Just a lowbrow neo-nazi kook, in other words a Mikemikev clone. https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/ Note the digits 88 - heil hitler in his email and calling anyone who doesn't agree with him a "Marxist" etc.
Lol. This 'racerealist' guy spends his time blogging about gay black men. Some sort of insecurity? https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2016/03/28/down-low-bruthas/
I call people Marxists who admit they're Marxists. What do I have to be "insecure about" writing a post about down low bruthas? Seems like everyone on the Internet has psychology degrees to be able to make these outlandish assessments. Your assertion is baseless. I was born in the year 88. I guess to you that means Heil Hitler, but it's my birth year. Of course you can tell yourself whatever you'd like, that doesn't make it true though.
Call them gobbledygook, they still show differing variation between whatever we decide to call them. Richard Dawkins accepts the taxonomic reality of race. Also see Tang et al 2004.
Citing rational wiki as evidence that race realism is neo nazism rebranded? Hilarious. You can do better than that. Is everyone born in the year 88 who uses it in handles someone who is a Hitler worshipper?
"Race realism" was coined by J. P. Rushton, who wrote for American Renaissance and VDARE. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Renaissance_(magazine) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VDARE "HBD" was coined by Steve Sailer, who also writes for VDARE. These people are white nationalists, or of similar political ideology. Race realism is just white nationalist politics. People are more than welcome to hold those political views (as stupid as they are), but it shouldn't be confused with science.
You miss the point that biologists now capture variation without race. The concept of race was replaced with a more useful tool - cline from the 1960s. - Lieberman, L., Rice, P. C. (1996). Race or Clines?. Arlington, VA: American Anthropological Association.
- Caspari, R. (2010). "Deconstructing Race". In: Larsen, C. (ed.). A Companion to Biological Anthropology. Wiley Blackwell.
Your blog posts racism and quotes from white supremacists, you use white nationalist terminology ("cuck"), also your twitter feed links to a white nationalist (Jared Taylor). Can you really criticize someone for thinking 88 in your name stands for Adolf Hitler?
Genes and Race: The Distant Footfalls of Evidence: http://blogs.scientificamerican.com...s-and-race-the-distant-footfalls-of-evidence/ A scientific topic should never be declared off limits or whitewashed because its findings can be socially or politically controversial; but we see this happening constantly when said topics arise....the politically correct will stoop to any means to censor or discredit any argument or evidence that opposes their agenda.....using some of the following fallacious tactics....screaming racist, bigot and then they try to shoot the messenger claiming they are indulging in pseudo-science. Ultimately Wade's argument is about the transparency of knowledge. He admonishes some of the critics - especially some liberal academics and the American Anthropological Association - for espousing a "culture only" philosophy that is increasingly at odds with scientific facts and designed mainly for political correctness and a straitjacketed worldview
'Science has often been lauded for its ability to transcend national boundaries. It’s norms of objectivity and universalism would seem to inhibit the invasion of the local political agendas that are so influential in the humanities today. Yet science classrooms today are also sites for indoctrination into the prevailing “diversity” narrative. Some attempts to make science more politically correct are benign enough: Sidebars featuring the scientific accomplishments of women and minorities may serve as useful invitations for all students to consider science as a career. And digressions showing the relevance of basic science to contemporary America could help students integrate scientific thinking into their approach to life. Too often, however, the attempts to highlight diversity undermine the very core values of science education. In looking for “role models” absurd claims are made about the accomplishments of ancient Egyptians, Africans, Muslims, and indigenous peoples. It is claimed that there are alternative “sciences” and methods of inquiry into nature that are just as effective or even superior to the scientific achievements associated with Western, white males. Instead of deploring episodes where parochialism or ideology has distorted or impeding scientific understanding, many current educational approaches would tell students that the remedy is to import progressive political values into the heart of science.' http://www.indiana.edu/~koertge/PCsciC1.pdf chrome-extension://mhjfbmdgcfjbbpaeojofohoefgiehjai/index.html
@ racerealist Oddly, you cite Tishkoff et al. 2009 on your blog. Do you not see this paper discredits your position? Do you not see the genetic continua? There are no genetic clusters.
