/fa/ - Fashion

[Anonymous No.9600089]

ok /fa/ so i think we've reached a stage where 80% of the board hates niggers, and i feel like the blacks are starting to get the idea that they arent welcome.

how do we further expand our anti nigger effort? invade jordan/kanye/nike/fake threads where niggers tend to congregate and spam and derail them, viciously attack any niggers that post in WAYWT threads with racial slurs and offensive jpegs, anyone you see using the word 'nigga' remind them that we use 'nigger' here.

any other suggestions welcome.

keep up the good work, lets help one another rid the board of this monkey madness.

[Anonymous No.9600092]

ALTHOUGH BLACKS ACCOUNT FOR ONLY 13% OF TH US POPULATION, THEY SOMEHOW COMMIT 52% OF THE MURDERS.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded/expanded-homicide-data
>Of the offenders for whom race was known, 52.4 percent were black, 45.2 percent were white, and 2.4 percent were of other races.

B-B-BUT MY POVERTY

http://www.nclej.org/poverty-in-the-us.php
>In 2012, 9.7% of non-Hispanic whites (18.9 million) were living in poverty, while over a quarter of Hispanics (13.6 million), and 27.2% of blacks (10.9 million) were living in poverty.

WHITES MAKE UP 72% OF THE POPULATION THEREFORE THERE ARE 7 MILLION MORE WHITES IN POVERTY THAN BLACKS. IF POVERTY WAS A MAJOR FACTOR IN THE CAUSE OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY, WHITES SHOULD BE IN THE FOREFRONT OF ALL CRIME CATEGORIES.

[Anonymous No.9600093]

what the fuck is wrong with you. I bet if you go to Harlem by yourself you couldn't utter a single word you've just said.

[Anonymous No.9600094]

>>9600089
racism is too much effort, I'll stick to regular old shitposting

[Anonymous No.9600096]

>>9600094
agreed

[Anonymous No.9600098]

>>9600092
The tables do not list the murder rates for Black Men or Black Women (they divided by sex and race but not both at the same time).

In relation to murder:

In 2011, there were 9,485 MALE murder offenders. There were 1,138 FEMALE offenders. 3,925 were unknown. Women apparently commit murders at 11% the rate men do. 11% of the unknown 3,925 is 431. So let's just extrapolate:

Men committed ~12,978 murders and women committed ~1,569 in 2011.

Now, like you said, blacks make up ~13% of the US population.

In 2011 there were 5,486 Black murder offenders. There were 14,548 overall murder offenders in 2011 (NOTE THAT 256 OF THESE WERE OF "OTHER" IN TERMS OF RACE); this means that Blacks were a whopping 62.29% of all murder offenders! There were also 4,077 murders in 2011 where the race of the offender was unknown. 62% of 4077 is 2,527.74. Wow! Let's just call that 2,527 (I'm feeling generous). That means that the total Black murder offenders in 2011 was: 8,013.

Like I said up top; Women, over all, committed murder at a rate of 11%. So. That means that Black women make up 881.43 of all murder offenders in 2011. Black men make up 7051.44 of murder offenders.

Black Men: 7,051.44
White Men: 5,587.42
Black Women: 881.43
White Women: 690.58

Now that that's all lined out: Let's say Women make up 50% of the total US population for all races. While not entirely accurate (since there are probably more Women than Men) it will be used to illustrate a point. And since I rounded down earlier on everyone's behalf I'll do the same here:

There are 319 million people in the US. 41,470,000 (13%) are Black. 26,95,550 (6.5%) are Men. That means that Black Men, 6.5% of the population committed 7,051.44 murders (51.53%).

Let me say that again. In a country with 319 MILLION PEOPLE, 6.5% of those people commit FIFTY-TWO PERCENT of all murder

[Anonymous No.9600105]

>>9600093
niggers not welcome

[Anonymous No.9600114]

>>9600105
where do you live

[Anonymous No.9600116]

>>9600114
amen niggers not welcome

[Anonymous No.9600118]

i hate niggers so much, white and asians ONLY

[Anonymous No.9600131]

Is this fashion?

