/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.14994499]

Do you think it will ever become acceptable again to say the truth that race is not a social construct?

[Anonymous No.14994515]

>>14994499
It is a social construct, though. I like how white niggers got psy-op'd into an indefensible position. All the left had to do was tacitly (and falsely) equate "social construct" with "baseless/arbitrary/illegitimate".

[Anonymous No.14994521]

>>14994515
Look at the skulls

[Anonymous No.14994549]

>>14994521
I did look at them. I can't draw conclusions from a sample size of 1.

[Anonymous No.14994550]

>>14994499
Of course there's different races. Some people seem to think that means they're different species though

[Anonymous No.14994568]

>>>/pol/
may have an answer to your question.

[Anonymous No.14994573]

>>14994568
fuck off

[Anonymous No.14994580]

>>14994550
Sub-species, not species, and there are.

[Anonymous No.14994585]

>>14994521
>Look at the skulls
What about them? Who said you can't tell apart different populations of Africans by their skulls?

[Anonymous No.14994586]

>>14994549
Find your own conversation. White niggers may not be the brightest, but leftoid trash isn't even human.

[Anonymous No.14994596]

>>14994499
It is acceptable
only a small minority of retards and schizo's believe in the "social construct conspiracy theory"
Ignore those faggots and carry on

[Anonymous No.14994605]

>>14994499
only leftist retards believe this because le mixed race people exist. so do mules, doesn't mean that they are natural or should even exist. they're a bastardization led on by outside factors, in human cases, globohomo

[Anonymous No.14994612]

>>14994580
no, i mean there's people on 4chan that think different races are different species

[Anonymous No.14994623]

you don't even know what people mean when they say race is a social construct. You can find out in few minutes. But you won't. Why? Are you afraid you might be wrong? Lmao.

[Anonymous No.14994648]

>you don't even know what people mean when they say race is a social construct. You can find out in few minutes. But you won't. Why? Are you afraid you might be wrong? Lmao.

[Anonymous No.14994663]

>>14994648
you're proving his point right now

[Anonymous No.14994678]

>>14994550
They are different species.

[Anonymous No.14994682]

>>14994663
"He" doesn't have a point. "He" is trash and you are obviously him.

[Anonymous No.14994684]

>>14994682
Is "He" in the room with you now, anon?

[Anonymous No.14994689]

>>14994684
Seethe harder.

[Anonymous No.14994695]

>>14994689
It's time for your medicine anon-kun. Mr. Needle is going to make the voices go away.

[Anonymous No.14994725]

>>14994695
>>14994689

[Anonymous No.14995258]

I know how evolution works.

[Anonymous No.14996228]

>>14994682
yeah, but you still didn't look it up what people mean when they say that

[Anonymous No.14996235]

>>14994678
someone failed highschool biology

[Anonymous No.14996318]

>>14994515

[Anonymous No.14996331]

>>14996318
you aren't going to like the implications of domestic dog genetics

[Anonymous No.14996336]

>>14994695
mr. needle no! you're one of the voices!

[Anonymous No.14996344]

>>14996331

[Anonymous No.14996353]

>>14994515
is anything not a social construct?

[Anonymous No.14996509]

>>14996318
>>14996344
Fallacious anthropocentric argument. To a tiger, those three species probably look extremely different while all the humans look the same

[Anonymous No.14996521]

>>14996509
The canines definitely look different from each other. And we know that dogs can react differently to different races, so you're basing that on nothing.

Regardless, we can quantitatively measure genetic distance. Unsurprisingly, Europeans are much more closely related to each other than they are to Sub Saharans.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixation_index#Autosomal_genetic_distances_based_on_SNPs

[Anonymous No.14996562]

>>14994499
we all know where this is going and that's why you're so eager to prove the existence of races.

[Anonymous No.14996800]

>>14996509
nice bait
kek

[Anonymous No.14996802]

>>14996509
>Fallacious anthropocentric argument.
All human classifications are anthropocentric, mouth-breathing retard. We don't classify tigers according to how different they look to each other.

[Anonymous No.14996814]

How people were tricked into believing men can be women and brain dead shit like >>14996509 should be it's own field of study in the future. It's quite fascinating if you detach and think about it for a moment.

[Anonymous No.14996859]

>>14996235
Someone hasn't read molecular genetics papers.

[Anonymous No.14996865]

>>14996344
ironic that you would bring up dogs

[Anonymous No.14996879]

Ah race realism, the other Flat Earth.

[Anonymous No.14996888]

>>14996228
>you still didn't look it up what people mean when they say that
They don't mean anything when they say it. It's a thought-terminating buzzword that intellectually vacuous drones like you throw around when faced with the fact that browns are genetically dumber and more criminal.

[Anonymous No.14996894]

>>14996353
All classifications and distinctions are "social constructs", strictly speaking, but it doesn't refute the fact that brown people tend to be less intelligent even if you account for all the environmental cope.

[Anonymous No.14996898]

>>14996879
Yep. Race disbelievers are just like Flat Earthers denying the proof of the globe.

[Anonymous No.14996903]

>>14996865
Is this supposed to be some kind of gotcha? What point are you trying to refute?

[Anonymous No.14996910]

>>14996318
No one cares, white nigger. You on the bottom left except in albino version.

[Anonymous No.14996915]

>>14996879
>Evolution is a social construct. Pay no attention to the fact that we can determine your ancestral origin from your DNA alone.
Did you know that bone marrow transplants are so specific that you can only be matched to people of the same race? In fact, if you are mixed race, you can only be matched to people with the same racial admixture. If you have one white parent and one black parent, the chances are essentially 0 that you can match with either of them. You need another half-white/black person

[Anonymous No.14996922]

>>14996903
The dogs have a wide variety of phenotypes, while all belonging to the same species and being extremely genetically similar. Much like humans.

[Anonymous No.14996926]

>>14996228
All they're doing is drawing a distinction between the biological reality of race (sometimes called ancestry) and the social understanding and expectations of different races. Although most people, especially on 4chan, would use race to mean the biological reality, they declare that the social construction is the true definition of race, and therefore race is a social construct. It's pure semantics, just like the gender/sex dichotomy.

[Anonymous No.14996931]

>>14996922
Doggos come in different breeds. The breeds vary in their intelligence level and behavioral characteristics. Just like humans. :^)

[Anonymous No.14996934]

>>14996926
Gay and also wrong.

[Anonymous No.14996943]

>>14996934
Gay and also wrong

[Anonymous No.14996948]

>>14996922
The dogs have a wide variety of phenotypes, including intrinsic differences in strength, endurance, instinct, and intelligence

[Anonymous No.14996985]

>>14996926
Kinda. The leftist ideologues use a series of motte and bailey arguments when it comes to race. They will start by arguing that there is no fundamental biological reality to race, that there are no intrinsic differences among groups, that "we are all the human race," and that claims to the contrary are simply tools of oppression.

Then, if you point out that that claim is nonsense, that you can track ancestral origin in the DNA, that genetic disorders differ by race, and so forth, they will retreat back a layer and say "well, ancestral origin can have a genetic effect, but that has no relationship to 'race,' which is arbitrary and made up." Then, you can attack that, because studies have shown that self-identified race matches genetic race about 99.9% of the time, and they will retreat again and say, "But that has no effect on traits or attributes."

And if you keep going, then they will just start calling you racist. Then they will restart the argument from scratch the next time it comes up

[Anonymous No.14996986]

>puts tigres in different environments
>tigres evolve to different environments
>tigres in different enviornments look different
>tigres in different environments are different

>puts orangtans in different enviornments
>orangtans evolve to different enviornments
>orangutans in different enviornments look different
>orangutans in different enviornments are different

>puts canines in different enviornments
>canines evolve to different enviornments
>canines in different enviornments look different
>canines in different enviornments are different

>puts humans in different enviornments
>humans evolve to different enviornments
>humans in different enviornments look different
>humans in different enviornments are exactly the same

[Anonymous No.14997093]

>>14996888
>>14996926
>still didn't look it up
this is hilarious. It's been over 24 hours since i wrote the post.

[Anonymous No.14997099]

>>14997093
>look up my retarded buzzword!!
Ok. Which faction of leftoid sociology has the monopoly on it these days?

[Anonymous No.14997121]

>>14997099
like a retarded child covering his ears and singing "lalalala". Lmao.

[Anonymous No.14997135]

>>14997121
Oh, so you're not going to provide me with the canonical source for your motte-and-bailey bullshit? I'll just take the first thing I find on google, then.
>A social construct is a concept that exists not in objective reality, but as a result of human interaction
That includes all classifications and distinctions. How come you get all up in arms when I point out that brows are genetically dumber than whites, but not when I point out that turkeys are genetically dumber than humans? :^(

[Anonymous No.14997137]

>>14994605
Humans have been racemixing since we were retarded hunter-gatherers. In fact our ancestors literally fucked separate species of hominids. Its why Europeans have neanderthal DNA and Asians have Denisovan DNA. Unless you want to claim there was a "globohomo" (if you just said globalist you'd sound a lot less deranged) conspiracy 50,000+ years ago, your logic falls apart.

[Anonymous No.14997138]

>>14997135
google race as a social construct. Not the definition of a social construct lmao. Are you having 80IQ?

[Anonymous No.14997141]

>>14997138
>Not the definition of a social construct lmao
Why can't I use the definition of a social construct? :^(

[Anonymous No.14997146]

>>14997135
when you say browns are genetically dumber than whites it doesn't come from your knowledge about genetics. It comes from the image of brown people you have in your head. You are yourself admitting it's a social construct and you don't even realize it.

[Anonymous No.14997150]

>>14997121
what is wrong with you? In what world does anyone owe you a reasonable argument on an Ethiopian zebra-hunting forum? You've been crying for almost 2 days because someone completely unknown to you won't perform the search you did. How do you let yourself become this vulnerable?

[Anonymous No.14997151]

>>14997138
I did actually look it up when I wrote >>14996926, and the first thing google gives you is the following Wikipedia blur.
>Most historians, anthropologists, and sociologists describe human races as a social construct, preferring instead the term population or ancestry, which can be given a clear operational definition

[Anonymous No.14997152]

>>14997141
kek, what are you so afraid of, mate?

[Anonymous No.14997154]

>>14994499
>Do you think it will ever become acceptable again to say the truth that race is not a social construct?
that european had some fucked up teeth, holy shit

[Anonymous No.14997155]

>>14997146
>when you say browns are genetically dumber than whites it doesn't come from your knowledge about genetics
Why does this apply to my assessment of niggers but not to my assessment of turkeys? Both are "social constructs" according to that definition.

