/sci/ - Science & Math

>>7402629
Are all of these people black?

>>7402653
What do you mean "black"? Are you referring to their skin colour?

>>7402660
race

>>7402629
The consensus is that race exists but we're all humans so it really doesn't matter and fuck you if you want to be racist and use science to justify it.

>>7402672
>but we're all humans so it really doesn't matter and fuck you if you want to be racist and use science to justify it.

see:
>I'm not really interested in opinions,

Let me break down the modern "progressive" university stance on race:
Race is a social construct
BUT
It's racist if you don't notice race and accept someone's heritage
AND
Everyone should be proud of their race
EXCEPT
It's racist for white people to be proud of their race
IN FACT
White people are evil simply be existing
AND
They're responsible for every bad thing any white person has ever done
BUT
Non-whites are never responsible for what they do and definitely not responsible for what other non-whites do
AND
Non-white crime is whitey's fault

There you go, modern academia's view on race. The world is fucking insane.

>>7402672
Also the idea of a single "species" is very fluid and what occurs in nature does not fit the black-and-white human-made definition of "species". In biology there are many different species concepts that are all equally in play that in some places contradict each other.

For example, a lion and a tiger are considered two different species, but under the biological species concept, where a species is identified as unique if it's capable of producing offspring with another of that species, then lions and tigers are one and the same species, since ligers exist.

It's all relative, every race of human is still human and deserves respect.

>>7402678
You asked what the consensus was.
That's it. Science has proven racism to be wrong.

>>7402692
Weasel words are retarded and studies have shown that you're a faggot.

>>7402694
>sociology studies

>>7402653
No, this is a mix of negroids, bushmen, habeshas, dravidians, australian aboriginals and melanesians.

>>7402679
White isn't a heritage. . .
Plenty of people are proud to be Italian, French, German, but just white? Idk it does seem racist.

>>7402692
>Science has proven racism to be wrong.
What do you mean by "racism"?

Science has proven the existence of biologically different races. Social sciences have noticed the existence of IQ differences between the social sciences.

>>7402688
>since ligers exist
I thought ligers can't reproduce.

>>7402704
>white? Idk it does seem racist.
If you want people to be specific, then I guess general Asian or Black pride is racist too, since there are plenty of different Asian or African countries.

>>7402704
>but just white?
Why not?

Most americans have lost their original identity. It makes perfect sense for them to have a new identity, "white".

Is it also racist for third generation asians to identify as "asian" despite having no connection with the motherland?

>>7402692
>racism is wrong
What does that mean? Do you mean all racist beliefs are morally wrong, or do you mean they're not based in science? Explain your argument for that claim.

>>7402629
This thread again...

Look, I know you don't wanna hear this, but there are species with far FAR more variance among their membership, but we still don't even classify any of the varieties as sub species. Genetically, humans are one of the least diverse higher mammals on the planet. Indeed, if we saw this lack of genetic diversity in any other species, we'd call it endangered by that uniformity (and have declared more diverse species exactly that - and, in at least one case, watched them go nearly extinct as a result of it - see the Tasmanian Devil).

At best, you have breeds - which is really just another word for race (breeds for animals, varieties for plants, races for people). White hamster, black hamster, till a fucking hamster. When it comes to humans, the only place where there's ANY room for debate on that is among the pygmies, and even there, not much.

Yes, I know niggers disgust you and you don't wanna admit you're part of the same species - I'm sorry, specie definitions do not work on "muh feels."

>>7402692
Science has proven racism
No it doesn't. Science doesn't prove anything. Only people do. It reminds me of the book I saw whereas the title said Science proves god wrong. I thought this was a tad dishonest if you ask me.

>>7402719
So you're saying you can't hate people if they're a part of the same species? What kind of retarded logic is that?

>>7402719
>Look, I know you don't wanna hear this
I thought I made it clear in the OP that I have no stake in the answer to the question. I only want to know the scientific consensus.

>>7402724
I hate you, so much.

>B-but we're all the same race
>All the same species!
>Muh melanin
You don't understand. People aren't racist because of skin color. People are racist because of BEHAVIOR.

>>7402629
we are all one race, the human race, race is just skin deep, race is a social construct all races are equal except the most evil and worst race the white race.

>>7402731
That was a nonsensical rant which detracts from the main discussion. You might as well scribbled the wall of crayons.

>>7402653
>>7402662
He never said "black" was a race.

