Race Realism: Critical understandings

Author: Mesmer

Posts

Total: 320
Topic's author
#61
Mesmer
Mesmer's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 516
3
2
4
Mesmer's avatar
Mesmer
3
2
4
-->
@secularmerlin
You argued that: "These [racial] differences are entirely cosmetic" Race Realism: Critical understandings (debateart.com) .

I responded by suggesting the various ways in which we know this isn't true: Race Realism: Critical understandings (debateart.com) , referencing this from the same discussion we had in the other thread: "White Supremacist" is a racial slur (debateart.com) .

You begin by arguing here that I'm not arguing real "white supremacist" talking points, hence implying that my argument is wrong: "You are moving the goal post by changing from superior as used by white supremacists and superior at "insert stated goal". I have no idea how you think heterozygosity and fst value results, which demonstrate real genetic variance between human racial groups, is wrong because it's not a white supremacist talking point. Even if it weren't a "white supremacist" talking point, how does that affect the validity of heterozygosity and fst values in proving human racial variance? It's irrelevant whether you classify my arguments as "white supremacist" talking points. It's a total non-sequitur and you're attacking the argument's character instead of the argument.

You then continue to say that, "IQ tests are among the institutions that are used to justify systematic racism. I am dubious at best of their efficacy in determining actual human intelligence." I just assumed you weren't silly enough to deny the validity of I.Q. tests, but I guess you are: The Validity of IQ – The Alternative Hypothesis . You also haven't demonstrated how I.Q. tests are "systemically [racist]", so this is a bare assertion on your behalf. As for being "dubious" about the efficacy of I.Q. tests, that's an argument from incredulity (a logical fallacy), unless you have demonstrated reason as to be "dubious".

You then say, "Nothing you have said convinces me that a large widespread population of interreproductive individuals are not the same race[...]No genetic findings support your claims. I'm sorry but this is not good science it is a justification to discriminate." I have addressed this multiple times with reference to fst values, heterozygosity, phenotypic traits etc. I will repost what I originally wrote to you because that is where I've made those arguments. All you have responded to, despite having multiple posts in which to do so, is the cranial shape/size point I made (saying that I.Q. is invalid, which I've addressed above). Again, I'll repost the arguments that you haven't responded to, in hopes that you read them *and* respond to them this time around "White Supremacist" is a racial slur (debateart.com): 

"Secondly, human races are of taxonomic value. There is sufficient fst value for humans that are similar/above other animals' species whom DO have species (read: race). Heterozygosity reflects the same findings of fst value evaluation. SNP/loci grouping distribution, done blind by a computer, distinctly groups 'African', 'European' and 'Asian' racial groups (super broad racial groups) when the SNP/loci number reaches 100 The Existence of Race – The Alternative Hypothesis . On a scientific level, humans are of taxonomic value [this argument shows genetic differences between human races that aren't "purely cosmetic".

We're also able to observe albinism in differing races and easily determine their race, based on their phenotypic traits: main-qimg-54acc098bd279b12f95dd678b2395091 (602×566) (quoracdn.net) . Empirically, we can observe what we typically call human races (Asian, African etc.) through something as blanketing (e.g. changes skin colour) as albinism. Why are all African noses broader, generally speaking, if race has no taxonomic significance?"
[...]
"African have flatter, broader noses which allows them to cool down faster. In this regard, this makes them functionally superior to non-Africans when in hot environments, and hence this phenotypic trait is not "entirely cosmetic". There are plenty of other examples of this, too."

If you are again unable to respond to what I've actually written (for about the 4th time), I'll take your ignorance/refusal as a concession and stop responding.
#62
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,227
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Mesmer
You can try to cloak it in 'it's a lactose intolerance issue', but it's effectively a Chinese issue.
No, it’s a general health issue. The fact that one particular race suffers more than others from a condition does not make any policy aimed at treating that condition a “racial policy”.

Once again, government policy is proactive. It sets the standards for how people will be treated in various situations as well as what we can and cannot do. Race plays no role in that discussion. If it turned out that Chinese people are more lactose then they’re the ones who will end up getting the most treatment. That’s the result of the policy, not the policy itself.

Topic's author
#63
Mesmer
Mesmer's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 516
3
2
4
Mesmer's avatar
Mesmer
3
2
4
-->
@thett3
I don't want to go so far as to say that, but a highly successful and technological African or Amerindian society would definitely look different than a Western or Eastern one. The arc of history is long and we don't know how things will shake out in the end, but expecting perfect equality in all things is just ridiculous--groups of people are different. I also don't know how much of the IQ gap is environmental or cultural, what can be ameliorated in the near future with gene therapies, etc. PhD theses could be written about this stuff. 
I know it's starting to go well beyond the Overton Window of politically-correct discussion, but I think it's true and would be happy to argue it line-by-line.

The differing genetics have resulted in differing levels of success and technological advancement -- that's my point. Saying that *if* we were to have these successful and technologically advanced African societies misses the point that they don't form naturally. Plus, we've had instances wherein outside influence has aided the success/technological development of African countries. South Africa and Zimbabwe are clear examples wherein White people helped things like GDP and farming advancement (under the heading: "National Success Since Apartheid" South African Apartheid: a case study on the effects of European colonialism in Africa – The Alternative Hypothesis ). When the Whites started leaving, the countries became noticeably worse, too (albeit, this is inductive).

We know that the I.Q. gap, through analysis of things like twin studies, is at least 50% explained through genetics. I'd argue it's far higher at something around 80% (particularly as people age), but accepting that it's 50% shouldn't be that hard for people who are ideological zealots. If we have clean discussions that have evolved past the "you're racist" nonsense, we can clearly see this imo. Perhaps gene therapies in the future could ameliorate this, but for now we have to deal with the reality of differing I.Qs in racial populations (as well as all the other genes which factor into maintaining/further building a civilization). 
#64
drlebronski
drlebronski's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 993
3
5
9
drlebronski's avatar
drlebronski
3
5
9
-->
@Mesmer
We know that the I.Q. gap, through analysis of things like twin studies, is at least 50% explained through genetics. I'd argue it's far higher at something around 80%

we both know you just pulled that number out of your arse
Topic's author
#65
Mesmer
Mesmer's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 516
3
2
4
Mesmer's avatar
Mesmer
3
2
4
-->
@drlebronski
we both know you just pulled that number out of your arse

#66
dfss9788
dfss9788's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 152
1
2
2
dfss9788's avatar
dfss9788
1
2
2
-->
@thett3
I do agree that genetic differences may be contributing to the observed racial disparities. There is, unfortunately, a dearth of credible scientific evidence from which I may confidently draw factual conclusions. Perhaps the issue is so politically charged that good funding for studies is hard to come by or good researchers are unwilling to risk being shunned for putting their names on a study that basically says black people are stupid. There is little one can do other than say "I don't know" when faced with a lack of good evidence.

