/sci/ - Science & Math

how educated were you when you realied diversity is good? not yet? ok nice >>>/pol/ faggot

>>8717300
>diversity is good

How old were you when you realized you were brainwashed by liberal propaganda?

By complete coincidence diversity was widely publicized as desirable right after Western nations began letting in millions of non-whites to fill menial jobs and didn't want the white working class revolting against this sudden alien influx.

Other non-Western countries have not felt the need to follow this trend. I wonder why?

>>8717300
diversity is about profits

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKDeyuM0-Og

>>8717511
Diversity is about keeping people productive.

>>8717297
Genetic diversity is not what progressives mean when they say diversity. It is barely even related.

That said, nice meme thread. I bet that if this was posted in /pol/ then no one would even point out what I said before and would actually just believe you.

Too bad you posted this in a board that is 5 IQ points too smart to fall for this bullshit. Now, it's time for you to go back.

>>8717529
It also gives the lower classes an obvious scapegoat to distract them from the top 1%

>>8717539
>It is barely even related.

>Ethnicity is not related to race is not related to genetics.

Nice try /sci/tard

>>8717313
>Someone told me "diversity is good" without telling me why and I didn't want to bother thinking of the answer on my own because thinking is hard
What's it like being a blue pilled sheep? Believing anything someone tells you that sounds contrarian and dismissing everything mainstream.

>"overspecialize and you breed weakness"
My favorite quote from GITS. When the major is explaining why she wanted a weak, non-cyberized, family first, average IQ, average joe person on her team of high tech cyborg swat/hackers she says that line. Basically she's pointing out that we're all fallible. Everyone is capable of making mistakes. If we were ALL the same, then when one person made a mistake, we'd all made the same identical mistake. While you may think a simple small mistake isn't consequential, a large mistake made by 100% of the population is an extinction level event. Just look at the modern day banana (which is about to go extinct) and it's preprocessor the Gros Michel banana. (which doesn't exist anymore) This problem isn't limited to DNA diversity. It extends to cultural diversity as well.

>>8717551
Genetic diversity is having mixed genes.

Political diversity is having people of different races/sexualities/gender in every place. In every company, in every institution, in every club, in every club, etc.

Diversity is not about grabbing white people and jamming our cum inside of them so that they come with beautiful multi racial babies. Diversity is about putting more black people in the same spaces that white people tend to occupy.

>>8717557
not even in this but your anime quotation and banana analogy is laughable. cultural diversity is a social phenomena and has no real connection to genetic diversity beyond the realm of conveniently constructed metaphors

>>8717300
Biodiversity is good, anon. Ethnic diversity is a globalist conspiracy.

>>8717297
Wow nice science and math related thread! totally not political at all!!!

>>8717578
It's about genetics

>>8717297
I've studied enough ecologogical evolution to know that isn't true at all. Not that Eco-evo is required, anyone proficient in even high school biology would be able to tell that what you just is completely retarded.

Isolated populations are how you regress genetically.

>>8717583
It's about you being retarded

>>8717583
driven by political cause*

>>8717557
>If we were ALL the same, then when one person made a mistake, we'd all made the same identical mistake.

Genetic diversity actually creates a more primitive, uniform species. Far more likely to evince similar behaviors as has been shown in experiments with chimpanzees.

Many such cases

>>8717584
*Homogenous populations with high connectance are how you "regress genetically"
Fixed that for me.
And all this is completly ignoring adaptive capacity, which opie obviously knows nothing about.

SAGE IS AN OPTION THAT ALLOWS YOU TO REPLY TO A THREAD WITHOUT BUMPING IT.
A REPLY LIKE "UR RETARDED", for example. You can also hide and report posts.

>>8717584
>Isolated populations are how you regress genetically.

Wrong, they evolve away from the main strata.

>>8717600
See
>>8717596

/sci/ tards trying to shut thread down.

Can't deal with the dissonance.

>>8717300

I'm educated in an actual science, not being a complete faggot, so I'm here to tell you to fuck off to

>>>/lit/ >>>/his/

where the cucks roam free

>>8717608
>who is dunning-Kruger for 10

>>8717603
You're still not getting it.

Homogeneity is more common AMONGST the more genetically diverse.

>>8717609
Libtard from Philosophy Forums for 20

>>8717569
Cultural and genetic diversity are the same thing only so far as they're about diversity. The same pitfalls that are present in lack of genetic diversity are also present in lack of cultural diversity.

For example, what would happen in a culture when 100% of the population believed the exact same thing, even if it were wrong or incorrect. They didn't need to share all their thoughts, just 1 thought that everyone believed to be true. Now imagine that society, with incorrect belief, made it so anyone who had a different thought, or tried to correct the wrong thought everyone had, were punished or killed. This is exactly what happened during the dark ages.