[Anonymous No.14997156]

>>14997150
you're projecting

[Anonymous No.14997159]

>>14997152
What do you mean? You told me to google "social construct" so I did. Now you're moving the goal post. I guess you meant a different social construct? Either way, the day when your likes get lynched for publicly expressing left-leaning opinions isn't too far off. Better beg your handlers to censor the internet faster.

[Anonymous No.14997164]

>>14997159
>You told me to google "social construct"
no i didn't. I told you to google what people mean when they say race is a social construct. And you can't even do that. It's a very simple thing. Literally takes few minutes but for some reason you can't bring yourself up to it. Instead you've decided to play a retard.

[Anonymous No.14997166]

>>14997156
sorry, ill project somewhere else

[Anonymous No.14997179]

>>14997164
>no i didn't.
You told me to look up what people mean when they say that race is a social construct. According to google, it means that race is "a concept that exists not in objective reality, but as a result of human interaction". What's wrong with this?

[Anonymous No.14997190]

>>14997179
keep playing a retard then

[Anonymous No.14997194]

>>14997190
What does "race is a social construct" mean, if not that? Is your argument is about some different "social construct"? Why are you telling me to go look for your argument on the internet instead of just making it, nigger? >>>/lgbt/

[Anonymous No.14997195]

>>14997150
You have it backwards. He doesn't actually want a response here, nor does he want you to Google shit. All he's saying is that you should shut up, but it's phrased in a way that seems like an actual objection. If he actually cared, he would post what he believes it means for race to be a social construct, or at least give a reason why he thinks the definitions of others are wrong. He hasn't done this. All he's doing is replying "you're wrong" with no elaboration, because he just wants anons to shut up.
If anything, you're the retard for expecting any better from the people on this site, especially the ones who (like that fag) only came here to "own the racists" or whatever.

[Anonymous No.14997199]

>>14997195
Woah, you think? You think someone who expresses leftist ideas would do THAT?

[Anonymous No.14997250]

>>14994499
race doesn't exist. they are different species.

[Anonymous No.14997273]

>>14997250
Based geneticist/taxonomist.

[bodhi No.14997284]

>>14994515
of course the retarded tranny posts first

[Anonymous No.14997379]

>>14994499
A truth is a invariant description until there's contest

[Anonymous No.14997456]

>>14997154
probably bri*ish

[Anonymous No.14997536]

Do you guys just not know what clines or gradients are?

[Anonymous No.14997578]

>>14996865
Purely socio-economic factors

[bodhi No.14997754]

>>14996562
where is it going? he doesnt need to prove something that true on the face of it. anyone who isnt legit retarded can figure this out on their own

[bodhi No.14997761]

>>14996814
humans have a bizarre ability to shape their reality around their beliefs rather than shape their beliefs around reality. it is the magical power of words (to program NPCs with, there is reason it is called television PROGRAMMING)

[Anonymous No.14998288]

>>14994580
Whites are the sub species tho, not blacks.

[Anonymous No.14998290]

>>14998288
Humans evolved in Anatolia just like Chimpanzees. There's too much archaeological evidence to the contrary to believe Out of Africa anymore, and the only reason it hangs on is ideology.

[Anonymous No.14998297]

>>14997754
Let's say there are well defined races and acknowledge it so what ? What knowledge do you gain from this ? It's simply another way for these idiots to promote racial hierarchy and all of what it implies.

[Anonymous No.14998299]

>>14994499
Only white ppl have Neanderthal DNA. Only white ppl have the genetic marker for blue eyes. A black person, asian person, arab person etc will never have blue eyes..unless they have a distant white ancestor.

black people and white people have a common ancestor. We split and evolved differently.

[Anonymous No.14998313]

>>14998299
That's not true at all retard.

wtf

are you guys paid propagandists or just useful idiots?

asians are Neanderthal

[Anonymous No.14998347]

Is this the thread where we strawman the leftist boogeyman again

How come you faggots never find actual leftists to argue with instead hiding in your safe space here

[Anonymous No.14998387]

>>14998313
The genetic marker for blue eyes comes from Neanderthal DNA.

How many Asians have blue eyes, retard?

[Anonymous No.14998391]

>>14997284
Keep getting manipulated, white nigger.

[Anonymous No.14998408]

>>14998297
There is a lot you can extrapolate off of that fact besides just racial hierarchies. The fact that we have an education and business system automatically implying racial IQ inheritance is not real causing harmful managerial procedures is pretty criminal.

[Anonymous No.14998412]

>>14994515
Social constructionism isn't scientific.
The basis of science is objectivity, which social constructionists reject.

Stop listening to sociologists and listen to the science.

[Anonymous No.14998422]

>>14998412
>Social constructionism isn't scientific.
Show me where I said it is scientific.

>The basis of science is objectivity
Human classifications and distinctions are never objective. You got memed into an indefensible position by the people you hate. They present you with a basic motte-and-bailey trick but you're so dumb you try to argue with the motte part thinking it disproves the bailey bit.

[Anonymous No.14998423]

>>14998347
>How come you faggots never find actual leftists to argue with instead hiding in your safe space here
Because it never goes anywhere.
Look into the Science Wars of the '90s. Never went anywhere. No conclusion.
Both sides just agreed to disagree.

Why do leftists never engage with us, instead they ban anyone who disagrees?

[Anonymous No.14998430]

>>14998422
?
I'm not saying race is real, I'm saying social constructionism cannot be used to form a scientific argument.
Whether it is real or not must come from science, not postmodern gobbledygook.

I don't even think species are scientifically real.

>Human classifications and distinctions are never objective.
There are objective difference between humans, it's just those differences do not constitute speciation or anything beyond.

[Anonymous No.14998434]

>>14998430
You sound like you're having a psychotic episode. Either way, a dog is as much a social construct as a nigger, and both are scientifically less intelligent than a human.

[Anonymous No.14998435]

>>14998434
>You sound like you're having a psychotic episode.
This is all pretty basic shit, but ok.
I'm the psychotic one.

[Anonymous No.14998453]

>>14998435
Call me back when you can understand what you're reading and are capable of replying adequately.

[Anonymous No.14998462]

>>14998453
Wilco.

[Anonymous No.14998838]

>>14998347
Because leftists don't argue with anyone. They simply ad hom, then attack, then censor, then ban, and then declare their retarded positions to be "settled science." You seem to fit right in with them

[Anonymous No.14998854]

>>14998838
>Because leftists don't argue with anyone. They simply ad hom, then attack, then censor, then ban
Which shows that despite their delusions, they at least have that modicum of wisdom to refrain from getting high on their own supply of debatetard culture. You don't argue with people who reject your values. You kill them.

[Anonymous No.14998873]

>>14996922
all those phenotypes you call 'breeds' in the west, are translated to 'race' in most other languages.

[Anonymous No.14998909]

>>14998290
> There's too much archaeological evidence to the contrary to believe Out of Africa anymore
Nice, by any chance do you have any books disproving out of Africa? I'd love to read more about that.

[Anonymous No.14999087]

>>14994499
>>14994515
It's a technical social construct, but it's not what social constructs are implied to be (lies our society made up). The term is bullshit commie language. Stop using it.

[Anonymous No.14999117]

>>14994499
if race isn't a social construct then how come the Irish wasn't considered white 100 years ago?

[Anonymous No.14999121]

>>14996915
>bone marrow transplants are so specific that you can only be matched to people of the same race
Stop spreading this lie. A successful match is just MORE LIKELY if the donor and recipient are of SIMILAR background.

[Anonymous No.14999133]

>>14999087
>It's a technical social construct, but it's not what social constructs are implied to be (lies our society made up). The term is bullshit commie language. Stop using it.
I agree, but you're still getting psy-op'd as explained here:

>>14998422
>You got memed into an indefensible position by the people you hate. They present you with a basic motte-and-bailey trick but you're so dumb you try to argue with the motte part thinking it disproves the bailey bit.

[Anonymous No.14999134]

>>14994499
The question is WHY you need to say it? Do you want to find the differences to help people? Or is it only to have a reason to say that you're better than someone for once?

[Anonymous No.14999142]

>>14994499
I've always wondered that if humans had the same skin and body shapes we would find a way to discriminate based on eye color

[Anonymous No.14999195]

>>14999142
Yes, every homogenous society has done this. Japanese people discriminate based on blood type ffs.

[Anonymous No.14999206]

>>14999134
They want to kill all non-whites, but since they can't say so or do so openly, they need to soft-sell it until they manage to worm their way into a position of power

[bodhi No.14999288]

>>14998297
>Let's say there are well defined races and acknowledge it so what ? What knowledge do you gain from this

Well social policies that actually work for one. Peaceful and productive societies sounds pretty nice. What I dont understand is why people like you think it is some moral good to try and force different species to live together. Coyotes and wolves do not live together, dogs and foxes do not live together. Why do you think trying to force africanized bees and European bees to live together gives you some moral high ground? All that happens is the africanized bees kill the European bees and steal their honey. (this isnt a metaphor it is what happens). What makes a dipshit like you see red ant colonies and black ant colonies and narcissisticly think you have the right o say "we need to force them to live in a single ant farm?

I know you are just a dumbass that has been brainwashed and you have never even really asked yourself any of these questions but I am responding to everyone like you for sake of argument, not just you. Obviously I believe everyone should treat everyone else with respect but what justification do you have for trying to tell people who they can and cant associate with?

It always only goes one way as well. You types think everyone should complete access to anything and everything white people built for themselves while at the same time promoting "safe spaces" for non-whites. If you dont like being around white people than fuck off back to where you came from. Access to white people and the flourishing societies they build is a privilege not a right.

[bodhi No.14999294]

>>14998297
I have zero obligations to anyone other than those I choose to align myself with politically. I give zero fucks if Asians want to live with other Asians or negroes want to live with other negroes. The only race people like you seem to have a problem with deciding their own company and destiny is white people. You dont have the moral high ground here, you are just an NPC pushing w/e morality du jour you think makes you look virtuous or you think you will personally gain from.

