HN seems to be fine with race realists and antisemites (just look at the person's recent comment history, they're not the first one I've seen either) as long as they don't go on excessively unhinged rants and resort to slurs. HN is very much trying to be a "marketplace of ideas" with all the faults and warts that come with being a marketplace (e.g. false or misleading advertising).
I think the comment in and of itself is not very substantiated but that's not why I commented. The comment I was replying to is a complete non-sequitur. The top-level comment only mentioned "non western immigrants" in passing by saying that they were _less_ likely to be unemployed. To follow this with ranting about "non-western immigrants" is simply not acting in good faith and not adhering to the site guidelines, especially
>Eschew flamebait. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents.
"And in a case where the childless husband of a girl who is three years and one day old dies, if his brother, the yavam, engages in intercourse with her, he acquires her as his wife"
"It means that the Torah does not deem the intercourse of one who is less than nine years old to be like the intercourse of one who is at least nine years old, as for a male’s act of intercourse to have the legal status of full-fledged intercourse the minimum age is nine years. And Shmuel says: The Torah does not deem the intercourse of a child who is less than three years old to be like that of one who is three years old."
These are opinions funded in religous law that are followed by religious people.
For these people it is only natural and virtues to follow this.
It's not a personal attack to say that you have a definite horse that you like to speak on ("race", as nebulous and weird as that is). Above you have reframed more or less the same thing as a culture issue, which has been widely discussed and is currently popularly mitigated with education. We can see this works in practice.
What more do you want? Justifications for why people move out of their cultural frame to a different one? Perhaps they value more rights for women (the middle east is out then). Perhaps they enjoy a peaceful environment (again, the middle east is out). There are so, so many reasons someone might move away from their reference frame. Some don't apply to the middle east. Some don't apply to Asia. But they definitely apply to someone, somewhere.
I simply cannot believe you have not thought of this, but to construct this narrative you must ignore these realities for why people flee their own environment in favour of a new (much more uncertain) one.
"I simply cannot believe you have not thought of this, but to construct this narrative you must ignore these realities for why people flee their own environment in favour of a new (much more uncertain) one."
I did not refer race.
I am not ignoring but I am alerting that them may be BETTER served with cultures that conform with their ideologies and aptitudes.
Why create a cultural shock? Why make the person struggle to be accepted?
How many generations for me to be considered "japanese"? Or I would force japanese to me consider one of them?
This isn't a debate. What you're doing is called "sealioning" in online discourse, but you probably already know that. Not that this matters, as I have not "personally attacked" you nor even insinuated you are wrong.
I have pointed out that you are a race realist. That is not a personal attack, that is an allegation of a belief. I'm inferring that from your own comment history about race and IQ, e.g. your statement that "IQ is mostly genetic"[0][1], which you brought up twice in different conversations in your otherwise very short comment history. If "IQ is mostly genetic" and (to paraphrase one of your comments) "favoring high IQ means favoring Asians" that means in your view there is such a thing as a genetic "Asian race" that connotates inherently higher IQ than other "races" purely on a genetic level. That is a race realist claim by any other name.
If you think race realism is correct, why do you object being labelled a race realist? Calling you a race realist was the only claim I made, with no further moral judgement of that category beyond that it's apparently acceptable on HN although I find it unacceptable.
To humor you, as you insist on arguing race realism itself rather than whether you're a race realist (which certainly makes me wonder why you don't want to be labelled as such if you agree with it):
> So you mean Asian as a race does not exists?
That's a strawman. Race realism doesn't just claim that races exist the same way sex realism doesn't just claim sex exists. Race, sex, species, etc are categories we have defined in order to describe and reason about the world around us. They exist the same way other categories exist, i.e. they have definitions (although often ultimately self-referential ones as they are based on abstractions derived from observations of groups of individuals rather than a single reference specimen as with historical definitions for units of weight and such).
What race realism claims is that race is a meaningful category in biology to the degree that it effectively creates sub-categories of humans that are persistent enough to have explanatory function. For example, the claim that IQ is genetic and that different races have different genetic limitations for their maximum IQ is a race realist claim.
Of course this completely ignores that races were not defined based on genetics but on superficial similarities (dark skin, "almond eyes", etc), which is why the actual categories are somewhat in flux depending on which race realist you talk to (not to mention mysticists and occultists like proponents of the Hibernian theory or the Thule Society). Actual biologists nowadays use clines instead of races the same way species taxonomies don't map to Biblical "kinds".
Incidentally, IQ is a hilariously flawed mechanism for demonstrating this as it has been demonstrated to be extremely susceptible to nurture over nature, i.e. you can literally train to have a higher IQ score (without becoming "more intelligent" in any significant way). Additionally, psychological research has shown that test takers who expect to score lower will unconsciously self-sabotage. Of course you'll probably have some Emil Kirkegaard red pill dump at your fingertips to counter this with "facts and logic".
Another problem with race realist claims about IQ is that they conflate heritability in the general sense and genetic heritability. A child born into poverty will likely perform worse socioeconomically than a child born into wealth, but this isn't through a "poverty gene" but the environmental circumstances, including basic things like bad nutrition and lead poisoning but research has shown that even parental stress prior to birth can alter the genetic material that will be passed on to the children, in addition to the effects maternal stress (and other environmental factors affecting the pregnant person) can have on embryonic development.
Knock yourself out, I'm not going to read through your replies. You're a single-issue account derailing every thread you participate in into race realist talking points, which means you're probably a sock puppet of someone too chicken to admit to their beliefs. I wonder why that is. No, wait, I don't.
"Incidentally, IQ is a hilariously flawed mechanism for demonstrating this as it has been demonstrated to be extremely susceptible to nurture over nature"
Nurture has its effects too but still is WAY lower than genetics.
It seems you always avoid to refute science and goes tangent in personal attacks.
I must refer to a study using Twins that were adopted in different families followed by 30 years. [1]
results:
"
Proportion of variance in IQ attributable to environmentally mediated effects of parental IQs was estimated at .01 [95% CI 0.00, 0.02]
•
Heritability was estimated to be 0.42 [95% CI 0.21, 0.64]
•
Parent-offspring correlations for educational attainment polygenic scores show no evidence of adoption placement effect"*
I am really enjoying discussing with you. Thank you