>>8717609
op gives evidence of statement
>dunning kruger

>>8717619
>This is exactly what happened during the dark ages.

This is what happens now when you bring this subject up.

>>8717619
what you have written here is so thin and unsubstantiated and hypothetical it would not even be accepted by the most political of researchers.
>This is exactly what happened during the dark ages.
Your graph is completely arbitrary bullshit too. Nothing was invented or advanced in that period, thats what your telling me? because thats what the graph implies. Even better, somehow all advancements after antiquity were just forgotten, as if as soon as rome "fell" which was not a discrete event, everyone became retarded.

>>8717619
what units is the y axis in?

The day /sci/ was BTFO

>>8717558
>Genetic diversity is having mixed genes.
>Political diversity is having people of different races

How do you get mixed race people?

>>8717636
>This is what happens now when you bring this subject up.
Almost, but not quite

Sharing ideas, is like sharing DNA. When 2 life forms breed they share DNA and create a new life form. When people share ideas they create new ideas. In a way, sharing ideas, is like sex.
Do you enjoy being mind fucked anon-kun?

>>8717653
>implying the far left is open to new opinions

>>8717611
Lmao, you dont even know about genetic drift
Lmao, you didn't even think about selection
Lmao homogeneity is the opposite of diversity by definition.
You're thinking of high connectance, which leads to a diverse gene pool, but without compartmentalized populations that gene pool will regress to homogeneity. The same goes for populations that are over-compartmentalized.
Where you not paying attention when I told you I study ecological evolution? Lmao engineer thinks he knows something.
Kill yourself retard.

>>8717659
>Lmao homogeneity is the opposite of diversity by definition.

We're talking about genetic diversity libtard, which as demonstrated in the studies is found to a greater degree in more homogenous populations. Genetic drift and selection decrease genetic diversity and create heterogeneity.

Evolution 101 you fucking pleb.

>>8717676
>libtard
Hold up let me screen cap this so I can but it in my 10 gorrillion terabyte folder labeled, "evidence retards are retarded"
>Genetic drift and selection decrease genetic diversity and create heterogeneity.
Lmao that's called divergence, and that's when a comparmentalized population splits off into multiple populations because of homegeny within and low connectance between compartments. Literally arguing against yourself
>evolution 101
Would send you back to 5th grade biology for retards where you belong.

If you want an example of what we are talking about
>in the studies
Take a look at cheetah populations

>>8717706
Just though of a good flame I thought I would share
>evolution 101
Would send you to evolutionary-devolpmentaly-disabled biology where you belong.

>>8717657
Unfortunately this past year has made everyone polarized and extremely hostile towards each other. Sharing ideas and creation of new and novel ideas will be at an all time low so long as everyone hates each other.

Historically, extreme polarization precipitates the fall of a civilization. We could be witnessing the fall of western society if they can't find some way to work together and start sharing ideas again.

>>8717706
>Lmao that's called divergence

Exactly, you got there in the end.

>>8717557
>Someone told me

This really sums up the mentality of /sci/ when it comes to these topics, they're not at all comfortable with it. Go back to your bunsen burners and calculators.

>>8717584
>regress genetically.

Didn't even understand what was being discussed.

>>8717784
>>Someone told me
>inane reply to first 3 words of a post, ignore the rest

>This really sums
not an argument. Don't talk to me ever again.

>>8717784
>>Someone told me
inane reply to first 3 words of a post, ignore the rest

Sounds fun, can I try?
>This really sums
not an argument. Don't talk to me ever again.

>>8717788
>didn't read the thread

>>8717297
What an imbecilic image. By the same token, I could point to the fact that prairie chickens have incredibly low genetic diversity, and then equate Whites or jews with chickens because they have lower genetic diversity than Blacks. I mean, I don't even disagree that there are differences between the intelligence of certain populations but the image still looks retarded to any geneticist worth his or her salt.

>>8717769
then you have isolated populations with homogenous gene pools, lowered adaptive capacity, and in this case increased competion for resources because they would still occupy the same niche in the same space, but would be reproductively isolated.
U sure are a think one ;)

>>8717838
>a think one
What I meant to say was THICC

>>8717838
>>8717788
Ohh and I forget to even mention is that the populations lose a chunk of genetic diversity upon divergence . Which is like my main point in explaining to you how retarded you are.

>>8717297

We've known about humanity's lack of genetic diversity for a long time.

That's why we have Toba catastrophe theory.

>>8717844
>Ohh and I forget to even mention is that the populations lose a chunk of genetic diversity upon divergence .

Wow, look at this fucking retard. He's spent the whole thread arguing against himself. Now he clearly admits that what it says in the OP's image is true.

>Too bad you posted this in a board that is 5 IQ points too smart to fall for this bullshit

Ha ha ha! Duning Kruger is alive and well on this shit for brains board.

