You're right, your ideology is clouding your judgement. You're arguing against a point I didn't make as if I were a normie.
I didn't even allege that all races were equal, or that there were no genetic differences between races. There has to be, that's one of the reasons people are different colors.
That doesn't change my point that the genetic differences between races are not the sole, or even primary, explanation for the disparity of behaviors.
As I said here, racialism will promote the bio-leninism you hope to avoid with racialism, because you are denying personal responsibility and accountability for change and improvement.
While there are genetic limits to the capabilities of all individuals, the boundaries of those limits are so narrow in the mind of racial determinists that they think all behavior can be determined solely through genetics. This is demonstrably false, and not what any single geneticist would ever argue. Furthermore, there is still a problem with the categorizaiton of race because it is still only an inter-temporal statistical abstraction of mostly self-identifying individuals. It is not a good tool for measuring genetic sub-categories of humans.
And did so for a reason, that is to attempt to make race irrelevant and denigrate its existence as being whatsoever meaningful, out of aforementioned reasons.
And that reason is because race is a terrible stand in for genetics because it doesn't even involve genetics, and is a statistical abstraction created mostly by the cultural perspective of different countries. Don't talk to me about the importance of genetics in a conversation about an intertemporal abstraction that involves different genetic groups, ethnicities, and is tied together by religions & languages.
Causal determinism is, in my view, the most reasonable approach to our existence (how it functions); I don't believe in free will, as commonly understood. It's also one of reasons why the notion of "voluntary trade" collapses, along with individualism, etc, but not the primary reason obviously. That, in no way whatsoever, negates personal "responsibility and accountability," and if it did it'd speak more about the ideology and politics that came to that conclusion, and less about reality of it.
Posh. It seems to me that your concept of Causal Determinism is basically another way of saying "Deconstructing Individuality". It's the intentional attack of individualism by rhetorical warfare. "If I can argue that something in environment contributed to you making a decision, then you didn't make the decision". It's the reversal of the deconstructionist argument on the concept of White Culture: "White Culture doesn't exist because I can argue that anything actually stems from something else, therefore nothing is inherently White, and therefore White Culture doesn't exist... ... ... until I redefine it as genocidal, psychopathic, theft".
You liked the weapon, you just didn't like what it was pointed at. All "Applied Post-Modernist" philosophical strains work like this.
It's a form of extended family, with many forms of it existing, including broader ones.
Garbage.Religion is a better allusion to an extended family unit then race is. At least then you can guarantee that you have a shared language and values.
Race isn't even useful enough to compare to the Political Science definition of Nation. And even though that may be an abstraction, it's definitional requirements meet enough of a standard that you know that you are forming a category around a fairly stable or well-identified social community. A race is even more broad, vague, and abstract then that! It's an abstraction of abstractions of abstractions, desperately attempting to smear away the distinctions of utterly dissimilar people through the use of broad-based statistical manipulation.
The concept of an extended social-family system is a clan, not a race. And a clan is far more of a refined category then even an ethnicity is.
Origin is irrelevant to its usefulness, and it's highly useful and accurate enough,
It's utterly useless outside creating balkanized and weaponized political groups, and for establishing racialist narratives from statistics built for the purpose of telling those same narratives. The utility of race is as a political weapon. Nothing else.
Human existence is a continuum. "Individuals" themselves are a product of it.
Jesus, this is a Leftist argument. You are literally engaging in Deconstructionism. It's no different then saying "gender is a spectrum". Your purpose is solely to deny the existence of something by deconstructing it, so you can replace it with your own ideology.
There's nothing to deconstruct, liberal notions of individualism are pure fiction of imagination, to echo Gentile.
Liar. You wouldn't need deconstruction if there wasn't something to deconstruct. The purpose of deconstruction is to break down established structures with rhetorical warfare until you can replace them.
Ah, Gentile. So you are a Leftist. That makes more sense.
Whether or not things are "borrowed" from other cultures doesn't negate existence of a particular culture or people, in fact it's how some form in the first place; the point I'm making is primarily in regards to free will, since it implies freedom to chose, which doesn't exist in actuality as every choice, thought, action, etc, is dependent on previous events.
The fact that things comes from other cultures negates the claim that cultures have an inherent claim to any particular aspect of their culture. The same way you claim that because an individual is exposed to his senses and can have his needs stimulated by environment, there is no inherent ability to make choices.
Both deconstructionist arguments are patently absurd.
