/lit/ - Literature

>implying reactionary writers are allowed a space in a public forum strictly regulated by liberals

just get out, and take your prejudice with you

I'm not vehemently racist. Which are the contemporary authors "we" love?

Not racist if it's true.

>everyone
Vocal minority and/or trolls.

You don't see people arguing back because it's futile and just gives them attention, much like this thread.

Shitstorm incoming.

>assumptions

Fuck you, I'm not a racist and I fucking love Céline.

i, too, make generalizations about the userbase of /lit/ based on a few boring threadshitters from /pol/

the most blatantly racist and misogynist people on 4chan usually don't read. It's just not an open minded mindset that encourages a lot of reading and absorbing knowledge about the world.

/lit/ does have an unusual amount of misogyny on it, although not as much as most boards. But at the same time I think many people on /lit/ are just pretentious teen jerkoffs who read shit based on some image they want to cultivate, or because they want to be seen as intellectual, and don't understand half of what they read.

>>2803489

NO.

MOST USERS OF "4CHAN" ARE "LEFTIST LIBERAL" MARXISTS, OR "LEFTIST AUTHORITARIAN" MARXISTS.

"RACISM" IS NOT A SYNONYMOUS FOR "RACIAL VIOLENCE", OR "PREJUDICE".

"RACISM" IS THE PREFERENCE FOR PERSONS OF ONE'S OWN RACE, WHICH IS BIOLOGICALLY/GENETICALLY NATURAL.

UNNATURAL & AGAINST LOGIC WOULD BE TO HAVE A DESIRE TO MISCEGENATE WITH OTHER RACES, THEREFORE DEGENERATING ONE'S RACIAL "GENEPOOL", WHICH IS WHAT IS CURRENTLY HAPPENING IN EUROPE, AND AMERICA.

>>2803536

you'd think that with superior genes you'd be able to come up with more than 4 ideas for threads

All good writers are anti-Semites.

Prove me wrong.

>>2803536
This is a "Just So" story built on nothing. Genetically, race is only those things which determine the phenotypic traits that we socially use to denote race.
It makes perfect sense for someone to want to miscegenate because we also have a genetic predisposition to tend towards novelty in mates: hence why this or that mating ritual done in a novel way due to mutation can result in adaptation inheritance.

>>2803489

I am not racist. I do not hate any race.

I just think we should wall off everything south of Northern Africa and north of Southern Africa, so they can all starve and die of aids, or stabilize their populations.

>>2803543
all intelligent people are anti-semites. let's face it, man: the jews are pretty evil.

>>2803542
then why do white dudes find black chicks so fucking hideous?

>>2803551

>tfw the Juden are actively trying to destroy professional sports in your country
>tfw the Juden will paint you as a rabid racist for not supporting NeoBabylon

>>2803543
I doubt many of the great East Asian writers gave many shits about Jews. Due to that indifference, they probably wouldn't be classified as anti-Semitic.

>implying being hyper-sensitive is a good idea
>implying I don't like racist authors who were ardent Fascists

>>2803557
I'm white and currently dating a black girl. And if your point were an overwhelming piece of evidence, mixed children would not have resulted from slavery-- it was predominantly white masters having sex with female slaves, although the opposite is documented/rumored too, of course.
Most white males in the US don't date black women due to cultural differences, plain and simple.

>>2803568

>implying the slave masters weren't only interested in that black booty

After only knowing the flat pancake asses of their wives those Nubian goddesses must have been a revelation.

>>2803542

>Genetically, race is only those things which determine the phenotypic traits that we socially use to denote race.

NO.

YOUR STATEMENT IS BASED ON IGNORANCE.

TO CLAIM THAT "RACE" IS A "SOCIAL CONSTRUCT" IS RIDICULOUS" & TRITE BY NOW.

IT SEEMS THAT YOU ARE CONTRADICTING YOURSELF THERE:

YOU CLAIM THAT RACE IS A SET OF DISTINCT GENETIC TRAITS, AND SIMULTANEOUSLY THAT IT IS MERELY A "SOCIAL CONSTRUCT".

>we also have a genetic predisposition to tend towards novelty in mates

PERSONS ARE NOT ATTRACTED TO "NOVELTY" --AN OVERLY RELATIVE CONCEPT.

PERSONS ARE ATTRACTED TO TRAITS THAT EVOKE FERTILITY & YOUTH, AND THAT ARE SIMILAR TO OURSELVES.

>>2803568

why would you post a serious reply to that post

what did you think you were going to accomplish

>>2803573
You don't know what you're talking about. I'm talking about the relationship between genotype and phenotype, there is no contradiction in what I said.
The phenotype that we associate with race is determined by genes which ONLY determine those phenotypic traits and nothing more.
The most common argument against this is things like the sickle-cell/malaria allele argument: Well, how come those people have that genetic determinant?
The answer is that those mutations are based upon geographic distribution of populations, in the exact same way that the racial phenotype mutations are. The reality is that there are Mediterranean peoples with the exact same phenotype that makes them resistant to malaria and susceptible to sickle-cell, and their skin is far "closer" to white Europeans.
Race is not a distinct set of genetic traits. Race is an ambiguous definition based upon phenotypic traits which have genetic determinants, alleles.
If you really want to continue debating the biochemist about this, I can continue to school you. I have to leave in a little while, but until then, I'm ready.

