Talk:Racialism

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon race.svg

This Race related article has been awarded GOLD status for quality. Please keep this in mind when editing the article. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Goldenbrain.png
Information icon.svg Cover Story
This article is, among others, randomly included on the Main Page.
Please keep this in mind and be sure that your edits are of the quality that this implies.
Its front-page abstract can be found here and its editnotice here.
This page is automatically archived by Archivist
Archives for this talk page: <1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>

You have basically invalidated "RationalWiki" with this social justice warrior bs[edit]

Hi. I'm a ginger. I sunburn easily. You lose the argument. Why even bother to have a "RationalWiki" if it is allowed to be filled with this naive social justice warrior bullshit. Races are easily identifiable, have associated traits (like UV resistance) other than the trait that makes them identifiable, and there are many other traits besides that. When it comes to issues like intelligence or bias in behaviors there is more complexity and those could be attributed to epigenetic memory rather than race per se, but having a wiki labeled "RationalWiki" and then stating the opposite of the truth is just absurd. — Unsigned, by: 2601:c6:4100:aef1:1de:6576:a92c:eed4 / talk

Revertion[edit]

Hi. Why was my edited reverted? Was any of it incorrect? Wangmeister (talk) 12:22, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

And again! Is the Fst between humans and chimps 18% or not? Is this page your religious text that can't be changed based on new evidence? 86.189.21.134 (talk) 13:18, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
TFW PC American scientists claim race doesn't exist because Fst is under 25%, and the difference between humans and chimps is under 25%. Tfw you write this in "Rationalwiki". Tfw all of the regulars put this back it after having it explained. Wangmeister (talk) 13:44, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
TFW stands for "that feel when". So by saying "TFW when" you are saying "that feel when when". CowHouse (talk) 14:03, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! Corrected. Any opinion on the fake statistics in the article? Wangmeister (talk) 14:06, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm afraid I'm not done correcting you yet. "Revertion" is not a word. The word you are looking for is "reversion". CowHouse (talk) 14:07, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Corrected! Anything else? What do you think is more important and what you should address? My grammar and spelling in a talk page comment? Or the fake statistics and pseudoscience in your article? Please answer this question since I have been kind enough to respond to you. Wangmeister (talk) 14:17, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
>racialist accusing us of pseudoscience
LMAO. Sρɾıɡɡınɑ (τɑlk) (conτɾıbs) @ 14:28, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
I too am thus far unimpressed. GrammarCommie (talk) 14:33, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough, I'll answer your question. I think correcting your grammar and spelling is more important than arguing on RationalWiki about the existence of race (especially with someone who makes comments like this). Also, you never corrected the spelling of "reversion". CowHouse (talk) 14:34, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
So if you, an immigration advocate apparently, truly think arguing about race is not important, I could change the article to fix the fake statistics? Or is the reality you want to keep the fake race denying statistics because fake data on race supports your pro-immigration agenda? Wangmeister (talk) 14:42, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
See below for a refutation of your argument that FST supports racialism. Also, this has nothing to do with immigration, I have no idea where you got that from. Sρɾıɡɡınɑ (τɑlk) (conτɾıbs) @ 14:44, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
I think Wangmeister's mention of immigration is referring to my recent comments on another talk page. CowHouse (talk) 15:02, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
So you think arguing about race is not important, but push for fake statistics to be published in race articles. Do you mean changing your fake statistics is not important? 86.189.21.134 (talk) 15:12, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Actually, I never said it was not important. I said correcting your spelling and grammar was "more" important. That leaves the possibility that I think they're both very important. To get back on topic, there are users here who know far more about racialism than I do, and I'd prefer to leave it to them to debate you. Keep in mind that you might have to wait a day or so before they see this discussion and respond. I'll just chip in to correct your spelling and grammar since that's my speciality. CowHouse (talk) 15:25, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Background: Comparison with animals[edit]

