/sci/ - Science & Math

we already had this thread, it clearly is. anyone who doesn't think so does not understand what "race" is or what "social construct" means. hint: race is not a biological property. it is a human categorization system based on biological traits. therefore it is quite literally a social construct. people who use this to say that it "isn't real" don't know what they're talking about, and neither do people who think race isn't a social construct.

>>10252583
this is a stupid argument about semantics

Humans are more genetically diverse than the simple "black", "white", and "Asian" monikers. I think that's what people mean when they say race is a social construct.

Yes it is a social construct. For example, there is a lively debate among right wingers about whether southern Europeans or light-skinned people with darker eyes and hair more generally are white. They are also adamant that Ashkenazi Jews are not white and will even go so far as to say someone with very distant Jewish ancestry is not white, even thoigh they would be classified as white by all bit a few fronge individuals. In addition, some southern Europeans would be considered non white or "off white" by most people. Howeclver, if nordicist rhetoric became the mainstream opinion, brown eyed light skinned people and people of Jewish ancestry would be viewed as non white, whereas they were previously perceived as white. In this way, race is socially constructed.

>>10252596
From what you have said I can agree that it is. However, I heard a professor saying that race is not biologically determined and is just a social construct. I guess it's just the way leftists present it, that make me doubt their sanity.

>>10252614
In my university the same professors who preached about protecting numerous subspecies from mixing with other populations, would also preach about insane leftist beliefs about race

depends on how semantic you want to get
of course it a social construct, but if you want to ask instead: are there physical/genetic differences between races? then the answer is yes
we can see this clearly just in an example of alcohol tolerance

>be the english language as it manifests in the mouths of the american and british people
>some dudes come up to you and tell you you've been using a word wrong
>"social construct actually means concepts I don't find concrete enough sweetie"
>yfw

>>10252601
What most people mean when they say this is that different races are virtually indistinguishable besides the most obvious differences

>>10252583
No.

>>10252596

Anything is a social construct by using some of your logic.
What is the difference between a biological property and a human categorization system? Almost nothing.

There are genetics that would clearly put someone in a different race category, based on where their ancestors came from. Where their ancestors came from is not a social construct, its a fact.

You are the most dense person on this website today.

HIV and cancer are also social constructs.

>>10252583
No, the biological differences between people from different geographical origins is our foundation of race. To deny race as just a social construct would be to defy basic evolution. Humans have spread in tribes and mated within those tribes, we have accordingly mutated differently and these differences is what we call race.

>>10252583
Racial identity, at least in part, could be considered a social construct. It seems obvious that the average white male today would have very different feelings about his race than the average white male in the 18th century. However, most of race is genetic clustering and therefore not at all a social construct

>>10252663
Everyone's ancestors came from the same place. You are quibbling about which generation of ancestors lived where.

>>10252723
No

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interbreeding_between_archaic_and_modern_humans

In Eurasia, interbreeding between Neanderthals and Denisovans with modern humans took place several times. The introgression events into modern humans is estimated to have happened about 47,000–65,000 years ago with Neanderthals and about 44,000–54,000 years ago with Denisovans. Neanderthal-derived DNA was found in the genome of contemporary populations in Europe and Asia. It accounted for 1–4% of modern genomes, although estimates may vary. Neanderthal-derived ancestry is absent from most modern populations in sub-Saharan Africa, while Denisovan-derived ancestry is absent from modern populations in Western Eurasia and Africa. However, in Africa, archaic alleles consistent with several independent admixture events in the subcontinent have been found. It is currently unknown who these archaic African hominins were.

All categorizations are "social constructs", so the question just isn't very interesting.

>>10252583
There is no classification system that outlines every race and every single genetic locus associated with each race. Until we have that, biologically defined race does not exist in the proper format for scientific discussion. Race is a social construct with an ill defined biological basis.

>>10252583
>Calling X a social construct is not to insist that it is has no reality, that its just a figment of the imagination; rather, it is to say it is contingent on certain human behaviors and beliefs.

>>10252663

>Anything is a social construct by using some of your logic.

Not him but If it's a categorization of a given phenomenon then it's a social construct period. There is no natural ""categorization"" in nature just various concoctions of hierarchies.

>What is the difference between a biological property and a human categorization system?

A biological property is a "as is" feature of a natural phenomenon with multiple layers of complexity depending on the scale it is observed at. A human categorization system is a interpretation of said biological properties that is often times incomplete because of lack of perfect tools to assessed those properties with 100% accuracy. It is also incomplete because initial development of that system tends to be based on short cutting observable information into a smaller packages to utilize later. Thus information is lost because the foundation of said categorization is based on cognitive biases that favor reducing brain energy used for processing information.

>There are genetics that would clearly put someone in a different race category, based on where their ancestors came from. Where their ancestors came from is not a social construct, its a fact.

Debatable, while the geographic location on a coordinate plain itself is not a social construct. The interpreted view of the geographical ecosystem's "state" is often viewed in socially constructed lense because your brain or resources being used intepret that location in a static state/rough approximation. Your distant ancestor could have came from the Sahara but the Sahara wasn't always a desert and had wet or green periods. The influence it has on your/distant ancestor's genetics can depend on how early or recent it was impacted by it. And even that is suspect because we are merely performing educated guess on it.

>>10253016
>Debatable
This being debatable is a social construct

>>10252583
yes (short of). but humans are social animals with a fuckload of hardwired bias and pattern recognition. it's not something that can just be overwritten. I mean look at it this way. aids doesn't see colour. if ayylamo's landed they wouldn't just be like oh wow look at all these totally different spices of monkey things.

>>10252583
Usually when people start arguing definitions there is something shady going on, as in this case.

What we have here is a classic Motte and Bailey ploy.

1. Start with the obvious fact that race has a social dimension - who can disagree?

2. Then start talking as though it has been shown race has no biological basis and that racial differences are minimal Both of which are false.

The grain of truth here is that there is no single 'person of diversity gene'. Differences between racial groups are large when you consider the entire genome. It is very easy given even a few % of someone's genes to work out their race, and this agrees with social race to a high degree.