Suffice to say that we both agree that there are instances where it is economically rational to be racially discriminatory. We also appear to agree that it's unfair as it's not something you denied. Rather, you drew attention to economic rationality and also to the unfairness of white guilt being pushed. Yet, I'm not convinced by either of these things and I hope to draw you to my side on the subject.

I don't know where you are in life, but if you haven't already then at some point you may find yourself in a position of power over other people. If you're not there yet then I will let you know that at first you will be a bit giddy, but that wears off and you come to terms with what you are - Someone who can make dreams come true or ruin lives with the stroke of a pen, and be perfectly within his rights to do so. Faced with that, there is the understanding that power and responsibility go hand in hand, and also that there is a duty to be fair, noblesse oblige, in professional and personal relations. As you've pointed out, this duty conflicts with rational economic interest in some cases. To that extent, furthering fairness may sometimes come as a sacrifice. How much should be sacrificed is something you should determine dispassionately according to your own code of honor. After all, it would be unfair for you or those you represent to be unduly burdened.

And what is the value of fairness or of justice or anything like that? Well, the nihilist in me suspects that there is no objective value to any of it. Yet, there is utility and humanistic basis for it. As a practical matter, when people are treated unfairly it engenders resentment which often leads to the destruction of the interpersonal relationship, whatever its nature. Fairness maintains relationships, and on a broader scale with protected classes like race or religion to which people may galvanize, justice is paramount for social cohesion. Other than that, it is really just what you believe, how you feel about it and how those beliefs and feelings may have be rationalized, either by you or whoever codified your belief system.

Most people have experienced unfairness and the resulting resentment. Nobody wants to be treated that way. You obviously do not, as you resent that your ethnic group has been blamed for the past. I agree with you that that is an unfairness and a cultural double standard for there to be a green light for anti-white racism, especially that which has lately been institutionalized by the Biden administration and Democrats in their COVID relief bill and infrastructure bill. Despite that and other problems, it is clear to me that being white in America is a superior life experience and I am thankful for it, but it is something I can never say at Thanksgiving.

#67
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,227
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Mesmer
The differing genetics have resulted in differing levels of success and technological advancement -- that's my point. 
So in other words… the reason some groups (like black people) are doing worse than others is because they’re genetically inferior, and you think government policy should take that “realism” into account when it decides on policy.

But this has nothing to do with racism or spreading racist rhetoric. Ok.
Topic's author
#68
Mesmer
Mesmer's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 516
3
2
4
Mesmer's avatar
Mesmer
3
2
4
-->
@Double_R
So in other words… the reason some groups (like black people) are doing worse than others is because they’re genetically inferior, and you think government policy should take that “realism” into account when it decides on policy.
None of what you quoted was addressed to you. If you don't want to respond to what I wrote to you (found here: Race Realism: Critical understandings (debateart.com) ), or if you try to conflate what I wrote to Thett with what I wrote to you, then I'll assume you've agreed with what I wrote to you.

But this has nothing to do with racism or spreading racist rhetoric. Ok.
"Racism" and "racist" are nonsensical, malicious terms Racism is a nonsense, malicious term (debateart.com) .


#69
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,227
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Mesmer
If you don't want to respond to what I wrote to you
I did. Read post #62

"Racism" and "racist" are nonsensical, malicious terms
They are perfectly sensical to everyone else.

Topic's author
#70
Mesmer
Mesmer's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 516
3
2
4
Mesmer's avatar
Mesmer
3
2
4
-->
@Double_R
If you don't want to respond to what I wrote to you
I did. Read post #62
I've read it already.

You're rejecting race realism on the grounds that you don't like what you see as the "white supremacist" talking points. That's fine and you're well within your rights to do that.

However, you are indeed a race realist because you believe human racial categories as valid concepts. That's all you need to be a race realist. You don't even have to agree there are valid policies that can extend from this. You can even argue that the differences between races are arbitrary.

You stopped responding to the Chinese lactose example I was discussing with you to jump to the discussion I was having with Thett. It seems like you want an excuse to reject race realism. But again, you don't need to believe in "white supremacist" talking points in order to believe in race realism. You can't reject race realism on this basis. You're already a race realist, it's just a matter of determining what flavor of race realist you are.

"Racism" and "racist" are nonsensical, malicious terms
They are perfectly sensical to everyone else.
That's a wild claim that you've failed to demonstrate at all. Good luck proving "everyone else" (you know, all 7 odd billion of them) believes that they are sensical. Surely you can understand how ridiculous a claim this is.

Also, the OP in the thread has received 5 likes Racism is a nonsense, malicious term (debateart.com) , so even in this small part of the world, people are agreeing with me that these terms are nonsense. So, we already know that you are wrong, so save yourself trying to prove the wild claim above.
#71
dfss9788
dfss9788's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 152
1
2
2
dfss9788's avatar
dfss9788
1
2
2
-->
@Mesmer
Race realism is about showing that human races are real.
Race is largely the conspicuous natural features and/or shared ancestry. I'd say that most people do group people that way, but given that its a basis of categorizing people its not really meaningful to say that it is "real". You can categorize people on any basis you want and your basis will be no more "real" than any other. You could categorize people based on shoe size and say "oh yes, shoe sizes are real" and you would be correct as people do have an objective shoe size.
#72
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,227
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
However, you are indeed a race realist because you believe human racial categories as valid concepts.
No, I never agreed to that. What I argued was that all races would fare differently in any outcome metric because all humans would fare differently. I even used the example of twins to emphasize this point.

It’s not a race thing, it’s a human thing. Not sure how many times I need to repeat that.