I have nothing to gain from your virtue signaling moral du jour and it in fact costs me and my people quite a lot socially, psychologically and financially. I am not going to have my people be victimized for your grandstanding

[Anonymous No.14999305]

>>14999206
Quite the persecution complex you've got there. Not everyone is like the Hutus and the Tutsis

[bodhi No.14999319]

>>14998297
there is a very clear racial hierarchy and the only people who wont admit it are coping or ideologically motivated liars

[bodhi No.14999323]

>>14999319

[bodhi No.14999336]

>>14999117
that was a meme article in some magazine being facetious you absolute retard

[bodhi No.14999358]

>>14998391
sad state of affairs that stupid people are too stupid to understand irony. you are an idiot and need to go back >>>/lgbt/

[Anonymous No.14999359]

>>14994499
I think from a medical perspective it's blatantly false. Humans haven't evolved enough to have different medicines with respect to subspecies. There aren't different flu shots for honkeys, chinks, or naggers. Although environmental factors affect phenotypes and disease development like sickle cell anemia in africans, we're still susceptible to the same weaknesses.

[bodhi No.14999365]

>>14999359
>Humans haven't evolved enough to have different medicines with respect to subspecies.
>he doesnt know what sickle cell anemia is or rh factor blood types
dont post anymore

[Anonymous No.14999385]

>>14999365
And those two sentences are related how exactly? What does knowing what the disease is have to do with observing one demographic from a different region having more cases of the disease?

[bodhi No.14999426]

>>14999385
the medicine isnt about the person it about the susceptibility of their ailment. If you have worms you take the medicine that is toxic to the worms, if you have an infection you take penicillin to kill the bacteria moron, the hosts physiology has zero to do with it. Holy fuck how stupid are you?

[Anonymous No.14999445]

>>14999359
>There aren't different flu shots for honkeys, chinks, or naggers. Although environmental factors affect phenotypes and disease development like sickle cell anemia in africans, we're still susceptible to the same weaknesses.
Actually the medical differences in drug tolerance between blacks and whites are well studied in America. Blacks require different diabetes treatment strategies because they just die slowly when given the same standards and treatments for kidney health that whites get.

[Anonymous No.14999456]

>>14998909
He didn’t read a book or a research paper. He’s just regurgitating whatever he absorbed on /pol/. There are more underage poltard rejects on this board than ever before.WYXWPY

[Anonymous No.14999484]

>>14999456
Why would /pol/ approve of the latest developments in archaeology? I don't think they'd be happy to find out that they wuz Turks n shit.

[Anonymous No.14999542]

>>14999484
>Turks
I think the latest consensus is Iranians now

[Anonymous No.14999607]

>>14996344
Dogs (Canis lupus familiaris) are a subspecies of wolves (Canis lupus). The only thing this image actually implies is that Coyotes (Canis latrans) should be considered a subspecies of Canis lupus (-> Canis lupus latrans). If you want to call whites, blacks and asians different subspecies of Homo sapiens, I have no problem with that but since crossbreeding subspecies produces fertile offspring, the term "subspecies" isn't very useful anyway. Might aswell just call it a "breed", a "variety" or a "race". I agree that there needs to be more consistency in taxonomy but species are often renamed or moved between genera since research is ongoing. Look up Neocaridina davidi for an example of this. (Previously "Neocaridina denticulata sinensis" and "Neocaridina heteropoda".)

[An idiot No.14999656]

What about white mexicans tho

By all rights, they're race would be some sorta latino, spaniard based genetics and all, and yet socially they're treated as white because that's what everybody believes they are, and they tend to have an easier time through life than their dark skinned family. We all human bruh, having dark skin or squinty eyes are minor changes in evolution compared to the changes that happened over millions of years, when our species evolved from swinging through trees to walking through fields. The very shape of our skeletons changed, compared to dark skin and squinty eyes which are effectively just biological sunscreen and pseudo-sunglasses (asian's eyes, also inuit's, help reduce sun glare) which can be helpful in some environments. Unless you prefer cancer, and constantly squinting against a bright sun, you masochist mf

Shit, you can't even compare it to dog breeds. A great dane can't create living offspring with a purse poodle, not naturally. Find me ANY two human races that can't breed with each other and you'll have me convinced that races might actually be a thing

[Anonymous No.14999669]

>>14999542
You're more in the Indus Valley or Aryan ape camp? I tend to believe an Anatolian or Mediterranean origin because of the 6 million year old missing link hominid fossil footprint discovered in Crete + the apparent origin of chimpanzees in the region which implies the species divergence began there instead of (or in addition to) in Africa with Lucy.

[Anonymous No.14999674]

>>14999656
>and yet socially they're treated as white because that's what everybody believes they are
They're treated as White because the government likes to blame Whites for the crimes they commit. Nobody actually thinks Latinos are White unless they're Peninsulares.

[Anonymous No.14999690]

>>14999674
Would you call Louis CK white or latino?

[bodhi No.14999697]

>>14999674

[Anonymous No.14999701]

>>14996985
>gradually, i began to hate them

[Anonymous No.14999712]

>>14996228
>>14997093
>>14997121
>>14997138
>>14997152
>>14997164
>>14997190

[Anonymous No.14999719]

>>14999690
Louis CK is Jewish.

[Anonymous No.14999739]

>>14999719
His mother's a "Catholic with Irish ancestry" according to Wikipedia.

[Anonymous No.14999740]

>>14999739
What else did the Early Life section tell you? I already gave you a hint.

[Anonymous No.14999743]

>>14999740
Isn't Jewishness inherited from the mother's side?

[Anonymous No.14999745]

>>14999743
We're talking about race here, not insular tribal schizophrenia. The only time he might be classified as White is if he committed a heinous crime and the government wanted to deflect blame from Jews.

[Anonymous No.14999761]

>>14999745
So the child of a Jewish man and an Irish woman is a Jew to you? So the what's the child of an Irish man and a Jewish woman?

[Anonymous No.14999770]

>>14994499
wow imagine still caring.
vis-a-vis if you like them, go be with them.
if you don't, stay in your home with "races" you like--woohoo! problem solved!!

[Anonymous No.14999832]

>>14999761
A Jew obviously. Go back to bunkerchan.

[Anonymous No.14999841]

>>14994499
I don't think that australian skull is accurate

[Anonymous No.14999845]

>>14999841
It's a cast of an aboriginal skull.

[Anonymous No.14999903]

>>14999832
So according to you, whatever it is that makes someone Jewish is the dominant trait, while "whiteness" is recessive?

[Anonymous No.14999908]

>>14999903
Go back to your hole.

[Anonymous No.14999909]

>>14999908
So Jews are the dominant race?

[Anonymous No.14999914]

>>14999909
Your arguments are in bad faith and deserve no answer.

[Anonymous No.14999917]

>>14999914
Translation: I have no answer because I dug myself into a hole.

[Anonymous No.14999925]

>>14999917
Your initial premise was something I was willing to entertain to indicate to others why you were being disingenuous (because Louis CK is a Jew ethnically, not White or Hispanic as claimed). I see no need to dive deeper into your jelly-like slime of an argument except to bully you.

[Anonymous No.14999932]

>>14999925
>because Louis CK is a Jew ethnically
He isn't though.

[Anonymous No.14999935]

>>14999932
What is his father? Mexican?

[Anonymous No.14999936]

>>14999935
Homo sapiens.

[Anonymous No.14999940]

>>14999936
Your race is clearly Australopithecus Africanus.

[Anonymous No.14999941]

>>14994499
I think as soon as whites become an absolute minority it will be acceptable to be a race realist again, for the purposes of disparaging whites.

[Anonymous No.14999949]

>>14999940
race != species

[Anonymous No.14999955]

>>14999949
The traditional "races" are representative of species.

[Anonymous No.14999963]

>>14999955
If a "jewish" man and an "white" woman can have fertile offspring in the form of Louis CK, and you consider jews and whites different races, how is race representative of species?

[Anonymous No.14999970]

>>14999963
If a "wolf" and a "coyote" can have fertile offspring in the form of a "woyote", and you consider wolves and coyotes different species, how is breed representative of species?

[Anonymous No.14999972]

>>14999970
>and you consider wolves and coyotes different species
I don't. See >>14999607

[Anonymous No.14999977]

>>14999972
Well molecular genetics does. You should consider keeping your nose out of disciplines you have no knowledge of.

[Anonymous No.14999990]

>>14999977
Taxonomy != molecular genetics. Also, as I've already mentioned in >>14999607:
>species are often renamed or moved between genera since research is ongoing
There's no reason why a Coyote couldn't be reclassified if taxonomists stuck to the rigorous requirement of classification based on fertility of offspring. Also, I'd love to hear what you apparent molecular genetics argument is for why Cototes aren't Canis lupus. What exact gene makes the difference between a coyote and a wolf?

[Anonymous No.14999996]

>>14999990
Ironically these are often determined by 2d plots of SNPs to determine genetic distance. The irony is that blacks and whites are more distant than coyotes and wolves when a review of SNPs is done.

[Anonymous No.15000010]

>>14994499
>again
When was it ever?

[Anonymous No.15000015]

>>14999996
The fact that wolves & coyotes even fit on the same plot should imply that they are the same species. Wolves, coyotes, dogs, dingos and jackals all have 78 chromosomes, allowing them to hybridise freely. The same is true for white and black people with 46 chromosomes. Any other arbitrary horseshit classification is just not rigorous and exists only to allow racists like you to put people in arbitrary boxes because of "we wuz" reasons.

[Anonymous No.15000025]

>>15000015
Many animals fit on the same plot. Humans and chimps barely fit on the same plot but you don't see us calling chimps human.

[Anonymous No.15000028]

This guy knows what is up: >>14999996

>>14999990
I don't know a lot about particular Coyote genes or Wolf genes, but, even in the unlikely case that there are no unique coyote genes or wolf genes, it could just be that some genes are more densely represented among Coyotes than Wolves, and that explains all the difference.

Like say there is gene A and 80% of Coyotes have it, whereas 20% of Wolves have it. Now, suppose such disparities exist for 75% of the Coyote/Wolf genome. Coyotes and Wolves would be very different despite there being no unique Coyote or Wolf genes.

Such differences exist between human groups too. Two populations will be very similar in what genes they possess, but the frequency of the gene in each population will be very different and therefore lead to big differences in the population.

[Anonymous No.15000029]

>>15000000

[Anonymous No.15000034]

>>15000025
Chimps have 48 chromosomes, humans have 46. 48 != 46.

[Anonymous No.15000035]

>>14999999

[Anonymous No.15000038]

>>15000034
Difference in chromosome count doesn't necessarily inhibit fertility. There are species who are interfertile, have different chromosomes, and have fertile offspring.

You're just so desperate to deny that race is real that you're willing to dismantle all of genetic science to do it.

[Anonymous No.15000043]

>>15000028
>Coyotes and Wolves would be very different despite there being no unique Coyote or Wolf genes.
Agreed, but those differences should not be considered a difference in species. My whole argument is that the term "species" should be more rigorous and should be defined solely based on genetic compatibility to bear fertile offspring, hence my insistence on matching chromosome counts.