[Anonymous No.9600138]

>>9600131
genetics are fashion too

[Anonymous No.9600162]

NIGGERS OUT!!

[Anonymous No.9600165]

get out of here /b/

[Anonymous No.9600166]

>>9600098
>5486 blacks
>14548 total
>whopping 62%
Try that math again or show your work. But I agree on the subject matter.

[Anonymous No.9600167]

>>9600089
wuuuuuuw
>sees niggers getting lynched
can i toch? owo
"NO!"
*toches anyway*

[Anonymous No.9600169]

Why is /fa/ so full of SJWs?

[Anonymous No.9600177]

>>9600169
thanks to kanye west aping(pun intended) designers there is a lot of niggers on /fa/

not a lot of whites like niggers.

[Anonymous No.9600189]

The poverty point still holds.
It is very possible for blacks to be educated and cultivated. The problem is that there has been created a black sub-culture which is infested by drugs, violence and overt racism within the court justice towards them.
If you look at the actual statistics, you'll see that most murders are done by acquaintances, and that 50% of the victims being murdered were black.
With this being said, you shouldn't focus on the skin colour, aka reducing it to genetics or the likes, but rather focus on the power structures which has created black neighbourhoods and cultures which are crime infested.
Racism ought not to be welcomed. If you allow blacks into a fashion, high culture, academic or cultivated area with responsible mannerisms, they'll more likely refrain from criminal behaviour.
Stop the bullshit with your /b/ or /pol/ attitude and look at actual structures within society instead of blaming something as superficial as skin colour when that is clearly not the decisive factor. Racism is part of the problem, it's first there skin colour comes in, in the conceptual debate, racism has obviously been present chronologically from the start and created strong cultural structures and tensions. If people were less racist and allow for a more egalitarian society, these problems wouldn't arise.

[Anonymous No.9600193]

>>9600189
On top of this, this board isn't about race nor skin colour. IT IS ABOUT CLOTHES AND DANK MEMES, LET IT BE THAT WAY.
Now I'll turn back to shitposting.

[Anonymous No.9600198]

>>9600189
>this liberal hogwosh opinion piece

[Anonymous No.9600201]

>>9600189
>I-it's societies fault!!
There's more to racial differentials than just skin colour.
>cuck detected

[Anonymous No.9600203]

>>9600198
>You base your ideas on ideas which are tenable and generalisable and analyse the same numbers I analysed.
>OPINION OPINION OPINION
Please show me actual genetic evidence that blacks must commit the violence they do.
Want to hear an opinion, here it comes:
Fucking circle-jerking retards, go wank off your 12 centimetre dick to white low resolution anime girls you incapable fuck, people like you are cancer to this society.

[Anonymous No.9600205]

>>9600201
Completely misses the point. Sure there are, but they aren't the decisive factor in these matters.

[Anonymous No.9600209]

>>9600203
>Please show me actual genetic evidence that blacks must commit the violence they do.


>Crime is genetic; American Blacks are 50x more likely to have violent genes with MAO-A gene:
http://newobserveronline.com/scientists-discover-nazis-correct-criminality-hereditary-trait/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/9040997/Life-of-crime-is-in-the-genes-study-claims.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1332927/New-research-suggests-criminal-behaviour-genes.html

http://faculty.uml.edu/jbyrne/heredityandcrime.pdf


http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289612000116
http://www.gwern.net/docs/iq/2011-beaver.pdf

Considering the fact that a white country like Moldova (whose GDP per Capita qualifies it for 3rd world status) still doesn't have as much crime as other comparable black countries, we can assume that the MAO-A gene also has a lot to do with it.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24326626
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886912004047

Culture, like any complex behavior, is an emergent property of biology, with which it forms a feedback loop.