.

>>8717844
>Ohh and I forget to even mention is that the populations lose a chunk of genetic diversity upon divergence.

Wow, look at this fucking retard. He's spent the whole thread arguing against himself. Now he clearly admits that what it says in the OP's image is true.

>Too bad you posted this in a board that is 5 IQ points too smart to fall for this bullshit

Ha ha ha! Duning Kruger is alive and well on this shit for brains board.

>>8717834
>I could point to the fact that prairie chickens have incredibly low genetic diversity, and then equate Whites or jews with chickens because they have lower genetic diversity than Blacks.

Surely the question is whether prairie chickens today have a lower genetic diversity than their forbears? I mean you do understand it is that which is being referenced in the OP's image?

D..D..Dunning Kruger anyone?

>>8717297

Explain how inter-ethnic parentage degrades the genes of someone?

>>8718425

>Surely the question is whether prairie chickens today have a lower genetic diversity than their forbears? I mean you do understand it is that which is being referenced in the OP's image?


>D..D..Dunning Kruger anyone?
I'm a student at a top ten Genetics Ph.D program, so no, I don't think the Dunning Kruger effect applies here. Still, you'll have to expand on what you're trying to say here, since I don't entirely catch your drift.

>everyone must be copy paste mold equal
>diversity is our strength

>>8718426
>breed with niggers
>pick up nigger genes and consequent physical and psychological traits.

/Sci/ asks: Explain how inter-ethnic parentage degrades the genes of someone?

>>8718433
>since I don't entirely catch your drift.

If the OP had said this would it be clearer?

>How old were you /sci/ when you realized diversity was about evolutionary regression?

>>8718445
Yes, it's pretty clear now that he doesn't know what the help he's talking about, since "evolutionary regression" isn't a thing, and if it were a thing it certainly wouldn't be a simple function of genetic diversity. The reason Africa is more genetically diverse is that it's the source population. When a migration happens from a source, the new population is always less diverse than the source. It has nothing to do with quality of genes, it's just a consequence of simple statistics.

>>8718448
> When a migration happens from a source, the new population is always less diverse than the source. It has nothing to do with quality of genes, it's just a consequence of simple statistics.

You mean it's not evolution?

>>8718433
>I'm a student at a top ten Genetics Ph.D program,

kek

>>8718453
It's evolution. Any sort of genetic change at a population is evolution, whether it's a result of chance or natural selection or mutation. The point I'm trying to make, which is pretty simple, is that genetic diversity per se is not intrinsically linked to whether the evolution is 'positive' or 'degradation' (which is subjective but I assume you are talking about decreasing intelligence.) A population could become more diverse and more intelligent, (say, if a new gene that enhances neurons enters the population) and it could become less diverse and less intelligent (say, if a bottleneck event kills all the smart people.) That's all I'm saying. Do you understand?

>>8718457
Stay jealous, brainlet.

>>8718459
>A population could become more diverse and more intelligent, (say, if a new gene that enhances neurons enters the population) and it could become less diverse and less intelligent (say, if a bottleneck event kills all the smart people.)

You're shitposting because you refuse to accept what nature has wrought over the past millions of years, ie, genetic diversity is inversely related to intelligence in hominid populations. Primitive gene structures from all levels of the phenotype had to be eliminated so that evolution could go forward. That is why we have a clear link today between primeval physical traits and behaviors found in sub-Saharan black populations and low intelligence.

The examples you give are pure fantasy on your part.

>>8718460
>Stay jealous, brainlet.

What the fuck did you just fucking type about me, you little bitch? I’ll have you know I graduated top of my class at MIT, and I’ve been involved in numerous secret raids with Anonymous, and I have over 300 confirmed DDoSes. I am trained in online trolling and I’m the top hacker in the entire world. You are nothing to me but just another virus host. I will wipe you the fuck out with precision the likes of which has never been seen before on the Internet, mark my fucking words. You think you can get away with typing that shit to me over the Internet? Think again, fucker. As we chat over IRC I am tracing your IP with my damn bare hands so you better prepare for the storm, maggot. The storm that wipes out the pathetic little thing you call your computer. You’re fucking dead, kid. I can be anywhere, anytime, and I can hack into your files in over seven hundred ways, and that’s just with my bare hands. Not only am I extensively trained in hacking, but I have access to the entire arsenal of every piece of malware ever created and I will use it to its full extent to wipe your miserable ass off the face of the world wide web, you little shit. If only you could have known what unholy retribution your little “clever” comment was about to bring down upon you, maybe you would have held your fucking fingers. But you couldn’t, you didn’t, and now you’re paying the price, you goddamn idiot. I will shit code all over you and you will drown in it. You’re fucking dead, kiddo.

