Comments by "bakters" (@bakters) on "Karl Marx's Anti-Semitism" video.

What a horrible babbling! I mean Marx, not you TIK. Even with clarifications provided, which do make it more comprehensible, it's still horrible babbling. (Edit: Regarding evolution of human "sub-species", I can't write the word, it's being shadow-banned. Anyway, it's pseudo science. Human "sub-species" definitely do exist and saying that this idea has no basis in genetics it utter idiocy. Sorry, there is no other way of putting it. Genetics determines those very obvious phenotypical differences, like melanin levels, the shape of the nose, eyes and many others. It's not my fault that current science is so broken. I wish it was different.)
3
@tedarcher9120 "culture, upbringing and education plays much bigger role" That absolutely and undoubtedly contradicts the data we managed to collect. I mean several studies on monozygotic twins raised apart. Aaanyway, that was not the claim. The claim was, that "sub-species" (because we can't use the shadowbanned word) have no basis in genetics. Which is utter nonsense. Only possible, if you reject logic. "investment banker would have more in common to his white and asian friends than to his genetic twin" More in common with regards to what? Melanin levels? You see how crazy the claim is? Utter nonsense.
1
@tedarcher9120 "The claim was that humans don't have subspecies, because we are too genetically similar" The same can be said of dogs. There are no breeds of dogs, because they are "too genetically similar"... Nonsensical argument. Especially since people used to be divided into different "sub-species" based on easily observable phenotypical differences. Those differences are all genetically determined, therefore genetics was the basis of the division. "melanin levels are not a stable indicator. And it's not like it matters" So why do you guys have the urge to lie about it? Why? If it does not matter, why should we violate our logic in order to unsee the obvious?
1
@tedarcher9120 I didn't want to use the word race(car). Youtube is quite ridiculous nowadays. It deletes comments which trip their algorithm. Not based on content or meaning, because their AI can't really understand it. It's based on key-words. Therefore I avoided the forbidden key-word and substituted it with "sub-specie". It's just an euphemism. Anyway, the difference between a sub-specie (no quotes, literal meaning) and a breed pertains in its origin. Human create breeds, sub-species emerge in nature. That's it. If dogs can have breeds, if wild animals can have sub-species, humans can have an analogue of that too. It would be very weird if we didn't!
1
@tedarcher9120 "Humans have populations with [...] different genetics" Whoa! Hold your horses! It's not allowed nowadays to point out those differences... "that's not enough to call them subspecies." We didn't. We called them different race(cars). And it made sense!
1
@tedarcher9120 "[...] = species. Read Darwin's book" I did. Species = species. That's how he wrote it. "humans from africa are from another [censored](species), which as we know now is wrong" They are the same species. We are all humans. But do we differ in any meaningful way? Well, why don't you try it yourself, if you have a chance? Why don't you go to African people and call them (hu)whites? Let's see how they like it... I hope you are a good runner. Otherwise, forget it. "There is one [censored] with small regional differences in gene allell frequencies." So breeds don't exist either. It's settled "science". I mean, you can't even properly comprehend what is happening here. Political sciences interfere with what used to be hard sciences. To the point, that the absolutely obvious is forbidden to see. That's garbage. Utter, nonsensical, anti-rational, anti-scientific garbage. We are destroying what our ancestors have built.
1
@tedarcher9120 "they don't differ in any meaningful way" That's absolute nonsense. Icelanders are hugely overrepresented in strongman competitions. I can name at least three top Icelandic competitors in this sport, despite I'm Polish and the total population of Iceland is the size of a medium Polish city. I can't name three Polish strongman competitors... Marathon runs are dominated by a small tribe in Kenya. I can't name any, I just happen to know they tend ot win. Okay, you can still keep on pretending that currently it does not matter how strong you are or how fast you run. What does matter, then? How smart you are. The differences between various populations are *very far from trivial*. "I also have darker skin when I stay under sun too much" Stupid argument. "because we aren't domesticated animals." Oh yeah. Hit me with that. That will do it...
1
@tedarcher9120 "Professional runner from Iceland will outrun 99.999%" Would they really? When bracketed by age and sex? That's a lot of nines... "professional strongman from Kenya will outlift 99.999% of icelanders" Do they even have a single one? "Only in very rare edge cases like Nobel laureats and professional sportsmen do these small statistical differences make any change" That's just not true. Go to www dot worlddata dot info slash iq-by-country dot php The range is from 108 to 56... Then go to wikipedia, find the page which discusses the normal distribution or the bell curve, and calculate how many Guineans do we need, in order to get one possible challenger for being a Nobel laureate with a score of 150 or so. Next, consider your local school with, let's say, 1000 kids. Who has more smart people, Guinea or your local school? Okay, I'll do it for you. Your local school is very likely to have about one guy (he's likely to be male) with a score of 150-ish. Equatorial Guinea is not.
1