What race deniers tend to do is to look at one gene at a time only which is not valid.

Racial groups differ genetically in disease resistance, reactions to medication, ability to digest foods, height, propensity to put on weight, athletic abilities, propensity to violence and IQ and other things.

So race is real and important even though the boundaries are sometimes fuzzy.

>>10253016
>If it's a categorization of a given phenomenon then it's a social construct period

So I guess physics is all a social construct. If that is the case then the term is meaningless.

>>10253906
>propensity to violence and IQ and other things.
show these are genetic and not environmental

>>10252583

race =/= social construct
racism = social construct

>>10253906
>motte
>bailey
Fuck off back to wherever you came from until you learn to speak english.

Races are real, they are just kinda more complicated and continuously overlapping than traditional racial categories. So nowadays people refer to them as genetic clusters. Pic related.

>>10253993
>propensity to violence and IQ and other things.
show these are environmental and not genetic

>>10252614
Well you could make an argument that for alot of people, the socially constructed aspects of race have a much bigger impact on your life than the biological aspects.

>>10253906
but youre getting it ass-backward. the racial categorisation should come after the biology. Boundaries are illusory, not fuzzy. And its important to make explicit how race is just differences in distribution of genes. the majority of genes or alleles or whatever that you find can be found in all human groups in some quantity.

>>10253909
I think this is a very different issue.
See species problem in biology. Arguments about essentialism.

>>10254369
That's not how burden of proof works. I'm not claiming they are environmental, but they could be and most likely are at least partially due to environment. For you to automatically assume, not only that it's genetics playing the much bigger role, not only that the differences are genetically different enough to be significant, but that those genetic differences are insurmountable even in the right environment with little evidence to backup your claim is completely anti-scientific.

One way to see that race is a social construct is to spend 3 minutes on /int/ and see all the turks and eastern europeans claiming to be black.

>Race is a social construct

Karma

Define race, if you mean genetic subdivisions in homo sapiens then race is very real.

>>10255156
race is rela only if you want it to be, ie your racist. Am I wrong?

>>10252723
Using that logic species don't exist either

>>10254479
You are claiming they are socially constructed so the burden is on you

>>10252612
Complete strawman from start to finish
>They are also adamant that Ashkenazi Jews are not white
No actually it's the other way round

>>10252583
my uneducated take on race is: race itself is responsible for certain physical attributes, but things such as intelligence or personal beliefs are dependant upon genetics, societal values, and their current political state of affairs
I've met Nigerians who are incredibly talented at not only sports and music, but also academia, and would have done absolutely nothing with their lives if they stayed in Africa, due to the social values and political occurrences of the time.
The same reason American blacks are so stupid is because their culture is dog-shit and their home-lives are completely dysfunctional. If they truly applied themselves in an adequate environment, they would do well.

I don't get why /sci/entists are so spergy faggots whenever it comes to the topic of race and IQ. Yes, it's pretty obvious that evolution is real. You can deny genetics all you want, but the fact of the matter is that the real world still behaves as though the racial IQ gaps are largely genetic (these gaps exist even in first world countries, and they seem to be impossible to close). But none of that matters, because /sci/ is a hugbox, and all race threads get deleted as soon as /sci/ gets it shit pushed in on its home turf

>>10252583
>Is race really a social construct?
It depends on how anal you want to get with all these definitions. Technically everything is a social construct. Science, maths and physics are all social constructs. The sun is a social construct. Etc. etc.

But yeah, essentially race has a basis in biology. It's a real thing, and socially defined categories of race match best fit clusters.
>In the Guo study (Guo 2015), Whites in the US matched the “White” genetic cluster 99.4% and 99.5% of the time, Blacks matched “Black” 99.3% and 100% of the time, and East Asians matched “Non-South Asian” 97.7% and 93.71% of the time.


>>10253993
>show these are genetic and not environmental
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monoamine_oxidase_A
https://thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2017/01/07/race-and-iq-the-case-for-genes/

>>10256852
>I don't get why /sci/entists are so spergy faggots
Hmmm. I wonder.
It really perplexes the ponderences of the prefrontal lobes. Who, who on earth could it be?

>>10256852
>gets asked specific questions
>answer none and only even attempts to address one
>the "proof" is a link to a shitty blog that loosely addresses it
why are racists so retarded

>>10257000
>le ebin troll
There was only one question, which I already answered. Races are nothing but human populations that are distinguishable from each other. There's a range of debate as to where should we draw the lines, but obviously races exist

My line of thinking is based on a wide range of haplogroups instead of phenotype-based race

>>10256777
>my uneducated take on race is: race itself is responsible for certain physical attributes, but things such as intelligence or personal beliefs are dependant upon genetics, societal values, and their current political state of affairs
I've met Nigerians who are incredibly talented at not only sports and music, but also academia, and would have done absolutely nothing with their lives if they stayed in Africa, due to the social values and political occurrences of the time.
You realize you've met the cream of the crop and not your average African, right?

>>10257185
Your average African is stuck in shitty societies and political turmoil. So you guys agree.

>>10257204
>adoptationIQtests.jpg intensify

>>10257204
The average IQ of SUb-Saharan Africa is between 66 and 71. The average IQ of US blacks (who are usually 20% white) is 85. Twin studies and adoption studies (intelligence and IQ is the single most studied aspect of human psychology) have shown that IQ is highly heritable (about .8)... NOT strongly due to environment. These are established facts, not controversial. Read the APA's paper "Intelligence: Knowns and UNknowns" or the paper "Mainstream Science on Intelligence". THis is literally what I do for a living.

>>10257221
I work for a human factors consulting firm and we do all sorts of studies on the buying habits and shopping habits and internet usage habits of different populations. Some results that are well known in the industry but that no one ever talks about...
Blacks of every socio-economic level have VERY low reading levels. Any time a product is marketed mainly to blacks, even high socio-economic status blacks... the ad copy need to be dumbed down to a 2nd grade level.

>>10252583
read up on Hitler/Miguel Serrano/Savitri Devi's definition of race. Race is not defined by ethnicity, that is the Jewish/parasite worldview.