>>8718488
I'm guessing you haven't taken population genetics. If you had you'd understand that there's nothing controversial or shitposty about what I wrote. You're clearly blinded by ideology. I don't refuse to acknowledge that certain populations are less intelligent, but you're drawing a specious connection between diversity and low intelligence.

>>8717313
it's not so much that diversity is good in and of itself.

it's that a homogeneous society is not the wonderful panacea you /pol/tards imagine.

throw in the fact that the methods we currently have to combat diversity: mass deportation, mass murder, segregation (which in practice becomes stratification), eugenics, etc. are all either unethical or unrealistic, and it becomes an easy decision. we don't need to oppose it.

>>8717300
Why do you think diversity is good?
I mean, this is /sci/ not leftypol, maybe have at least something to back up your statement.

>>8718423
1, fuck you for making me read ops image

2, this entrire thread has been discussed at the population level and that's meta populations.

3 ops image directly contradicts what he says, Africans are diverse and have high genetic variation

4 ops image is racialist retardation, however made it clearly doesn't get the dynamics at play

5 its supremacist undertones imply teleological forces driving evolution, which is completely retarded

>Wow, look at this fucking retard. He's spent the whole thread arguing against himself. Now he clearly admits that what it says in the OP's image is true.
You idiot, the "embrace diversity" isn't divergence it's convergence, I.e. Gaining a chunk of genetic diversity. Not to mention behavioral diversity which is even more imporant than genetic diversity.

>dunning kruger anyone
You brainlets make me sick

>>8718787
>its supremacist undertones imply teleological forces driving evolution

No teleology dumbass, just intelligence dominating all other traits.

>Gaining a chunk of genetic diversity.

Regression on an evolutionary scale.

Dunning Kruger confirmed!

>>8718682
Your attitude towards diversity is a perfect reflection of the zeitgeist that has been in place since the end of the second world war. Go back a bit further and /sci/ tards would be horrified at the idea of whites interbreeding with blacks because of the undesirable genetic consequences.

>>8718800
What is the extent of your formal training in genetics?

>>8718803
>What is the extent of your formal training in genetics?

I'm a student at a top ten Genetics Ph.D program.

>>8718805
So, I'll take that to mean that you have no formal training in genetics whatsoever.

Are you even employed?

>>8718809
Stay jealous, brainlet.

>>8718865
Haha.
But seriously, what is your real job? Why are you suddenly evasive? You're not a loser in real life, are you?

>>8718803

>demands formal education records
>on 4Chan

>>8718787
>Africans are diverse and have high genetic variation
So are chimps.

Naive genetic diversity metrics don't correlate to meaningful diversity of traits, nor to potential for occurance of desirable traits.

Chimps are "more diverse" than humans, but there is not a single chimp composer or scientist. If you judge them as if they were human, they are basically all the same: horribly stupid, uneducable, ugly, unpredictably violent. If our laws set chimps free in our society as if they were human and forbade discrimination against them (i.e. calling animal control whenever one shows up in a city), every sensible person would do what they could to avoid being in the same places as them, and they'd constantly be getting arrested (or shot resisting arrest) for acting without regard to the law.

This is the point of the image. Pointing out that sub-Saharan Africans are "diverse" or "genetically varied" is not a valid argument that undesirable traits are not common or any particular desirable ones should occur at all. Nor does it make a case that race-mixing won't produce results strongly biased toward a particular set of traits less desirable than those of a currently-existing racial category.

>>8718873
>Chimps are "more diverse" than humans, but there is not a single chimp composer or scientist.
But there are Black composers and scientists. Therefore it is possible to genetically rehabilitate Blacks through selective breeding or other eugenics. No need to throw the good out with the bad.

>>8718880
>Therefore it is possible to genetically rehabilitate Blacks through selective breeding or other eugenics.

What would be the point? The work of black scientists and composers is inferior to that of other races. In many cases they have only been entertained in the first precisely because they are black, ie, the need to spread 'diversity'.

>>8718898
>What would be the point?
What was the point of breeding the chihuahua or the pug?

>The work of black scientists and composers is inferior to that of other races.

Sure, but theoretically it could be improved through breeding.

>In many cases they have only been entertained in the first precisely because they are black, ie, the need to spread 'diversity'.
So, if we actually breed Blacks to be intellectually equal to us, then we won't need affirmative action, they'll actually be equal.

>>8718909
Selective breeding is going on now. Poor whites are being bred with blacks, they are being sold the idea by people like /sci/ that diversity is good through the media. What they are getting is less intelligent, less aware offspring, whilst the capitalists benefit from this as a source of compliant , low paid labor that will consume the crappy products they produce.

>>8717297
There's something about this question that falsely concludes something.