The question of whether race is a valid concept depends entirely on what were talking about. Validity is a term in logic meaning that the conclusion follows from the premise. So what’s the premise? If we’re talking about appearances then race is a valid concept because we can use easily identifiable physical features to tell whether someone is of one race or another. But this conversation is about government policy. That’s an entirely different conversation and my position is and has always been that race plays no rightful role in that.

You stopped responding to the Chinese lactose example I was discussing with you to jump to the discussion I was having with Thett.
No, I responded to your example in post 62 and afterward jumped in on your conversation with Thett. You ignored my first post and focused on the second.

You're already a race realist, it's just a matter of determining what flavor of race realist you are.
Then your definition of race realist is the most meaningless and useless definition I have ever heard. I’d love for you to get to the part where any of this actually matters.

That's a wild claim that you've failed to demonstrate at all. Good luck proving "everyone else" (you know, all 7 odd billion of them) believes that they are sensical. Surely you can understand how ridiculous a claim this is.
Ok Drax
Topic's author
#73
Mesmer
Mesmer's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 516
3
2
4
Mesmer's avatar
Mesmer
3
2
4
-->
@dfss9788
Race is largely the conspicuous natural features and/or shared ancestry. I'd say that most people do group people that way, but given that its a basis of categorizing people its not really meaningful to say that it is "real".
I don't understand how you can imply that race is a real genetic thing, that most people understand that it's real, and then conclude that it's not real. Are you saying that the "natural features" and/or "shared ancestry" aren't genetic? Are you saying that the way people group others is arbitrary? Your conclusion doesn't seem to follow your premises (the premises of which I agree with btw).

You can categorize people on any basis you want and your basis will be no more "real" than any other. You could categorize people based on shoe size and say "oh yes, shoe sizes are real" and you would be correct as people do have an objective shoe size.
In terms of people categorizing other people (into races), that is based on skin color and other phenotypic traits. Maybe you haven't seen the research on this, but this heuristic understanding of races is back-up by science. At the SNP and loci levels, people can be grouped into races with basically 100% accuracy (if you use at least 100 genetic markers). To be clear: these are not random groups. These are groups based on real, biological differences (referring to Bamshad 2003 in particular: The Existence of Race – The Alternative Hypothesis ). This is 100% real at the biological level.

Shoes sizes are representative of something real: differing foot sizes. Yes, shoe sizes are a social construct, but they're based on real biological differences. Similarly, races are social constructs, but they're based on real biological differences.
Topic's author
#74
Mesmer
Mesmer's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 516
3
2
4
Mesmer's avatar
Mesmer
3
2
4
-->
@Double_R
No, I never agreed to that. What I argued was that all races would fare differently in any outcome metric because all humans would fare differently. I even used the example of twins to emphasize this point.

It’s not a race thing, it’s a human thing. Not sure how many times I need to repeat that.

The question of whether race is a valid concept depends entirely on what were talking about. Validity is a term in logic meaning that the conclusion follows from the premise. So what’s the premise? If we’re talking about appearances then race is a valid concept because we can use easily identifiable physical features to tell whether someone is of one race or another. But this conversation is about government policy. That’s an entirely different conversation and my position is and has always been that race plays no rightful role in that.
Alright so you agree that there are real biological distinctions between people, but you don't agree that we should group biological distinctions into racial groups.

What I argue is that certain races tend to be things more than other races. Like with the Chinese example I used, they tend be lactose intolerant (90%+), whilst other races have less people who are lactose intolerant. You then respond by saying that race is irrelevant, it's the lactose intolerance that the government needs to respond to, and any person with this intolerance (regardless of race) would benefit from governmental policy that addresses this.

Unfortunately, this is not how politics or people work. What actually happens is that people are tribalistic, they tend to party-up in terms of their race (can be other things, too, but race is the favourite) Imgur: The magic of the Internet , and then they do vote on their tribe's interest (which is usually their race's interest). That's one of the reasons why Black Americans of wildly different political ideologies (Liberal, Moderate and Conservative) ALL overwhelmingly voted for Barrack Obama Imgur: The magic of the Internet , Imgur: The magic of the Internet and Imgur: The magic of the Internet . That's part of the reason why most Black "strong Republicans" who thought the Republican party was the best party for Blacks, who thought the Democrat party (party in power at the time) was spending "too much" on Blacks, still voted for Barrack Obama anyway Imgur: The magic of the Internet .

Your idea of the 'government should be blind to race' is a nice idea, but it's not a real idea. However, if you want this neutral government, you're going to lose to other people WHO DON'T want this neutral government, who are happy to group into races are vote solely on that basis, and eventually get into power to govern with a racially biased slant towards their own race. So your ideology of an even playing field slowly gets chipped away by racially in-group biased people.

So, race DOES play a role in this, regardless of whether you want it to or not.
#75
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,227
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Mesmer
The topic of this conversation has been whether race realism *should* play any role on government policy, so unfortunately almost nothing you argued addresses anything I’ve said. 

Race will always play a role, there is no getting around that. But we can’t evaluate whether that’s a good thing without a standard to hold it against. If we begin with the position that race shouldn’t play a role, only then can we criticize those who invoke it. But your position as far as I understand is that race should, so I’m not sure exactly what you’re criticizing.

To the extent that I believe race should play a role in government policy it’s in regards to dealing with injustices that occurred because of a wrongful focus on race. That however is a very different thing than grouping individuals by race and using some kind of genetic “realism” to determine what our policies should be.
Topic's author
#76
Mesmer
Mesmer's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 516
3
2
4
Mesmer's avatar
Mesmer
3
2
4
-->
@Double_R
The topic of this conversation has been whether race realism *should* play any role on government policy, so unfortunately almost nothing you argued addresses anything I’ve said. 

Race will always play a role, there is no getting around that. But we can’t evaluate whether that’s a good thing without a standard to hold it against. If we begin with the position that race shouldn’t play a role, only then can we criticize those who invoke it. But your position as far as I understand is that race should, so I’m not sure exactly what you’re criticizing.

To the extent that I believe race should play a role in government policy it’s in regards to dealing with injustices that occurred because of a wrongful focus on race. That however is a very different thing than grouping individuals by race and using some kind of genetic “realism” to determine what our policies should be.
If humans didn't have such a pronounced racial bias, yeah it shouldn't. If we were race blind and voted based on policy instead of racial in-group biases, yeah it shouldn't.