>>10252596
gravity is a social construct.

>>10257579
Really? You're retarded.

>>10252583
"Race" is, but genetically distinct groups aren't.

>>10254008
Genetic clusters do not demonstrate the existence of human races, it absolutely isn't the scientific consensus.
>>10257221
And neither do twin studies, literally takes one wikipedia search.

>>10256852
Please get the fuck out of /sci/ immediately if you're gonna source from AltRetard
From the Guo study you mentioned:

>[...]Second, it shows how social forces trump biology in racial classification and/or how social context interacts with bio-ancestry in shaping racial classification.

So, do you literally take one line out of the study that sounds like it agrees with you, even though the literal fucking abstract contradicts your argument?

>>10252596
You just alter the meaning of 'race' until it fits your agenda.

Depends on how you define race. Some people will use retarded definitions that are over a 100 years old and then disprove them, claiming it "isn't real"
There is genetic variation within humanity. That genetic variation can be predicted in with varying degrees of accuracy by knowing a persons ancestry, geographic origin/ ancestral origins or phenotype.
How do you define race? Is it real if it is observable? What about continuum fallacies?
It's actually a somewhat difficult question to answer. Keep that in mind, but don't let people try to convince you or anyone that we are all clones, or that all genes are evenly distributed among humanity

>>10256777
I think that conceptualizing the heritability of IQ is best done by comparing it to height, since they are both polygenic traits that vary in accordance with a lot of factors both genetic and not
We know not all populations are equally endowed with height, and that no amount of nutrition will make the average pygmy the height of the average Dutchman. You do get freakish outliers in every race, and you can raise the average in every race too, but ultimately if you have tall parent's you will be taller than another person in the same environment.
Over in China they had two top pro basketball players have kids, and they grew up to be exceptionally tall pro basketball players. Not a coincidence on an individual level, nor is it on a group level.
Also I'd dissuade anyone from taking deterministic takes on history based on intelligence, Africa is a shitty place to live and nobody no matter how smart would be able to start civilization there, not on the level of Eurasia. I think it's more that harsh environments are dysgenic with respect to intelligence

It’s funny how science deniers just argue about definitions regarding race.
>Sure race has a biological component but race is still social construct because it isn’t defined the way I want it to be

>>10259238
You can reply to one of the posts instead of passive aggressively attacking a retarded argument nobody is making.

>>10252583
The term might be, such as the classification of.

But other than that no, why will 2 blacks have a little nigglet, and 2 whites have a white baby? Right, because of different race and genetics

>>10252596
>all language is a social construct
>therefore everything language describes is a social construct as it is merely a derivative of a construct and cannot exist outside of that
>chairs are social constructs
>>10257579
>scientists also don't use physical characteristics to determine the race of a person based on their skull shape and overall bone structure to identify them
>inb4 skull shape which changes brain shape doesn't have an effect on brain function

>>10252723
>fish are the same as birds and reptiles and mammals because they all came from the same sea worm
>there IS reason to believe that people who evolved in radically different ecological systems evolved different physical characteristics but evolved all-exactly-the-same-intelligence-do-not-question-it-you-biggot-shut-the-fuck-up-go-back-to-pol-reeeeee

Is it possible to be this retarded and anti-science while simultaneously thinking you're smart and pro-science and that everyone who disagrees with you is a nazi who escaped /pol/ without being a liberal?

>>10252583
The idea that race is a social construct is real in the sense that "races" are a social construct. The reality is that there are 3-4 sub species of homo sapiens.

Indo-Europeans: Europeans, Middle Easterners, Indians

Asians: Asians, Polynesians, *Native Americans

Sub Saharan Africans: Sub Saharan Africans, Aboriginal Australians

*Native Americans could be considered their own sub species.
**Jews have a biological and cultural hatred for all humanity and thus want to create their own species. This is the origin of the essential Jewish drive for inbreeding.

Although this is not politically acceptable the science available can be reasonable used to draw this conclusion. Other interpretations of the current science require political and/or religious agenda as well as a willful bending of the truth.

-Tenured biology professor of name brand east coast university behind 7 proxies

>>10253016
Language is a social construct. Everything you just said is a social construct. I guess I can now safely ignore it because it is a social construct and I can thus interpret it in any way I like and I choose to interpret it as being baseless conjecture.

>>10259278
>Although this is not politically acceptable the science available can be reasonable used to draw this conclusion
Can you give some source? Studies that argue for what you've just written.

>>10259279
Did you reply to the wrong person? Has literally nothing to do with his post.

>>10259284

>>>>race is not a biological property. it is a human categorization system based on biological traits.
>>>Anything is a social construct by using some of your logic.
>>Not him but If it's a categorization of a given phenomenon then it's a social construct period. There is no natural ""categorization"" in nature just various concoctions of hierarchies.
>Language is a social construct. Everything you just said is a social construct. I guess I can now safely ignore it because it is a social construct and I can thus interpret it in any way I like and I choose to interpret it as being baseless conjecture.

What part of this logical series of events do you think is incongruent? Did you fail to realize that all subjects of speech are a member of some category, and, as such, are a social construct?

>>10259278
Are you joking? Aboriginal Australians are further from Africans than Europeans are. They are a fucking sub species all on their own. They've been living on that fucking island alone for tens of thousands of years. Indo-European is just a bad fucking definition for a sub species as well. You basically just merged them for no reason.

>>10259296
>race is not a biological property. it is a human categorization system based on biological traits.

Therefore everything is a social construct?
Biological properties are necessary to define race, but they're not sufficient, you're confusing the two.

>>10259278
middle easterners and indians are are quite different from europeans I would not merge them together with europeans

>>10259296
even dawkins agrees race is biologically real
have some shame

>>10259337

No. That's not me, maybe you should ask the person who made that retarded comment instead of jumping to the end of a comment string and asking me. I'm the 4th comment and I'm pointing out the retarded logic that something being a social construct has any bearing on it's relevance or accuracy because everything you say or think is literally a social construct. Not that it matters, because it's all fucking pointless.

>>10259358
literally who?