Something about reading the word "diversity" and getting triggered, to the point where reading "chimps show much greater diversity" enabled the conclusions "all humans should be all kinds of diverse" and "diversity is the result of being a chimp" and "chimps are ancestors/primitive humans" and thus "diversity is being your ancestors, but chimps are not humans, and chimps are bad because".

>>8718898
I read this reply enough times, but for some reason it just reads like "we don't need black people", or "I don't want black people".

>>8718979
>sold the idea by people like /sci/
Ha ha ha ha.

Yes, yes. It's a big conspiracy. Capitalism, proles, consumerism, exclusive to mixed heritage masses!

>>8718979
>whilst the capitalists benefit from this as a source of compliant , low paid labor that will consume the crappy products they produce.

Well, someone has to do the crappy jobs. Otherwise people like you wouldn't have nice cushy jobs doing...
What is it you do for a living?

>>8718979
>they are being sold the idea by people like /sci/ that diversity is good through the media.

Look how triggered the /sci/tards are.

You'd better remember to tow the liberal line if you want dem jobs and money for dem programs.

>>8718992
>What is it you do for a living?

Tell us what you do, I'm sure it's relevant.

>>8719021
So what is your job? You still haven't given me a real answer.

>>8719025
Ladies first

>>8719023
I'm not the one talking about 'dem jobs and money' or talking about how blacks are fodder for unskilled work. Put up or shut up.

>>8719029
I told you. I'm a student researcher in an elite genetics program.

>>8718990

>I read this reply enough times, but for some reason it just reads like "we don't need black people", or "I don't want black people".

Not that guy, but we really don't.

If every black person in America suddenly died of sickle cell, people would get by just fine. The prisons would be half empty, the streets would be twice as safe, the welfare state would be far less burdened, far fewer people would be spreading STDs like AIDS, schools would have money for real education instead of writing books in the humanities department about nonexistent "oppression" and "privilege," hospitals would have far fewer patients for drug abuse, and society would move on.

>>8719035
Why you so triggered by this thread?

>>8719048
Because you clearly don't even have an undergraduate understanding of genetics and yet you keep acting like you know what you're talking about. It's infuriating. I don't even deny that there are differences in racial IQ due to genetics. That's not what '''triggers'''' me. It's the fact that you completely fail to grasp even the most elementary concepts, even when people spell them out to you. You're a fucking imbecile, and you'd be a fucking imbecile if you were pro-White or pro-Black.

You've never set foot in a population genetics class in your life. Am I wrong? What is your actual field? Because it sure as shit isn't genetics.

>>8719038
Question.

In America, how much of the population do "black people" make up? Where does this demographic live, what is the displacement of "black people" like in America?

If you cut out a random chunk of the American population, the welfare state would be far less burdened by the by, and schools would still provide shit education. Hospitals would still be as they are, specifically because drug abuse isn't unique to "black people"- it would probably still affect a lot of people who are now forced to do jobs they don't want to, because a disproportionate amount of the low-tier workforce has suddenly vanished.

A lot of what you've suggested, it's like attacking the symptoms, than the cause.

>>8719066

They are 12% of the population. They are more likely to be on welfare, unemployed, obese (unhealthy), a criminal, dropout, basically any negative metric you can think of. They don't typically occupy critical roles.

If they all disappeared there would be an adjustment but the net result would be positive for the country. To top it off we wouldn't have all of the racial politics madness distracting us from real problems.

>>8719061
>What is your actual field?

My fields range from electrical engineering to horticulture. This meme is to get people thinking about the word 'diversity' and how it intersects with politics and biology. I would say it's been a great success so far.

You're triggered because like most sperglords that work in labs there's a bigger picture that you cannot grasp. This thread has annoyingly reminded you of that itch you cannot scratch.

I bet you voted Hilary.

>>8719084
12%, huh. Basically any negative metric I can think of? Ah, yes, yes. Can't imagine why they'd be unemployed. Can't imagine why they'd be on welfare. Can't imagine why they'd be a criminal, why they'd be a dropout. Gosh, I don't know.

>we wouldn't have all of the racial politics madness distracting us
Sure we wouldn't. As opposed to solving the
>racial politics madness
by dealing with the concept of race directly, as well as the paradox of tolerance that gives rise to it all.
>the folk concept of race does not exist
>the folk concept of race is what people spend their time obsessing over

But, you would rather just be a barbarian with a cudgel.

>>>/sci/ is to >>>/pol/ as woodland critters are to freeways

sometimes the smaller animals get run over easily, but sometimes a deer jumps into traffic and makes a mess

>>8719095

>Gosh, I don't know.

I do. I grew up in a majority black, poor environment as a token white. Most of them have delinquent fathers, no sense of responsibility or ambition, and a derision for any and all authority. Educating yourself is considered "acting white" and any black who does so is usually shunned.