I think it's a legitimate question: We apparently have no problem with classifying some animals as different races, even if they are genetically closer to each other than human ethnicities(?) are.
Not even talking about black/white/yellow here, but about diversity (such as >>7402653 ) in general.
Question: Is it racists to divide an ant species into different subspecies? By "human" standards yes, but who cares? They're fucking ants.

>>7402719
>Yes, I know niggers disgust you and you don't wanna admit you're part of the same species
Why do libs resort to those ridiculous strawmen?

Recognizing racial differences in average cognitive abilities does not translate to "hurr i hate niggers"

The science is this. Organisms which are very closely related tend to share a lot of traits.
People tend to treat those very closely related to them differently to those not so closely related to them.

Therefore, people tend to treat those with many/obviously different traits to them differently.

>>7402736
>You might as well scribbled
Nice grammar, retard.
And merely telling someone that their argument is "nonsensical" (while not addressing anything that they said) isn't a valid comeback.
Stay in school, kid.

>people too afraid to consider the existence of human sub-species
>HITLER
>NAZI
>DAS RACIS

>>7402730
Of course a progressive librul tumblrtard would be hateful.
>Muh diversity
>Muh white people are evil
>Muh progressive tolerance
>Muh hatred of anyone who doesn't agree with me on all the issues I've been brainwashed on

>>7402711
That's what I'm saying celebrating whiteness as a heritage is good and should be encouraged. It's that celebrating whiteness as a race which seems racist.

>>7402746
Hitler did nothing wrong

>>7402726
Please, /pol/ makes this same post three times a day - you're even using the same standard image used there.

>>7402738
It's not a matter of being perceived as racist. It's a matter of being scientifically accurate. The taxonomical laws were setup in the early 18th century - LONG before ANYONE worried about being called "racist" (hell, some folks were pretty much using niggers as guinea pigs at the time). And there are no species as genetically close together as we are, among the mammals, that we refer to as subspecies.

There's no major morphological differences (inb4 nigger-skull - that's still less than 1% difference), and you can interbreed. You're the same species, deal with it.

See these two dogs? Same fucking species. Not even a subspecies apart - they are just different breeds, different races. That's how this shit works, I'm sorry.

>>7402751
>It's that celebrating whiteness as a race which seems racist.
Oh come on, stop with the doublethink. It's painfully obvious that there is more in common between a german and a swede than between a german and a nigerian. There's not point in pretending the contrary.

>>7402754
>See these two dogs? Same fucking species. Not even a subspecies apart - they are just different breeds, different races. That's how this shit works, I'm sorry.
Stop strawmanning so hard. Nobody is denying that the different races of mankind are different species. Nobody.

I'm curious though, you've admitted that human races are akin to dog breeds. Do you believe that all dog breeds are equal in physical and intellectual capabilities?

I demand /pol/ be declared a lesser subspecies. Clearly science hasn't done this simply out of societal pressure generated by Jews, bidding for the extinction of the white man.

>>7402768
>Nobody is denying that the different races of mankind are different species
Kek fucked up
are the same species*

>>7402719
>When it comes to humans, the only place where there's ANY room for debate on that is among the pygmies, and even there, not much.

could you elaborate? I find this interesting. and what about Australian aborigines?

>>7402768
No, nor do I believe human races are - but they're a hell of a lot closer than our varieties of dog breeds - and if we can make all the dogs work for us, we can make all the niggers work for us. Just stop feeding them rap music.

>>7402754
>/pol/
I don't go to that fucking shit hole, friend. I'm a cuck who believes in equality.

>>7402777
>No,
So you think that a great dane has the same physical capabilities as a chihuahua?

>>7402764
No shit it's also superficial.
And if basic bitches wanna celebrate superficial shit like race over their heritage, culture, and history the degenerates can have at it.

>>7402751
But we only have one race anon.

>>7402785
No, as in "No,I don't believe dog breeds are equally capable of every task, nor do I believe humans are." yadda yadda.

>>7402629
The consensus 70 years ago was different from the consensus today.

Conclusion: consensus means jackshit, and whatever the consensus scientists have on anything should generally be not taken seriously

>>7402787
>And if basic bitches wanna celebrate superficial shit like race over their heritage, culture, and history
Race, heritage culture and history are all intertwined.

>>7402790
Oh ok.

Then you're an ideologue. You concede that humans differ in average intellectual capabilities yet cling to the ideal that "we can make it work for us".

Why such blind ideology?