Why doesn't this section actually compare other animals? Eg. [1]. Is it because you decided a priori race doesn't exist so ignore data which refutes you? Hardly rational. Quite the opposite. Wangmeister (talk) 12:29, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Rightpedia is not a legitimate source. Sρɾıɡɡınɑ (τɑlk) (conτɾıbs) @ 14:29, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Oh, additionally: chimps aren't considered humans regardless of their FST because they cannot interbreed with humans and produce viable offspring -- humans can interbreed and produce viable offspring no matter what color their skin is, so the argument you seem to be making that different races are different species seems to fall flat here. Sρɾıɡɡınɑ (τɑlk) (conτɾıbs) @ 14:43, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
You commit the genetic fallacy and all of the statistics are referenced to journals. You know this. You're dishonest. I was simply pointing out that Fst can't be used to delimit taxa. How can species Fst be under 25% when subspecies can't? And it can. Check the interbreeding subspecies above. You know this. You're dishonest. Wangmeister (talk) 14:49, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
"the argument you seem to be making that different races are different species"
No that's obviously not what I'm saying. Your article claims 25% Fst delimits subspecies. I'm showing subspecies and even species with Fsts below that. It's a fake politically motivated statistic. Fake science. Sad. — Unsigned, by: 86.189.21.134 / talk / contribs 15:10, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
No DOIs or titles are present - how am I supposed to find the journals it's referencing? Until I can actually read the sources, I'm skeptical. If you're saying races are human subspecies rather than separate species, that's a blatant lie. Further reading materials. Sρɾıɡɡınɑ (τɑlk) (conτɾıbs) @ 15:17, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Hopefully we can avoid "if you are saying {insert crap}" if I state clearly what I am saying. I am only saying Fst doesn't delimit taxa. This is applied arbitrarily to humans. If you are not familiar with the relevant literature why are you arguing here? You can't Google the names dates and animal names? Shall I post google searches for you? Are you truly this incompetent or just stalling? Wangmeister (talk) 15:23, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough. I'm fine with you noting that in the article, assuming you avoid the idiotic chimpanzee argument. Sρɾıɡɡınɑ (τɑlk) (conτɾıbs) @ 15:47, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Idiotic? Lol, your article is idiotic. It claims races are not valid because they're under 25% Fst, while the differentiation between humans and chimps is under 25% Fst. How is that not a refutation of your idiotic argument? Wangmeister (talk) 15:50, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
I haven't contributed to this article at all and have my own reasons for rejecting the concept of race as outlined in the examples I gave. Don't complain to me, edit it yourself or talk to somebody who actually wrote that section. Sρɾıɡɡınɑ (τɑlk) (conτɾıbs) @ 16:05, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
My edits get reverted by "GrammarCommie" who's apparently an immigration advocate so supports fake science which is inline with his political agenda. Shall I revert him? No I'll get blocked despite supporting my case. This website is an anti-White propaganda site, not a science site. Wangmeister (talk) 16:17, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
I reverted your edit because it was a statement of opinion with no citation to back up its claim. GrammarCommie (talk) 16:24, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
We just demonstrated here the claim in the article is wrong. But yu can see that. You're just a brazen liar. There is something seriously wrong with the people on this website. Who owns it? Wangmeister (talk) 16:50, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
First off, it's "you" not "yu", second off neither [2] nor [3] cited any source for their claims. Furthermore it is unwise make accusations you can neither prove nor uphold. GrammarCommie (talk) 17:07, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
I think if we were an 'anti-white propaganda' site, we wouldn't have negative articles about organizations like the Nation of Islam. Sρɾıɡɡınɑ (τɑlk) (conτɾıbs) @ 16:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Here's the first two
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=lorenzen+zebra
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=eizirick+jaguar
Can you wrap your brain around the method here? Wangmeister (talk) 15:31, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

If you slimeballs had any integrity this "comparison with animals" section would simply consist of this image[4] and "Variation within versus between groups is comparable with other subspecies". But none of you did have any integrity. You're scum. Wangmeister (talk) 17:09, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I have blocked you because you are not comporting yourself in a reasonable manner. Try again later.Ariel31459 (talk) 17:15, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
They'll act the same, children do not mature overnight. GrammarCommie (talk) 17:17, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Most the data in the image Wang spams is false. The lowest Fst value it cites for red-wing blackbirds is not even for subspecies, but populations within subspecies. You can trace the origin of that table to a white nationalist, so its just a politically motivated liar who put that table together manipulating the sources.Tuna (talk) 18:25, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Really? Quote the relevant part. You know "The red-winged blackbird is one of 11 species in the genus Agelaius and is included in the family Icteridae". You say most of the data is false. Easy to say. What else do you claim is false? Why would you examine most of the sources then not quote them to prove this? Wangmeister (talk) 12:42, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
TableIV.PairwiseGeneticDistancesandFstValuesBetweenRed-WingedBlackbirdPopulationsa
CaliforniaLouisianaAlbertaManitobaMinnesota
CaliforniaÑ0.0160.0110.0020.015*
Louisiana0.016Ñ0.0150.0060.023*
Alberta0.0110.015Ñ¡0.005¡0.002
Manitoba0.0020.007¡0.005Ñ0.006
Minnesota0.0150.023¡0.0020.006Ñ
Liar! Wangmeister (talk) 13:06, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
4/5 populations (California, Alberta, Manitoba and Minnesota) are the same subspecies A. p. phoeniceus as noted on Table 1. This study has very little to do with different subspecies, but was primarily measuring the extent of genetic differentiation of breeding populations within the same subspecies. The idiot who put that table together misread the study. Tuna (talk) 14:03, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
So then the Lousiana subspecies has an Fst ~1% versus the other subspecies. QED. You can see this. Why are you stalling with this irrelevant babble?
Why are you saying "most of the data is false", and then choosing one data set which indeed shows the reported value? You're a liar. Wangmeister (talk) 14:20, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Because the mean Fst for red-winged blackbirds is not 1%. If we use your silly reasoning the Fst for human populations is 46% because the Fst distance between Mbuti Pygmies and Papua New Guineans is 0.4573. Using only two samples doesn't produce a mean and tells us nothing about the overall population structure. And what you've repeatedly failed to answer is why Fischer et al conclude because of the low amount of genetic differentiation between putative subspecies of chimpanzees (mean Fst = 23%) that subspecies in chimpanzees don't exist. These are scientists using Fst to conclude subspecies don't exist in another animal species. What is political about this? Do you know how stupid you sound?Tuna (talk) 16:47, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
I showed other errors with that table a year back. When it finds low mean Fst values that are correct, what it doesn't say is those putative subspecies are actually now challenged e.g. orang-utans. Fischer et al for example deny orang-utan and chimpanzee subspecies exist based on low Fst and that table wrongly says orang-utans are not challenged or questioned as having subspecies... who is really lying here?Tuna (talk) 18:53, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

There are two major scientific definitions of race in animals, as Templeton 2013 explains.[edit]

Why do you rely on Templeton so much. The man is a demonstrable quack and not referenced in biology. Do you like his politics?