>>10259318
Aboriginal Australians could be considered their own sub species.
Indo-Europeans derive both biologically and linguistically from the same ancient sub species originating somewhere in the Caucuses.

>>10259369
>literally who?
come on now

>>10259390
>ancient
>as in, a long time ago
>as in, easily long enough to be it's own sub species considering aboriginal australians only had a couple dozen thousand years.

>>10257231
If you're American "high socio-economic status blacks" probably means the NBA/NFL athlete kind because that's what the ones who "made it" ended up doing. So, no surprise there if their reading levels turn out to be garbage. Jamal has been skipping school to go basketball practice during his high school days, and probably made it to college on a sports scholarship or something. If you're not American, I would like to know how you reached that conclusion because it is my understanding that immigrant families from Africa tend to be more educated since the parents stress on academics and push their kids to do well in life in things other than throwing a ball through a hoop.

>>10259571
>because it is my understanding that immigrant families from Africa
Jesus, don't tell me that you really believe this.

why do dogs have so many sub-species of varying sizes and temperaments and humans are just the same but with different skin tones and some have curly hair?

>>10259593

>>10259587
What's your point? Care to elaborate?

>>10259593
"dog" is a social construct

>>10259608
No matter in which part of the world, blacks are pretty much always the most criminal and worst educated.

>>10259636
Clearly, you have never been anywhere in Africa, just stop embarrassing yourself

>>10259636
Highly debatable. Can you link me a source/stats or something?

>>10259646
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/topic-pages/tables/table-21
>>10259643
Not an argument.

>>10259690
>says no matter in which part of the world, blacks are pretty much the worst
>pulls out that old tired stat of crime in the US
Try again, faggot.

>>10252583

>>10259748
>2016
>old
Also the US is to my knowledge the only country that has a crime statistic divided by race, but its not a secret that the situation is similiar in most other places with a sizeable black population.
You just have to go to the areas they live in or talk to the police.

>>10259806
Define black people.

>>10259646
Someone like you will never change your mind because your ideas and "knowledge" are religion.

>>10259812
Subsaharan africans.

>>10259821
ROFL @ whit*id "science" desu senpai.

>>10259826
Concession accepted.

>>10259837
The concession that you're a subhuman retard incapable of thought? Sure subhuman.

>>10259806
>anecdotal evidence
>valid

>>>/pol/

>>10259806
Old not because of the year btw. Old because you /pol/tards use this single statistic as conclusive "proof" that blacks everywhere are inferior/terrible or whatever. It seems to me that a broken household and a culture of shunning the normal stable education career path for a life of "hustling" or crime explains why American blacks are where they are today. But I don't understand how you extrapolate the data to other parts of the world. To my knowledge, blacks who grow up in normal supportive families and are afforded the right opportunities seem to do well in society or life in general.

>>10259813
What is it exactly that you expect me to believe?

>>10259207
>Hurr hurr why are you taking the actual data instead of shitty opinions that are disproven by the data
Anon are you really this stupid?

>>10259904
>It seems to me that a broken household and a culture of shunning the normal stable education career path for a life of "hustling" or crime explains why American blacks are where they are today.
Anon we know from adoption studies that this is false. Black people adopted into middle class white families still end up with a low IQ and poor life outcomes.

>What is it exactly that you expect me to believe?
I think what he means is that many people who believe this egalitarian nonsense approach it with an almost religious zeal. Consider the following: is there any evidence that you could be presented with that could get you to reconsider your deeply held beliefs? Or would you cling to your dogmas no matter what?

>>10252596
>>10242098
Link to the previous thread on this, there were some good points raised in it.

>>10260312
Because you're too dumb to analyze the data. Because you're a layman who thinks he knows better than the actual researcher who conducted the study, because you call the actual abstract of the study a "shitty opinion" and that your retarded interpretation is actually the right one.

>>10252614
>>10252622
I hope you are not racking up debt for this.

>blacks have an average IQ of 70
>there are no differences we are all the same xD
It's literally the only thing that matters.

>>10260387
Nope, we're not all the same. We don't get harsher sentences for the same crimes, or live in communities that have exposure to lead, or live in poverty and have a history of being enslaved and systematically discriminated against. Race is a social construct I'm glad you agree with us :)

>>10260387
Are dumb whites more equal than smart blacks?

Race is literally derived from where on the planet you live.
Black people came from closer to the equator, where there's lots of sun, so they have dark skin.
White people moved further to the north in Europe, where there isn't as much sunlight, so they're more pale.
Shit, look at your average black guy in the colder climates of America compared to someone from Africa. The American has much lighter skin, and his kids will have lighter skin than that.

>>10260387
>wh*toids rig IQ tests to favor their own race
>still get owned by asians and jews in every study
>b-but muh master race

>>10260391
They enslaved their own, so o don't see why they get to play the victims.
All the other stuff are also their fault.
If they don't wanna liver in povert or in toxic enviroments, they just have to do what every other civilization did amd harness science and engineering to make their lives better.

>>10260416
What about mutts?
What race are they?

>>10260421
I'm planning to make money off these right wing retard wh*tes that obsessed with IQ. I bet they'll pay me big bucks for their IQ. Just like 23 and me does. Dumb wh*toids hehe.

>>10260391
>you can't call us subhuman, we were always like that
Yeah, that's exactly what makes you the subhuman of today.
>>10260393
Dumb whites are the minority, while dumb blacks are the norm.
>>10260421
How is this an argument, ape? The difference between whites, asian and jews is minimal compared to shitskins.
>>10260441
Dumb monkey, no one is gonna pay you shit lmao.
>>10260416
>reace is only skin deep xD

>>10260441
There are already tons of professionals who will test your IQ.

>>10259636

Not those anons but how exactly does that make the previous statement untrue? He merely pointed out that African Americans and African Immigrants had two different views of what "success" means. They can still be considered the worst "educated" or have higher criminal records on average. Niether of these points either of you brought up inherently contradict each other.