I'm not a barbarian at all and can promise my experience is more well rounded than 99% of this country, and that's precisely why I think this demographic of people are probably never going to leave their present, underwhelming state. I am not an optimist about it anymore after seeing things literally regress in the past 10 years.

>>8719066
>In America, how much of the population do "black people" make up?
About 12.5%. They commit about half the serious violent crime, at a per capita rate about ten times that of the white population.

>Where does this demographic live, what is the displacement of "black people" like in America?
Mostly in cities, mostly in the south, mostly in what are considered bad areas of inner cities.

>Hospitals would still be as they are, specifically because drug abuse isn't unique to "black people"
It certainly isn't, people of all races abuse drugs, but it's the norm for black people, as is not being able to pay any medical or for insurance. So they're a disproportionate burden on emergency rooms, which aren't legally permitted to turn anyone away for inability to pay.

If all the black people in America suddenly disappeared, it would make a huge difference to hospitals, as well as making the inner cities desirable places to live again.

>>8719094
>My fields range from electrical engineering to horticulture.
What the fuck does this even mean? What part of 'what do you do for a living?' don't you undersand? Parlais vous Anglais? What is your actual job description?
>I bet you voted Hilary.
I didn't vote. I have no strong opinions on politics. My being 'triggered' is solely due to your inability to grasp basic principles of genetics. The worst part is you actually think OTHER people are suffering from the Dunning-Kruger effect. NEWSFLASH: if you think you're a 'big picture' thinker who's too smart to actually do the work and read the books that real geneticists read, the chances are YOU are the one who can't grasp what's going on. Fuck, the very fact that you bring 'HILARY' into this is proof enough that your mind is so dominated by cliches that you are incapable of a single fucking original thought. But since you're so easily entertained, you think you're speaking truth to power by posting the same garbage time and time again.

>hurr, ur triggered becuz u like le politically correct bullshit

NO. WRONG. I abhor PC culture and SJWs, but what triggers me more

>hurr, u mad?

Yeah, I'm mad, but in a few hours I won't be mad anymore. You, however, will be an idiot loser your whole life.

I'm going to go back to working on my thesis, but by all means, have a nice Friday evening refreshing your epic troll thread.

>>8719105
>grew up in a majority black, poor environment as a token white
>can promise my experience is more well rounded than 99% of this country

That's depressing, because growing up in a majority black, poor environment as a token white is not exactly traveling the country. If that's well rounded, and 1% of America is on par or better than you... I think that would be a contributing factor to why this demographic may never leave their
>present, underwhelming state
as a whole.

>>8719114
>mostly in cities
I remember something about a census suggesting that, at least 7 years ago, 55% of that 12.5% lived in rural areas away from the cities.
https://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/2010_census/cb11-cn185.html

>mostly in what are considered bad areas of inner cities
I wonder how that came to be.

>If all the
Why stop at "black people", then? Why not disappear all of the crippled, infirm, elderly, mentally handicapped, the suicidal, the jobless...

>>8719131

I think you're just trying to throw wrenches everywhere to try to confuse things rather than address what's actually being said.

>>8719138
I don't think that's what I'm doing.

>>8719131
>I remember something about a census suggesting that, at least 7 years ago, 55% of that 12.5% lived in rural areas away from the cities.
Urban areas of rural states, not rural areas. And you want to know a big part of why those are rural states? The cities aren't attractive to live in, because they're full of black people. People with choices move to better cities, or to the countryside. Businesses don't invest in disorderly, high-crime areas.

>.mostly in what are considered bad areas of inner cities
>I wonder how that came to be.
Exact same reason no majority-black country is orderly and prosperous: genetically low IQ, low self-control, and high aggression. The areas where blacks live become the bad areas, where crime is common and when the police ask questions, nobody has seen anything.

Whites do what they have to to not live in majority-black areas, because they're horrible to live in. Many of them aren't even looking at race, they're just looking at things like crime and corruption.

>Why stop at "black people", then? Why not disappear all of the crippled, infirm, elderly, mentally handicapped, the suicidal, the jobless...
Are you saying that black people collectively belong among other categories of burdens on society?

Black people don't belong. Even when whites don't run, the blacks self-separate and maintain a distinct culture. It's not a good situation to have two groups of people with both different genetics and different culture living without a border between them. The whites have material losses, while the blacks lose the dignity of independence and self-determination.

>>8719161
>Exact same reason
I was thinking about redlining, but I guess that was never a thing that had happened, nor played a part in the catalyst that led to the current state of affairs. No, no influential practices here.

>Are you saying that black people collectively belong among other categories of burdens on society
Golly gee. It's like "black people" aren't exactly a monolithic group that thinks, behaves, or is subject to burden in the exactly similar fashion by the by. Almost like the paradox of tolerance silences the budding minority in favor of the conservative majority and muh multicultural non-racism inclusiveness/depiction of the majority for consistency, despite the fact that those almost anecdotal minorities repeatedly keep trying to establish their presence.