However, what I've demonstrated is that your fantasy world of racial blindness DOESN'T EXIST. You agree with the notion that race will always play a role, and that "there is no getting around that". You understand what you are arguing for is pure fantasy, a true impossibility, yet you continue to posit that's what we should strive for.

So, because what you argue for *can't* exist, we should then focus on race-based policies that help the most amount of people. In China, if your platform is to help "the most amount of people, regardless of race", and another candidate runs for office based on "lactose intolerance affects most Chinese people. We need to resolve this issue to help Chinese people", YOU LOSE 100% of the time because Chinese people have racial in-group bias which is more pronounced than their belief in policy. Again, we saw this with my US election examples wherein African Americans agreed with conservatives, sometimes even "strongly", and yet still voted for Barrack Obama anyway -- race trumps policy.

If you don't vote based on your race, if you're so high-minded that you vote based on 'principles' or 'Libertarian based philosophy', you get smacked around by the other racial groups WHO DO vote based on their race. If you sit around and "criticize" those who act based on race-based policy, your voice doesn't count because they are in power, not you. Your argument isn't only (by your own words) something where "there is no getting around [race]" (you know, self-defeated from the get-go), but it's a cuck stance wherein you will always eventually get steamrolled by those playing the race-based political game.

That's why we should vote based on genetic realism.
#77
dfss9788
dfss9788's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 152
1
2
2
dfss9788's avatar
dfss9788
1
2
2
-->
@Mesmer
If you don't vote based on your race, if you're so high-minded that you vote based on 'principles' or 'Libertarian based philosophy', you get smacked around by the other racial groups WHO DO vote based on their race. If you sit around and "criticize" those who act based on race-based policy, your voice doesn't count because they are in power, not you. Your argument isn't only (by your own words) something where "there is no getting around [race]" (you know, self-defeated from the get-go), but it's a cuck stance wherein you will always eventually get steamrolled by those playing the race-based political game.

That's why we should vote based on genetic realism.
Well here's the big map of average genetic distance between populations if that's how you want to vote.


So, like, uh, what color box on this thing do they got to be before they're "your people" ? You're white, right? The Uyghurs aren't having a blue box. They're having a white box! Does this mean the Uyghur genocide is the real white genocide?

EDIT: Are these your people, too? 


They got pretty warm colors on the box map with all the other Europeans.
Topic's author
#78
Mesmer
Mesmer's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 516
3
2
4
Mesmer's avatar
Mesmer
3
2
4
-->
@dfss9788
Well here's the big map of average genetic distance between populations if that's how you want to vote.


So, like, uh, what color box on this thing do they got to be before they're "your people" ? You're white, right? The Uyghurs aren't having a blue box. They're having a white box! Does this mean the Uyghur genocide is the real white genocide?

EDIT: Are these your people, too? 


They got pretty warm colors on the box map with all the other Europeans.
What you've decided to argue is the old, dumb and wrong continuum fallacy argument wherein you implicitly question the validity of races based on implying distinctions between races are sometimes too hard to see, therefore races don't exist (or in your special case, your conclusion is that Uyghurs and Palestinians are my race because to you, there aren't clear genetic distinctions between them and me).

I'll use the simple analogy first. We already recognize and use color name to describe hues and shades of colors. "Red" is distinct from "green", for example. We can sometimes find it difficult to distinguish between colors when they are close in hues when we have "red-orange" and "red", and sometimes it gets even more difficult than that. Despite the difficulty in assessing the difference between some colors, we don't throw the whole social constructed names of colors out. We don't start saying 'green color?! That's awfully close to this other shade of green that I found! I guess that's not really a green color you're referring to after all!'

For the science, races fit into distinct genetic clustered groups with virtually 100% accuracy if you use sufficient SNP or loci. Bamshad (2003) found that if you use 160 loci, you can fit the entirety of humanity into Asian, African and European and only have Asian not fit at 100% (it's 99%). PrpZbSl.png (460×611) (imgur.com) Bamshad then looked at K=4 and got results that further sorted humans into racially distinct groups with even more accuracy Human Population Genetic Structure and Inference of Group Membership (nih.gov) . Alloco (2007) looked at SNPs (up to 100) and found similar findings as to Bamshad's 100 loci results (97% overall fFYScwp.png (635×384) (imgur.com) ) 1471-2164-8-68.fm (nih.gov) . Guo (2015) used 384 SNPs in the ROOM study, and used 1,536 SNPs in the ADD study. His results echoed the other's findings Genetic Bio-Ancestry and Social Construction of Racial Classification in Social Surveys in the Contemporary United States (nih.gov) . White people matched at 99.5% and 99.4% respectively. Africans perfectly matched 100% of the time in the ADD study. So, when we use more genetic markers, the differences between races become clearer, and we have 100% distinction when you use sufficient genetic markers.

Also, I never said "genocide" lol. All I argued was that people who don't vote based on race get crushed at elections if they're up against people who do. How you twisted that into "genocide" is a modern mystery.

#79
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,227
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Mesmer
However, what I've demonstrated is that your fantasy world of racial blindness DOESN'T EXIST. You agree with the notion that race will always play a role, and that "there is no getting around that". You understand what you are arguing for is pure fantasy, a true impossibility, yet you continue to posit that's what we should strive for.
Yes, that’s what we call a standard. It’s kind of a necessary component of assessing anything. 

You are engaged in a classic is/ought fallacy. Having a standard does not mean you live in a fantasy world. It means you have a metric by which to judge actions and/or outcomes. If you do not begin with a standard then you have nothing to judge anything against.

The standard is just a compass telling us what direction we should be moving in. Imagine an Olympic sprinter sets a goal of 9.7 in the 100M final. He then goes on to run a 9.6. If the standard were a 9.7 then his time would be a bad thing, he would have been better off slowing down by one tenth. Of course that’s ridiculous, because the standard is actually 0 seconds. It has nothing to do with how achievable it is, it’s just a compass.

If your standard is that race should play a role in politics then you are in no position to criticize anyone for bringing race into it. They’re acting in accordance with your standard making your position to be that what they are doing is a good thing, which means that the examples you gave me were actually demonstrating the virtues of your position. In other words ‘see this is how politics is supposed to work’, yet I somehow doubt that is what you were trying to accomplish.

