Counter-Currents Douchebags

The LGBTQ "movement" site.

I wonder if this dumbfuck realizes that individuals/groups of different ancestral origins can overlap on PCA, at least with the commonly presented PCAs that show only the first two axes (granted, more axes may show more differentiation, but, still, the general point holds given that the peanut gallery are only going to pick out published PCAs with the first two axes).

Rule of thumb - if two groups are placed differently on PCA then they ARE different. If two groups are placed similarly (at least for the first two axes) they may be similar or they may not be similar, with respect to ancestry.

...computing genetic identity as a single number...

How can you do so with any sort of precision, dumbfuck, when there is sufficient imprecision at the individual level so as to result in fairly large error bars, particularly for suspect minor admixture?

Counter-Currents ignorant crap weeps (excepts):

We demonstrate that PCA results are artifacts of the data and that they can be easily manipulated to generate desired outcomes. PCA results may not be reliable, robust, or replicable as the field assumes. Our findings raise concerns on the validity of results reported in the literature of population genetics and related fields that place a disproportionate reliance upon PCA outcomes and the insights derived from them. We conclude that PCA may have a biasing role in genetic investigations. An alternative mixed-admixture population genetic model is discussed.

The dominance of PCA to population genetics is difficult to justify as it lacks any measurable significance or accuracy, excepting the quantity of explained variance, which is not only minuscule to the extent that authors avoid reporting it but, as shown here, is not a proxy to the reliability of the results. As such, PCA can be used to generate outcomes that fit preconceived hypotheses…

Overall, the notion that PCA can yield biologically or historically meaningful results is a misconception supported by post hoc reasoning. Like a broken watch, PCA can be engineered through careful data manipulation (e.g., Figure 24) to yield perceivably correct results. However, it is not a guaranteed outcome, and those “correct” results are indistinguishable from alternative and contradictory results constructed using other schemes. 

Finally, completely consistent with my complaints about the field:

…illustrate how the choice of markers and populations profoundly affect PCA results…

I’m no fan of the author's alternative method, but the critique of PCA has some validity.

Jim "father of the year" Goad writes about “douchebags” -

It’s a pejorative I’ve only ever seen applied to white males and Italians.

After all, whites and Italians are different categories. What about autistic defectives who worship Black Santa?

Counter-Currents commentator:

And the white/Italian distinction is just the icing on an already delectable cake. Excellent roundup, sir!

My definition - purely hypothetical of course, not describing any actual person of course - of a douchebag: A person who admits to engaging in inter-racial homosexual sex for money (by definition, an inter-racial homosexual prostitute), who attempted to solicit fellatio from a dachshund, who mocks people with progeria but becomes ever-so-defensive about autism for personal reasons, but who won't be (insofar as is known) the primary caregiver for their autistic child and whose absence of proper parental supervision allows such child to be used as an advertisement for racial harmony with Blacks, while said douchebag, who apparently worries more about the well-being of their gassy mutt dog, writes moronic posts about how bad Blacks are. This purely hypothetical and absolutely theoretical model individual would be - if they existed - the lowest form of filthy scum imaginable. Let us then be relieved that such absolute no-character crap is impossible and such does not exist - how could a society long survive carrying within it such products of a "bad sperm and bad egg?"