At this point you sound so desperate to not admit Blacks can be successful and/or educated that you are now making blantant illogical inferences. Which is interesting considering you are also commenting on how the other side is illogical. From an outsider point of view dealing with this conversation you in particular sound foolish. This is assuming of course you merely aren't just a troll pulling out copypasta posts to gaslight other anons in wasting their time debating with someone who doesn't even care about the integrity of the debate or said subject matter.

Also don't bother replying, I'm not interested in your retorts or shit explainations troll or not. Here's your ((You)) too by the way.

>>10260376
The data clearly shows that these "socially constructed" races correspond to genetic clusters. Your quote doesn't contradict that

>>10260342
>Consider the following: is there any evidence that you could be presented with that could get you to reconsider your deeply held beliefs?
Why should I trust the word of a /pol/tard who has never gone out of their mom's basement when I am a successful black person, have successful black relatives, have been to Africa, have "gone to the areas they live in" and talked to people and witnessed that (at least where I have been) the safety level is much higher than the US (virtually no violent crime, some petty theft/pickpocketting) and that people are on the whole not so different from people you would see in Europe where I live. The culture is different, of course, but there is much less violence and less extreme poverty (there are no bums for example)
Why should I need to make the case that people are going to be mostly normal whatever their race and wherever they live ?

>>10260457
>>10260449
A goy and his money are easily parted.
>We wh*tes are smart!
>Look at this IQ test
I'm smarter

>>10260462
Arabs were considered white and Irish were considered brown a hundred or so years ago in America.
Now it's reversed because most Arabs are poor and Irish are rich.
A poor person is called non-white and a rich person is called white.

>>10260461
>African Americans and African Immigrants had two different views of what "success" means.
What's the point of comparing trash to shit? So what if one group is marginally better than the other, doesn't change the fact that they as a whole do more harm than good to society.
Also first-generation immigrants don't really count, even if they try to lead a "normal" life, chances are high that the following generations will not integrate well.
Also I live in Germany and even though none of the blacks here are "African-American" most still behave like hood-trash.
>At this point you sound so desperate to not admit Blacks can be successful and/or educated
There is no point in talking about exceptions. I know many black who are alright and who I've been friends since childhood, who live normal lives. But that's simply not the majority.

>>10260482
>Irish were considered brown a hundred or so years ago in America.
>in America
Literally who the fuck cares? Nobody in Europe would call Irish non-whites 100 years ago and neither would they call an arab white.

>>10260523
Europe thinks race isn't real. Nobody in Europe has segregation. Europe doesn't matter

>>10260517
Nigerian benefit American society by being highly educated and high IQ.
There's over 100k Nigerian immigrants with a college degree and high IQ serving America while you sit here and take credit for things you haven't done like be a kang

>>10260528
I think people are starting to change their mind.

>>10260540
A third of them were always racist.
Like a third of Americans are. It's simple.
But the other 70% aren't gonna let them for a while. But we'll see.
I'll leave Europe before that happens. Or maybe not. I don't mind dying by nazis.

>>10260538
They are not serving america, they are benefiting themselves from it.
They are capitalizing on the social capital, wealth and infrastructure that is non-existent in their country.
Also 100k nigerians is less than 0.5% of Nigeria's population. Nigeria has an average IQ of 85. So it's reasonable to assume that this tiny monirity is on the right end of the bell curve of their respective group.

>>10260517
>But that's simply not the majority.
Is it the majority of whites ?

>>10260554
>But the other 70% aren't gonna let them for a while
Merkel is doing her best to change their minds though. If mass deportions don't start in the next three years, the AFD will have good chances.
>>10260566
Yes. Most of us work and more importantly don't commit crimes. Europe would be a better place without muslims and africans even if we would lose the "good" ones.

>>10260566
>Is it the majority of whites ?
Just look at white societies.
They are often low crime reasonably wealthy, clean score high on the human development index and perfectly functional at the very least.

>>10260581
For now.
Prove that will be the case forever.

>>10260597
>Prove that will be the case forever.

>>10260581
What about rich Arab oil countries.
They're not white

>>10260610
Go there alone as a women.

>>10260580
>Yes. Most of us work and more importantly don't commit crimes. Europe would be a better place without muslims and africans even if we would lose the "good" ones.
And "most" black people commit crime or don't work ? What's most ?

>>10260581
Tell that to eastern Europe. Also, that was not always the case even a century ago (by which I mean that there is nothing intrinsic to "whiteness" in that state of affairs)

I'm not racist but

>>10260669
>Tell that to eastern Europe.
Eastern Europe is safer than most western countries.
>And "most" black people commit crime or don't work ?
Pretty much. Why would they work when they get 1000€ in benefits monthly? At most they sell drugs or do illicit work. Not all of course, but a sizeable amount.
If all germans would act like blacks/muslims this would be no differnt than a third-world shithole.

>>10260691
Everyone is racist, people should really stop denying that. It's natural.

>>10260701
I'm not a genocidal fascist but

>>10260649
Go to the US alone as a black LOL

>>10260693
>Pretty much. Why would they work when they get 1000€ in benefits monthly?
Why would the whites ? Again, if you are going to go down that road, you are going to need to back it up.
>a third-world shithole.
Spoken like a man who has never traveled to the third-world. Being personally from a muslim third-world shithole (Comoros islands) and having travelled there many times, I can tell you that there is literally zero violent crime there, better than any Western country can boast

>>10260610
Yes. But they are no a democracy.
They are a authoritatian regime, which seems to almost always be a requirement in order for a civilization with an Average IQ lower than 90 to thrive.

>>10260669
Eatern Europe was fucked by comunism but still, they have higher average IQ and higher HDI score than any black country as well as way lower crime.
Also there are certain characteristics of whites in particular that were key conponentes to the kind of civilization we were able to create, such as pioneerism, expqnsionism, Christianity, philosophy, etc.
So you might think this was a fluke, but the evidence says otherwise.

>>10260730
>But they are no a democracy.
Neither were the "white civilizations" for most of their existence (whose bounds remain to be delineated)

>pioneerism, expqnsionism, Christianity, philosophy, etc.
None of these are characteristics of whites (whatever that means on this timescale)

>>10260791
>Neither were the "white civilizations" for most of their existence (whose bounds remain to be delineated)
We call that evolution.
Whites also decided that slavery was wrong and imoral and therefore should be extinguished. No one else was willing or capable to accomplish that, other than whites.