[Anonymous No.15000045]

>>15000015
There is a lot more to ones genetic content than just how many chromosomes you have. It sounds like you are saying "because all humans have the same number of chromosomes, there are no significant genetic differences between populations".

Thats crazy imo. Like, all humans have 46 chromosomes, but some populations are genetically very short, others can't drink milk, some have weird aquatic abilities, some have crazy high blood counts permitting them to live in high altitudes. I have a rare genetic trait where I don't have sweat glands. All of that is rooted in genes and is significant.

[Anonymous No.15000050]

>>15000038
>ye

[Anonymous No.15000053]

>>15000038
>There are species who are interfertile, have different chromosomes, and have fertile offspring.
And that fertile offspring should then be considered a new species, since it's chromosome count is different. That way we could finally say exactly where a new species starts. The species of a child and it's parents should not necessarily be the same if they have mismatching chomosome count.
>you're willing to dismantle all of genetic science
If science isn't rigorous, it should be dismantled.

[Anonymous No.15000055]

>>15000043
>My whole argument is that the term "species" should be more rigorous and should be defined solely based on genetic compatibility to bear fertile offspring,

What is your argument on that?

To me it seems reasonable that two groups of animals that _do not_ mate with each other, should be treated as different species, _even if_ they are genetically compatible. The word "species" should divide animals by which ones are different from each other imo. Clearly animals that cannot mate with each other are not of the same species, but still some that can are not the same species because they are nevertheless distinct.

[Anonymous No.15000063]

>>15000045
>there are no significant genetic differences between populations
That's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that because humans all have 46 chromosomes, they should be considered thet same species and any further differences between populations should be considered highly fluid and represented and discussed as a gradient, rather than "black" vs. "white".

[Anonymous No.15000070]

>>15000063
>considered highly fluid and represented and discussed as a gradient, rather than "black" vs. "white".

Why? They _are not_ highly fluid. Many traits are _not_ on a gradient across people.

[Anonymous No.15000078]

>>15000055
>they are nevertheless distinct.
But the problem is that drawing such a distinction between 2 or more populations is subjective and ultimately you will then have to decide what genes to categorize them on. Should people with blue eyes be considered a different species than people with brown eyes? Should the OCA2 gene carry that nuch weight? Who will decide? It's not a rigorous way to define species if you just get to cherry-pick genes to distinguish those species.

[Anonymous No.15000087]

>>15000078
>n 2 or more populations is subjective
It is not subjective. Coyotes and Wolves do not mate with each other. That is not subjective. That is an objective fact in reality that is there despite what ever anyone might think about it.

>Should people with blue eyes be considered a different species than people with brown eyes?
No, because blue eyed people and brown eyed people mate with each other. Again, that isn't anyones personal subjective opinion. That is an objective fact about blue eyed and brown eyed people.

>It's not a rigorous way to define species if you just get to cherry-pick genes to distinguish those species.
But nobody does that. That is a strawman.

[Anonymous No.15000093]

>>15000078
You're pretending the difference is 1-2 SNPs. It's not even 100. It's hundreds for every part of development. The distance is frankly incredible and it's surprising that interbreeding doesn't result in severe genetic disease more often.

[Anonymous No.15000097]

>>15000070
My point is this: let's say you are the racists I assume you are and you think whites have higher IQ than blacks and IQ is genetically determined. OK, fine by me. But now, imagine if a white and black person had a child together. Will it's skin be poitch black or pure white? No, it will be somewhere inbetween. What about it's IQ? Will it be a genius or an idiot? It's fluid. It's IQ might be somewhere inbetween, or really low, or really high. There's no reason for melanin content of the skin to be linked to IQ, yet racists argue like that all the time. Every person lies somewhere on a many-dimensional gradient, but still belongs to the same species. There's no reason for you to assume that a black person is lesser than a white person or vice-versa.

[Anonymous No.15000106]

>>15000087
>Coyotes and Wolves do not mate with each other.
There are populations of coyote living in the wild that are white or black. They got those colors from breeding with wild dogs, Canis lupus. They absolutely do breed with each other.
>But nobody does that. That is a strawman.
Hitler did.

[Anonymous No.15000108]

>>15000097
Just because you can say that race exists on a "gradient" does not mean that race isn't real, anymore than you can say color exists on a spectrum so therefore there is no difference between red and blue. What you're trying to do is called the continuum fallacy.

[Anonymous No.15000112]

>>15000097
I do in fact believe whites have a higher IQ than blacks, and I do believe that IQ is largely determined by genes. And I agree that when white people and black people have kids their kids come out roughly as an average.

>here's no reason for melanin content of the skin to be linked to IQ
I don't understand what you mean by "reason" here. It would seem like there is a correlation between white skin tone and IQ. So, that would just be a true fact that they are linked. And its weird to say there is no reason to believe an observably true thing.

>There's no reason for you to assume that a black person is lesser than a white person or vice-versa.
I like judging people on their individual merits. I think that is the moral thing to do. And I think there is usually an abundance of non-racial data available on which we can judge individuals.

But there is _ no reason_ to judge blacks as different than whites? The differences are abundantly clear. I personally feel an obligation to believing true things. Your post can be summarized to "blacks and whites may be different but there is no reason to judge them as different" which is clearly a nonsensical thing to say. Its a paradox. An oxymoron. Like saying "It is raining and I do not believe it is raining".

[Anonymous No.15000119]

>>15000106
>There are populations of coyote living in the wild that are white or black. They got those colors from breeding with wild dogs, Canis lupus. They absolutely do breed with each other.
When I said "They dont breed" I didn't mean "There have been literally no occurrences of them interbreeding".

Coyotes, Wolves, and Dogs will greatly avoid each other entirely, much less mate with each other. They very very very very rarely mate with each other. They are not even sexually attracted to each other.

[Anonymous No.15000131]

>>15000108
Where on the color spectrum do you draw the line between red and orange? Should orange people be sent to concentration camps while red people are considered the ubermensch? I'm not denying there are differences between people, just than you should treat people differently because they fall on opposite side of ann arbitrary line you drew on a continuous spectrum.

[Anonymous No.15000139]

>>15000112
>their kids come out roughly as an average.
But they don't always come out as average. They could come out as a sum of their parents best traits. Not all will, but some will. Then the ones most adapted to their environment can thrive, while the less successful are culled, like netural selection always does. But racists will argue "race mixing is bad" despite the fact that the recombination of genes is literally the point of sex.

[Anonymous No.15000141]

>>15000131
It isn't "arbitrary" you stupid sack of shit.
I educated on you a fallacious line of reasoning you were undertaking and your response is to double down.
>red and orange exists
>BUT WHERE DO YOU DRAW THE LINE????
Draw it wherever the fuck you want to. It doesn't negate the fact that the line WILL be drawn somewhere and that it must be drawn because these distinctions do exist and matter. Vagueness does not imply validity. We observe that race exists so then your response is to zoom in more and more to try and blur the distinctions.
Just like your previous dumbfuck observation that if a white person and a black person have a child, they will be mixed race, and that this is "fluid."
Almost as if you are stumbling around and trying to say that the existence of mixed race people mean races don't exist, when it's actually the direct opposite, mixed race people only exist BECAUSE race exists, definitionally.

[Anonymous No.15000142]

>>15000141
Vagueness does not imply invalidity*

[Anonymous No.15000148]

>>14994499
Define acceptable.

[Anonymous No.15000150]

>>15000139
>But they don't always come out as average.
Right they don't always come out as average. It is some what random. But usually kids come out average. I agree

The rest of your post... I don't know why you wrote it. Just yelling into the void about the racists.

[Anonymous No.15000152]

>>15000119
But the white coyote might have better camouflage when living in a snowy tundra. Who gives a fuck about the frequency with which they breed? My point is that sometimes the rare pair of organisms that do mix races can actually bring about a more Darwinistically fit offspring. Thus racists have no point when they argue about "da joos" or "chink bugmen" or "kangz an shieet", even if their stereotypes were true.

[Anonymous No.15000155]

>>15000150
His posts are a jumbled mix of continuum fallacy, ill-conceived notions of hybrid vigor, neo-Nazi strawmanning, and pearl clutching.

[Anonymous No.15000163]

>>14994499
you're a goof.

[Anonymous No.15000164]

>>15000152
> Who gives a fuck about the frequency with which they breed?
I do, but also mainstream science because whether or not there is mating between gene pools is part of the definition of the word "species".

It makes sense. That is the real world division and difference between organisms.

>My point is that sometimes the rare pair of organisms that do mix races can actually bring about a more Darwinistically fit offspring.
Yeah, that is true. I agree. But so what?

>Thus racists have no point when they argue about "da joos" or "chink bugmen" or "kangz an shieet", even if their stereotypes were true.
I don't really like racists either. Like, I am with you regarding what you said about race mixing up above. It isn't an issue for me, and I have definitely heard racists complain about race mixing.

But it sounds like your primary beef with racists is just that they believe races exist. And they do exist. Obviously they exist. And they obviously have long distinct ancestries and genetic makes up. You don't have to be a racist to believe all of that.

[Anonymous No.15000167]

>>15000141
>trying to say the existence of mixed race people mean races don't exist
That is exactly what I'm trying to say. Some groups of people travelled in different directions a couple thousand years ago and started diversifying genetically. Recently they met up again and started fucking eachother again. Where did "race" start being a concept? When you decided your ancestral group walked in the better direction thousands of years ago. Guess what? It matters about as much as blue eyes vs. brown eyes. I you're actually going to judge people based on merit, judge them on IQ, not on skin color. A black person with a high IQ is a possibility, you know.

[Anonymous No.15000171]

>>15000167
>That is exactly what I'm trying to say.
Then you're trying to say something extremely stupid, as I demonstrated with the remainder of that sentence that you cut out.
>A black person with a high IQ is a possibility, you know.
This is such a banal and pointless observation that I have to think you are trolling.

[Anonymous No.15000186]

>>15000171
>as I demonstrated with the remainder of that sentence that you cut out.
You're starting out from the assumtion that there are different races and therefore there must be a "mixed-race". I'm starting out from the assumption that "race" is a meaningless term and the child of a pink person and a dark brown person might be a light brown person, on average. In other words, "race" is a social construct you use to seperate yourself from brown people because you feel superior to them and don't want to belong to the same group as them.

