[AnthonyMouse]

You prevent them from gaining power by winning debates against them and demonstrating to everyone why they're wrong.

I mean have you actually seen the "science" used to claim even the existence of different races? It's all misleading statistics and pseudoscience. You group a bunch of people together based on geographical origin and then observe some differences in the averages between the two groups, ignoring that the differences within each "race" are larger than the differences between "races," and that the lines are being drawn arbitrarily, and that even the measured averages could be different as a result of environment or culture rather than genetics.

There is no way for a Nazi to win that on the facts because the facts are against them. Which is why they have so little actual support. There are probably more trolls pretending to be Nazis than there are actual Nazis.

They're used as the boogeyman specifically because there is such widespread agreement that they're wrong.

[DeathArrow]

Individuals who dared to make anthropological, social and genetic studies on ethnic groups were retaliating upon with great anger and were banished from academic life even if the scientific methodology was sound.

No one dares to do such studies anymore so we can conclude that the "good" has won.

[Hallucinaut]

Unless I'm misinterpreting your angle, this sounds like a blatant, hysteric mistruth. Nearly every day I see studies where social and ethnic groups are used to partition and understand the population, particularly with COVID.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7015e2.htm

So it depends what you mean. If you mean there are no studies done with such partitioning aimed towards the benefit of those groups, I call that bunkum.

If you mean studies are not sponsored where the outcome is of no societal value beyond reinforcing or justifying an established hegemony or excusing discrimination, then perhaps... and good.

[snugghash]

You're missing an important point here, that Eric Weinstein brings up a lot. The goal of science is finding truth, but the mechanism of how it happens right now is very tied to the "goal" of each study. Goal-less data collection is apparently impossible to certify and "be acknowledged".

>no societal value beyond reinforcing or justifying an established hegemony or excusing discrimination Researchers might have hypotheses they want to test, and any hypothesis that's not "good" is not explored. Because 1. real identities and careers are affected 2. collected data isn't good enough for journals

[maccard]

> You prevent them from gaining power by winning debates against them and demonstrating to everyone why they're wrong.

"A lie can travel around the world and back again while the truth is lacing up its boots."

It doesn't matter how solid your facts are if people are listening to vox pops of people who back their own internal beliefs.

> There is no way for a Nazi to win that on the facts because the facts are against them. Which is why they have so little actual support.

They don't need support, they just need an echo chamber to be encouraged. Pop onto stormfront and try convince a handful of posters there and see how far you get.

> There are probably more trolls pretending to be Nazis than there are actual Nazis.

If x% (where x is some suitably small number) of a group are the only ones who truly believe it, and the rest are just trolls, then increasing the population size leads to both more trolls and more Nazis. It also doesn't matter to anyone whether the person spewing vitriol is actually a Nazi or a troll when the abuse is directed at them.

[snugghash]

Our tooling for communicating ideas and finding good ones is equivalent to mob rule, same as a hundred years ago, just amplified. More at my older comment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29051178

> Pop onto stormfront and try convince a handful of posters there and see how far you get.

I've actually done this - it's far easier than you make it seem. I haven't really started collecting metrics on success, but that's kinda what we're missing - messengers who construct a pyramid of truthy statements and go back up the chain to whoever convinced THEM to a particular viewpoint when they find resistance to change from the opposite side. We're missing tech that incentivizes such behavior.

Of course this requires that everyone has a set for themselves a threshold for when they would change their mind about a topic - which I find is far more prevalent among US conservatives (at least online, as they behave to me), than when you try to establish the same among US liberals. Of course, ignoring the obvious field that doesn't have a threshold by design - supremacist religion.

My working theory is that supremacist religionists who converted out of it simply replaced it with liberal ideas (and were being supremacist about those), while there are both religionists and non-religionists among the conservatives.

[salawat]

This worked so well for everyone involved the first time.

[AnthonyMouse]

The first time the Nazis imposed censorship so that people couldn't do that. We should be wary of following in those footsteps.

[rsj_hn]

Pretty sure millions were already in Soviet gulags with Pravda and Izvestiya cranking out official propaganda before anyone became a Nazi.

If you want to understand the terror of total state censorship practiced "the first time", then look to Lenin specifically and communism more generally.

Alternately, one can argue this climate of fear and systematic repression was present during the French revolution, but not localized to the entire state.

[trasz]

Communist censorship was merely a copy of Catholic censorship from earlier times. It's not like Commies invented it.

[AnthonyMouse]

Censorship is also bad when communists do it, yes.