Here's some more problems with your posts. https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2016/02/13/refuting-agabond-on-scientific-racism/ Yes, everything is a social construct or mental abstraction in the sense we cannot prove anything exists externally from the mind. This is why calling yourself a "race realist" is so foolish. Unless you can show races are extra-mental categories (i.e. independent of the mind), they only exist conceptually in your mind and are not "real". The scientific method is based on a postulate or starting assumption what we see is "real", but it does not say it is. Most scientists take an agnostic position between anti-realism and realism, that of pragmatism: they acknowledge we cannot prove/disprove reality so argue the basis of science is for problem-solving, utility etc. This is false since when more populations are sampled, they fill those spaces. The clusters are an illusion created by insufficient population sampling. If you look at Tishkoff et al. 2009 (above) who included a lot more population samples than most other studies, you will see there is a genetic continua and no clustering. "Similarly, it is not hard to understand why the geographic location of the sampled individuals makes a difference. To take an extreme example, analysis of a data set that included only people from either Colombo, Sri Lanka, or Reykjavik, Iceland would likely conclude that our species is made up of two clusters. And given the great distance between the two places, the analysis would probably assign the individuals sampled to one cluster or the other with ease, since genetic distinctiveness is positively correlated with geographic distance (Templeton 1999). But few people would be satisfied that sampling from just two locations, Colombo or Reykjavik, would give us a good picture of the structure of the entire human species around the globe. In other words, the representativeness and the geographic source locations of the sample shape our conclusions about population structure. This problem is not as remote as the hypothetical example above suggests. Because we do not (yet) have vast data banks of genetic data collected in every corner of the world (at least not at the disposition of scientific researchers), claims about genetic clusters of human beings—that is, about the structure found within a species of more than 7 billion people— are often based on samples that are relatively very small. Pritchard et al. (2000) tested their Structure algorithm with a sample of 72 Africans and 90 Europeans; Rosenberg et al. (2002) published an article in Science entitled “Genetic Structure of Human Populations” based on a sample of 1,056 individuals; and Paschou et al. (2007) sought to demonstrate the utility of their PCA method with a sample of 274 people. Moreover, large “sampling gaps” in the data available clearly skew the picture of human genetic diversity (Serre and Pääbo 2004:1682; see also Wilson et al. 2001:268 on the need for “geographically exhaustive” data). When Serre and Pääbo (2004) analyzed the widely used HGDP-CEPH Human Genome Diversity Cell Line Panel,2 they found not only a dearth of individuals from North Africa, for example, but a complete absence of indigenous people from North America. Given the relatively small numbers and limited locations of human beings who have been genotyped, the distribution of individuals sampled is important for any assessment of population structure. Serre and Pääbo (2004) argued that sampling often concentrates on “the extremes of continental land masses” (p. 1680), maximizing the geographic and therefore genetic distance between individuals presumed to belong to distinct continental clusters. Without “a sampling strategy that maximizes the geographic distribution of samples and keeps similar sample size for each geographical area,” they warned, researchers risked falsely creating “apparent substructures” (Serre and Pääbo 2004:1681). In contrast, when these researchers designed a study that sampled individuals “such that their geographic distribution around the world approximates the distribution of the human population as a whole and includes areas where Africa, Asia, and Europe meet,” the pattern of genetic variation they found was “one of gradients of allele frequencies that extend over the entire world, rather than discrete clusters” (Serre and Pääbo 2004:1679-1680)." (Morning, 2014)
This is just a lame ad hominem/guilt by association argument. Whether or not individual X is a "Nazi" or whatever has no relevance to the biological validity of the race concept. The fact you have to rely on these cheap fallacies shows how intellectually bankrupt your position is. You basically refute yourself in every post.
Cherry picking data. The anti-White Jew Franz Boas would be proud. Can you find a more modern PCA which has more SNPs and better and more accurate scattering? Like all of them. Try rotating your 3D PCA for a better view. Like this: http://www.scs.illinois.edu/~mcdonald/PCA84pops.html See the orthogonal variation for Caucasoids and Mongoloids?
You apparently don't know how science works. You can't start with a biased position. The problem with race-realism is its proponents start from the bias race is real because of their political views.
No, "race is real" isn't a premise, it's a conclusion, based on the simple fact of dividing a semi-continuous distribution in genetic space as an operationalization, the same way we divide spectra, except non-arbitrary due to discontinuities. Nobody is "starting with a biased position" except the anti-White Boasian Jewish Marxists and their useful idiot traitors who say "race is not real because {insert irrelevant fact X}".
Define "breeding population". You are just making a strawman argument and avoiding your opponent's definition. There is no point discussing with people who fail to address their opponent's argument.
Modern scientists divide human biological variation, but the divisions are breeding populations, not races. Take for example forensic science: Mongoloid has no utility because it leads to a high % of skeletal misclassifications: "Recently, physical anthropologists have noted that traits considered to be characteristic of the classical Mongoloid group were not derived from studies encompassing all of the populations that would be classified as Mongoloid." - Heard, A. N. 2008. "Non-Metric Assessment of Southeast and Northeast Asian Ancestry in the Forensic Context". M.Sc. Thesis. Michigan State University Secondly, none of the Boasians denied race. That's why your Jewish conspiracy theory makes no sense. Even Montagu's (1942) book did not deny race. "In the biological sense there do, of course, exists races of mankind." - Ashley Montagu (1942) Boas also thought there were races, and used labels like Mongoloid in his literature. No doubt if modern scientists lived in the 1930s, 40s or even 50s, they would have done the same. Science is progressive. "Race realists" are stuck with an outdated scientific worldview. I already provided a quote which explains why science abandoned race from the 1960s-1970s, race was replaced with clines.