[Anonymous No.15000188]

>>15000167
> When you decided your ancestral group walked in the better direction thousands of years ago. Guess what? It matters about as much as blue eyes vs. brown eyes

No not really. That isn't true. Like, jews were in a pretty distinct gene pool for thousands of years and that really changed them quite a lot both from their own ancestors and neighboring non-jewish populations. The castes of India remained separate for thousands of years and that made the castes all very different despite living in close proximity. Western Europeans and Eastern Europeans have been separate for perhaps 1500 years except around central Europe, and they are very different populations.

All those populations being separate for thousands of years lead to differences quite larger than just eye color.

[Anonymous No.15000194]

>>15000186
>You're starting out from the assumtion that there are different races
It isn't an assumption, it can be directly observed and empirically verified. The rest of your post is a strawman.

[Anonymous No.15000199]

>>15000188
>that made the castes all very different despite living in close proximit
Yes, very different *culturally*. Because "caste" is as much of a cultural construct as "race" is. If you took a child from the lower caste and one from the higher and educated them the same, which one would end up scoring better on an IQ test? I claim: "Not necessarily the higher caste child."

>All those populations being separate for thousands of years lead to differences quite larger than just eye color.
Different enough to treat them differently? List some of the ways in which browner people should be treated differently and why.

[Anonymous No.15000205]

>>15000194
>directly observed and empirically verified
Please do so, I'm excited to see your empirical verification of what you call "race".

[Anonymous No.15000217]

>>15000199
>Yes, very different *culturally*.
No no no. They are different genotypically and phenotypically, as that is what happens when a population lives separately and differently for thousands of years.

>If you took a child from the lower caste and one from the higher and educated them the same, which one would end up scoring better on an IQ test?
Probably the one from the upper caste. The upper caste folks in India are pretty smart genetically.

>Different enough to treat them differently?
I don't understand this "treat them differently". They are different! What does "treat" mean? Are you asking if I am going to believe they are different... yes! Are you asking if I am going to start murdering people of particular races... no! There is obviously a huge range of ways of treating a person between those extremes, and you aren't clarifying that at all.

[Anonymous No.15000228]

>>15000217
>The upper caste folks in India are pretty smart genetically.
Have you sequenced the genes of these two castes? What specific genes did the higher caste members possess that made them smarter? I'd love to see your revolutionary research into the genes that determine intelligence. When are you getting your Nobel prize btw?

[Anonymous No.15000229]

>>14994499
I believe it will become acceptable after the next world war.

[Anonymous No.15000236]

>>15000228
Why are you pretending like you're a cut above him when your posts so far have been rife with fallacious reasoning and hysterical strawmanning? You aren't even attempting to engage with what he is saying on a base line level but now he's expected to provide Nobel prize winning work on genetics for you to digest (and invariably dismiss)? As if you'd be able to understand it anyways?

[Anonymous No.15000237]

It doesn't really matter. The US is slowly becoming predominantly genetically Hispanic and other nations will mix as well. It's over Pol chud

[Anonymous No.15000242]

>>15000228
>Have you sequenced the genes of these two castes?
Me personally? No. But there have been lots and lots of gene sequencing on Indian people and the differences in their ancestry is pretty clear. High castes have more ancestry from the proto indo European invasion and lower castes have more ancestry from the local hunter gather populations in India.

>What specific genes did the higher caste members possess that made them smarter?
I dont know.

> I'd love to see your revolutionary research into the genes that determine intelligence.
I am not personally responsible for any intelligence research, but twin and sibling studies, and adoption studies are old as dirt and reveal quite a lot about the relationship between intelligence and DNA. In the last few years Genome Wide studies have become more popular where they will look at the sequenced genes for tons of people and isolate which genes seem to be contributing to traits like intelligence. I recall one fascinating study that found that the genes in smart jewish populations are actually the same genes common in European population, but in higher concentrations. So there didn't seem to be any unique high IQ jewish genes, as some people hypothesized. Instead it seemed that jewish people have the same genes that make neighboring populations smart, just a higher concentration of them.

So I don't know a lot about the genetic architecture of high caste indian intelligence. But I do know about intelligence and DNA generally, and I do know that high caste indians are very smart and genetically distinct from other castes.

[Anonymous No.15000244]

>>15000236
I'm not claiming to have done such work, though. Genius over here, on the other hand, knows that "The upper caste folks in India are pretty smart genetically". Ok, why? What makes him assume it's genetic smartness? All I'm asking is to back up his statement with "direct observations and empirical evidence" (his words, not mine).

[Anonymous No.15000246]

>>15000242
>from the local hunter gather populations
Well, they were already farmers when the Indo-Europeans showed up.
But, yes, they're the indigenous ones.

[Anonymous No.15000248]

>>14999426
You really think we treat worms in dogs using the same medication we use to treat worms in humans? That's a pretty large assumption to have an apples to apples comparison.

[Anonymous No.15000249]

>>15000244
He didn't claim to have done such work either, retard. That isn't to say that the work hasn't been done. You're a nasty little guy.

[Anonymous No.15000252]

>>15000242
>I dont know.
Yeah no shit. So my point still stands: "Not necessarily the higher caste child". So then why are members of the lower caste treated as lesser?

>I recall one fascinating study
Link?

[Anonymous No.15000254]

>>14999445
Tolerance has to do with dosage, no? I think it's the same medication, regardless. I'm not saying there aren't genetic differences, I'm saying the magnitude of differences isn't large enough to warrant different medications for the same ailment.

[Anonymous No.15000255]

>>14998297
Lol congrats you mindbroke him

[Anonymous No.15000256]

>>15000244
>What makes him assume it's genetic smartness?
Because we know IQ is a heritable trait and that heritability of it could be as high as 85%.

[Anonymous No.15000258]

>>15000249
So then show me the work that's been done. All I ask is the "empirical evidence".

[Anonymous No.15000263]

>>15000256
>IQ is a heritable trait
But do we also know high caste Indians are the only Indians to possess that trait? Link me the study.

[Anonymous No.15000266]

>>15000263
Do you understand what a bell curve is?
You keep demanding studies but you seem totally ignorant on even rudimentary concepts.

[Anonymous No.15000272]

>>15000246
Yeah I see what you mean. Proto indo European invasion would be like 5000 years ago, and they were probably farming by then.

I do recall reading something about the contribution of ancient indian hunter gatherers in relation to modern indians, but I must be forgetting the details. Maybe the caste system predates even the proto indo European invasion.

I do know there is also a "smear" of ancestry where the farther north you are in India the higher proportion of indo european ancestry there is.

>>15000252
> "Not necessarily the higher caste child".
You said "Not necessarily the higher caste child", and I said "Probably the higher caste child" which are two compatible statements. We agreed with each other on that point from the start.

>So then why are members of the lower caste treated as lesser?
Probably racism. I don't know. I keep asking what you mean by "treated". You keep not answering. What treatment in particular do you have in mind?

I have known some Brahmin indians and being a Brahmin seems like a big deal to them. They strongly self identify as Brahmin, and have rites of passage for growing up as a Brahmin and things like that. So they do seem very different. They are also very anti-racist too, which is funny since they make such a big deal about how their own identity.

"hey everyone, don't forget, I am a Brahmin, that is right, the top of the caste system. Don't forget! Also, I would like to point out that the caste system is evil and being of a caste system doesn't matter."

[Anonymous No.15000273]

>>15000266
Show me the bell curve of IQ of Indians. I'd love to see the higher caste members on the right side of that curve and the low caste members on the left, as you claim they would be. Link pls.

[Anonymous No.15000281]

>>15000106
>Hitler did.
This demonstrates your elementary school understanding of the world.

[Anonymous No.15000283]

>>14997195
Basically this, probably. Watch, his reply will probably be mean because it stung.

[Anonymous No.15000288]

>>15000272
>"Not necessarily the higher caste child", and I said "Probably the higher caste child" which are two compatible statements
I claim it would be a 50-50 split. You claim the high caste child is more likely to score higher, despite not having any evidence to back that up.

>What treatment in particular do you have in mind?
Stuff like this, for example:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2021-03-11/how-big-tech-is-importing-india-s-caste-legacy-to-silicon-valley

Still waiting for the link to you fascinating study.

[Anonymous No.15000292]

>>15000273
>low IQ brown mutt here on an emotional-ideological mission to "pwn the racists" completely misinterprets the relevance of a bell curve
Poetry.

[Anonymous No.15000303]

>>14999288
>white people and the flourishing societies they build is a privilege not a right.
If only they didn't build it on backs of others. many such cases. The moment you feel any grievance from a fellow "white" that construct dissolves

[Anonymous No.15000305]

>>15000292
Are you ever going to link any actual data to back up your claims? I know perfectly well what a bell curve is. If we take the entire population of India, measure their IQ and draw a curve with that data, it will be bell shaped. If high caste member are smarter than low caste members the high caste should have the majority on the right side of the curve, and the low caste the majority on the left side of the curve, right? Let's see it.

[Anonymous No.15000306]

>>15000303
>If only they didn't build it on backs of others.
Whites are the only race to build this level of society on their own backs. This is not your home.

[Anonymous No.15000311]

>>14999134
You guys love to say this
>but what GOOD would that information do, who is it helping?

Because some truths are unpleasant doesn't mean we should just turn them into palatable falsehoods. Making a word mean something else doesn't change reality.
Imagine if some cult was like stopsigns are blue and when you said no, they're red, they attacked you for calling for blue stopsigns genocide and tried to ruin your life.
How could any truth exist in such a situation?

[Anonymous No.15000323]

>>15000288
>I claim it would be a 50-50 split.
Ah okay. Yeah I disagree.

>https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2021-03-11/how-big-tech-is-importing-india-s-caste-legacy-to-silicon-valley

Yeah seems racist. I think Indians are pretty racist. So, holding someone's caste against them, despite them succeeding as an individual, seems pretty racist to me.

I feel perfectly capable of acknowledging that, but also acknowledging that the castes are in fact racially different. Why can't you believe both of those at the same time like I can?

> despite not having any evidence to back that up.
I could start googling indian IQ scores or something, but it is weird to doubt that Brahmins are smarter. Like Brahmin Americans are the richest race in America, are vastly over represented in tech companies and among Indian immigrants. They _look_ pretty smart. That extends into Indian history too: aren't Brahmins responsible for a disproportionate amount of Indian accomplishment?

>Still waiting for the link to you fascinating study.
I saw it a few years ago, so unfortunately I can't easily dig it up, but I did just google up "About IQ-genes, GWAS, and a mathematical model for intelligence" which talks about a lot of GWAS data, IQ, and the hypothesis that Jews have novel intelligence mutations, and why that is not true.