So, because what you argue for *can't* exist, we should then focus on race-based policies that help the most amount of people.
Helping out the most amount of people is kind of the point of government, the debate we’re having is whether race based policies achieve that outcome better. I’m arguing it doesn’t. It again, has nothing to do with whether a 100% race neutral world could ever exist.

If you don't vote based on your race, if you're so high-minded that you vote based on 'principles' or 'Libertarian based philosophy', you get smacked around by the other racial groups WHO DO vote based on their race.
We’re not running a political campaign, this is a debate site. Do you have any actual arguments to support your positions, or does all of this just boil down to “my position will win more power”?

That's why we should vote based on genetic realism.
Not one thing you’re arguing has anything to do with genetic realism. Take note of where this thread began and there we have ended up.

#80
dfss9788
dfss9788's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 152
1
2
2
dfss9788's avatar
dfss9788
1
2
2
-->
@Mesmer
What you've decided to argue is the old, dumb and wrong continuum fallacy argument wherein you implicitly question the validity of races based on implying distinctions between races are sometimes too hard to see, therefore races don't exist (or in your special case, your conclusion is that Uyghurs and Palestinians are my race because to you, there aren't clear genetic distinctions between them and me).
Not really.

If you want to use genetics as the basis of group identity, then use genetics as the basis for group identity. You go where evidence of genetic relatedness takes you. Lets look at it again -


There are 3 big clusters, like you say, among Africans, Europeans, and East Asians. So, what about the Persians, Arabs and Palestinians? They're not white, but they are Caucasian genetically.

For the science, races fit into distinct genetic clustered groups with virtually 100% accuracy if you use sufficient SNP or loci. Bamshad (2003) found that if you use 160 loci, you can fit the entirety of humanity into Asian, African and European and only have Asian not fit at 100% (it's 99%). PrpZbSl.png (460×611) (imgur.com) Bamshad then looked at K=4 and got results that further sorted humans into racially distinct groups with even more accuracy Human Population Genetic Structure and Inference of Group Membership (nih.gov) . Alloco (2007) looked at SNPs (up to 100) and found similar findings as to Bamshad's 100 loci results (97% overall fFYScwp.png (635×384) (imgur.com) ) 1471-2164-8-68.fm (nih.gov) . Guo (2015) used 384 SNPs in the ROOM study, and used 1,536 SNPs in the ADD study. His results echoed the other's findings Genetic Bio-Ancestry and Social Construction of Racial Classification in Social Surveys in the Contemporary United States (nih.gov) . White people matched at 99.5% and 99.4% respectively. Africans perfectly matched 100% of the time in the ADD study. So, when we use more genetic markers, the differences between races become clearer, and we have 100% distinction when you use sufficient genetic markers.
The only reason they're fitting in to distinct groups is because these studies start out with self identified race and then assign the results in to those groups. That's putting the cart before the horse. You must do things in the correct order. If your focus is genetic relatedness, then you map the genetic relatedness of respective populations and you go where the evidence takes you. Lock the ball and chain around your leg, throw it off the side of the boat because that's where it's going.

You do not see how disconnected group identities are from genetic relatedness. Consider the one-drop rule; People who are more white than black genetically are nonetheless considered to be black. Was Prince Harry's marriage a "cuck move" ? Consider how closely related the Chinese are to the Japanese, the Jews to the Palestinians, the Germans to the Russians. Much more closely related than European populations. Compare that to history and present day. The identities are rather fluid.
Topic's author
#81
Mesmer
Mesmer's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 516
3
2
4
Mesmer's avatar
Mesmer
3
2
4
-->
@Double_R
Yes, that’s what we call a standard. It’s kind of a necessary component of assessing anything. 

You are engaged in a classic is/ought fallacy. Having a standard does not mean you live in a fantasy world. It means you have a metric by which to judge actions and/or outcomes. If you do not begin with a standard then you have nothing to judge anything against.

The standard is just a compass telling us what direction we should be moving in. Imagine an Olympic sprinter sets a goal of 9.7 in the 100M final. He then goes on to run a 9.6. If the standard were a 9.7 then his time would be a bad thing, he would have been better off slowing down by one tenth. Of course that’s ridiculous, because the standard is actually 0 seconds. It has nothing to do with how achievable it is, it’s just a compass.

If your standard is that race should play a role in politics then you are in no position to criticize anyone for bringing race into it. They’re acting in accordance with your standard making your position to be that what they are doing is a good thing, which means that the examples you gave me were actually demonstrating the virtues of your position. In other words ‘see this is how politics is supposed to work’, yet I somehow doubt that is what you were trying to accomplish.
It is difficult to grapple with the fact that you agree your standard is impossible to meet, yet you want to argue for it anyway. It's a nail in a coffin for your argument when we see race/ideological/nationalist groups speak to human elements far better than your race-blind argument, and thus not only is your standard impossible, but you're actively harming your ability to win any election by arguing like that -- even if your standard were correct you'd never get enough votes for it.

Is/ought arguments aren't always fallacious and I'd argue line-by-line that this one is not. There isn't a moment in human history wherein you've been right and would have won an election, based on what you're saying. We should speak my way of appealing to human races because that's what is most effective and actually deals with human biology. Not having a "standard" is just big-brain nonsense that doesn't deal with our real world; you need to start dealing with the world as it is and could be, rather than what you wish it would be.

Why not make a time-machine and travel back in time to the finish line before the race started? Why not make a time-stopping machine that allows everyone to finish the race at the same time? Why not warp the 4D plane so that running the race makes you finish before you started it? The standard should be less than 0 zero seconds.

I don't base my politics off of little dreams that don't reflect reality. Unfortunately, humans are tribalistic creatures which prevents your "standard" from ever being a possibility. Unless you could re-engineer humans to not be tribalistic, then you *currently* don't have an argument and your standard is pure fantasy.

Helping out the most amount of people is kind of the point of government, the debate we’re having is whether race based policies achieve that outcome better. I’m arguing it doesn’t. It again, has nothing to do with whether a 100% race neutral world could ever exist.
When you speak to race based policies, they actually have a chance of getting through -- that's a better outcome already. They also have the better outcome of people feeling far better when their race group's policy gets passed, and so even if you had the exact same policy, if you couch it in different language 'this helps your race' vs. 'this is a principled standard', people (of that race) are going to feel better purely because their race is getting stuff. Conversely, if people see other races/groups getting stuff, people are going to become upset, even if your policy is "helping the most amount of people". Again, race based policy already has the better outcome, and we haven't even discussed the specifics of any particular policy here.