This isn't a philosophical discussion that you can argue the other side for, either; it is a science addressed by theoretical ecology and genomics.

Behaviors are investigated in model animals, and the genes that cause them are identified. Analogues are searched for in humans, then experiments are conducted to verify their expression and effects.

The only thing that will change the nature of the Negro is 700+ years of eugenics, with extensive modern biotech intervention to make the process possible within that time frame.

In short, sit the fuck down you liberal moron, you dont know what you're talking about.
.

[Anonymous No.9600212]

>>9600203
>Fucking circle-jerking retards, go wank off your 12 centimetre dick to white low resolution anime girls you incapable fuck, people like you are cancer to this society.


typical nigger

[Anonymous No.9600214]

>>9600209
LIBERALS AND NIGGERS BTFO

[Anonymous No.9600216]

>>9600209
its over

niggers go home

[Anonymous No.9600219]

:~

[Anonymous No.9600227]

>>9600209
best part is the retarded liberal faggot who just got BTFO wont even respond, he'll just retreat back to reddit after reporting the thread like the cuck that he is.

[Anonymous No.9600232]

>>9600209

fucking rekt

[Anonymous No.9600240]

>>9600209
lmao at this. The study is about fucking Finns. Not blacks. Finns. kek

[Anonymous No.9600243]

>>9600240
Finns aren't white. They are mongols.

[Anonymous No.9600247]

>>9600240
>he doesnt understand the implications of said study on all races
>he doesnt understand what the MAO-A gene is and that niggers and semites have higher prevalence of it

nice rebuttal cowardly faggot. you got shit on, leave thread.

[Anonymous No.9600248]

>>9600089
Nah that's why I own 7 pairs of Stan Smiths. You should own AT LEAST one for each day of the week.

[Anonymous No.9600249]

>>9600209
http://newobserveronline.com/scientists-discover-nazis-correct-criminality-hereditary-trait/
This is only a study not conclusive evidence.

>Of the blacks in the sample, 5 percent carried two MAOA promoters, a condition found to be associated with higher levels of delinquency.

Even if this would be correct, this would only prove that blacks are more likely. And if this is correct, you should blame the gene, not black people.

>Dr Kevin Beaver, the study’s author and a criminologist, concluded: ‘Adoptees who have a biological father or a biological mother who have been arrested previously are significantly more likely to be arrested, sentenced to probation, incarcerated and arrested multiple times,'

Even though this might be true they don't indicate what kind of forms of adoption were in place, which skin colour they had etc. It still could be that skin colour matters in who adopts who, and that richer parents are more capable of adopting whiter kids etc. Which would fall back into it being a social matter ones again.

All of the above are questionable sources and doesn't link to the studies, so whether I can trust the integrity and how good the actual research is, is unclear.

> Genetic factors are undoubtedly correlated with various measures of criminality, but the large number of methodological flaws and limitations in the research should make one cautious in drawing any causal inferences at this point in time. Our review leads us to the inevitable conclusion that current genetic research on crime has been poorly designed, ambiguously reported, and exceedingly inadequate in addressing the relevant issues. This criticism applies to studies that are generally supportive of the crime-heredity hypothesis as well as to studies that fail to substantiate the basic tenets of the genetic argument. Perhaps even more significant, however, these studies have muddied the already turbid waters of genetic research on crime.

To be cont.

[Anonymous No.9600256]

>>9600247
You're a fucking retard.