Have fun!

[Anonymous No.15000329]

>>15000305
I don't have the time nor inclination to educate you on basic genetic science, especially when you clearly have disingenuous motivations.

[Anonymous No.15000332]

>>15000323
>I think Indians are pretty racist.
They can't be racist, only white people can.

[Anonymous No.15000349]

>>15000323
>the castes are in fact racially different. Why can't you believe both of those at the same time like I can?
Because the term "race" carries no weight. I believe they're *genetically* different, sure. But not *racially*, since to use the term "race" you'd first have to define it rigorously. You'd have to say something like: "x list of genetic variations are what seperate one race from another".
>They _look_ pretty smart.
And two blue butterflies can look identical but actually be different species. Looks deceive.

[Anonymous No.15000361]

>>15000349
>Because the term "race" carries no weight.
It does if you're not an ideology-poisoned leftist.

[Anonymous No.15000362]

>>15000329
>you clearly have disingenuous motivations
Such as?

[Anonymous No.15000365]

>>15000361
Tell me what it means then. Define it rigorously. What is "race" to you?

[bodhi No.15000366]

>>15000303
>If only they didn't build it on backs of others.
this is the most hilarious cope ever

[Anonymous No.15000402]

>>15000349
Why wouldn't you believe the castes of india are racially different?
1. They look physically different
2. They don't mate with each other, and haven't for thousands of years
3. They themselves consider themselves racially different.

> You'd have to say something like: "x list of genetic variations are what seperate one race from another".
You don't actually need a list of description of genetic differences to know races are real, or that race has some genetic basis.

>And two blue butterflies can look identical but actually be different species. Looks deceive.
??
Are you trying to say that two smart humans might actually be of different species after all this?

[Anonymous No.15000418]

>>15000402
>to know races are real
To know anything, you have to either have a math proof that proves it, or sufficient scientific evidence to support it. Before you can even begin to study something, you first have to have a rigorous definition of something. "they look different", "they don't fuck eachother" and "they think they're different" isn't good enough. They *could* fuck eachother and produce fertile offspring, thus they are the same species. *That* is a good categorization, because it doesn't depend on anyone's opinion. "Species" is a much more rigorous framework within which to work than "race", since perception of race is arbitrary and subjective.

>Are you trying to say that two smart humans might actually be of different species after all this?
I'm saying that looks deceive. In other words "cuz dey look smaht" isn't an argument.

[Anonymous No.15000421]

>>15000418
there are a shit ton of separate species that can fuck and have fertile offspring, so that isn't actually the magic debonking you insist it is

[Anonymous No.15000423]

>>15000421
See >>15000043.

[Anonymous No.15000426]

>>14999206

Something, something , if races live toge3ther racial acceptance. (Including themselves.)

[Anonymous No.15000427]

>>15000421
that guy is a swarmy jew and one of stupidest posters in this entire board

[Anonymous No.15000432]

>>15000418
>either have a math proof that proves it, or sufficient scientific evidence to support it.

If by "scientific evidence" you mean something like a peer reviewed scientific paper, then you are clearly wrong, because a vast majority of all the things people know are not derived either from a mathematical proof or from a scientific study.

Like, you know where you clothes are. You know your home address. You know how to use 4chan dot org. You are able to speak english and you know what english words mean. None of that comes from a mathematical proof or from a scientific study.

So, all I said was that you don't need tons and tons of indian genomes to know that the castes of india are racially different. Knowing that race is a bundle of ancestry and culture and that the castes are different from each other in ancestry and culture is sufficient.

> In other words "cuz dey look smaht" isn't an argument.
Sure it is. Smart people tend to look smart. If smart people did not look smart, we would not know that they look that way. That is a line evidence, however informal. I'll admit it isn't conclusive, but it is strange that anyone would not be able to start there.

Brahmin indians in America program computers. They dominate spelling bees. They are wealthy and successful. They come from people who did the same kind of thing in India too. That looks pretty smart to me.

[Anonymous No.15000433]

>>15000427
>provides no counter argument
>"da joos"
1. I'm not Jewish.
2. You have no argument.

[Anonymous No.15000436]

>>15000433
How do you know you aren't jewish? I thought you were telling me races aren't real and it is wrong to treat people differently based off race, and yet here you are making it clear that you are not a particular race, as if you believed that entitled you to some particular kind of treatment.

[Anonymous No.15000449]

>>15000432
>you know where you clothes are
The vast majority of the time you really don't know that. What if someone moved your clothes? You'll have to apply the scientific method. Hypothesis: My clothes are in my house, in my wardrobe. Experiment: Visually confirm that my clothes are in my wardrobe. Results: I see my clothes in my wardrobe. Conclusion: My clothes are in my wardrobe. Someone could repeat my experiment to confirm for themselves where my clothes are.
>Smart people tend to look smart.
Are you also a phrenologist? Lmao.

[Anonymous No.15000453]

>>15000436
>How do you know you aren't jewish?
I'm not religious.
>you were telling me races aren't real
I was telling you races are a non-scientific social construct.
>if you believed that entitled you to some particular kind of treatment
You're projecting. If I was Jewish I wouldn't be ashamed of it (other than the fact that Abrahamic religions are especially retarded), but I am not.

[Anonymous No.15000461]

>>15000453
He contorts himself to wriggle free now that he's caught in his own trap.

[Anonymous No.15000470]

>>15000461
What trap? I'm also not genetically related to any Jews that I know of, in case you were wondering, but like I said race is a social construct, not a scientific term related to genetics so you can stop your Gestapo act now.

[Anonymous No.15000498]

>>14994499
Who the fuck believes it's a social construct? LOLOL

[Anonymous No.15000531]

>>15000498
leftists and other mentally ill
its one of the core tenants of their religion

[Anonymous No.15000545]

>>15000470
I like jews. Nothing against Jews. Definitely not trying to gestapo you or any jews. Just funny how nonsense the sum of everything you said so far in this thread is.

> You can't know anything about race without science
> Race doesn't mean anything
> It is wrong to treat people differently because of there race

> But I am definitely not jewish

> Please treat me differently due to this racial status I have that I know I possess for unscientific reasons

[Anonymous No.15000573]

>>14994499
Twist: you find the same level of variance in any population. These can be all irish for all we know.

[Anonymous No.15000577]

>>14994549
Oh yeah mate so aboriginals and north western europeans are frequently phenotypically indistinguishable eh? Don't be fucking facetious, you know for a fact there are significant *physical* differences between human groups isolated for tens of thousands of years.

[Anonymous No.15000584]

>>15000545
> You can't know anything about race without science
> Race doesn't mean anything
> It is wrong to treat people differently because of there race
True.
>But I am definitely not jewish
The mistake you keep making is that you keep assuming I have the same definition of Jew that you have. Judaism is a religion and a culture. I don't belong to either. What's that have to do with a discussion in which I assert that "race" is a pointless categorization when talking genetics?
>Please treat me differently due to this racial status I have that I know I possess for unscientific reasons
Once again, to me "Jew" is not a racial status at all, since "race" isn't a meaningfully defined term at all. Also, I'm not asking you to treat me differently.

[Anonymous No.15000597]

>>15000573
bullshit

[Anonymous No.15000655]

>>15000573
That isn't true at all. African populations have way more genetic diversity in them than any other continent.

Way more genetic diversity in America than Japan, for example.

Clearly not true what you said.

[Anonymous No.15000712]

>>15000597
Seconded.

https://bmcecolevol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2148-11-16

[Anonymous No.15000741]

>>15000655
>an island have identical skulls because of millenia of inbreeding
No shit sherlock

Twist: there still is a lot of variation, but the changes are too minute for you to care about because you're just a racist and you discard what don't support your view

[Anonymous No.15000745]

>>15000741
Do you mean interbreeding? because you said inbreeding, which is wrong, you should apologize.

[Anonymous No.15000768]

>>15000741
All I said was that the degree of genetic variance within races varies a lot between races. You replied saying there is a lot of variation, as if to disagree. But we agree.

[Anonymous No.15000774]

>>15000768
He replied with Lewontin's Fallacy

[Anonymous No.15000781]

>>14994499
No, theres too many abjectly retarded so-yance fans who treat it like a political ideology these days. They don't think, they just repeat what the priests tell them to think.

[Anonymous No.15000798]

>>14994499
No senpai people are too emotionally sensitive and stupid these days I wouldn't risk it. It's whatever.

[Anonymous No.15000930]

>>15000248
wtf do you think Ivermectin is for?

https://www.google.com/search?q=list+of+drugs+given+to+animals+and+humans&oq=list+of+drugs+given+to+animals+and+humans

[Anonymous No.15001014]

>>14994499
>Do you think it will ever become acceptable again
It still is, unless you mean you should get special priviliges and protections.

[Anonymous No.15001613]

>>15000248
Tons of people world wide use Ivermectin. Ivermectin is a medication for humans. My buddy in Venezuela says that as long as he remembers doctors just hand out Ivermectin as a general medicine for a wide range of problems.

Ivermectin is particularly common in third world countries, because a lot of people have parasites in third world countries, and so if you just hand out Ivermectin like candy to just anyone with any kind of problem the odds are pretty high that the Ivermectin will help them out in some way or another.

[Anonymous No.15001696]

>>15000254
Their effects are different. But it's not like that's even relevant. We give dogs and people the same antiparasitics, and we give chickens the same antibiotics.

[Anonymous No.15001701]

This lie will be argued ad infinitum.
It is inevitable.

[Anonymous No.15001706]

>>15000365
Race is a word describing the different hominid species in existence today. For humans, race = species.

[Anonymous No.15002198]

>>15000930
>What do you think random drug is for
Why would I have that drug on my mind? Who presents a counterexample like that? There's no need to shout.
I concede, but only because you informed me that the drug exists and not because I think about it enough to know what it's for.

[bodhi No.15002319]

>>15002198
>Why would I have that drug on my mind?
Because it has been in the news for years s a treatment for covid and psueds on jew news attacked anyone who talked about it including Joe Rogan the biggest pod caster in the world. Sorry I forgot /sci/ was a board of shut in pseud weebs for a brief moment

[Anonymous No.15002423]

is olive skin a white trait?

[Anonymous No.15002430]

>>14994612
The actual difference between white people and blacks its extremely small, but our brains are wired to see this differences at the extreme because we absolutely need to be able to distinguish individual faces. We dont see objective reality we see augmented reality through a bunch of algorithms and filters.
Also skin color is controlled by only 8 genes out of 10,000.