It's like saying that 'we should eat better tasting flavors of icecream, despite them not existing'. They kinda have the problem of not existing.

We’re not running a political campaign, this is a debate site. Do you have any actual arguments to support your positions, or does all of this just boil down to “my position will win more power”?
It's utterly baffling how you don't think you're conceding when you say this. We've argued about why certain policy should be preferred, you've agreed that your type of policy doesn't have a chance of winning, and now implying that my arguments shouldn't sound/act like a political campaign.

It's like you've turned up to a soccer game with a baseball bat and glove, and then you've started whacking and catching the soccer ball whilst saying, "I don't believe we should be playing with our feet. I believe my standard of playing should be preferred." You're playing the wrong game.

Not one thing you’re arguing has anything to do with genetic realism. Take note of where this thread began and there we have ended up.
Tribalism is genetic reality. Races have different genetic issues (e.g. lactose intolerance) that can be sorted out through government. Racial issues should be dealt with through tribalistic voting.
Topic's author
#82
Mesmer
Mesmer's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 516
3
2
4
Mesmer's avatar
Mesmer
3
2
4
-->
@dfss9788
Not really.

If you want to use genetics as the basis of group identity, then use genetics as the basis for group identity. You go where evidence of genetic relatedness takes you. Lets look at it again -


There are 3 big clusters, like you say, among Africans, Europeans, and East Asians. So, what about the Persians, Arabs and Palestinians? They're not white, but they are Caucasian genetically.
Yes really. I'll just assume you agree with my analogy, given that you deleted it. That should be enough of an agreement to agree with me overall, but I'll explain the science side to it.

I haven't argued that the 3 big clusters should be preferred for a notion of race. I've argued that your continuum fallacy argument is wrong even at the 3 cluster level.

Bamshad did K=3+ and showed that races can be sensibly broken down further ccrSb2U.png (1211×898) (imgur.com) . So, Persians, Arabs and Palestinians could only be construed as "Caucasian" when K is set low enough. Also, by virtue of the fact that you refer to them distinctively, you already agree with me that these are genetically separate peoples.

The only reason they're fitting in to distinct groups is because these studies start out with self identified race and then assign the results in to those groups. That's putting the cart before the horse. You must do things in the correct order. If your focus is genetic relatedness, then you map the genetic relatedness of respective populations and you go where the evidence takes you. Lock the ball and chain around your leg, throw it off the side of the boat because that's where it's going.
They don't "assign" the results lol. The machine blindly sorts genetic results into groups, and these groups just happen to match what we refer to as races (from the self-identified race reports). The machine has no idea what the self-identified race reports are. All it does is sort the genetic results. You've missed the whole point of the studies. You should have responded to the analogy I provided, instead of butchering the science.

You do not see how disconnected group identities are from genetic relatedness. Consider the one-drop rule; People who are more white than black genetically are nonetheless considered to be black. Was Prince Harry's marriage a "cuck move" ? Consider how closely related the Chinese are to the Japanese, the Jews to the Palestinians, the Germans to the Russians. Much more closely related than European populations. Compare that to history and present day. The identities are rather fluid.
This is more continuum fallacy argument. "White" is still a valid concept for races. Yes, some white people are genetically closer to a group of whites than another group of whites. That doesn't invalidate the notion of "white"; people aren't mistaking Persians for Europeans. Stop making this continuum fallacy argument.

"People who are more white than black genetically are nonetheless considered to be black." -- I've got no idea why you've decided to say this, especially without referencing anything. People who are genuinely mixed race struggle with self-identity and fitting into groups MixedResearch1 (mix-d.org) . People who are mostly a certain race don't have such problems. There's no reason to believe that somehow, majority black people are considered white if they have some white in them.
#83
dfss9788
dfss9788's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 152
1
2
2
dfss9788's avatar
dfss9788
1
2
2
-->
@Mesmer
data from 377 microsatellite loci typed in 1056 individuals, Europeans proved to be more similar to Asians than to other Europeans 38% of the time


Are you genetically closer to the average Asian than you are European? 38% of Europeans are. The Asians could be your people. Rank every white American and Han Chinese in terms of how different from you they are genetically. You will get a list of ~1.5 billion people. If you look at the top ~100 million people on that list, you will find more Han Chinese up there than white people.

Topic's author
#84
Mesmer
Mesmer's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 516
3
2
4
Mesmer's avatar
Mesmer
3
2
4
-->
@dfss9788
Are you genetically closer to the average Asian than you are European? 38% of Europeans are. The Asians could be your people. Rank every white American and Han Chinese in terms of how different from you they are genetically. You will get a list of ~1.5 billion people. If you look at the top ~100 million people on that list, you will find more Han Chinese up there than white people.
I'm glad that you've decided to drop the dumb, old and wrong continuum fallacy argument. Really makes me smile.

Unfortunately, you've now made the even stupider 'more variation within than between' argument.

That 38% number represents the times wherein there is greater similarity between than within (and you know, 62% of loci instances of whites are more genetically similar to each other than Asians, so you're already wrong on that front). But quoting this figure in isolation doesn't come close to making your case because this figure doesn't account for the *total* effect of the variation between Asian and White groups, compared to Within white groups. So, the total impact of loci wherein there are differences between races, creates more difference between than within, even though not *every* loci differs (and sometimes goes in the opposite direction). Again, it's just the number of instances there is greater similarity between races than within.

That's probably too complicated for the average layman, so let's use an analogy to make things easier to understand.

