I took the time to watch the video and I'm not impressed. I think you think he kicked Sargon's butt because you want
to believe that he's right, not because he's actually making a strong argument.
I don't disagree with everything he said. There are obviously biological differences between the races (which is tautological, since the races are defined in terms of these differences). People do tend to prefer people who are similar to themselves, and find it easier to relate to people who are similar to themselves. (I've written about this myself, and call it psychological or cognitive isomorphism). People should be free to associate with whomever they please, even if their reasons are silly, so long as it does no harm (and here I object to his definition of harm).
What I disagree with is the correlation he makes between racial biology and culture, which strikes me as being shoddy reductionism and scientifically unprovable. It's impossible to test, so it's impossible to prove, which makes it pure speculation. I can't give you a historical analog for my Mack truck analogy because every historical event has been shaped by preceding historical events. You can't isolate race and study it apart from history; that's science fiction, and the conclusions drawn from it are pure wish fulfillment.
It's the environment that shapes evolution; animals adapt to their climate. If climate dictates biology, then it obviously dictates culture to a degree as well. It's not: climate -> biology -> culture, but climate -> biology, climate -> culture. If you sent three spaceships, one with white people, one with black people, and one with Asians, to a planet where everything was made of cotton candy, all three groups would be forced to adapt to the environment in the same way; cotton candy would become a central facet of their culture, the same way snow became a central facet of Arctic cultures, or plants a central facet of Amazonian cultures. Races don't get to decide how they want to adapt; the physical environment and chance determine how the races adapt; over time, all three races would adapt in more or less the same way (something called convergent evolution).
That's why Jared Diamond is such a boogeyman to racial thinkers, and why Taylor dismisses him with ad hominem ("what a fraudster!"). The culture of the Northern Europeans was, in part, an adaptive response to their physical environment; an environment which happened to be less hostile, and more exploitable (because of its flora, fauna, soil, etc.), than other environments. Northern Europeans, who were still savages living in tents while Greeks, Egyptians, Indians, Chinese, etc., had highly sophisticated cultures, also had access, through trade, to all of the technical (and cultural) innovations that had been made by other cultures, an advantage that people living in the Americas didn't have. White nationalists are like people who've won the lottery and attribute their winnings to their superior intelligence instead of correctly attributing it to luck.
Culture is essentially a cognitive model of the world; it explains to people what the world is like and how they should live in it. Culture is dictated to some degree by the physical environment, by the limitations of the human body, and by the self-evolving nature of thought; as people come to understand the world, their model changes, and culture adapts to the changes. The anatomical differences between people of different races are real, but small, which is why racial biology plays an almost insignificant role in the evolution of culture. That doesn't mean racial identity
doesn't play an important role, because it does; most cultures consider all other cultures inferior; but this kind of thinking -- "My group is inherently superior to your group" -- is exactly the kind of superstitious, irrational thinking I'm talking about.
To me, this is obviously a form of thought distortion, which is why all white supremacists (or other racial supremacists) appear delusional to me. Ofc, you can prefer
your own race without thinking that it's inherently superior. I prefer the color orange, but I don't believe that it's superior in any meaningful way to other colors. A person who prefers the physical aesthetics of their own race isn't a racist; they would only be a racist if they believed that their personal preferences were an indication of objective
aesthetic superiority. It's okay to prefer to date white people if you're white because you like the way whites look, but it's delusional to believe that you prefer them because they are objectively more beautiful than other races, just as it would be delusional for me to believe that orange is objectively more beautiful than any other color.
As Sargon points out, people prefer to associate with others for reasons that have nothing to do with race. (Eg. Islam.) This is the isomorphism I mentioned above. People prefer to be with people they have things in common with. But Taylor is making an error by projecting his own isomorphic preferences onto other people. Am I likely to find it easier to relate to another white person (since I'm white)? Probably. But race is only one small part of my identity. There are literally thousands (millions?) of ways that people can be similar or different, and race is so far down my list of priorities that I find it hard to imagine a scenario where I would consider the racial biology of another person a significant factor. I'm going to have a lot more in common with a black person who thinks racists are silly than I am with a white racist.
If something as simple as a theoretical difference can trump racial preference (and there are hundreds of things like that) then it's simply not true that race is (or has to be) a huge barrier separating people. It's only a barrier because there are
many people who make it a priority for one reason or another, and those people make it necessary for other people to adapt to them. Racism is a problem created by racists (of any race) and then imposed on other people, who are not racists. It doesn't make sense to me to try to solve the problem of racism by finding intellectual justifications for that racism. For many people, race is simply a non-issue in how they relate to other people; people who assume that these people are in denial or lying about it are simply engaging in projection.
There are very brilliant people whom you might call "racist".
I never said brilliant people couldn't be racist. It used to be quite common, even among educated and intelligent people. It's less common now because most people are no longer persuaded by the arguments racial thinkers make. Some intelligent people are, and they likely have reasons for allowing themselves to be so persuaded. No one wants to feel like the bad guy; everyone wants to feel like they have good, rational reasons for their feelings. So if they're very afraid of other races, they will try to find justifications for their fears and reassurances that their fears are healthy and natural. That way, they can feel good about themselves again.
Anyone can be a racist or sexist these days. And those are simply names to negatively label people or sham them. These aren't scientific terms
These terms do get thrown around too often, and no, they're obviously not scientific terms, but imo anyone who believes that races are "superior" or "inferior" to other races is a racist. A sexist is a person who believes one gender is superior to another. Biological differences between races and genders don't imply superiority/inferiority and it's kind of stupid to believe that they do. That's the kind of thinking I associate with children, not adults.
I don't think you understand that the differences in genetics between races is not random and has nothing to do with the differences in genetics between individuals... The differences in genetics between populations has to do with evolution and geographic location/environment (evolution). That is, populations who evolve in different environments will have different genetic outcomes that everyone in that population, and only that population, will share
I obviously do understand this. I don't believe you understand the implications, though. As I explained above, the environment shapes not only biology but culture, either directly or indirectly. It doesn't make sense to attribute any kind of inherent superiority to the humans that evolved in that environment if any humans from anywhere would have evolved more or less the same way. Animals don't control their own evolution. Being proud of your race is like being proud you're a walrus and had the good sense to evolve all that blubber to keep out the cold.
There are vast differences between individuals of the same race. If racists were really concerned about preserving what they consider Western culture, they'd divide along IQ lines, not race lines. If they segregate, all that's going to happen is that low IQ whites will outbreed high IQ whites and culture will decline anyway. (That's their fear, anyway.)
btw, I have an IQ of 115 just in case you were wondering. And I have no mental ailments beyond Major Depressive Disorder and Social Anxiety Disorder. I'm just an average guy who spends a lot of time on the internet who has delved somewhat deep into a few different subjects...
I have an IQ of 140. Pleased to meet you. (Let's face it, you won't believe me because it's the Internet and people can say whatever they like, but I'm not actually making that up.) I'm just an average transwoman who spends a lot of time thinking about the way other people think.