34% of White Europeans have MAO-A

[Anonymous No.9600258]

>>9600249
>Even though this might be true they don't indicate what kind of forms of adoption were in place, which skin colour they had etc. It still could be that skin colour matters in who adopts who, and that richer parents are more capable of adopting whiter kids etc. Which would fall back into it being a social matter ones again.

just leave already

[Anonymous No.9600260]

>>9600256
>34% of White Europeans have MAO-A
https://scientiasalon.wordpress.com/2014/07/31/the-extreme-warrior-gene-a-reality-check/

>still more prevalent in niggers

[Anonymous No.9600261]

>>9600249

>attack your confronter's dicks size
>then attack his sources

lmao you fucking cuck

[Anonymous No.9600263]

>>9600256
https://scientiasalon.wordpress.com/2014/07/31/the-extreme-warrior-gene-a-reality-check/

>MAOA-3R — the “original warrior gene” — was the first gene linked with antisocial characteristics. But Maori were not the only ethnic group with a high frequency of this variant. It turned out that while 3R was found in 56% of Maori males, it occurred in 58% of African American males and 34% of European males [2]. Misinterpreted by the media, the 3R variant quickly became a lead character in a pop science narrative intended to explain why certain racial groups appear to have increased tendencies toward violence. When a disproportionately high number of males of an ethnic group carries a less common gene linked with aggressive behaviors, the discussion about that gene immediately takes on racial overtones [3, 14].

>(Interestingly, the press ignored studies indicating that the 3R variant occurred in 61% of Taiwanese males [15] and 56% of Chinese males [16]).

[Anonymous No.9600265]

i love these threads

liberals always bring nothing but their opinions and rhetoric they've learned from high school and tumblr.

other dudes bring tables, stats, reality.

keep it up, no doubt opening up a lot of minds.

[Anonymous No.9600266]

Hey guys where can I get this t-shirt?

[Anonymous No.9600271]

>>9600249
Urgh, didn't you expect to see that the fucking report was from 1989? Come again with better research.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289612000116

This one is about intelligence and not race.

http://www.gwern.net/docs/iq/2011-beaver.pdf

So is this one.

>Considering the fact that a white country like Moldova (whose GDP per Capita qualifies it for 3rd world status) still doesn't have as much crime as other comparable black countries, we can assume that the MAO-A gene also has a lot to do with it.

Now we can't, you can't assume what you're trying to prove. And it is very possible to find other reasons to why primarily black areas are exploited by war etc. Like neo-colonialism.

>Analyses revealed that African-American males who carry the 2-repeat allele are significantly more likely than all other genotypes to engage in shooting and stabbing behaviors and to report having multiple shooting and stabbing victims.

This is really not a good way of drawing an induction though. "Blacks are more violent. Why? Because genes. We find these genes in blacks, who are more violent!" Which was already proven by the first premise. It is basically linking their blackness indirectly to crime without suggesting a good link in genetics. If they do prove that blacks are more likely to have the gene, as in, it is more likely for a black to have the gene than not, and prove that it leads to violent behaviour more than not, then sure, I'd accept your theory, but they don't.

[Anonymous No.9600273]

>>9600258

[Anonymous No.9600278]

>>9600271
>more opinions

/yawn

why cant niggers just accept they're stupid?

[Anonymous No.9600279]

[Anonymous No.9600282]

Have you ever posted this on /pol/?

[Anonymous No.9600283]

>>9600261
Of course I'll attack the fucking sources. Let me explain how an argument is constructed.
First entities and things to quantify over are determined. We call this "premises."
Then methodological tools are determined. Like occam's Razor etc.
After this, in combination with logical deductions we can draw arguments.
The sources work like premises, and I am looking whether I agree with the premises, aka. choosing what we quantify over. If I accept the studies as valid, I cannot deny them, and I must draw all conclusions which are valid and follow from the with our methodological tools.
If I weren't allowed to debate the premises, I could argue for basically anything. "God is real, this is my premise, my source is the bible."

[Anonymous No.9600287]

>>9600273
That only shows IQ is not just proportional to income. Your point? IQ isn't a good measure of intelligence either. Not that if you found a better measure the gap would close though.

Also, we could plot the same for whites and jew, or whites and asian-americans. It would show white;s have a lower iq for every level of income.

[Anonymous No.9600289]

>>9600278
Claiming my arguments are opinions doesn't remove their validity. Please guide me in what is wrong with my arguments rather than using Ad hominem attacks.
And I am Finnish, not black.