Depending on which and the amount of loci you use (taken from 1996 study: variation within than between chimpanzees - Bing images ), there is more variation within than between chimpanzee and human groups  1996-nei-takezaki.pdf (psu.edu) . After all, humans are genetically 96-99% similar to chimpanzees New Genome Comparison Finds Chimps, Humans Very Similar at the DNA Level. Are we now the same as chimpanzees, or are distinction between us arbitrary, because 'there is more variation within than between?' Do you see how stupid that argument is?
#85
dfss9788
dfss9788's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 152
1
2
2
dfss9788's avatar
dfss9788
1
2
2
-->
@Mesmer
Depending on which and the amount of loci you use (taken from 1996 study: variation within than between chimpanzees - Bing images ), there is more variation within than between chimpanzee and human groups  1996-nei-takezaki.pdf (psu.edu) . After all, humans are genetically 96-99% similar to chimpanzees New Genome Comparison Finds Chimps, Humans Very Similar at the DNA Level. Are we now the same as chimpanzees, or are distinction between us arbitrary, because 'there is more variation within than between?' Do you see how stupid that argument is?
Well just pick whatever loci you want instead of looking at the entire genome. No, you should be looking at the entire genome when you're talking about how closely related one organism is to another.

All human beings are 99.9 percent identical in their genetic makeup. Differences in the remaining 0.1 percent https://www.genome.gov/about-genomics/fact-sheets/Genetics-vs-Genomics

The greatest gap in terms of genetic distance between one human and the next is 0.1% of the genome. Humans and chimps share 98.8% of DNA. The variation between average human and chimp is 100% - 98.8% = 1.2% of the genome. That is the genetic variation between human and chimp. This is 12 times larger than the greatest genetic distance from one person to the next. (The most extreme distance)

Not really sure what you're getting at.

I'm glad that you've decided to drop the dumb, old and wrong continuum fallacy argument. Really makes me smile.

Unfortunately, you've now made the even stupider 'more variation within than between' argument.
Appeal to snobbery is a common fallacy. Come up with something better.

Topic's author
#86
Mesmer
Mesmer's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 516
3
2
4
Mesmer's avatar
Mesmer
3
2
4
-->
@dfss9788
Well just pick whatever loci you want instead of looking at the entire genome. No, you should be looking at the entire genome when you're talking about how closely related one organism is to another.
This is making more sense now.

Yes, we "should" be looking at the entire genome, in order to evaluate this. However, it's expensive and very time consuming. I've also demonstrated with Bamshad, Alloco and Guo that you don't need to have the entire genome, in order to gather accurate, reliable results. So, what we have is nearly as good as what we "should" have, and we can interpolate the results we already have to accurately guess what results we would have, if we were to use the entire genome.

The greatest gap in terms of genetic distance between one human and the next is 0.1% of the genome. Humans and chimps share 98.8% of DNA. The variation between average human and chimp is 100% - 98.8% = 1.2% of the genome. That is the genetic variation between human and chimp. This is 12 times larger than the greatest genetic distance from one person to the next. (The most extreme distance)

Not really sure what you're getting at.
I'm demonstrating that the 'more variation within than between' argument is stupid.

You already argued that "Asians" are more genetically similar than Whites are with each other at roughly 38% of the loci tested. I've shown you why this is a misleading interpretation of that data by analogizing it with chimpanzees and humans, showing what the 'more variation within than between' logic results in. I'm not actually arguing that humans have 'more variation within than between' when compared with humans lol.

 Appeal to snobbery is a common fallacy. Come up with something better.
You've already dropped a lot of what I wrote, so I seem to be doing pretty well. You're not longer arguing the continuum fallacy, suggesting that the SNP reading machines had "assigned" results, that White people are more genetically similar to Persians than other White people, that people who are more genetically White than Black are considered Black, and other smaller things, too.
#87
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,227
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Mesmer
It is difficult to grapple with the fact that you agree your standard is impossible to meet, yet you want to argue for it anyway.
Mesmer, do you know what a standard is? I mean I know that I just explained it, but do you understand it? How else can I explain it?

Jesus is a standard. Every Christian I know strives to be as perfect as Jesus, that doesn’t mean any Christian actually thinks they could ever be as perfect as Jesus.

A 100% efficacy rate is the standard for any vaccine, that doesn’t mean any vaccine could realistically stop 100% of all cases.

A 0% auto theft rate is the standard of every car alarm company, that doesn’t mean anything they do could ever stop every car with their alarms from being stolen.

How many more examples would you like?

Without a standard you cannot form a judgement. The standard is the thing you are measuring everything else against to determine which of any two outcomes is better. You cannot have a conversation about what anything should be without determining what standards you are using to judge everything against.

Do you understand this?

So why does this matter? Because we are supposedly having a discussion over whether race realism *should* play a role in government policy. We cannot have that conversation if you cannot coherently explain what you think the parameters of government should be in the first place.

Not having a "standard" is just big-brain nonsense that doesn't deal with our real world; you need to start dealing with the world as it is and could be, rather than what you wish it would be.
I’m sorry if you find this conversation so difficult that only big brained people would talk about it, but every decision you make and every position you take stems from your core beliefs. We seem to have fundamental disagreements here, so if our conversation is going to get anywhere then we have to start at the beginning, to me there is nothing more telling than someone who refuses to do that. It strongly suggests that you really don’t want your core positions to be understood, I just can’t tell whether it’s me you are trying to shield them from or yourself.

It's a nail in a coffin for your argument when we see race/ideological/nationalist groups speak to human elements far better than your race-blind argument
It’s as if you’ve forgotten the point of your own thread.

I am aware of no group anywhere in this country or any other who has made an argument convincing people that racial genetics is an established field of study and should be the basis of government policy.

Not one thing I’ve argued in this thread has had anything to do with racial issues, nor has anything I’ve argued in this thread had anything to do with achieving political power. These are entirely separate conversations.

Whatever happened to ‘I just want people to accept the facts, then we can have a conversation about government policy’? Now, without even resolving our differences on the facts you’ve skipped over government policy and went straight to staining the power to exact it. Stick to the topic. 
#88
dfss9788
dfss9788's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 152
1
2
2
dfss9788's avatar
dfss9788
1
2
2
-->
@Mesmer
You already argued that "Asians" are more genetically similar than Whites are with each other at roughly 38% of the loci tested.
No, you do not understand. Let me put it another way.

Imagine 2 fictitious genomes - 1 is the average white person's genome (Call it John Doe) and 2 is the average east asian genome (Call it Ching Chong). OK. Now, select a random white person from the human population. Look at this random white person's genome. Compare it to the John Doe genome and the Ching Chong genome. You will find that 38% of the random white people you select will be closely related to the Ching Chong genome than the John Doe genome.