[gm3dmo]

>There are probably more trolls pretending to be Nazis than there are actual Nazis.

"We are what we pretend to be." --- Kurt Vonnegut

[AnthonyMouse]

Cute, but trivially falsifiable. Wearing a Freddy Krueger mask on Halloween doesn't make you Freddy Krueger.

And to the extent that it is true, it implies that we should stop using Nazis as the boogeyman. Because trolls are going to use whatever will get a rise out of people. Best not have it be this that they summon up.

[gm3dmo]

>Cute, but trivially falsifiable. Wearing a Freddy Krueger mask on Halloween doesn't make you Freddy Krueger.

That is true enough for most, but not all.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Gonzalez_(spree_kille...

Daniel clearly could not separate the Freddy mask from fiction and made it a tragic reality.

[snugghash]

That's better as "the effects of my pretend actions are very real" than anything more subtle

[thegrimmest]

I don't think any quotes are required around the research performed by Rushton & Jensen (2010)[1] and others that they build on. Doesn't it seem perfectly plausible that, much like other physical characteristics (height, body composition, heat tolerance, etc.) the meat in our skulls also varies between ethnic groups? Shouldn't this be researched and investigated like every other observation?

Once you start studying groups by linguistic origin (not "race") things become much clearer since people historically didn't really move around that much, and genetic markers are quite visible (a la 23andMe). I don't think you need to be a Nazi or a troll to be interested in any of this.

1. https://openpsychologyjournal.com/contents/volumes/V3/TOPSYJ...

[AnthonyMouse]

You're talking about the differences in averages. But that's meaningless. If the median Asian man is 5'8" and the median European man is 5'9" (or whatever the numbers are), this tells you nothing about any individual Asian or European males, because like 40% of Asian males will still be above the European median and half of Europeans will be below it.

And it's a completely arbitrary line. If Swedes are on average taller than Austrians, are they different "races" then? It's balderdash. There are genes that affect height and whatever else, but they're widely distributed throughout all "races."

[thegrimmest]

It tells you a whole lot about the composition of either end of the bell curve. It means that in a given population the shortest people are much more likely to be, say, Taiwanese (average aheight 5'3"), and the tallest Dutch (average height 6'½").

Edit: To your point about group taxonomy, usually precision is only available to a level where genetic markers are present and distinct. This in turn comes from groups not interbreeding. For instance, using 23andMe's taxonomy, Sweden belongs to the "Scandinavian" group and Austria belongs to the "French & German" group:

https://customercare.23andme.com/hc/en-us/articles/212169298...

[AnthonyMouse]

There are two adult brothers somewhere in New York City. They have both of the same parents. One of them is 5'3" and the other one is 6'½". What's the probability that one of them is Dutch and the other one is Taiwanese? If your answer wasn't zero I would like to see your work.

[thegrimmest]

If they are brothers then I suppose they could be mixed Taiwanese-Dutch. But that really isn't the point is it? I'm talking about trends in populations. It's an answer to the question of "Why do we see different representation of these groups on the height spectrum?", not "Explain the difference between these two individuals".

Edit: Also to assert that, given two random people on opposite ends of the height spectrum, it's much more likely that they are distantly related than closely related (controlling for sex) because (controlling for nutrition) height is a heritable trait.

[AnthonyMouse]

> It's an answer to the question of "Why do we see different representation of these groups on the height spectrum?"

But we already know that, by and large. It's genetics. And the thing we know about genes is that they align very poorly with "races".

It's like grouping animals by color. Then you discover that brown animals are bigger than red animals, because bears are brown and bears are big whereas cardinals are red and cardinals are small. But sparrows are brown. Using the logic of "race" we put the sparrows in the same category as the brown bears. The black bears go in with the black housecats. The red housecats are with the cardinals.

The fact that you can find statistically significant differences between the color groupings doesn't mean you're not doing something preposterous.

[DeathArrow]

And there are two trees with the same height. From different species. One makes fruits, one doesn't.

And there are two trees with different height from the same species. Both make the same kind of fruits.

[DeathArrow]

>You're talking about the differences in averages. But that's meaningless. If the median Asian man is 5'8" and the median European man is 5'9" (or whatever the numbers are), this tells you nothing about any individual Asian or European males, because like 40% of Asian males will still be above the European median and half of Europeans will be below it.

Valable also for German Shepherd and Golden Retriever.

>If Swedes are on average taller than Austrians, are they different "races" then?

But Swedes can be still considered a different ethnic group than Austrians. Does the exact terminology matters? Various groups of people have both differences and also things in common. So what?