>>2803536
Anthropologist here, specializing in evolutionary anthropology.

Humans, like all species, are predisposed to genetic diversity, the opposite of what you argue. A limited gene pool not only can cause genetic defects to become commonplace (see: the prevalence of achromatopsia in the secluded island of Pingelap, polydactyly in the self-imposed isolation of the Amish, and a myriad of other examples, known as the founder's effect), but also make the species vulnerable to potential dangers. We seek out diversity as a survival tactic, and such genetic diversity is a major reason why humanity is able to adapt.

>>2803603
>>2803598

shut up nobody cares look at who you're replying to you idiots

>>2803598
>Race is not a distinct set of genetic traits. Race is an ambiguous definition based upon phenotypic traits which have genetic determinants, alleles.
To clarify, I'll begin with a question: Is a person's height genetic?
Your answer to this question will tell me where to begin.

>>2803568
I don;t find black women attractive because they look too simian.

>>2803603

Seriously, comparing extreme examples of the founders effect to large populations, and you call yourself a fucking anthropologist.
Humanities cannot into logic.

>>2803573
You big silly. Take a person of 'Race A' and a person of 'Race B'. Now you are regarding them as separate races, but if you consider the possible intermediary combinations of both, you will see how it's just a variable (or a spectrum if you will).
The only way of categorizing them is by social constructs. You want to label someone who is halfway between A and B but in reality the boundaries of these categories are abstract.

This is how creationists denounce evolution. They constantly deny the 'missing link' between species as when new fossils and fragments are uncovered they are categorized into distinct sub-species.

>>2803612
>>2803603
Both diversity and similarity are traits which drive reproductive choices. That anyone would argue this like a dichotomy is absurd, and I should have qualified that in my first post arguing with the caps-lock retard. The point is that saying either one is the dominating factor is a "Just So," story, there is literally no experimental or theoretical data to support such a conclusion, at best you have the "second cousin" hypothesis which is slightly controversial in itself because of problems with allele distributions in many mammals.

>>2803612
As I said, humanity is evolutionarily predisposed to seek out diversity, because when you lack diversity causes genetic defects and a weakened ability to survive and adapt. If you don't understand that, then you are unable to even begin to think critically.

>>2803613
not so much a spectrum as a slider, from "less evolved" (ie. blacks) to "most evolved" (ie. azns)

>>2803608
>>2803598

APPARENTLY, YOU ARE CONFUSING RACE AND ETHNICITY.

RACE IS NOT "AMBIGUOUS".

TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION:

OF COURSE NOT.

>>2803627
>but in reality the boundaries of these categories are abstract.
Yeah, you missed a spot in your clean-up. You're also missing the genotype-phenotype link between skin color and intelligence. Hell, we don't even HAVE genotypes identified for intelligence because half the time we're still arguing over what the hell intelligence even is.

>>2803634
please leave, vile shitposting tripfag

>>2803634
>OF COURSE NOT.
Wrong. Height has related alleles in chromosomes 2, 6, and 21. The problem that comes into play is environment: someone's height can also be affected by nutrition and even by such bizarre factors as sunlight (Vitamin D processing for bone growth and calcium).
Why I brought up height is that skin tone is an obvious corollary: the sun can make even black people's skin darker. My girlfriend I mentioned earlier can and does tan. Race is ambiguous.
It's curious, too, that you have it completely backwards: ethnicity does have genetic constants, "race" is the one which is ambiguous. Determining someone's ethnicity through DNA analysis is still guesswork, but it's a guesstimate where trying to determine someone's race through DNA analysis just plain would not work due to numerous factors of migration.
Clearly you need to open up some biology textbooks and come back.

>>2803649

YES, I KNOW, I MISREAD YOUR POST, AND THOUGHT THAT YOU HAD ASKED IF IT WAS AN INHERITABLE TRAIT.

>>2803656
That's synonymous with genetic, in the context of our discussion. Height is an inheritable trait, it's just influenced by environment, just like 99% of inheritable traits which are genetic.
Just stop. You have no idea what you're talking about. I've stated this obvious point twice now. Does it need to be exemplified and stated once more?

>>2803661
>Height is an inheritable trait, it's just influenced by environment, just like 99% of inheritable traits which are genetic.

FIRSTLY, ALL TRAITS ARE GENETIC, OBVIOUSLY.

SECONDLY, ONLY A MINORITY OF TRAITS ARE INFLUENCED BY ENVIRONMENT, NOT THE ALLEGED NINETY PERCENT (90%) THAT YOU CLAIM; A PERCENTAGE WHICH YOU JUST CAME UP WITH, APPARENTLY.

I can't be arsed to read this bydlo-thread.
OP should be ashamed

>>2803649
>Determining someone's ethnicity through DNA analysis is still guesswork

'23 and me' seem to do it quite well.