And now that we are a democracy, every other race wants to live in white countries, instead of just adopting that same system on their own.
We were able to create the gold standard that no one else seems to be able to, but wants to benefit from.

>None of these are characteristics of whites (whatever that means on this timescale)
But they are. I mean, the pioneerism and expansionism carried out by whites resulted in the unique heavenly societies that we created, whereas when such things were carried out by others, the results were a far cry of what europeans were able to achieve.

Christianity is in fact a religion created by whites and many of the triumphs of the white civilization can be attributed to christianity.
The philosophy that was developed by whites gave birth to our political and justice system (which is also unique to us).

So basically, whites are the best thing that happened to this world.

>>10260831
>Whites also decided that slavery was wrong and imoral and therefore should be extinguished.
while enforcing forced free labor in their colonies or currently outsourcing their companies to enforce slavery-like practices in other "less morally regarding" societies. A uniquely white take on morals.

> unique heavenly societies
where family and societal ties are loosening, where abandoning elderly people to be abused in nursing homes is accepted practice, where homeless are left to die in the cold and not even given eye contact, where white people are trying to convince themselves of their self worth.

>Christianity is in fact a religion created by whites
Interesting, care to expand on that ? Are arabs and jews white now ?

>The philosophy that was developed by whites
The current justice system borrows heavily from the Roman system. Were the Romans white ? The Roman empire did include Northern Africa and extend to the Middle East at one point.
Same question with the Greeks and Turks

>>10260875
>while enforcing forced free labor in their colonies
Yes like everybody else, except that our superior morals said "enough" and we decided that no longer slavery was to take place in this world. So we abolished it and forced everyone else to do the same. Corrently we have relaxed our grip and there are slave markets arising in Africa. Seems like they have no empathy for their own people or any sense of moral.

>currently outsourcing their companies to enforce slavery-like practices in other "less morally regarding" societies. A uniquely white take on morals.
You mean the rootless transnational globalist elites? We can't really talk about them can we?? Otherwise we'll be called anti-semetic.
Also, 99% of the people being attacked for speaking against illegal workers in the US are whites, and are being attacked by non-whites for this. Same are the people who supports taking manufacturing out of China and back into the US. It's actually non-whites who speak against the tarifs imposed on chinese goods (you know, those made under slave-like practices).

>where family and societal ties are loosening, where abandoning elderly people to be abused in nursing homes is accepted practice, where homeless are left to die in the cold and not even given eye contact
Nihilism, destruction of family values, daycare generation, atheism and anti-christianity, single motherhood (the lack of empathy and other disfunctions that come with it). These are things that account for those and which were promoted in our societies by a very specific non-white group of people.

>Interesting, care to expand on that ? Are arabs and jews white now ?
Roman emcompased a great part of Europe. Pontius Pilate who condemned Jesus to be crucified is believed to be from Central Italy, he wasn't ashkenazi. He did it because he was pressured by jews though.

>The current justice system borrows heavily from the Roman system. Were the Romans white ?
See above.

>>10260875
>The Roman empire did include Northern Africa and extend to the Middle East at one point.
Have a look at Roman emperors. Most if not all were white europeans.
Also the capital was in Europe.

The mongolian empire also dominated parts of europe. Are we gonna call mongolians white now?

>>10260960
Are Greeks white? You call them white but idk

>>10260964
Yes. I'd say so.

>>10259593
Because their features are more extreme. Should be obvious. The same way the child of two black people will build muscle faster than the child of two asians, the same way a child of a black and a white person would build muscle faster than the child of a white and an asian. Add to that facial features, height, eyecolor, hair color, intellect and whatnot, and you have various distinct features that change based on the genetics provided. They are just not as strking as the difference between a german sheppard and a pitbul. But you could consider the german sheppard to be a jew, and the pitful to be a nigger. If you really want to, that is.

>>10260949
>we decided that no longer slavery was to take place in this world
on mainland soil maybe, but again, it never really disappeared from the colonies.
>So we abolished it and forced everyone else to do the same.
You mean you let the arabs go on with their business for a fee
> there are slave markets arising in Africa.
never weren't a thing

>You mean the rootless transnational globalist elites
It's a logical endpoint of capitalist "pioneerism and expansionism", the "white" values you were flaunting earlier (which also account for the slave trade).

>These are things that account for those and which were promoted in our societies by a very specific non-white group of people.
Now I'm intrigued, it seems like all of those were invented in Europe and the US no ? Aren't they also outcomes of "white" philosophy ?

>Roman emcompased a great part of Europe. Pontius Pilate who condemned Jesus to be crucified is believed to be from Central Italy, he wasn't ashkenazi. He did it because he was pressured by jews though.
But christianity started out as a Jewish sect. The apostles were jews. The first churches were in the Middle East and then spread through the Roman empire (which again was not solely composed of "whites")

>>10260960
>The mongolian empire also dominated parts of europe. Are we gonna call mongolians white now?
No, but if we reasoned like you do, we could call europeans of the time mongoloids

>>10261087
>on mainland soil maybe, but again, it never really disappeared from the colonies.
It did. 1866 in the US. There was even a war that divided the country, just so blacks didn't have to go through that anymore.

>You mean you let the arabs go on with their business for a fee
No, literally pressured them to stop. If they continue to do so, it's no sanctioned by whites.

>never weren't a thing
American education is cancer.

>It's a logical endpoint of capitalist "pioneerism and expansionism", the "white" values you were flaunting earlier (which also account for the slave trade).
No, it's not. You are basically ignoring what i said about who is trying to force the US to lenient with illegal workers and who is against the tarifs on China. It's not white people. White people in the US by and large are against illegal workers and in favor of the tarifs onto China.

>Now I'm intrigued, it seems like all of those were invented in Europe and the US no ? Aren't they also outcomes of "white" philosophy ?
No, they are the result of massive lobby and control of the media and entertainment. Who controls the media and entertainment in the US?