[Anonymous No.15002433]

>>15002430
You didn't even address my point

[Anonymous No.15002445]

>>14998299
The same mutation can happen again several times. And it does.

[Anonymous No.15002446]

>>15002430
No the difference is not small. We look, act, and think differently.

For example, I think personality and mental health research reveals that black people are way more optimistic just generally, and white people are way more likely to suffer from depression. Those aren't small differences. Those are deep differences that stem from our basic natures. It isn't a small difference. It is vast enough that if you knew that a person suffered from depression, you would have pretty good evidence that they were not black.

>Also skin color is controlled by only 8 genes out of 10,000.
Yes. And our skin color is also vastly different, which just goes to show you that small differences in the genetics can lead to vast differences in phenotype.

[Anonymous No.15002450]

>>15002446
I agree with you, however I think you are wrong

[Anonymous No.15002458]

>>14998299
No asian people also have Neanderthal ancestry.

>>14998387
>The genetic marker for blue eyes comes from Neanderthal DNA.
Why do you think that?

As I understood it, eye color is polygenic like most traits, and you can have more or less genes pushing eye color in lighter and darker directions. So, the notion that there is one genetic marker for blue eyes and it comes from one population already sounds suspect.

I think ancient hunter gatherer Europeans had black skin and blue eyes 10k years ago.

>>15002445
No way. Who told you that?

It is possible but so unlikely.

[Anonymous No.15002460]

>>15002458
>No asian people also have Neanderthal ancestry.
fucking wrong. Neanderthals only lived in Europe. There were no fossils ever found outside of Europe

>Why do you think that?
it literally stands in the wiki article

>No way. Who told you that?
it's common knowledge that is being taught in middle school

[Anonymous No.15002467]

>>15002433

The pic is bullshit anyway because it is fact that blacks and whites can have fertile ofspring, therefore are the same species.

Again, you see them so extremely different because all the algorithms and filters in your brain make it seem so. Same reason we can interpret two dots and a line inside a yellow circle and call it a smiley "face".

[bodhi No.15002479]

>>15002467
fertile offspring has nothing to do with being the same species that is an outdated fallacy psued

[Anonymous No.15002560]

>>15002479

No its not retard

[Anonymous No.15002637]

>>15002560
It was outdated when it was originally proposed.
Mules, for example, are the classic example... except that mules are occasionally fertile.

[Anonymous No.15002644]

>>14998299
>>15002460
Asians have Neanderthal ancestry because they picked it up while migrating to East Asia.
Also, Neanderthals lived in Asia.

[bodhi No.15002661]

>>15002560
moron
https://kids.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/frym.2019.00113

[bodhi No.15002665]

>>15002560
website for fucking children btw >>15002661

because you and most of the other posters on this moronic board have the minds of children

[Anonymous No.15002685]

>>15002458
>>15002460
Blue eyes are an example of a SNP, a single gene change.
A change in the OCA2 genes causes blue eyes.

It first mutated along the Black Sea basin <15kya. All people with blue eyes are descended from that one person.

[Anonymous No.15002703]

Bioanthbros...
>>15002430
According to the 1000 genomes project the farthest extent of modern human populations feature an equivalent degree of nucleotide diversity as do chimps and bonobos. This is also not accounting for the various phenotypic and genotypic factors that primatologists often cite as being indicators of paniscus and troglodytes being seperate species without going into much detail including height, weight, skin pigmentation etc. It's not like this doesn't exist as an anomaly either, there are countless examples in biology of the requirements for speciation being shockingly few, but chimps and bonobos are the most prominent example since they are our closest extant references, but make no mistake they are not the greatest biological example of this either, such as the fucking countless examples of insects who display the most minor of variation being categorised as a seperate species, but make of that what you will. The point is that within the taxonomic record, and even when applied to great apes, there are an untold amount of precedence to indicate human populations such as SSA and NE are a seperate species, and in actually it's mostly just SSA that serves as the outlier, plotting the furthest away from any other extant human populations on earth on a PCA.
>>14994549
The examples in the OP are bone clones, industry standard in terms of osteological and paleoanthropological representations. The ones in the op represent an amalgamation of the features you would typically associate with the individual populations featured, they don't represent individuals, but they represent phenotypic trends.

[Anonymous No.15002742]

yes, in most civilized countries the reality of race is understood and discussed openly. americans wouldn't understand

[Anonymous No.15002763]

>>15002742
>civilized countries
have never existed.

[Anonymous No.15003239]

>>15002446
>personality and mental health research reveals that black people are way more optimistic just generally, and white people are way more likely to suffer from depression. Those aren't small differences. Those are deep differences that stem from our basic natures. It isn't a small difference. It is vast enough that if you knew that a person suffered from depression, you would have pretty good evidence that they were not black.
Source?

[Anonymous No.15003637]

>>15002467
>lions and tigers are the same species!
Actual retard kek

[Anonymous No.15003689]

>>14996521
>And we know that dogs can react differently to different races
Cite?

[Anonymous No.15003854]

>>14999359
>Humans haven't evolved enough to have different medicines with respect to subspecies

[Anonymous No.15004014]

>>15002703
Even compelling evidence on the dissimilarity of the races will be ignored.

https://archive DOT ph SLASH ZkZYP

Genetic traits coding for brain structure that support high average levels of intelligence, social adaptability/cooperation rely literally on thousands of genes and a variety of RNA modifiers - both enhancing and deteriorating protein manufacturing.

There is no reason in the world to even postulate that these complex genetic traits evolved in all humans all to the same degree OTHER than "feeling sorry" for those who, on average, aren't lucky enough to have these genes.

The original forefathers of the R1 haplogroups, r1a and r1b hit the genetic jackpot 5000 years ago in and around the black sea basin. All of their descendants are what we commonly describe as "white" and have led the expansion of science and civilization since that time.

[Anonymous No.15004139]

>>14994499
That would require race not being a social construct to be the truth

[Anonymous No.15004145]

Human genetic variation on race is more like this if you go by a dog analogy.
There is no essential difference in intelligence based on race as humans learn information and have tons of learned behaviors, that is observed with every ethno-linguistic group. You would know this if you weren't so offended by reality not being what you want it to be.

[Anonymous No.15004159]

>>15004145
>There is no essential difference in intelligence based on race
You got BTFO hours before posting. >>15004014

[Anonymous No.15004192]

>>15004159
Nonsensical cherry picked stats from a paper you most certainly didn't dig deeper on. Since the Black Sea basin as a magic cooking pot for ubermensch ignores how there was multiple cradles of civilization that had nothing to do with the Black Sea basin. Education and social expectations have consistently been shown to change the results as is. When a black student has higher expectations on academic success, they get higher grades and better academic performance. That's because 95% of intelligence differences come from non-genetic factors and the ones that do don't even neatly map to the spook of race.

[Anonymous No.15004226]

>>15004145
Dogs are closer genetically to each other than humans. Do we agree?

Yet no-one in their right mind would expect a boxer to able to perform like a collie.

In fact, collies do so well in standard tests of mental skill and athletics that it was necessary to create a competition that collies were specifically excluded from.
https://thebark.com/content/anything-border-collie

Because you see...er ummm well ...its because well er ...the collies are rayciss and stuff and the bulldogs suffer from discrimanashum and stuff

You really are a fool. Go away child.

[Anonymous No.15004239]

>>15004226
The golden retriever variations in that picture I posted are what human racial variation is like, not the difference between boxers and collies.

[Anonymous No.15004242]

Wow this just pathetic. We get it, you're insecure about yourself so it's easier to say it's out of your hands instead of taking responsibility.

[Anonymous No.15004245]

>>15004239
This

If you knew anything about biology you'd know the human genepool is shallow.

[Anonymous No.15004255]

>>15004239
There is less genetic difference between all dogs than all humans,

I can cherry pick pictures of pygmies, Australian aboriginals and Africans that would wipe the floor with your pathetic logic.

Please just go away, learn what FST and PCA plots do - then and come back with intelligent replies.

[Anonymous No.15004266]

>>15004145
Are you retarded? Differences in dog hair color are analogous to...differences in human hair color. The races have widespread average genetic and morphological disparities that make the analogy to dog breeds perfectly acceptable.

>>15004192
>That's because 95% of intelligence differences come from non-genetic factors

Well, that answers my question: You are retarded. IQ is 70-80% heritable, specifically meaning 70-80% of "intelligence differences" come from genetics. When you raise identical twins in different environments, they end up mostly the same.

[bodhi No.15004291]

>>15004239
no actually that is more like the differences between red heads with green eyes, blonds with blue eyes, and brunettes with brown eyes you fucking retard

[Anonymous No.15004293]

>>15004255
You can't argue with these people, some people feel like god is watching them, these faggots exist perpetually in a classroom unable to overcome the pc filter placed upon them even when posting anonymously on the internet. At least, thats the only way i can rationalise it.

[Anonymous No.15004315]

>>14999456
>WYXWPY
superior intellectual 1) not noticing he types the captcha into the text field and 2) still hasn't figured out that caps aren't necessary, but 3) feels entitled to chastise others for "not reading a book".

[Anonymous No.15004326]

>>15000255
this is "YAS SLAY QUEEN" tier cringe I embarrassed in your stead

[Anonymous No.15004327]

>>15004293
truth be told I think it's just vastly more complicated.

East Asians consistently score higher on IQ tests... does this mean they are the ubermensch? No..

For places like Africa, where there is a vast amount of genetic diversity (almost more than the rest of the world combined), it's a strange case of possibly the shittiest continent to base a civilization off of. The largest hot desert in the world equivalent to the continental US... filled with disease so prevelant and deadly that there are no native horse species... jungles and savannahs and deadly wildlife fill the rest, with only the smallest tip on the bottom being temperate. I am completely certain that if you were to make white Caucasians native to, say, the Congo basin, and remove all africans, you would get as shitty a result if not even shittier (as we're not adapted to that environment, even).

The interesting thing to me about Africa is that in the last 50 years, virtually every barrier to civilization building has been removed by technological innovation. But this process takes centuries if not millenia...

[Anonymous No.15004349]

>>14999701
Lost

[Anonymous No.15004353]

>>15004327
>For places like Africa, where there is a vast amount of genetic diversity (almost more than the rest of the world combined)
Where do people come up with nonsense like this? The plot of African genomes is a big blotch all the way in the corner of the graph, where everyone else is on a large spectrum in the other corner and sides. They're not only extremely distant from every other sapient species, but they're tightly bound to each other.