What about these definitions of race?[5] Wangmeister (talk) 16:54, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

What about it? "Rightpedia is an electronic encyclopedia with a purpose to counter the lies and coverups by globalists and the controlled mainstream media in addition to exposing vital things they hide." I hope you are not offended when I tell you that is a rum source for scientific discussionAriel31459 (talk) 17:37, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
They're flat earther crackpots; Rightpedia has an article on flat earth and actually supports it. I mean read this bizarre statement:
Undoubtedly, in the very near future there will be laws passed making it a criminal offense to deny that the earth is flat. In fact, there will be a zero tolerance policy for denying that the earth is flat.

It either doesn't criticize flat earthism as a crazy pseudo-science and form of science denialism, but just says "unproven theory". lol.Tuna (talk) 18:35, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Lol what? Genetic fallacy based on absurd lies. Shall I post the referenced data on another website? Would that make it more correct? Wangmeister (talk) 11:51, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Flat earth is an unproven theory in the fringes of the truth movement and a few in nationalist movements (eg. Sinead McCarthy, Tila Tequila).[6]
The statement is a satire on historical revision laws. Parodying how absurd beliefs are legally required.
Liar! Wangmeister (talk) 15:32, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Fst[edit]

Wang is a crackpot; all his claims are not only false, but absurd. Let me help you out here...

  • Fst between humans and chimpanzees is not 18%, but 89%. Source: Fischer et al. (2006) "Demographic History and Genetic Differentiation in Apes".
  • Fst between species is never below 25%, but it is rarely tested for species, but subspecies.
  • Fst is used to determine subspecies status; so for example Fischer et al. note: "the extent of genetic differentiation among subspecies of chimpanzees and orang-utans is comparable to that seen among human populations, calling the validity of the subspecies concept in apes into question." (emphasis added)
  • Putative subspecies with low Fst values under 25% are questioned/doubted and are being removed from taxonomic literature; many scientists like Fisher et al. now deny there are chimpanzee and orang-utan subspecies.
  • The table Wang posts is filled with errors. For example, the Fst between subspecies of red-winged blackbirds is not 1%. That figure is for breeding populations within subspecies. Another error is the claim Orang-utan Fst is as low as 9%, when its 3 times that amount in Fischer et al. but who even question the existence of subspecies (a borderline case).
  • Wang doesn't know what he's talking about. Tuna (talk) 18:14, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Interesting. I did not know these things, so I allowed him to post his data up, but if this is true, I think it should be removed. First I'd like to see if he has a rebuttal. Sρɾıɡɡınɑ (τɑlk) (conτɾıbs) @ 18:23, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Sewall Wright's fixation index FST measured among samples of world populations is often 0.15 or less when computed as an average over many alleles or loci. To many, this result indicates that the genetic similarities among human populations far outweigh the differences. For example, a finding like this led Richard Lewontin to claim that human races have no genetic or taxonomic significance (Lewontin 1972). Despite the far-reaching proclamations that researchers make from FST, few have questioned the validity of how it is applied or interpreted. Earlier in this decade, Rick Kittles and I took an unusually critical look at FST (Long and Kittles 2003). We analyzed a unique data set composed of short tandem repeat (STR) allele frequencies for eight loci genotyped in both humans and chimpanzees (Deka et al. 1995). These data made it possible to see how FST played out when no one could dispute taxonomic and genetic significance. The answer surprised us. FST was pretty close to the canonical 0.15 shown so many times for human populations. In our analysis, FST was 0.12 for humans, but for humans and chimpanzees together, FST rose only to 0.18. Indeed, we found one locus, D13S122, where the size range of human and chimpanzee alleles hardly overlapped, yet FST equaled 0.15 (Figure 1). We ultimately found that the genetic and statistical model underlying FST does not fit well to human populations.

Update to Long and Kittles's "Human Genetic Diversity and the Nonexistence of Biological Races" (2003): Fixation on an Index. Article · December 2009 Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/44631936_Update_to_Long_and_Kittles's_Human_Genetic_Diversity_and_the_Nonexistence_of_Biological_Races_2003_Fixation_on_an_Index [accessed Dec 13 2017]. Wangmeister (talk) 16:09, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Long and Kittles both deny humans races exist. The Fst between humans and chimpanzees is also not 0.18. The correct values are in Fischer.Tuna (talk) 18:53, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Do race has different intelligence[edit]

Because there are different sources that trumps yours.— Unsigned, by: 47.20.249.240 / talk / contribs