>Black people don't belong
Took you long enough to say it, didn't it?

>the blacks self-separate and maintain a distinct culture
>culture
>self-separate
So, there's a series of sociodemographic and ethnic factors, at the very least, that cause this, right? How else would a group of people self-separate and maintain a distinct culture? Whaaaaaat?

By the way.

A random "black" anon and a random "white" anon are not as genetically different enough to be different races- especially not how you are selling it. I have yet to be pained to go through the trouble of replying to this /pol/ trite with sources and whatnot.

>>8718488
>That is why we have a clear link today between primeval physical traits and behaviors found in sub-Saharan black populations
Oh really, now?

>>8719161
>The cities aren't attractive to live in, because they're full of black people. People with choices move to better cities, or to the countryside. Businesses don't invest in disorderly, high-crime areas.

this. i got offered 120k$ out of college to work in oakland. i'd rather go to iraq on some government contractor shit than live in someplace like oakland, detroit, or st. louis.

>>8719186
Ha ha! Brilliant.

But really, although our ancestors were closely related to chimpanzees, they weren't actually chimps. Your image doesn't mention prognathism or the lack of a pointed nose I see. Blacks have these primitive physical traits and other races can just smell them out, we just know it's right if you know what I mean. Although we don't have a perfect explanation at present of why this is so.

>>8719186
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

>>8719196
>we just know it's right
>if you know what I mean
>we don't have a perfect explanation at present of why
So, baseless assumption. In short:

This group of peoples have traits like non-pointed noses. Other species have traits like non-pointed noses. Our ancestors, who were somewhat similar to chimpanzees, had non-pointed noses, but were not chimpanzees. This means the group of peoples are primitive, because chimpanzees are primitive and have non-pointed noses.

Which is like saying:

All animal cells today are eukaryotes. Eukaryotes have a lot of genetic historical overlap with archaea. Archaea are non-bacterial microbes. Cyanobacteria are bacteria that can use photosynthesis to obtain energy. Plants use photosynthesis to obtain energy. Plant cells today are eukaryotes. All animal cells do not contain chloroplasts. This means that plant cells are bacteria, because they can use photosynthesis and are less similar to archaea than animal cells regarding genetic expression, where archaea are less similar to bacteria regarding genetic expression.

No?

>>8719180
>I was thinking about redlining, but I guess that was never a thing that had happened
Actually, it was never a thing that had happened. Redlining was a fake news story to push laws to make it easy for high-risk black borrowers to get mortgages, one of the major causes of the finance crash and bailout that doubled US government debt. Banks were pushed hard to give loans to people who couldn't pay them, the government helped them bundle up those bad debts and pretend they were good debts, until they finally had to admit that nobody was going to pay those loans off.

When you tell lies about how race differences aren't real and if whole genetically-distinct groups are doing badly it can only be because they're being oppressed, it has real consequences. You don't get good policy from delusional thinking.

Show me one majority-black, black-run country in the world with a first-world standard of living, or even on the level of Russia or Mexico. There isn't one. Tell me about how life improved for black Rhodesians and South Africans when they took over power from the whites.

They're just not the same. When they get bad outcomes, it's not because someone else is imposing it on them.

>>8718714
It prevents ignorance and bigotry.

>>8719354
Actually, there's a clear positive correlation of regular contact with other races and racism. The more you have to deal with other races, the more racist you become.

Not that this contradicts what you said. But curing ignorance means increasing racism. Anti-racism is ignorance and bigotry, while racism tends to be rational and experience-based.

>>8719360
But where is the actual data?
>Tell me about how life improved for black Rhodesians and South Africans when they took over power from the whites.
How did it not improve for SA?

>>8719360
What the actual fuck? Diverse places are factually lower in racism, ignorance, and bigotry. You're saying they're bigoted toward bigots???

>>8717639
bullshit level

>>8717313
Sorry, but diversity is good. Read about the Great Irish Famine sometime. Monocropping + potato blight = 1 million dead by starvation.

Plus, 1 million more emigrated to America. Btw, Polk, a Democrat, was US President. I guess we were more receptive to refugees back then.

>>8719401
I think diversity is good but your logic is bad.

>>8719368
>How did it not improve for SA?
Crime has gone way up. Blacks in South Africa now are much more likely to be victims of violence than they were under apartheid.

And did you miss the whole thing with a black health minister who insisted AIDS wasn't caused by HIV and recommended treating it with consumption of beets, lemons, garlic, and olive oil? She stayed in that role for 9 years before she died. That's the kind of extraordinary incompetent leadership they're living under. Everything's going to shit.

