawmannin us, you libtard jew shill. Just because us white nationalist argue that blacks are dumb, violent, lazy, lack empathy, and have contributed far less to society and world history than us whites mostly for fixed genetic reasons, does not give you ANY reason, at all, literally ZERO, to somehow perceive that we would ever treat blacks unfairly or harm them. Just because we are essentially removing them of their humanity does not give you libtards the right to conclude we are on the same road that Hitler was on!!!! fucking dishonest SJW jew shill!!!"

Yeah...you can dress up your racist ideology all you want. Decent people will see right thru it.

>>10021816

>>10021738
>"I have no argument except for a big stick"
I read it right the first time. Who could have guessed?

>>>/hm/

scientific "racism" is science that doesnt align with Marxist ideology

>>10021781
>why do black people have a lower iq generally
Because worldwide they are disproportionately affected by malnutrition, diseases that impair the brain, and other factors that affect IQ tests such as lack of sleep or education

>>10020630
>http://vms.fnal.gov/asset/detail?recid=1954943
Wow.

>>10019759
>you need a phd to read things that scientists have discovered

>>10022382
And what about African Americans? Or what about US born Ashkenazi Jews or Brahmin class indians? Why the IQ differences?

>>10022400
What about Igbo Nigerians?

>>10022382
Yeah, those are controlled for.

>>10019507
Science can be racist if science does differ between different races but there's literally nothing wrong about it. Same as it is racist to only be into white men for example. You have a RACIAL preference and therefore throw out anyone who doesn't fit the scheme.

The main problem with "racism" isn't racism itself but the fact that the left has transformed the term into something bad that needs to be eliminated - which doesn't even work since all of my white pals made their first bad experience with shitskins on schoolyards.

It aren't always racists that make racists racist but often the ones the left wants to protect from racism.

Scientific racism is a buzzword to try and discredit rather obvious facts about human biodiversity.

>>10019554
Winning an argument isn't about being the closest to reality, having a good opinion or being reasonable but about getting the crowd on your side, trick your opponent, win the battle. That's why Ad Hominem/name calling, lying and other logical fallacys are a thing.

>>10019759
>Implying you need a math degree to cound from 1 to 10.
>Implying you need a med degree to know if your leg is broken.
>Implying you need a Biology Degree to be able to differ between a dog and a cat
>Implying you need a Physics degree to know that your car needs fuel to work
>Implying you need a German Degree um gescheit Deutsch sprechen zu können.
>Implying you need a Chem degree to know that Ice can turn to water, water to steam and vice versa.
>Implying you need a Compsci Degree to have neither a job nor lost your virginity
>Implying you need a pharmacy degree to know how to use aspirin.

Try harder, Libfag. It's amazing to see people denying reality on a board based around foelds that have been made to analyze or improve reality.

>>10022382
Yeah. Le foodstamps aint enough.

Ever heard of the Minnesota Twin Studies, faggot?

>>10022901
>compsci degree to have neither a job
aren't they the only actual good job market right now? And getting laid is easier if you're getting paid.

>>10022901
>I don't need to read any data analysis, I just need raw data to interpret to my own whims
Kys

>>10022901
Curious, what next? I'm not an anthropologist or biologist, though they generally seem to disagree with your conclusions, but let's assume they're wrong and you're right. What's the point?

>>10022570
Post evidence or you're full of shit

>>10021761
The speaker was asked if she believed in Equality of Opportunity or Equality of Outcome. Spent about 2 or 3 minutes dodging the question, then asked if she actually read the original thesis for Utopia, and reminded her that system required slavery. She was openly stunned. Mind you, she openly admitted during the lecture she knew little about engineering and science to begin with.

>>10020630
>1:02
not there where is it actually

>>10022388
Mind you this video is public, the first meeting on this subject was in late 2017, where the local representative of Black Lives Matter openly told all the white people in the audience (scientists, engineers, technicians) they 'over represent'. No surprise that video was never released for public consumption.

>>10020630
note he means 1:02:00

>>10022997
Check the Time Mark in the Red Box

>>10022991
mate i'd like to see this fat thing shot into the sun but you're wrong here. She said
>when i think of an equitable society i don't have a vision of some sort of Utopia
>don't
and some smirking trollface faggot goes heh utopia huh you know that had slavery? She goes
>right.
And waits a second while the microphone goes to the next questioner. She said 'right' like you would to a schizo talking nonsense at you because what he said had nothing to do with what she had said. It was like a trap he sprung when she wasn't in it. It was him who was an embarrassment in that interaction

>>10019507
For those you in the audience that want to read the 'research' - https://datasociety.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/DS_Alternative_Influence.pdf

I do recommend looking at this document, then actually visiting the channels called out. I believe most here will then find 'scientific racism' will be viewed more for the FOD that it really is.

>>10023017
Hm... while she said one thing during the question, the lecture she gave made it look like she was, even when she had to confront the hard truth about graduation rates at the 23:36:00 mark

>>10023040
>Look at this funny thing at the end of this talk.
>Oh oops looks like it's only funny in context so just watch this hour long diversity and exclusivity presentation (to enjoy the troll).
honestly impressed. What 3D chess level shilling is this

>>10019507

>>10019507
jp > kr

>>10019534
>>10019535
>>10019546
It's called controlled oppo. Sargon is a white supremacist

>>10021781
>but the left starts slandering immediately
The people on the left who immediately resort to ad hominum do it for exactly the same reasons as the people on the right. They don't have enough scientific knowledge to contribute tot he debate so they cannot argue from a scientific position.

I am not aware of any differences between human populations that cannot be attributed to social, environmental (by which I mean stuff like average sunlight levels, preferred diet, etc) or geopolitical (such as continuous regional instability) factors.
Thus I am drawn to the conclusion that there are no inherent differences between the "races" of humans.

>>10022890
This isn't winning an argument. Its bypassing it. Nothing of lasting value can be built upon a foundation of lies with a scaffold of violence. It is towards the truth that we must always vector. Force must only be used to counter force, that the rational position might prevail.

>>10023240
>expecting militant anti-racialists to behave rationally
They expect one of the most tribal species on the planet, homo sapiens, to collectively abandon racial identity. They are the definition of irrational.

>>10019507
It's called biology. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/23/opinion/sunday/genetics-race.html

>>10023212
>I am not aware of any differences between human populations that cannot be attributed to social, environmental (by which I mean stuff like average sunlight levels, preferred diet, etc) or geopolitical (such as continuous regional instability) factors.
You can start by reading the Minnesota Twin Study abstract.
>Thus I am drawn to the conclusion that there are no inherent differences between the "races" of humans.

>>10023212
>I am not aware of any differences between human populations that cannot be attributed to social, environmental

Ok let us start with west vs east African muscular twitch speeds, a well known and documented fact that is obvious even at face value based on the olympic level performance of these ethnic groups. Now we have one absolutely verifiable biological and genetic level difference between different ethnic groups. Would you seriously believe it ends with trivial things like that and that things such as the verifiable fact of differing average cranial volume between ethnic groups has no effect whatsoever?

>>10023212
>thinking melanin is purely influenced by sunlight
The africans are dark because of the sun, sure but it actually took them generation to actually get that dark so genetics are involved here. Put an african in the middle of siberia, he won't become an albino. Put an irishman in the middle of the desert and he'll get a nice tan at worst and sunburn at best.