Choices exist by the conscious mind as a way to identify maximum benefit though a higher time preference than immediate emotion can generate. The conscious mind exists to assist the individual's human ecosystem in survival through the use of abstraction in long-term pattern recognition, creating actionable predictions, and using projection to understand hidden behaviors. To claim that choice does not exist is to reject the fundamental basis of human civilization and the longterm trend of human evolution in supporting the creation of a conscious mind as a pinnacle survival mechanism. The only reason you would attempt to deconstruct something patently obvious is because, as a Leftist and a Fascist, you understand that authoritarianism requires humans submit to base emotional responses instead of a conscious individual mind that recognizes the patterns of a predator attempting to control his prey and feed off of them. Meanwhile, you will still maintain your own individuality and the individuality of the inner party because individualism will benefit you once you feel secure in your political position. You will become one of the anointed visionaries who just so happen to be the only humans on Earth capable of free choice, and you will laugh at everyone who is stupid enough to have believed you.
Identically, culture exists in any human group regardless of whether or not any particular cultural activity was observed, mimicked, or created by some other members of some other group. Again, the conscious mind makes choices to delay immediate gratification for the investment in a new cultural behavior which will generate better long-term results. So, a culture may adopt some practice that seems particularly beneficial to it's members. To claim that a culture simply does not exist is to reject the very definition of what cultures are. The only reason you would attempt to deconstruct something so patently obvious is because, as a Leftist, you understand that most cultural institutions are social mechanisms that bring benefit to the individual group members and not to your political agenda, and that your political agenda would most likely damage all of the group members once instantiated. Therefore, you need to undermine those cultural institutions by delegitimizing them in the minds of their members and encouraging them not to associate themselves with something you claim doesn't exist. Meanwhile, you will claim that Leftist culture is the fundamental basis of all human behavior and activity. You will claim to have removed a culture that didn't exist and replaced it with a culture that is always in the best interest of everyone, while only rewarding yourself at the expense of others, and you will laugh at everyone who is stupid enough to have believed you.
It depends on its accuracy. Deconstructionism is highly useful,
Deconstructionism is a highly useful weapon because it's accuracy is utterly irrelevant. Inaccuracy is more useful than accuracy, because it forces the person defending against deconstruction to attempt to chase down yet another false claim. Like a machine gun or a Gish Gallop, the purpose is to suppress the opposition from being able to respond properly to the insane assertions. It works on every ideological structure because it is a rhetorical weapon. It does not rely on accuracy or facts, just argumentation.
Religion has a different function in society, but I'm not referring to function, I'm referring to actuality of what race is, that is, racial groups being a form of extended family which have some degree of endogamy.
Race has a very similar function in society to religion because of the assertions of racialists like yourself claiming that there are strong social and cultural connections within groups that are not even tacitly comparable to family units, let alone clans, let alone ethnicities, let alone nations. Race is the largest possible human abstraction that can exist, and is generally useless as a result. If you want to stick to genetics, you'd have a better time sticking to clan groups and ethnic groups, at least there the genetic similarities are distinct and less overlapping.
You're right, your ideology is clouding your judgement. You're arguing against a point I didn't make as if I were a normie.
I didn't even allege that all races were equal, or that there were no genetic differences between races. There has to be, that's one of the reasons people are different colors.
That doesn't change my point that the genetic differences between races are not the sole, or even primary, explanation for the disparity of behaviors.
As I said here, racialism will promote the bio-leninism you hope to avoid with racialism, because you are denying personal responsibility and accountability for change and improvement.
While there are genetic limits to the capabilities of all individuals, the boundaries of those limits are so narrow in the mind of racial determinists that they think all behavior can be determined solely through genetics. This is demonstrably false, and not what any single geneticist would ever argue. Furthermore, there is still a problem with the categorizaiton of race because it is still only an inter-temporal statistical abstraction of mostly self-identifying individuals. It is not a good tool for measuring genetic sub-categories of humans.
And that reason is because race is a terrible stand in for genetics because it doesn't even involve genetics, and is a statistical abstraction created mostly by the cultural perspective of different countries. Don't talk to me about the importance of genetics in a conversation about an intertemporal abstraction that involves different genetic groups, ethnicities, and is tied together by religions & languages.
Posh. It seems to me that your concept of Causal Determinism is basically another way of saying "Deconstructing Individuality". It's the intentional attack of individualism by rhetorical warfare. "If I can argue that something in environment contributed to you making a decision, then you didn't make the decision". It's the reversal of the deconstructionist argument on the concept of White Culture: "White Culture doesn't exist because I can argue that anything actually stems from something else, therefore nothing is inherently White, and therefore White Culture doesn't exist... ... ... until I redefine it as genocidal, psychopathic, theft".