You've already dropped a lot of what I wrote, so I seem to be doing pretty well.
I'm not trying to convince them. I'm trying to convince you. A lot of what you wrote doesn't have much weight argumentatively. Focus on what's more significant. You don't see something when I show it to you in a lot of different ways. Well, I will try showing it to you in another way because it did not work. You should not conflate that with a concession.

BTW, do you think the Hutus and the Tutsis are different races?
Topic's author
#89
Mesmer
Mesmer's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 516
3
2
4
Mesmer's avatar
Mesmer
3
2
4
-->
@Double_R
Mesmer, do you know what a standard is? I mean I know that I just explained it, but do you understand it? How else can I explain it?

[rhetoric about standards]
You seem to think that a "standard" needs to be an extreme, prefect goal and you're completely indifferent as to whether it's achievable. There is no degree to what you're saying is achievable. No group in the history of humanity is race/religion/nation blind (i.e. not tribalistic). ALL policy comes from catering to one or more of those facets.

It's like you don't understand this fundamental feature of humans and how impactful it is. You're just pumped up on ideology and think your "standard" can twist and bend human tribalistic psychology, that has been hardwired in us throughout plenty of years of evolution, into un-ingraining itself. Even if people consciously agreed with your "standard", they'd still vote based on race and hell even national interest before they'd vote on ideology Imgur: The magic of the Internet . As I showed with the Black vote in the 2012 General election, Blacks AGREED that the Republican Party was better in various ways YET STILL voted for Barrack Obama -- their ideology didn't matter at all. Your ideology (read: "standard") doesn't matter at all.

I’m sorry if you find this conversation so difficult that only big brained people would talk about it, but every decision you make and every position you take stems from your core beliefs. We seem to have fundamental disagreements here, so if our conversation is going to get anywhere then we have to start at the beginning, to me there is nothing more telling than someone who refuses to do that. It strongly suggests that you really don’t want your core positions to be understood, I just can’t tell whether it’s me you are trying to shield them from or yourself.
You're one of those cerebral people who think humans are ultra-malleable, reasonable creatures that will come around to your idea if you just made the right arguments. I'm telling you that even if they agree with you, they vote based on race.

This is not the same wherein people can be Christlike to a certain degree (hence the standard should be Jesus). This is not the same as vaccines becoming mostly effective (with the standard being 100% efficacy). This is a case of your "standard" NEVER being accepted because you can't undo human tribalism with cerebral concepts. People CANNOT be race-blind and thus your "standard" is 100% unachievable.

It’s as if you’ve forgotten the point of your own thread.
I will quote from my OP of this thread:

4) More controversially, anyone who is an "anti-racist" gets blown to bits at elections. If your group is voting based on fairness and principles, and you come across a group of equal size voting based on their race, at best you'll get an even playing field if you win, but a racially biased system (against you) if you lose. Eventually, you'll lose enough elections to where the race-based group has majority control and implements policies that are not fair.

So, that was one of the points of the thread, and we're literally in the middle of discussing this point.

It seems you've forgotten one of the points of this thread.

I am aware of no group anywhere in this country or any other who has made an argument convincing people that racial genetics is an established field of study and should be the basis of government policy.
You've moved the goalposts in that you only want to talk about America (which doesn't quite have a clear racial majority, so it's more difficult to argue about). In the rest of the world, there are far clearer examples, such as the Chinese and Korean examples I gave you. I could also refer to African countries where racial majorities can sometimes be near 90%, and Middle Eastern countries where 90%+ Arabs often make the populous.

I specifically walked you through the Chinese example showing:

(1) That lactose intolerance is a problem for Chinese people
(2) That China is a overwhelmingly majority Chinese (specifically Han).
(3) That people vote primarily on race; you need to make issues race based to best have a chance when running for office
(C) Policy in China should address the Chinese lactose intolerance

You've agreed to all the premises yet won't accept the conclusion.

Not one thing I’ve argued in this thread has had anything to do with racial issues, nor has anything I’ve argued in this thread had anything to do with achieving political power. These are entirely separate conversations.
Read point 4) in my OP.

Whatever happened to ‘I just want people to accept the facts, then we can have a conversation about government policy’? Now, without even resolving our differences on the facts you’ve skipped over government policy and went straight to staining the power to exact it. Stick to the topic. 
I've maintained this position. The fact is that people don't vote based on policy, primarily. They vote primarily based on their race. That was part of my OP and part of my argument.
Topic's author
#90
Mesmer
Mesmer's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 516
3
2
4
Mesmer's avatar
Mesmer
3
2
4
-->
@dfss9788
No, you do not understand. Let me put it another way.

Imagine 2 fictitious genomes - 1 is the average white person's genome (Call it John Doe) and 2 is the average east asian genome (Call it Ching Chong). OK. Now, select a random white person from the human population. Look at this random white person's genome. Compare it to the John Doe genome and the Ching Chong genome. You will find that 38% of the random white people you select will be closely related to the Ching Chong genome than the John Doe genome.
This in is accordance with my summary of the study you cited:

"You already argued that "Asians" are more genetically similar than Whites are with each other at roughly 38% of the loci tested."

This is another way of stating the study you quoted: "Europeans proved to be more similar to Asians than to other Europeans 38% of the time"  Race Realism: Critical understandings (debateart.com) 

If you think there is a contradiction to my characterization of your argument (there's not), then you need to demonstrate that, instead of barely asserting it.

I'm not trying to convince them. I'm trying to convince you. A lot of what you wrote doesn't have much weight argumentatively.
So you bring up counter-arguments, I address those counter-arguments, and now me addressing your counter-arguments "doesn't have much weight argumentatively".

If your counter-arguments didn't have any "weight", why did you bring them up LOL

Focus on what's more significant. You don't see something when I show it to you in a lot of different ways. Well, I will try showing it to you in another way because it did not work. You should not conflate that with a concession.
I've walked you off:

(1) The continuum fallacy
(2) The 'more variation within than between' fallacy
(3) The idea that SNP-reading machines are first "assigned" anything
(4) That white people isn't a valid concept, due to Persians being genetically closer to it than other race
(5) That mixed people who are predominately White are considered Black

These are all arguments you first brought up (meaning you found them "significant"), I've addressed all of them to which you've dropped, and thus you've conceded a lot.