>What's the scientific consensus
OP is a what

>>7402796
Why would it be hard to do this? Retards work at McDonalds, and they do a great fucking job selling those fucking burgers - I'm glad they do it too cause it would be sad if someone smarter had to do it.
The shitty part is we haven't figured out how to really tell who's smart and who isn't and how to lift the smart people out of their circumstances before it fucks them up mentally to the point where they're useless anyways - however if we did figure that out then you'd probably have to work at McDonalds so I guess this system works for you.

>>7402774
Genetically, I regret to inform you, the aborigines are well within our species.

The only reason there's any debate about the pygmies, is because there's both archaeological and genetic evidence to suggest they were separated off and isolated from the Homo floresiensis->homo sapien branch and took a different route - but due to intermixing, it's a very fuzzy line, and a very debated one. Nonetheless, they seem to integrate into society just fine - better than some, to be sure.

>>7402795
No, 70 years ago, even 170 years ago, they were still considered of the same taxonomy. The consensus has not changed. Taxonological definitions of species, even with the advent of genetics, really haven't changed all that much in the past two centuries. Same rules apply now as applied then.

>>7402808
>Why would it be hard to do this? Retards work at McDonalds, and they do a great fucking job selling those fucking burgers - I'm glad they do it too cause it would be sad if someone smarter had to do it.
In case you hadn't noticed, the economy is shifting towards higher skilled jobs, and the number of low skilled jobs is rapidly shrinking. Perhaps encouraging the stupid to immigrate here or helping them reproduce via welfare isn't the best long term strategy.

>The shitty part is we haven't figured out how to really tell who's smart and who isn't
Intelligence tests such as IQ tests give you a good idea of a person's intelligence.

>and how to lift the smart people out of their circumstances before it fucks them up mentally to the point where they're useless anyways
A smart person will always figure out a way. Remember that IQ is the best predicator for professionel success, not the socioeconomic background of one's parents.

>however if we did figure that out then you'd probably have to work at McDonalds so I guess this system works for you.
Why do you resort to such childish insults? Perhaps I should have prefaced my posts with trigger warnings as to not offend sensitive redditors such as yourself.

>>7402796
We will always have a use for Deltas... But even they only make up a fraction of the genetic pool you're speaking of. And nearly every race has some advantage over another, it's just a matter of in what.

Yes, there's some variance in the IQ curves, but you'll notice there's also a fuckload of overlap. Besides, if we were going to wipe out races based on IQ alone, the white race would be among the first three to go. So, unless you're Asian or Jewish (and a specific phenotype there of at that), I'd stop advocating that as your
genocide line.

Not that any of it matters. Unless there's some major dark age in transportation technology, sooner or later, we're all going to be Filipino.

>>7402837
Well that, and huge swaths of human genetic engineering is right around the corner... Race is going to be a thing of the past - it's going to be all about brand.

At which time, you'll just have to hope your parents can afford genes tailored by Jordash.

>>7402844
>mfw i realize sjws will get their children to be handicapped gay mtf negros for brownie points

>>7402864
>that pic
hello /pol/

>>7402876
does /pol/ use that pic? i have more of them

how accurate is this image?

I guess it's worth noting I got it from /pol/

>>7402887
Mozabite Berbers are too to the left.

Other than that, looks fine.

>>7402887
>no source
into the trash automatically

>>7402719
>there are species with far FAR more variance among their membership, but we still don't even classify any of the varieties as sub species.
...and there are species with considerably less variance, and we classify the variants as subspecies.

"Subspecies" has a particular meaning. It means interfertile groups separated, and prevented from mating, by geographical barriers.

If the groups remain distinct after the geographical barrier is removed, even purely by behavior rather than physical interfertility, then you're talking about different species.

Wolves and coyotes, for instance, can have fertile offspring, but they don't usually choose to mate, so they sustain distinct populations over many generations of living in the same habitat and are considered separate species, even though there are always some hybrids running around.

>>7402955
So one day, niggers and white americans could be legitimately classified different species?

>>7402752
Yeah! And even if he did commit the atrocities associated with the so called Holocaust, who cares about the Jews anyways!

Amirite?

>notice:
This post is not to be taken seriously.

>>7402955
>...and there are species with considerably less variance, and we classify the variants as subspecies.
Name one that's a mammal.

>Wolves and coyotes
Canidae Canis C. latrans and Canidae Canis C. lupus have an average 23% morphological difference. Ain't no two human haplogroups on the planet that have anywhere near that - we max at 1%.

>So one day, niggers and white americans could be legitimately classified different species?
If you put them on an isolated island and leave them there for a few million years, maybe. But like >>7402844 says, we'll all be genetically engineered beyond recognition well before then.

