441–443 of 443 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
All of whom we're better off without? And isn't Toby Young still employed at his job at the disinformation factory? https://www.spectator.co.uk/writer/toby-young/
Who gets to judge that? And the Spectator is no more a disinformation factory than, say, the New Statesman.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>In fact, the genetic variation within a racial group is often greater than the variation between racial groups, meaning that people who are considered to be part of the same race can be more genetically diverse than people who are considered to be part of different races. Funny to see it repeating the debunked (but regime approved) Lewontin's Fallacy almost verbatim. There's a reason why a DNA test is 99+% accurate…
That's a misread. If I collect the dust from your car, I can (in abstract) place where it's been with 99% accuracy too. For example, I can pick of pollens, and sequence them down to a specific tree. That doesn't mean if it has pollens from one place or another that it's significant in any meaningful way, or that you can make statements about a car based on that. Most of the differences we know about account for thing…
If you picked the dust from a person you could make this exact same discovery.
>That doesn't mean if it has pollens from one place or another that it's significant in any meaningful way, or that you can make statements about a car based on that.
You can make statements on where they've been, but not what they are. You can look into a car and see it's a V-6 with a CVT, and you can make a lot of statements on its actual performance, how large it is, how it accelerates, etc. This is the same as looking at the DNA of a person.
>Most of the differences we know about account for things like skin color (which, in turn depends on vitamin D versus cancer for a given latitude), local diseases immunity, and similar things. Some account for random things which have no impact on natural selection (e.g. aesthetic details like hair color or thickness).
And height, and lactose intolerance, and how well alcohol is digested, and baldness, and everything that makes a human human.
>We have no evidence for things related to personality, intelligence
This is extremely wrong. Intelligence is something like 70% inherited, it is directly related to your DNA. Tendencies between groups for suffering from things such as schizophrenia are also inheritable and different between races and smaller ethnic groups.
>or anything associated with classic constructs of race and racism
There are generally true statements to make between different ethnic groups, and different races that still match classic constructs: East Asians are more likely to be lactose intolerable, Black Americans are more likely to have sickle cell, Ashkenazi Jews are more likely to be schizophrenic, White Europeans are more likely to suffer from melanoma, etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most of the western world, certainly
Not sure what "western world" means. Does it include Latin America? Does it include Eastern Europe? Does it include Northern Africa? There are a lot of pretty conservative countries in those regions. Or is it just the Anglosphere + West Europe + North Europe?