A friend of mine posted the following on social media. Negating his autism, what is your opinion of this?
My Belief of Cultural Differentiation and Superiority: A Letter to Alice
I would initially like to state, very firmly, that I do not believe in the notion of racial supremacy: the belief that comparative races are inferior or superior predicated upon inherent, hereditary dispositions – mental and physical alike – that determine the capability of the races. However, I do believe in the possibility of differentiation in cognitive appliance; just has our physical appearance varies, our mental states may as well. This discrepancy in cognitive appliance would not denote inferiority nor superiority, as all of humanity (regardless of race) has surpassed through the filter of natural selection, thus establishing the capability of us as at least adequate in maintaining our existence. However, quantifying human capability merely upon the ability to exist is no longer applicable in contemporary context. We are established. We must now look beyond this; we must look towards our progression. Progression shall be defined in terms that we now hold intrinsic: economic (what an individual creates; what they consume) and social (how they interact) quantification. But in utilizing this schematic of measurement, I am not negating other variables as pertinent to defining human progression, for in doing so, I would therefore absolutely negate the existence of metaphysical entities and systems to which I can neither personally confirm nor deny. In the sake of succinctness and continuity, I shall only be writing of progress in the social and economic context.
...cont...
...cont
With the variables of measurement stated, I do believe in the notion of cultural inferiority/superiority. Since all human action beyond that of maintaining existence is arbitrary – dependent upon the subjectivities of individuals, and therefore upon the subjectivities of their interactive commune, and vice-versa – it can be stated, without offense, that certain individuals, and therefore certain communal groups, are more proficient in fulfilling the benchmarks that denote a culture as superior, thus rendering the remaining cultures as inferior. So within the quantification of economic and social terms, a certain culture would be superior. However, in example, if a religious doctrine proves true, and this culture did not abide with its ideology, then this culture would indeed be inferior in that regard. So obviously, the defining of a human as superior/inferior is fully dependent upon the variables of quantification. I realize this is well known theory, but I must articulate this as personal belief so as to not be branded a “racist,” or “bigot” by people such as yourself, Alice. I would appreciate if you’d develop your argument to be beyond that of stupid and shallow name calling for future dialogues between us.
Every one is equally worthless to me. What is it with your islam like fanaticism towards equality?
>>1202986
I do not believe in equality. I just posted picrelated because I knew it would make the alt-righters gather their pitchforks
>>1202986
Did you even read the article, anon?
>>1202968
>>1202971
does the writer hold any of the following beliefs?
>Muslim radicals are only a small number
>the holocaust did not happen
>African civilizations outside of Egypt and Carthage were irrelevant
>white people invented slavery
>Reagan was a good president
>communism can work outside a utopia
I know that covers a broad range of thought but I consider following any of them to be a litmus test to determine if somoene is worth discussing with
>>1202968
I think people just overthink it. You are a product of your surroundings. Some people are a product of better surroundings than others.
>>1203029
That's actually an impressively accurate list. Well done.
>>1203029
No.
He is a huge fan of Hume.
His favorite president is Calvin Coolidge.
He is extensively anti-communist
He is pro-Semite
Not even joking
>>1203038
>Believing that cognitive ability is solely predicated on environment
Wew lad
>>1203029
>irrelevant
That is ambiguous...
They are irrelevant to many contexts
>>1202968
>is this interpretation of race correct?
The noun race has existed since the 18th-century while the nouns racist and racism were both created in the 21st. He seems to be embracing that older notion of race. Biologically, however, the genetic variation within traditionally defined races is larger than variation between races, so it's arguable how effective of a metric it is.
>>1202968
This isn't history of ideas, this is shitty /pol/ tier spouting.
Get an Oxford History of Race or read Caliban and the Witch & Black Jacobins
>>1202968
This person believes that Jewish culture (and by his own logic, the Jewish race) is supreme, so feel free to disregard his opinions
>>1202968
Whatever happened to "Not your Personal Army?"
>>1203261
It's probably worth noting the original concept of racist and racism came about simply as a way to designate those promoting racial theory, which is what he is doing.
It wasn't until the 1920's and 30's that it became derogatory and shifted to the more modern meaning of hostility against racial groups, which he is not doing.
But even the much older 'race' has shifted considerably.
>The word race started to be used in the Middle Ages as a synonym for caste, and was applied to the raising of plants and breeding of animals. In the late Middle Ages it was used in the definition of noble lineage in Italy and France. During the long Iberian struggle between Muslims and Christians, followed by overseas expansion, race acquired an ethnic meaning—first applied to people of Jewish and Muslim descent, meaning an impurity in the blood, and then applied to Africans and Native Americans. Therefore, the semantic content of the word was developed through a hierarchical ethnic system of classification within the Iberian context. In the eighteenth century, the noun race was used in Europe to denote female gender and, in general, varieties of human beings. Within the theories of races the noun acquired an ambiguous role in labeling subspecies, virtually transformed into species by scientific racialism in the mid-nineteenth century. By the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, as nationalism triumphed in the Western world, the noun race was imposed as equivalent to nation
>>1203261
>while the nouns racist and racism were both created in the 21st
20th, m8.
>>1203261
Substantiate your genetic claim without picking a fucking Russian to compare to a Spaniard.
>>1203780
not him
>The proportion of human genetic variation due to differences between populations is modest, and individuals from different populations can be genetically more similar than individuals from the same population.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1893020/
>>1203780
The Use of Racial, Ethnic, and Ancestral Categories in Human Genetics Research
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1275602/
>In general 5%–15% of genetic variation occurs between large groups living on different continents, with the remaining majority of the variation occurring within such groups (Lewontin 1972; Jorde et al. 2000a; Hinds et al. 2005). This distribution of genetic variation differs from the pattern seen in many other mammalian species, for which existing data suggest greater differentiation between groups (Templeton 1998; Kittles and Weiss 2003).
>The distribution of many physical traits resembles the distribution of genetic variation within and between human populations (American Association of Physical Anthropologists 1996; Keita and Kittles 1997). For example, ∼90% of the variation in human head shapes occurs within every human group, and ∼10% separates groups, with a greater variability of head shape among individuals with recent African ancestors (Relethford 2002).
>A prominent exception to the common distribution of physical characteristics within and among groups is skin color. Approximately 10% of the variance in skin color occurs within groups, and ∼90% occurs between groups (Relethford 2002).
This thread was moved to >>>/pol/75346880