>>7402974
>>notice:
>This post is not to be taken seriously.
You're too scared to even make this joke anonymously. Fuck this gay Earth.

>>7402961
There are lots of ways that drawing the lines between species is difficult. In humans, there are unique difficulties, like culture and law.

Ultimately, labels are a matter of taste and convention, rather than objective truth. A person who is shocked and appalled at the idea of labelling the different races as different species is speaking as an anti-racist, not as a scientist.

"Species" used to mean nothing more than "specific kind". I'm not sure how it got to have so much baggage. The races are obvious all interfertile and inclined to interbreed to a certain extent, but there are also obvious differences and a certain amount of reticence towards interbreeding.

Anyway, I don't think it's likely for people of different races to live together for many generations as distinct populations. Mixing happens.

A continuum of wolf, wolf-wolf-coyote, wolf-coyote, wolf-coyote-coyote, and coyote isn't a distinct population of wolves and coyotes with a few hybrids running around. Come back in a thousand years, and while you're likely to find white people and black people, I don't think you'll find a population cleanly divided between them.

>>7402974
>>notice:
>This post is not to be taken seriously.
I still reported you for racism, antisemitism and hate speech. I also contacted the splc and the adl.

4chan is a safe space, and triggering posts are not allowed here.

>>7403024

>>7403018
No, there are very specific scientific rules for what constitute a separate species, it's not just "a different kind" and culture and behavior have no bearing on the subject. You'd have to go back to the ancient greeks before you got a definition that loose. Taxonomy is not a fucking guessing game. None of the human races come anywhere near qualifying as separate species. Genetically and morphologically, we're so damned uniform and so interbred, compared to nearly every other mammalian species on the planet, that even defining breed (race) becomes difficult.

I'm not saying, mind you, that there's no such thing as race, and there aren't racial differences, advantages and disadvantages - but they are far too subtle, compared to every other species of our complexity, to be defined as separate species, by any stretch of the definition. Breed is even stretching it, when it comes to individuals, as there's so much blur in the spectrum. The best you can do is find genetic markers, and almost every individual will have a whole host of said.

It isn't that science isn't acknowledging the differences. Hell, there's whole industries built around ironing out the particulars of those differences. Custom pharmaceuticals, based on racial haplogroups, is a huge thing! But the term 'species' simply isn't nearly as flexible as you want it to be.

>>7403056
>it's not just "a different kind"
"a specific kind"

This is the ordinary, rather than technical, meaning of "species". It has gone out of fashion, but is common in older books and is still occasionally used.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/species
" 1. a class of individuals having some common characteristics or qualities; distinct sort or kind."
"2. Biology. the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus ..."

>You'd have to go back to the ancient greeks before you got a definition that loose.
You have no sense of perspective on this.

>there are very specific scientific rules for what constitute a separate species
Different rules for different areas of work. Remember, not all species even reproduce sexually.

>culture and behavior have no bearing on the subject.
Behavior is certainly used to define species for some cases. Culture is a reason why you might need different rules for intelligent beings.

>>7403139
Plenty of subspecies can interbreed, the scientific definition allows for this, yes, but there must also be significant morphological differences, and almost no higher species shows the level of uniformity found in our own, especially between continents. Again, when we see this level of uniformity in any other species, we considered it endangered from genetic collapse.

>Culture is a reason why you might need different rules for intelligent beings.
Then you aren't in taxonomy anymore - you're into psychology and sociology.
>Different rules for different areas of work
Exactly.

We're talking about the /sci/entific, taxological, definition of "species", not the fucking dictionary definition - which can apply to cars, FFS.

>>7403174
>Plenty of subspecies can interbreed, the scientific definition allows for this, yes
ALL subspecies of the same species can interbreed. The scientific definition REQUIRES this. If they can't (or won't) interbreed, they're separate species, not subspecies.

>there must also be significant morphological differences, and almost no higher species shows the level of uniformity found in our own
Are you literally blind, or just blinded by ideology?

>when we see this level of uniformity in any other species, we considered it endangered from genetic collapse.
This is over-the-top absurd idiocy.

>>Culture is a reason why you might need different rules for intelligent beings.
>Then you aren't in taxonomy anymore - you're into psychology and sociology.
I'd say, "Don't be fucking stupid." but you've already demonstrated that you're just going to, and keep on doing it. Never mind, I'm done.