South Africa is in an accelerating collapse as blacks take over and whites flee, and it's not doing the blacks any good. With apartheid, they had honest white policing, competent white government, and trade with a sophisticated white economy. Now they just get to be scavengers over what the whites are leaving behind, and as the pickings get slimmer, the fighting gets uglier.

The kicker is, the blacks aren't even native to South Africa, nor were they brought as slaves. There were only a few ultra-primitive bushmen there when the whites colonized. The rest migrated toward the civilization the whites brought.

>>8719372
>Diverse places are factually lower in racism, ignorance, and bigotry.
So you're saying that the diverse American Deep South is lower in racism than the predominantly white Midwest? You think the poor whites living around blacks and Mexicans in the bad parts of L.A. are less racist than the rich whites who live in the good parts of L.A. and only see Mexicans when they've come to mow the lawn or clean the house?

>>8719401

probably because the Irish didn't bring a deeply rooted ideological belief in their right to practice religious law separate from the state

>>8719410
>So you're saying that the diverse American Deep South is lower in racism than the predominantly white Midwest?
The "Deep South" is an enormous area. The diverse areas (cities) tend to lean liberal and enjoy diversity.
>You think the poor whites living around blacks and Mexicans in the bad parts of L.A. are less racist
Yes....
>than the rich whites who live in the good parts of L.A. and only see Mexicans when they've come to mow the lawn or clean the house?
Yes I do.

>>8719429

>more diversity and "tolerance" for higher crime and government dependency

is this a fair trade off

>>8719429
It's hilarious that you think voting Democrat means "not racist".

>The diverse areas (cities) tend to lean liberal and enjoy diversity.
You mean they're full of blacks and government employees, who have no prospects except government cheques.

>Yes....
>Yes I do.
Pure delusion.

>>8719410
>Crime has gone way up. Blacks in South Africa now are much more likely to be victims of violence than they were under apartheid.
Except crime is again back to normal now and on a decline?
>And did you miss the whole thing with a black health minister who insisted AIDS wasn't caused by HIV and recommended treating it with consumption of beets, lemons, garlic, and olive oil? She stayed in that role for 9 years before she died. That's the kind of extraordinary incompetent leadership they're living under. Everything's going to shit.
Just like the president of the USA that thinks vaccination causes autism? I know of enough retards in political positions that are white.

>>8718682
>Are all either unethical or unrealistic
For you

>>8719452
>It's hilarious that you think voting Democrat means "not racist".
And you think that voting Republican means being racist?

You make bold statements based on one region of one country, without even citing any actual data.

>>8719061
There is a possibility you're replying to different people who replied to you. This is an anonymous website.
>>8719290
Comparing a single cell organism to a multicellular organism as an argument for why multicellular organisms aren't different doesn't make sense.

>>8719372
Have you ever seen what happens when someone espouses right-wing views on a college campus? Yes, those "diverse" fucks are bigoted.

>>8719452
>You mean they're full of blacks and government employees, who have no prospects except government cheques.
No, not really Mr. European. Asheville for instance is 78% white and upper-middle class. Liberal-leaning. Yes, generally liberal-leaning means you're supportive of diversity and immigration, thus not racist. I'm sure there are racist liberals but come now...

>>8719454
>Implying Trump even nears the retardation of a literal witch-doctor
0/10

>>8719454
>Except crime is again back to normal now and on a decline?
Bullshit. What are you even basing that on? They have roving gangs of bandits and can't even keep decent statistics anymore. The police focus on the gated communities, where things are orderly enough to keep track of.

>Just like the president of the USA that thinks vaccination causes autism?
A lot of intelligent, well-informed people are suspicious that vaccination causes long-term harm. It's not studied properly because of ideological bias, that the sheeple must take their medicine for the greater good even if that means not informing them fully of the individual risks.

In any case, for him it's a throwaway comment on a subject he has little interest in, as a man who isn't shy about sharing his opinions on anything and everything, he's not pushing hard to stop vaccinations. For her, it was actual policy, on a matter central to her area of responsibility.

>>8719480
>Bullshit. What are you even basing that on?
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c6/South_African_murder_rate.png
>can't even keep decent statistics anymore
Where is the proof faggot? Stop spewing claims that need lots of support with absolutely no amount of it.
>A lot of intelligent, well-informed people are suspicious that vaccination causes long-term harm. It's not studied properly because of ideological bias, that the sheeple must take their medicine for the greater good even if that means not informing them fully of the individual risks.
That's what the witchdoctor said, yes. Good sheeple need to vaccinate themselves not to murder tons of people by outbreaks of easily preventable illnesses, especially those with weaker immunology.
>For her, it was actual policy, on a matter central to her area of responsibility.
How about creationists in his government?

Why does /po/ always shit up boards with stupid ass threads like this?