https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Latin_Americans

Uruguayans

 https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2015/country-chapters/singapore

My position is multiracialism is bad, in part, because of these cognitive differences. And that whites becoming a minority is bad, and a return to white racial identity would be the easiest fix for that issue (and should never have been stigmatized, was done on a lie)
the lie of cognitive equality and disparate outcomes are therefore whitey's fault, that lie.

>prove you can assimilate
Not by taking shallow looks at crappy examples of liberal societies (not just imperfect), usually the result of our military, and looking at talented groups. They embrace some of our values because we are hegemonic, and usually it is in their presentation, elites, and economics rather than how they conduct social affairs
do it with blacks, hispanics, and arabs in our diverse society where they have much to gain from Identity politics
and where the oppression narrative is constantly suggested and inflames ordinary feelings of inadequacy with the "privileged whites"

Ethnocentric Domination works, bloc voting and identitarianism gives an edge in a diverse polity. Singapore knew that

>working on it, you ruined it

Right, we should wait on you to fulfill this Herculean task and do nothing even though we're right about race and you arent.

We're irrelevant though, you're mighty with professionals and money backing your ideas (Pinker, Shapiro, Peterson, etc) so why are we making it hard?

Also, some kind of backlash among whites or natives is characteristic of intergroup tension and often why it doesnt work. You dont get to ignore the other variable

>iq and race

race realism is actually saying these distinct clusters differ in average cognitive traits with IQ being the most studied. And that these explain what we see in society to some extent. Not that they are partitioned by these cognitive traits or that edge-cases don't exist. Especially since these edge-cases tend to be individuals and not statistical groups

Neither are perfect. But what matters really, as far as practicality is concerned, is if they identify something real and relevant to what we're litigating here

At worst, true things are said within an inadequate paradigm or with inadequate language (which nobody offers a well-used improvement on)
Fuzzy boundaries dont mean a random black is as smart as a random white (which would be race realism being refutated)
An imperfect measure of a poorly defined concept like intelligence doesnt mean 100 and 120 are meaningless

But mostly you're indulging the continuum fallacy on ideological grounds. You're not arguing environment explains the gaps, you're trying to escape the debate

>race in particular

It is an informal category, like all categories it is a social construct, but it matches biological correlates. It does describe something even if you find it somewhat arbitrary. And people understand it. When seen as genetic clusters, the term race's power in this regard becomes clear. Contemporary Brazilians, Americans, and ancient Egyptians form(ed) ideas of race based on best-fit genetic clusters to describe themselves and others. Obviously they concern themselves with the clusters present in their social reality, but it's a pretty natural conclusion humans seem to come to. Race denial is a Western idea which began after World War II and needs to be taught.

Moreover, one can model Fst differences between races and compare it to races of Chimpanzees and the sexes (which is just a distance of 100% on the Y chromosome and deactivated parts of the X). Chimpanzees also see more variation within than between. The variation between races is comparatively small, since it is comparing an average set of relatively discreet differences to the myriad of ways individuals can differ but nobody is actually more closely related to a member of another race than to a member of their own when looking at the whole genome. To put it this way... the racial differences are sort of added in to individual variation. Hopefully that explains what I am getting at

Asian parents will produce an Asian child before any environmental exposure to the child. There is no required Fst distance in taxonomy (and still, difference is difference). And even the term Species has edge cases and fuxxy boundaries.

http://quillette.com/2016/06/23/on-the-reality-of-race-and-the-abhorrence-of-racism/
https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2017/12/11/in-an-article-on-race-and-medicine-new-york-times-does-its-best-to-ignore-and-denigrate-race/
https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2017/08/28/a-sensible-article-on-human-race/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1196372/

It strikes me as saying the distinction between humans and neaderthals is fuzzy since there is overlap

same argument applies to all natural categories, is ultimately meaningless because Blacks and Whites are different ancestries even if you dont want to call it race...and it doesnt make their IQs magically the same. You can make this argument to deny species and subspecies

The concept of species, as with wave functions & mental states, is useful for predictive purposes. But the concept doesn't describe some independent principle external to our models since no clean definition of "species" exists. The boundaries are too fuzzy.

No clean categories in natural sciences, especially those that range from deme to species, with the occasional genara. These are not clean categories and are justified only by their utility, not by their independent existence.

>whining about groups and group rights

Everyone can distinguish individuals from groups. But the group's going to be at the bottom and people value their group as an end in itself. Yes, we know what lolbergtarian meritocracy is. Your idea is in place in the US and has a 100% failure rate because it pretends this doesn't actually happen and is therefore blindsided by group solidarity and the political advtange it gives. Which results in favors for protected groups at best, hostility toward the majority which made the nation and this meritocracy at worst.

Liberalism is not a sufficient vision for society on its own

>just dont think of groups

ah, as long as nobody exploits this natural instinct we will be fine. Not utopian at all

>useless politically

uh... no they arent... our whole debate on race is from the perspective that whitey is the reason blacks and hispanics dont do well. This depends on cognitive equality and the expectation of equal or mostly equal outcomes

https://archive.is/Vm5h3

Can explain why he is against this again.Besides that "it's Illiberal".Liberal is such an abused word it's amazing. Liberal societies for hundreds of years held these views. I'd say David holds almost the same views as the founding fathers. What?That makes them no longer liberal?
I'd really love to hear his justification for his equation.  Ethnostate = Illiberal. When many liberal societies were defacto or enforced ethnostates. Whites are the most "liberal" wouldn't it make your society better in your eyes, or closer to your liberal ideal

>single motherhood and welfare culture

ingle Motherhood stats dont take genetic confounding into account. Low class people tend to be single parents after all, especially moms. Single Dads is usually a different set of circumstances.

if we only look at intact families who don't rely on welfare would be see identical political inclinations and IQ? I doubt it.

Iceland has more welfare and high rates of single motherhood, like most Euro nations, but isnt detroit

https://web.archive.org/web/20180118073856/https://twitter.com/PsychoSchmitt/status/942504270070534144
http://www.cell.com/neuron/fulltext/S0896-6273(10)00137-6
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10519-009-9300-1

>purity spiral

I could as easily say you will be telling Black Militias to be individuals as they come for your property (basically what happened in South Africa and Zimbabwe). Mine would actually be more plausible because that happened, while it doesnt happen so much in past Eurocentric states

Destiny tried this. Then he destroyed his own argument by mocking mixed race altrighters
just noting you assert without proof. And when contrary proof exists

>culture

The argument I'd hammer home against "muh culture" is that race isn't culture, but cultures are dependent upon certain behaviors and those behaviors are downstream from race. This would disarm the "why do different white populations have different cultures then?" argument.