>>7403201
The physical differences you are alluding to are much more prominent in other species, and even other breeds. When you physically measure them, across a human haplogroup, they always come to less than 1% compared to any other so averaged. The differences *seem* more extreme, because we are very particular about facial identification. Similarly, some animals that seem identical to us, will refuse to interbreed, due to slight variations in what they use in identification - yet be fine breeding with another member of the same species of an entirely different color, or the like. Traditionally, among mammals, there must be at least a 10% difference before you declare a new subspecies. Birds are a bit different, but speciation works different with them, as they are largely edge on genetic incompatibility, but aside from that, you're into plants, insects, and microbes, before you require less.

...and no, subspecies don't have to be able to interbreed, this is why we have this thing called "circular species", where two subspecies can interbreed, but a third cannot, or can only create breeding offspring with one of the other two, and so forth. Granted, this usually only occurs among birds and amphibians.

And yes, we literally declare species more genetically diverse than us endangered from genetic collapse, on a regular basis - and sometimes we're right. Again, Tasmanian Devil being a prime example. There's so little genetic diversity among us that we could easily all be wiped out by a single virus. Very few species of mammals have such narrow diversity as to be so endangered.

I'm sorry this shit doesn't work the way you want it to, but them's the brakes kiddo. From a human sociological perspective, that nigger and you maybe very different. From a biological perspective, less so, but still quite a bit different. But from something so macrocosmic as a taxonomical perspective, you're exactly the same - the brushes on that particular comb are pretty damned wide.

Most scientist consider the races to be subspecies. If the separation between them would have continued for say, another 100,000 years, they would probably not interbreed. They would be too different to produce a hybrid, and therefore be different species.

It's difficult to say the exact amount, or nature of the differences accumulated. Science is wary of prosuing this out of fear for being called racist.

>>7402822
Kinda hard to do good on an IQ test if your dad beat the shit out of you every day and you have ptsd from it so you're getting flashbacks when you take test... Also probably being hungry as fuck doesn't help either.
Sorry (not that sorry) for the insult, I actually didn't mean to end the post like that it just turned out to be such a nice set up I couldn't resist.
I appreciate that you actually addressed my points, I just feel like you're basing your whole argument on the IQ test thing - and its kind of hard to see how far you want to take it. If we decided here that niggers really are a different species, would that mean that we shouldn't be nice to them? Would it mean that we should fuck them around more via more ghettos and paying them less (even if they're doing the same job etc)?
I mean even if they're average IQ is lower and and they are to be considered a different species - does that really change anything? Does that mean we should not allow them to do more mentally demanding jobs, because statistics show that they're more likely to be bad at it? Or should we actually just start doing what we have said we were doing for years now - best man for the job gets the job? That way if they really are dumber they just won't get the jobs.

Basically what I'm saying is I get where you're coming from with your argument but I don't see where you're headed with it. I don't think classifying them as a different species would actually accomplish anything - most likely if the studies about IQ scores are accurate (which for some reason I doubt, but whatever, moving on) then actually giving them equal rights would solve the problems you seem to be concerned about (if I'm guessing correctly about what you're concerned about)

>>7403635
>Most scientist consider the races to be subspecies.
[citation needed]

Thanks fellas

I don't go to uni but from I've read on /pol/ and other non-sjw sources is that any scientist who tells fhet truth about races (there is objective differences between races) gets fired and that they act as if black race is the best race

>>7402704
>white isn't a heritage
Then neither is black. There is no such thing as 'black culture', nor is there such a thing as 'white culture'. Culture comes from many individual groups, not entire races. You can't say racial culture exists when the culture has nothing to do with race (and each race has different ethnicities and therefore cultures). Ask any idiot who says "I have racial identity because muh cultural heritage" where, specifically, their culture is actually from (tribe, nation, etc.). Chances are they will be unable to tell you.

>>7402704
There's that thing called western civilization, based primary on greek philosophy and roman laws, plus the whole development of sciences and culture that took place in Europe in the last millenia. This is commonly referred to as white heritage, since all the nations considered "white" now took part in it. Moreover, selecting "just French" or "just German" contribution from it would be rather difficult.

>>7403897
False. People like Pinker aren't ostracized by the scientific community. The geneticists who work on such questions and conduct research are still funded.

The example /pol/ says all the time is Watson. Dr. Watson didn't just go "there's a difference in average IQ between population X and Y based on genetics...". He said that he didn't even think black people were capable of doing jobs.

I respect the guy completely, but that's retarded from anybody other than a blatantly racist organization to say and expect there to be no repercussions.

last post on page 10 bump

>>7402629
There is no such thing as race. It is a social convention invented by tribalism in the human species, which is our tendency to separate based upon common features.