You liked the weapon, you just didn't like what it was pointed at. All "Applied Post-Modernist" philosophical strains work like this.
Garbage. Religion is a better allusion to an extended family unit then race is. At least then you can guarantee that you have a shared language and values.
Race isn't even useful enough to compare to the Political Science definition of Nation. And even though that may be an abstraction, it's definitional requirements meet enough of a standard that you know that you are forming a category around a fairly stable or well-identified social community. A race is even more broad, vague, and abstract then that! It's an abstraction of abstractions of abstractions, desperately attempting to smear away the distinctions of utterly dissimilar people through the use of broad-based statistical manipulation.
The concept of an extended social-family system is a clan, not a race. And a clan is far more of a refined category then even an ethnicity is.
It's utterly useless outside creating balkanized and weaponized political groups, and for establishing racialist narratives from statistics built for the purpose of telling those same narratives. The utility of race is as a political weapon. Nothing else.
Jesus, this is a Leftist argument. You are literally engaging in Deconstructionism. It's no different then saying "gender is a spectrum". Your purpose is solely to deny the existence of something by deconstructing it, so you can replace it with your own ideology.
Liar. You wouldn't need deconstruction if there wasn't something to deconstruct. The purpose of deconstruction is to break down established structures with rhetorical warfare until you can replace them.
Ah, Gentile. So you are a Leftist. That makes more sense.
The fact that things comes from other cultures negates the claim that cultures have an inherent claim to any particular aspect of their culture. The same way you claim that because an individual is exposed to his senses and can have his needs stimulated by environment, there is no inherent ability to make choices.
Both deconstructionist arguments are patently absurd.
Choices exist by the conscious mind as a way to identify maximum benefit though a higher time preference than immediate emotion can generate. The conscious mind exists to assist the individual's human ecosystem in survival through the use of abstraction in long-term pattern recognition, creating actionable predictions, and using projection to understand hidden behaviors. To claim that choice does not exist is to reject the fundamental basis of human civilization and the longterm trend of human evolution in supporting the creation of a conscious mind as a pinnacle survival mechanism. The only reason you would attempt to deconstruct something patently obvious is because, as a Leftist and a Fascist, you understand that authoritarianism requires humans submit to base emotional responses instead of a conscious individual mind that recognizes the patterns of a predator attempting to control his prey and feed off of them. Meanwhile, you will still maintain your own individuality and the individuality of the inner party because individualism will benefit you once you feel secure in your political position. You will become one of the anointed visionaries who just so happen to be the only humans on Earth capable of free choice, and you will laugh at everyone who is stupid enough to have believed you.
Identically, culture exists in any human group regardless of whether or not any particular cultural activity was observed, mimicked, or created by some other members of some other group. Again, the conscious mind makes choices to delay immediate gratification for the investment in a new cultural behavior which will generate better long-term results. So, a culture may adopt some practice that seems particularly beneficial to it's members. To claim that a culture simply does not exist is to reject the very definition of what cultures are. The only reason you would attempt to deconstruct something so patently obvious is because, as a Leftist, you understand that most cultural institutions are social mechanisms that bring benefit to the individual group members and not to your political agenda, and that your political agenda would most likely damage all of the group members once instantiated. Therefore, you need to undermine those cultural institutions by delegitimizing them in the minds of their members and encouraging them not to associate themselves with something you claim doesn't exist. Meanwhile, you will claim that Leftist culture is the fundamental basis of all human behavior and activity. You will claim to have removed a culture that didn't exist and replaced it with a culture that is always in the best interest of everyone, while only rewarding yourself at the expense of others, and you will laugh at everyone who is stupid enough to have believed you.
Deconstructionism is a highly useful weapon because it's accuracy is utterly irrelevant. Inaccuracy is more useful than accuracy, because it forces the person defending against deconstruction to attempt to chase down yet another false claim. Like a machine gun or a Gish Gallop, the purpose is to suppress the opposition from being able to respond properly to the insane assertions. It works on every ideological structure because it is a rhetorical weapon. It does not rely on accuracy or facts, just argumentation.
Race has a very similar function in society to religion because of the assertions of racialists like yourself claiming that there are strong social and cultural connections within groups that are not even tacitly comparable to family units, let alone clans, let alone ethnicities, let alone nations. Race is the largest possible human abstraction that can exist, and is generally useless as a result. If you want to stick to genetics, you'd have a better time sticking to clan groups and ethnic groups, at least there the genetic similarities are distinct and less overlapping.