>But christianity started out as a Jewish sect.
But the catholic church is european.

>>10261098
I'm just following your reasoning.
You said the romans were arab and jews because their empire expanded into north africa and middle east.
By that logic mongolians should be white.

>>10261087
>But christianity started out as a Jewish sect. The apostles were jews. The first churches were in the Middle East and then spread through the Roman empire (which again was not solely composed of "whites")
You missed the point by several miles.
Christianity is not a jewish sect. It's not a jewish message much less a jewish creation. Christianity is God's message, it's God's teachings. Jesus ethnicity is irrelevant since he is the Son of God. His wisdom trancends race, or even humanity.
The point is that europeans were the ones who understood and embraced that message and took upon themselves to spread it throughout the world. Not jews, not arabs, but europeans.

>>10261087
>>10261176

>>10261176

>>10261137
>>10261137
>>on mainland soil maybe, but again, it never really disappeared from the colonies.
>It did. 1866 in the US. There was even a war that divided the country, just so blacks didn't have to go through that anymore.
I'm talking about colonies in Africa, where forced labor and physical abuse remained very much a thing even after, say France, or England formally made slavery illegal.

>No, literally pressured them to stop. If they continue to do so, it's no sanctioned by whites.
No, it continued to happen in certain places of East Africa with the blessing of England. The arab slave owners would transport gold along with the slaves and essentially pay a fee in gold in order to be able to keep going through Zanzibar with their slaves.

>American education is cancer.
Not American (or native speaker at all for that matter)

>No, it's not. You are basically ignoring what i said about who is trying to force the US to lenient with illegal workers and who is against the tarifs on China. It's not white people. White people in the US by and large are against illegal workers and in favor of the tarifs onto China.
Sure, but you cannot just look at the situation now and turn a blind eye on the fact that the whole system that we are currently in largely owes to American expansionism taking over throughout the 20th century. We owe our consumer society in its current form largely to the US.
(...)

>>10259786

Of course this Commie sneakily avoids the IQ issue and tries to disprove racial differences by cherry picking.

https://www1.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/Rushton-Jensen30years.pdf

>>10261137
(cont.)

>You said the romans were arab and jews because their empire expanded into north africa and middle east.
By that logic mongolians should be white.
That is not what I said, I said that you could not call them white, which is not the same thing. I meant that they were not just one homogeneous thing.
Similarly, one point of my posts was that "whites" are not one homogeneous hivemind. Free market capitalism, marxism, communism, anarchism and all sorts of other political movements emanated from "white" philosophy. Similarly european countries used to be pagan and many europeans are reclaiming their pagan heritage.

>But the catholic church is european.
And the ethiopian orthodox church is ethiopian, and older than the catholic church, your point being ?

>>10261176
Seems like a number of jews were the first to embrace it and were then massacred by the Romans. Then at one point a roman empire converted for political goals seeing that the wind had changed and things took a turn.
But I see your larger point.

>>10261237
>I'm talking about colonies in Africa, where forced labor and physical abuse remained very much a thing even after, say France, or England formally made slavery illegal.
So basically it remained the same as it always was.
>>10261237
>No, it continued to happen in certain places of East Africa with the blessing of England. The arab slave owners would transport gold along with the slaves and essentially pay a fee in gold in order to be able to keep going through Zanzibar with their slaves.
Slavery officially ended in 1970 after it was abolished in the last 3 countries that still had slavery (Saudi Arabia, Oma and Yemen), by pressure from the west. But if it continued unofficially in the arab world, that's their burden, not ours.

>Not American (or native speaker at all for that matter)
What i meant was that slave markets did exist. Africans themselves sold their own into slavery. Their kind of slavery was even more brutal than the one that originated from the atlantic slave trade. They had slaves with the purpose of being sacrificed. And to this day they have slavery. There are currently slave markets in Libia. So I don't see them as victims of slavery. They were in it along with everybody else.

>Sure, but you cannot just look at the situation now and turn a blind eye on the fact that the whole system that we are currently in largely owes to American expansionism taking over throughout the 20th century. We owe our consumer society in its current form largely to the US.
Ok, what expansionism? You mean the wars in the middle east? Do you really think that was done on behalf of America's interest? Have a look at a document called The Clean Break report. You'll see that the only one who benefited from it was Israel.

>>10261255
>That is not what I said, I said that you could not call them white, which is not the same thing. I meant that they were not just one homogeneous thing.
>Similarly, one point of my posts was that "whites" are not one homogeneous hivemind. Free market capitalism, marxism, communism, anarchism and all sorts of other political movements emanated from "white" philosophy. Similarly european countries used to be pagan and many europeans are reclaiming their pagan heritage.
Sure, but it was all centered around Europe. The Roman empire expanded outwards from Europe. Their rulers were European or of european descent. The enlightment that came from that, came from whites.

>Marixism, communism
Jewish creations.

>Similarly european countries used to be pagan and many europeans are reclaiming their pagan heritage.
Yes, they were pagans and then embraced christianity. Either way, these are all white countries who thrived on their own, by their own effort.

>>10261255
>Similarly, one point of my posts was that "whites" are not one homogeneous hivemind.
I wanna address this in particular.
Yes, whites are not a hivemind, yet white countries are the most prosperous civilizations on Earth, which lends more credibility to the innate potential of the white race.

>>10252600
This, particularly given that wards are being defined to allow one to reach a preferred answer.

>>10261252
Do you really think IQ is that important?

>>10261255
>And the ethiopian orthodox church is ethiopian, and older than the catholic church, your point being ?
The first catholic church was founded in Rome by Saint Peter. Also we are talking about who evangelised the world and made christian values mainstream.

>Seems like a number of jews were the first to embrace it and were then massacred by the Romans. Then at one point a roman empire converted for political goals seeing that the wind had changed and things took a turn.
But I see your larger point.
No, jews are the ones who made the bid for Pontious Pilate to kill Jesus.

>>10261307
>Saint Peter
Peter and Paul to be exact

>>10252583
Anyone denying race at this point is just fooling themselves.