All "stereotypes" we assign to race are just that. Stereotypes. The closest we have to understanding a "race" is that Caucasians and Northern Africans interbred with neanderthals, and we think sub-saharan Africans may not have.

It's irrational to think otherwise, since there are intelligent and affluent black people and white people who go full trailer trash. Intellectual potential differs between individuals. The only reason you give so much attention to skin color is because it's such an obvious, superficial cue to someone who doesn't study genetics, far more so than any of the genes that would actually determine neurobiological growth.

>>7402629
I'll just leave this here.

>>7403897
Racist studies are irrelevant because they will always end up with Asians being the superior race. And white people quickly sweep that under the rug and go
>LOOK, BLACK IQ SCORES ARE LOW, LOOK

While ignoring the fact their IQ scores are lower than Asians.

Why can't we just be honest?

Pic strongly related.

>>7405818
>lying
>not admitting you look at the big black girl asses and lips sometimes

>>7403897

First of all /pol/ and most likely your non-sjw sources do not end with .edu or .gov which means they are not nor never will be held accountable for telling the "truth" about anything. Just because one use's citations in their post does not mean they are placed in the proper context. That's the kind of shit some politicians and protesters have been doing for years. Hoping those who listen to them are lazy enough to just take their word on the issue.

Second, we can spoon feed you all the information you like, but if you do not take the time out of your day to properly research this matter yourself you will never get to fully "understand" the truth.

Which is important because there is a difference better knowing the truth and understanding the truth. It's the kind of shit you see with people who are supposedly good with math but can't actually apply it outside a exam or pocket book.

>>7403897
Theoretically "black" is the best race.
Most adapted to survive in warm, tropical climates and still fine in the cold due to clothing. They also don't get sunburned as easily.

>>7405915

nigger detected

>>7405915
>best race
best as mud hut hunter gatherers near the equator, maybe
but guess what, modern humans have evolved past that
>still fine in the cold due to clothing
name one completely black civilization in a winter environment

>>7405929

Lesotho.

>>7405915
Truly, the best race when it comes to not having vitamin A, and living with malaria.

>>7405929

OK, now that I've had time to think about it, I can't really claim that Lesotho is a civilization. I retract >>7405935

Goats for you, sir.

>>7405946
How the fuck did you get pictures from thousands of years ago?

>>7405946
You do realize they keep the huts because of tourism and culture right?
If I wanted to cherrypick I could choose a log cabin now and say that's how far our architecture has progressed.

>>7405956
I use dank pop-sci sources

>>7405969
The point is they built nothing great while the rest of the world was developing and despite their "superior" genes

>inb4 Ethiopia > Italy

>>7405915
They are probably one of the best in living in tribal conditions in africa. Other than that, look at africa and look at the west. Whites are clearly superior.
>inb4 muh black slavery
Yeah, we dominated the blacks through sheer technological dominance.

>>7405956

The answer is they didn't, these pictures are taken well after their final state of construction and the anon along the creator of the pic is ignorant of the fact that the one of largest man made structures in the world the Walls of Benin existed in Nigeria.

The British documented this fact before they destroyed it and UNESCO put it in it's world heritage archives.

>>7405992
I'd ask if you were an architect and what buildings you've made but that'd only tell me why you've got a hard on for buildings.

>>7406029
The way you build arguments illogically tells me you must be an engineer.

>would rather get hard on for buildings opposed to other men

>>7405935
>Lesotho
..... wut

"Because of its altitude, Lesotho remains cooler throughout the year than other regions at the same latitude. Most of the rain falls as summer thunderstorms. Maseru and surrounding lowlands often reach 30 °C (86 °F) in summer. Winters can be cold with the lowlands getting down to −7 °C (19 °F) and the highlands to −18 °C (0 °F) at times. Snow is common in the highlands between May and September; the higher peaks can experience snowfalls year-round."

-18 C is not even winter.
-canadian.

>>7406050
6144004 is the best

>>7405819
Hello subhuman, how are you ?

>>7405744
Asians have a lower deviation.
It's not for nothing they are underperforming.

They are like women in this pic, except on the right on the male bell.
The ratio wouldn't look wildly different.

I suggest to all of you to save up your resources, and have a lot of boys when artificial wombs are finally disponible.

>>7403907
In the United States black culture exists precisely because multiple different ethnicities were lumped into the same group of "black people". They have a common struggle that gives them something to unite under and be proud of.