[Anonymous No.15004385]

>>15004192
>you most certainly didn't dig deeper on
Ah Monsieur you are wrong. I did dig deeper into the paper, more than you even realize.

And certainly more than you did.

If you had even bothered to look at the paper, you would have found this gem of a paragraph in the original reference, PICREL

Where the authors try to puzzle out why there are differences in IQ predictions between the African and European races...... of course the hypothesis is that its socioeconomic environment - never mind the alleles used in the equations are just MISSING in Africans.

All the authors had to do was to look for these SNP frequencies in Africans to know that their hypothesis was junk.

No Environment is going to change the DNA they started with.

[Anonymous No.15004406]

>>15004266
Dog breeds are much, much more inbred than most human populations. I can't think of any population as severely inbred and prone to hereditary disease as, say, bulldogs.
>>15003854
A doctor might consider ethnic background when evaluating the usefulness of certain medications, but it's probably just one factor. I know that some psychiatrists can test patients to predict how the liver metabolizes some drugs in order to choose the most effective treatments, but it's not like that one test determines the whole course of treatment.

[Anonymous No.15004431]

>>14994550
People also think it's as simply as a white of black race. Whe in reality there are many differences between those same races. Here are good examples. In africa there are a group of people that are the tallest in the world. Very close to them are the pygmies. The smallest people in the world. Are they the genetic same? No. They are really different, both genetically and how they look. Ditto for europe. White sumprecists think all whites are the same. They aren't. People in Europe can easily tell the difference between western Europeans from southern ones. Or eastern Europeans from the the Mediterranean countries. Or northern Europeans from eastern.

[Anonymous No.15004434]

>>14994623
They mean that different poeple think differently on what constitutes a different race. Somebody might think all of europe as one race. But Europeans don't see it that way. In africa people think they see all black. People in africa hate each other and don't see each other as the same. Ditto for Asia. Or native Americans. Humans are too diverse and you can't divide people into 5 different races.

[Anonymous No.15004439]

>>14999206
Have you ever talked to blacks or spics or Asians. They often times hate white people. They discriminate against them as well. It'd not just. Awhile thing. Go live as a white person and as a minority. It sucks. The majority often times treat the minority like total shit. That's reality.

[Anonymous No.15004443]

>>15000273
If you brea people down by race. Every race will have a bell curve when it comes to anything. Some peope will always be above average or below or just about average. That's human biology and evolution at work.

[Anonymous No.15004455]

>>15002430
But the difference between groups of people is vast. You guys think race equals skin color. It's much more complicated than that. Different groups of people can be different within the same "race". Like white people living in Scotland are genetically different from a white person in Italy or Russia or Sweden or Spain. That's evolution. People evolve and continue evolving away from other groups. Your more closely related to people living near you. But over time those differences get bigger. Blame evolution not racism for that.

[Anonymous No.15004473]

>>15002446
Also, I think general intelligence is the biggest difference is behavior. The average iq of a black person is 85 where as for whites it'd 104. It's why we act so different. Bc we see things differently. We think shit through where as they might just do it. Many white people are more rational and blacks kind of assume good luck will make it happen lol.

[Anonymous No.15004476]

>>15002703
Humans are diverse and different. But I always argued it's way too complicated to catoragize people by race. There are many differences within those "races" so maybe it's defiantely not the best way.

[Anonymous No.15004491]

>>15003689
It's called having eyes and using them. Even blacks admit dogs openly don't like them lol. Never trust a man my poodle doesn't like. Maybe he can pick things up that I can't.

[Anonymous No.15004507]

>>15004014
Yup. Anyone with any knowledge of evolution would have a hard time believing that all different human groups around the world carry the same genes. It's obvious we are different. Question is what happens when whites mix with non whites. Do they still carry those good genes or no? I've heard of mullattos scoring very high compared to 100 percent black people. 100 percent blacks score around 85 on iq tests. Whites about 104. But mulattos about 98. Which is good. They tend to act like white people.

[Anonymous No.15004510]

>>15004431
Evolution was not trying to creating a race of "DNA look alike clones", that would defy the entire point of continually improving on a good recipe that was already adapting in its environment.

Individuals who have similar complex genetic traits are what makes a great civilization. The fact that they also look alike is not coincidental.

You were pre-programmed to breed with people who looked like you and are close enough genetically to share all of the past evolutionary genetic improvements that have already been captured - while building on the new ones.

You are pre-wired to feel uncomfortable when surrounded by people who dont look like you.

The reason why all the great civilizations from the past failed was because they were so successful they mixed racially and destroyed their ancestral genetic patterns.

Mutts come in such a variety of colors and shapes - they have zero homogeneity and even less similarity in complex traits. The "blacker" ones separate from "lighter ones" in apartheid type societies of their own. Truth is though, its really the pot calling the kettle black.

Even more importantly though, every time mutt X mutt you get an even bigger scrambling of the genetic patterns that evolution was trying to perfect in your ancestral home.

Now you dont want to breed to close to family and you dont want to be too far away either.

At an aggregate level, if you take a representative sample of all Africans and all Europeans (as defined in the 1000 genomes database) and look for frequencies of genes that code for intelligence, you get the result in >>15004014
The quantum jump between the populations in complex traits is what defines a race.

What does this mean ? The differences between the races are real, even at aggregate levels. There is no cline of genetic change in complex traits.

[Anonymous No.15004532]

>>15004510
>The reason why all the great civilizations from the past failed was because they were so successful they mixed racially and destroyed their ancestral genetic patterns.
Lmao have you written a paper on this, doc?

I don't understand why you're trying to larp as both an anthropoligst, historian and geneticist at the same time. Why not just stick to claims which are remotely plausible?

[Anonymous No.15004556]

>>15004532
>Lmao have you written a paper on this, doc?
its already been done my dear cretin. Just google genetic ancestry of rome.

You are, and will always be a stupid twat. A disgrace to all your ancestors.

[Anonymous No.15004567]

>>15004266
Which I'd common sense. Take a dumbass kid and let college professors raise him. It won't become smart. Take the kids of some college professor and let him live in the ghetto and go to bad schools. They will still score high.

[Anonymous No.15004575]

>>15004327
What about south africa. It was booming under white control. Now that blacks are the majority it's a 3rd world shithole.

[Anonymous No.15004600]

>>15004353
Nope. A balck guy from New Guine is very different from a black man from Kenya. A black man from Somalia very different from somebody in morroco.

[Anonymous No.15004634]

>>15004532
No. Civilizations fall apart due to lots of variables but race is not one of them lol.

[Anonymous No.15004679]

>>15004634
>but race is not one of them l
lmao who is the scholar now?

At least i give sources to back up my facts, you just snatch them out your arse.

[Anonymous No.15004911]

Ape-like pelvis suggests human ancestors might not have been built like modern African apes.

New pelvis discovered shows that human bi-pedalism has deeper ancestral origins than previously thought. Europeans are the only population to evolve from it.


Europeans evolved from Ouranopithecus macedoniensis (10 million years ago) and Graecopithecus freybelgi (8 million years ago). Those hominids evolved into the anatomically sapien Cro-Magnons with some infusions from Homo neanderthalensis, and then into the Proto-Indo-Europeans.

Asians descend from Denisovans and Homo florensiensis.

Africans descend from Australopithecus afarensis and some other unknown hominid (i.e. Homo erectus).

The out of Africa theory, in that 'humanity' originated from sub-Saharan Africa, only applies to non-Europeans since their ancestors left sub-Saharan Africa via the coast. The partial ancestors of European humanity left north Africa, not sub-Saharan Africa, while the other part of their ancestry were concurrently living throughout southern Europe and the entire Mediterranean.

All non-Europeans stem from proto-Negroids, some of whom partly evolved and environmentally adapted into Mongoloids within East Asia, whereas Semitics are an Afro-Asiatic bridge population between Europeans and non-Europeans with superficial Caucasoid traits. Europeans stem from proto-Caucasoids (Eurasians) who originated from the Mediterranean.

[Anonymous No.15004912]

>>14999134
>the question is WHY do you need to say that the earth is round? is it to help people?

[Anonymous No.15004917]

>>15004911
Initial observations led to conclude that Homo antecessor was the last common ancestor to modern humans and Neanderthals.

New findings within TD6 and subsequent studies revealed several characteristics shared among the human species found in Atapuerca and the Neanderthals.
Additionally, the facial features of Homo antecessor are very similar to those of Homo sapiens and very different from those of the Neanderthals and their more recent ancestors.


https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/10/191016153642.htm

Stone Age hunters were living on mainland Europe for over 1 million years. The descendants of those Stone Age hunters are Europeans.

New evidence in Greece proves that the island of Naxos, as with the entire Mediterranean, was inhabited by Neanderthals and earlier humans at least 200,000 years ago.
The idea being that only modern humans (Homo sapiens) were sophisticated enough to build seafaring vessels is incorrect.

Early Humans (Europeans) evolved from a separate species of "apes" who lived in Europe, not Africa.


https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/05/010511074454.htm
http://archive.is/VQoGv

Y chromosomal DNA shows that Asian populations migrated out of Africa and suggests that little or no interbreeding of Homo erectus and Homo sapiens occurred after the migration.
Asians originated from the same ancestors as Bantus, not Europeans.


https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/09/190917160130.htm
http://archive.is/72NP4

[Anonymous No.15004921]

>>15004917
7.2 million-year-old fossils uncovered in Greece, Turkey and Bulgaria places the origins of humans in the Eastern Mediterranean, not in Africa, and earlier than previously thought.
Researchers conclude that Graecopithecus freybergi represents the first pre-human to exist following the split from the last chimpanzee-human common ancestor.


https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/04/200401111657.htm
http://archive.is/09Seg

800,000 year-old human fossil sheds light on one branch of the family tree, reaching much further back in time than previously thought possible.

The fossils were found in 1994 within stratigraphic level TD6 from the Gran Dolina cave site, one of the archaeological and paleontological sites of the Sierra de Atapuerca, Spain.

[Anonymous No.15004925]

>>14999206
The only subverter of people here is you bureuacrat

[Anonymous No.15004928]

>>15004600
Well I would imagine a "black" from New Guinea is pretty different, because New Guinea is in Southeast Asia. And native Moroccans aren't black either, they're Arab or Mediterranean.

No wonder you don't believe race is real, your IQ is lower than an African's.

[Anonymous No.15005030]

>>15004912

[Anonymous No.15005036]

>>15004556
Source?
>>15004575
It was always a shithole for most of the population. A small part of the population just used to have amazing living standards because the whole economy ran off artificially cheap labor.