/sci/ - Science & Math

>>8566735

You aren't even being creative in your rebuttal-elaborating historical facts of white exclusion of black land-ownership as if that scores you points, and believing yourselve to be intelligent, versed, Right.

The thing that you are missing is that /other racial groups overcame admittedly somewhat lesser adversity/, and now thrive much better. Yet according to a relatively recent item, for all the section 8 and Obama Administration that the world has to offer, black households yet have a lower average net worth than Indian ones.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/362260/shocking-number-kevin-d-williamson

You are doing the most common and boring thing. It is so common that smarter leftists know to guard against it and try buttressing arguments, but you're just doing the 101 stuff because you are young and you think that it passes muster (it doesn't).

When compared with other human beings, black people, /indeed even browner people given the right circumstances/ are objectively fucking dumb, in a manner that affords a whole rainbow of stupidity! This is both anecdotally observable, and defensible by existing science (and the political qualms against it):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Transracial_Adoption_Study (a basic link, but an important one which deserves repeating since you seem to be new to losing this argument.)

https://www.scribd.com/doc/140239668/IQ-and-Immigration-Policy-Jason-Richwine (this guy was fired, which goes to my above point.)

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/should-research-on-race-and-iq-be-banned/ (a hack abdicates the commonly accepted purpose of science, which is to discover observable and reproducible truth, however unpleasant)

When you negate this commonly understood (and factually correct and evidence-based) truth, you make yourself look not like a "cuck" as /pol/ would have it, but most simply, /wrong/.