Now consider what unites white people, and what they stand to have pride in. I can't think of anything. Maybe there can be Italian/Irish/German/etc pride because those groups have particular shared struggles and triumphs, but I don't see these groups having any similarities due to being white.

>>7402739
It just translates to retardation

>>7402764
I'll give you a hint: It's not their white skin.

>>7406209
What? Can't think of anything white people have to be proud of/take pride in?

You know you're on the science board and white people invented science, right?

>>7406221
Science isn't exclusive to white people either now or historically.

>>7406221
Science isn't exclusive to white people either now or historically. Also you're most likely wrong. The scientific method was refined during the golden age of Islam

>>7406226
>not giving credit to based Aristotle
Anon plz.

>>7406209
Yup, white people never produced anything of value. Never.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wifkfYj4TLE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9tcg1VfKPs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ww4JHkloa8
http://www.online-literature.com/cervantes/don_quixote/59/

>>7406228
There's a huge difference between being proud of a white person, and being proud of someone because they are white. Black people who deal with daily racism can at least share that exclusive struggle and be proud of that. There's not really a unifying struggle or achievement due to a group's whiteness, unless you count the KKK and other racist groups.

>>7406227
Aristotle didn't invent the scientific method. At best he was the first to be RECORDED to promote empirical evidence for supporting claims.

>>7406239
K.

Look if you want to ignore the overwhelming contribution to modern science stemming from Europeans that's fine.

>>7406242
Only if you want to ignore the contribution from the Shitskins and Chinks.

>>7406246
They didn't do nothing, but the lion's share I think has to be admitted European.

At any rate, if you're the guy saying white people have nothing to be proud of but blacks can be proud because their ancestors were slaves together, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

>>7406226
Arabian world played a great role in preserving greek culture when Europe was still barbaric, but it didn't go far beyond that. And scientific method was not refined until the XVIII century at least.

>>7406248
I'm not saying white people have nothing to be proud of. I just can't think of anything to be proud of that ties directly to being white. Blacks can be proud of their skin color because they, even in today's society, face a lot of discrimination and other struggles that is explicitly due to their skin color.

>>7406236
>There's not really a unifying struggle or achievement due to a group's whiteness
That's an achievment of the humanity as a whole. Science, technology, space exploration and all that. In this sense "white" equals "the best of humanity", because so far the white people were there. It has nothing to do with actual whiteness, of course, and I guess that attiture is what these "anti-racists" are fignting against. Because the feels of those who realise it was not their ancestors who achieved greatness are hurt, and in the modern world muh feels is everything.

>>7406253
>Blacks can be proud of their skin color because they, even in today's society, face a lot of discrimination and other struggles that is explicitly due to their skin color.
I don't really see how people shitting on you can be considered a source of pride.
Perhaps in the courage you show in the face of it, you could take pride but.. That people treat you like shit is not in itself something I would consider earns you respect or praise.

>>7406236
>Racism
>exclusive to blacks
Wow, you actually don't realize that there's a whole world that exists outside the U.S.

Actually, that's not even right because there are other groups that are heavily discriminated against within the U.S.. You're just a self-centered fuck.

And yes, white people can be proud of art, music and literature made by other white people because its a cultural artifact of their people in the same way that African dancing, clothing and music are symbols of Afrocentrism and black pride.

>>7406258
I think the courage is where the pride comes from. One of my good friends is black, and often if I'm with him and we pass a black dude on the street or whatever, they will nod at each other, even though they are complete strangers. It's like acknowledging that they have some common struggle. I can't imagine doing the same with a white stranger because there isn't anything about being white that makes me feel connected to that person.

>>7406259
I said in >>7406209 that I was talking about the US alone because black culture is only really a thing in the US as far as I am aware. Elsewhere, ethnicity dominates.

I also don't know why you suggest that I am excluding any other kinds of racism. I'm talking about the credibility of black pride versus that of white pride.

>And yes, white people can be proud of art, music and literature made by other white people because its a cultural artifact of their people in the same way that African dancing, clothing and music are symbols of Afrocentrism and black pride.

Those are wonderful examples of ethnic pride, not racial pride.

>>7406260
So say you that white people are bereft of courage? Or is it that they are without struggles?

>>7406269
I feel like I am repeating myself, but here it goes. White people, as a population, have not been oppressed in the US due to their skin color. There is no courage to be had. That doesn't mean that they aren't courageous, it means they don't need courage to be white.

>>7406272
So the only thing that one can be proud for is to be of an courageous oppressed minority?

Somehow I don't think that is specified in the definition.