>>10261305
it literally is the biggest predictor for success in life

>>10261274
>What i meant was that slave markets did exist
I did not claim otherwise
>Their kind of slavery was even more brutal than the one that originated from the atlantic slave trade. But the catholic church is european.
Citation needed. It is usually acknowledged to be something more akin to serfdom, basically working for your enemy for a certain amount of time to pay off a debt ("pawnship"). The working and living conditions were nothing like those of the US slaves.

>Ok, what expansionism?
I mean cultural and economic expansionism.

>>10261322
>But the catholic church is european.
copy-pasted the wrong thing, meant to write "They had slaves with the purpose of being sacrificed."

>>10261316
Yeah because a monkey with 50 IQ obviously can't live in human society. But for human beings, if you can drive a car you can get along fine in society, and most people can do that.

>>10261296
>the most prosperous civilizations on Earth
Again, it depends on your definition of prosperity. If the measure is, "looks like the US", then yes, certainly (although asians are catching up).

>>10261289
>these are all white countries who thrived on their own, by their own effort.
so were all other countries of the time, all over the world

>>10252663
Length, mass, charge, pressure, angular momentum, color, entropy are all not social constructs, fag. Learn the meaning of words.

>>10261332
I never claimed low iq people can't function in our society. The vast majority just won't be successful. They'll always stay poor. There might be a few exceptions but the average guy with an iq of 115 will earn much more then a group with an iq of 80.

>>10261322
>Citation needed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Africa

Also important to point out that the atlantic slavery trade was pretty humane comparing to the slaves that were sold to muslims. In America the slaves were taken care of when they got old, whereas in the muslim world they were castraded by literally have their genitals cut off.
Either way, these slaves were sold by Africans. Jews also sold slaves which is something that's never talked about.

>I mean cultural and economic expansionism.
That's completely voluntary. And that's not a "white" thing btw. Jews do it in a much worse manner by pushing their central banks into non-western countries. China is also doing that in Africa by lending them billions to build the infrastructure in their countries (Which the chinese will do it themselves with cheap african labor) and then, when the african country can't pay for the loan, China will just appropriate the infrastructure they build and have not only have a hold of, but also a monopoly in the African economy.

>>10261335
>Again, it depends on your definition of prosperity. If the measure is, "looks like the US", then yes, certainly (although asians are catching up).
I mean the kind of countries everybody wants to immigrate to.

>>10261335
>so were all other countries of the time, all over the world
Not africans and not native americans. After the industrial revolution, europe jumped way ahead of any other country.

>>10261395
replied to >>10261341

>>10252596
>we already had this thread

You mean we have several of these threads on the first page at any given time, right?

I didn't even blink at these threads being made a few years ago but this shit needs to be a bannable offense at this point going into the territory of signposting and spam by people who barely even post here.

>>10261390
>everybody wants to immigrate to.
Debatable. Again, you have a completely unrealistic view of the dynamics of migration. Many African people have no interest in going to Europe or the US. They would rather stay where they are and preserve their culture. Many subsaharan cultures are completely centered on preserving their traditions and becoming a recognized member of society. They have no interest in making money beyond what is necessary to survive.
The only people who do migrate do so because the living conditions are so bad that even that is not possible. If most Africans actually wanted to migrate to Europe or the US, the numbers would be orders of magnitude greater.

>That's completely voluntary. And that's not a "white" thing btw.
I realize that, and I have been saying it before (>>10260791)
> China is also doing that in Africa by lending them billions to build the infrastructure in their countries (Which the chinese will do it themselves with cheap african labor)
yup..
>in the muslim world they were castraded by literally have their genitals cut off.
never claimed otherwise, I am just reacting to the supposed superior white morals

>>10261461
>realize that, and I have been saying it before
What I meant that was unique about whites was the pioneeresm and expansionism that allow them to discover new trading routes and an entire new continent at a time when you didn't even have a combustion engine.
What I said that is not a white thing is entering other countries' economy and cornering the market.

>never claimed otherwise, I am just reacting to the supposed superior white morals
We ended slavery though, and we are the only poeple who are self-critical. Mongols have a picture of Genghis Khan in their currency and name airports after him. Muslims have several passages in their holy book about killing non-believers. Jews will attack civilians in the Gaza strip and are non-apologetically about it.
This is why whites are the most attacked and criticized group of people. We are the only ones who can entertain other people's grievances.

>>10261516
>We ended slavery though
What the fuck does this even mean when there are places that never had slavery or ended slavery sooner.

>>10261516
>Muslims have several passages in their holy book about killing non-believers.
“If your brother, the son of your mother, or your son or your daughter or the wife you embrace or your friend who is as your own soul entices you secretly, saying, ‘Let us go and serve other gods,’ which neither you nor your fathers have known, some of the gods of the peoples who are around you, whether near you or far off from you, from the one end of the earth to the other, you shall not yield to him or listen to him, nor shall your eye pity him, nor shall you spare him, nor shall you conceal him. But you shall kill him. Your hand shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterward the hand of all the people. You shall stone him to death with stones, because he sought to draw you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.

>>10261516
Andrew Jackson is on the 20 he was far worse than ghengis. Miss me with this Genghis guilt.

>>10260701
Nope. But by all means, keep using that as a scapegoat for the shitty person that you are.

>>10260387
95 IQ was the score of the average Chinese before WW2, and 70 was the IQ of the average Italian. Unless history forgot to record a 2001-tier monolith appearing in Bejing and Rome to upluft them, something tells me it's not about genetics in themselves.

>>10261549
Where?

>>10261584
What did he do that was far worse than pillaging and raping on a continental scale?

Also, what other race do you know that entertain the grievances of others and will go as far as to harm themselves to appease others?

>>10259278
Retards like this are great because they give "race is a social construct" all the ammunition they could ever need.
>Sub Saharan Africans: Sub Saharan Africans, Aboriginal Australians

>HURR DEY LOOK VAGUELY SIMILAR THEY MUST BE GENETICALLY SIMILAR TOO
Racists care about "science" only when it benefits their argument.