>>7406275
It's just particulars here, no generalization. Black pride is valid because there is a uniting struggle among black people. Ethnicity is not the only thing that can unite people to create a sense of group pride. However, I don't see the same thing for white people in the US. There is no common, unifying feature of being white that could reasonably give the group a sense of pride.

>>7406284
What about 'founding the richest and most powerful country in the world'?

>>7402974
Pussy

>>7406285
Did they found the country because they were white?

>>7406293
I think a possibly more pertinent question would be 'would it have been the richest most powerful country in the world if they weren't white'

>>7406248
> the lion's share I think has to be admitted European.
I guess if you want to ignore modern archaeological findings and go by the biased histories written before the 20s.

>>7406296
Pretty much impossible to speculate, but if I were to guess, probably not, due to racism of Europeans. You need to have allies in order to be rich and powerful. You also have to not be enslaved.

How does that create white pride anyway?

>>7406308
>how does a bunch of white people doing cool stuff create white pride
Gee I don't know
Please tell me about how everyone else is allowed to be proud because they're not as great.

>>7406314
Those accomplishments have nothing to do with being white. Not sure why someone would be proud of having the same skin color as Benjamin Franklin.

>>7406319
>Those accomplishments have nothing to do with being white.
[citation needed]
>Not sure why someone would be proud of having the same skin color as Benjamin Franklin.
And I'm not sure why someone would be proud of having the same skin colour as someone shipped to the US on a slaveboat.

>>7406323
>[citation needed]
Last I checked they didn't develop the scientific method or found America because they just love being white.

>And I'm not sure why someone would be proud of having the same skin colour as someone shipped to the US on a slaveboat.
In order to be successful as a black person in the US, you have to put up with a lot more shit than white people. It's not that hard to understand.

>>7406330
>In order to be successful as a black person in the US, you have to put up with a lot more shit than white people.
At least they don't have to be put up with being harangued for showing any kind of pride or comradery with those like themselves :(

>>7406336
this thread XD

>>7406336
You are nothing like me you inbred whitetrash scum.

>>7406340
Lel selfhating cuck.

>>7406330
>In order to be successful as a black person in the US, you have to put up with a lot more shit than white people. It's not that hard to understand.
So you are to be proud because of the level you started from, not because of the way you came? Because as far as I know, most blacks in USA live in poor and criminal-ridden neighbourhoods. That's not something to condemn, but nothing to be proud of either. Otherwise you'd need to say that the external threat, and only that, justifies appearance of the group identity. And then it woluld be down to "blacks vs whites"- oh wait, it actually is. But it's as far from eliminating racism as one can get, because it's only reinforcing blacks' group identity, and through black aggression the whites' group identity.

>>7406355
Don't bother with him man he's too burdened by white guilt to think straight.

>>7406358
Have fun jacking off to your supposed relation with actual great people who also happen to be white.

>>7406361
Have fun with your self flagellation.

>>7402629

Science has proven that races are real, we just dont cal them races because of political correctness and also because they do not always correlate perfectly with classical ideas about race, although they do correlate a lot

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_genetic_clustering

These genetic clusters also correlate with differences in intelligence and crime, however it is still not certain whether this is mainly due to genetics or environment, it is hard to isolate these factors

>>7402710
Well, "black" heritage is mostly a thing of African-American of colonised African, so it's mostly a consequence of colonialism and a reaction against it. It has little place in racism-free world (which is not our world, I know).

And "Asian" heritage...well, tif you're talking about cultural heritage, that's vague as fuck but fair enough. If we're talking about racial origins, it's mostly a thing for American whose parents or grandparents were born in Asia. It's covertly racist, but ultimately still racist.

The American debate on race is pretty hysterical, tbh (just look at this thread). People clearly haven't moved past that, despite what they may claim.

>>7406361
My "supposed heritage" with them is that I inherited their culture, by means of imbiding it. Anyone who does I would consider white, anyone who does not, and goes on about his black/indian/whatever else heritage while being an uncultured barbarian, I would not. It has nothing to do with a skin color, as I pointed out above. This also should be the main narrative of any person who want to overcome racism (as a bias against people of different race or skin colour, which is in fact wrong). But it's easier to whine about evil evil whites and good good blacks who are so oppressed, as if it would solve anything. It wouldn't.

>>7402629
While there is regional variations in genetics, there aren't any clear boundaries that would allow you to spit up the human race into meaningful categories.
"Races" of people are culturally defined, and not us full or even interesting to talk about (unless you're interested in sociology rather than biology).