/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.8560933]

Is racial egalitarianism the brainlet's approach to anthropology?

[Anonymous No.8560946]

well it's certainly the intellectually dishonest person's approach

[Anonymous No.8560969]

>>8560933
>racial egalitarianism
You think it means that all races are genetically equal, that's not what it means. It's a doctrine that promotes that all races be treated equally, regardless of differences between races. Unless you want a dystopic society, racial equality should be pursued regardless of whether asians are superior to whites or not for example.

I know you think you appear sophisticated by using words like anthropology and racial egalitarianism, and it works on people that are too lazy or dumb to understand it, but you're on /sci/, you should make more of an effort.

[Anonymous No.8561132]

>>8560933
Egalitarianism is the belief and process of facilitating equal treatment for all members of a society, without there being privileged or unprivileged groups. It is not the belief that everyone is innately equal; that is a ludicrous belief altogether.

I believe this poster >>8560969 sums it up very well. You might try rewording this and posting it to /pol/ if you're seeking attention.

[Anonymous No.8561140]

>>8560969
I know I didn't use "egalitarianism" correctly but I didn't know another single word to describe this idea, and as you noticed people understand what idea this is referring to. Caring too much about names and labels is more a humanities thing, where the form matter more than the content, but good job on pointing it out. "Anthropology" isn't really that sophisticated a word, it wasn't necessary to mention it. Do you have anything to respond to the question with now, or did you just pop in to make a complaint about the form of this idea?

[Anonymous No.8561141]

>>8560969

I agree with this /sci/ poster.

It seems to me that OP is choosing the /pol/ approach onto this in order to try to justify the narrative which supports your superiority complex due to considering yourself ''white'' or of a certain ancestry.

[Anonymous No.8561144]

>>8561132
>It is not the belief that everyone is innately equal; that is a ludicrous belief altogether.
Disregarding that I lack a single term to describe this idea, are you not aware that this is what many people believe? It's a scientific matter first and a political one only somewhere after that.

[Anonymous No.8561145]

>>8560933
no just a left pipedream.

[Anonymous No.8561146]

>>8561141
As the OP I agree that it is a /pol/ approach, but that doesn't mean the question is meaningless.

[Anonymous No.8561155]

>>8561141
There is nothing called /pol/ approach, stop shitting up terms for things that trigger you.

[Anonymous No.8561159]

>racial egalitarianism

i though this was a board for science

[Anonymous No.8561161]

>>8561159
What kind of science researches the differences between races?

[Anonymous No.8561165]

Is bacterial egalitarianism the brainlet's approach to biology?
Or is SJW right and all bacteria are the same?

[Anonymous No.8561170]

>>8561144
I am aware of that but it is not a scientific belief by any measure as no part of the scientific method has been used to reach that conclusion, hence it is merely dogma.

[Anonymous No.8561171]

>>8561161
biology
microbiology
medicine
anthropology
evolutionary research
etc...

[Anonymous No.8561176]

>>8561170
So you would agree with the OP?
>>8561171
Is there a name for a special field or school of thought in these sciences that could be substituted for "racial egalitarianism"?

[Anonymous No.8561181]

>>8561176
Science is about measuring, testing, comparing and classifying. There is no concept in science for egalitarianism

[Anonymous No.8561188]

>>8561176
Egalitarianism is a social doctrine, the kind that /his/ would discuss, ethics and whatnot, nothing to do with science. Also, egalitarianism controls for racial differences as well. If we found out that blacks are dumb or asians are superior, egalitarianism wouldn't be invalidated.

[Anonymous No.8561192]

>>8561181
Science is also about hypothesizing when trying to answer questions that have never been answered before, like the question about the equality of races. In this process there are often conflicting opinions with separate groups of adherents. In this way it's very likely that such a concept would be proposed by one such group, and it's not like nobody is interested in this, so I'm not sure you are knowledgeable enough to give such an answer.

[Anonymous No.8561196]

>>8561188
I already said that I only used this word for lack of one that describes the idea that all races are equal. In your answer you should focus on this idea, not on the term I already said I misused. If you know a single term that describes this idea you can mention it, I would be grateful to know and you wouldn't get confused in your replies anymore.

[Anonymous No.8561207]

>>8561192
I'm not knowledgeable in made up terms that cover up scientific facts to ease out conflicting opinions of dfiferent groups, since science is not about opinions, it's about facts.
You do know that science only cares about facts right?

[Anonymous No.8561212]

>>8561207
I think you need to read my post again. Facts aren't discovered in an instant, in this process of hypothesizing I mentioned there very much exist opinions that don't coincide with factual reality, but even scientists don't know about that until after a certain step of progress.

[Anonymous No.8561215]

>>8561196
Ok, let's call it (((racial egalitarianism))), this term that describes the misguided notion that all races are identically skilled and otherwise indistinguishable apart from skin color. /sci/ is more than well-versed in /pol/itics.

Again, there is nothing in science that could be substituted for (((racial egalitarianism))). On the other hand, there is very little biological evidence that the races differ significantly in the intelligence department, but that's also a problem of measuring intelligence by itself and understanding how the brain works.

Scientists don't really conduct racial superiority research because it's profitless, not because of liberal jewish overlords that threaten to sack them if they do. Population genetics is often used to classify and compare organisms instead of morphological identification based on racial perceptions.

[Anonymous No.8561230]

>>8561212
Then you already know that every step science has taken towards research into races shows all kinds of differences that we can observe, measure and rank. I'm just not understanding why you talk about egalitarianism on a science board. There's a politics board if you wanna talk about social constructs.

[Anonymous No.8561234]

>>8561215
If you think the only science seriously pursued is the one that makes profit I can't really believe you've advanced past undergraduate level. This question should be answered because it is something that humans should know for the sake of knowing it, before any considerations of superiority. Nothing you said disagrees with the notion that assuming races are equal is rash and founded in wishful thinking instead of evidence, so I guess you agree with the OP post?

[Anonymous No.8561237]

>>8560969
blown the fuck out

[Anonymous No.8561241]

>>8561230
Yes, I already know that, that's why I asked if denying these differences is something that would expose brainlets. This is also something that /sci/ does, in fact it does it more frequently than seriously discussing science.

[Anonymous No.8561244]

>>8561176
>So you would agree with the OP?

If "brainlets" are defined as people who reach dogmatic conclusions that lack basis in reality then yes I agree

[Anonymous No.8561256]

>>8561241
I feel like bringing social terms like these into a science board is damaging enough to the scientific society since some people tend to confuse them with actual scientific terminology and try to insert them in scientific discussions.

[Anonymous No.8561272]

>>8561256
Those people probably get weeded out before establishing a carreer as a scientist, maybe before graduating, so I don't think there's any danger to it. We both know that we are on the "science section" of an anime imageboard here, not in a conference room. It's not like you never made fun of liberal arts students with colleagues from your group during lunch, right? If you aren't there yet, such things will happen.

[Anonymous No.8561274]

>>8561234
>If you think the only science seriously pursued is the one that makes profit
You must've misread/misunderstood or jumped to a foregone conclusion. Read this part:

>Scientists don't really conduct racial superiority research because it's profitless
No part of this sentence refers to my views. It is a simple explanation of why the scientific community in general doesn't pay much mind to such research. My views are irrelevant to the discussion.

The reality is that a lot of scientific research on genetics and populations is funded by companies that want to sell pharmaceuticals or develop personalized medicine, hence such research depends on them for funding. Ironically enough, this is the result of capitalism, the system that white nationalists sing the praises of.

>so I guess you agree with the OP post?
Even if you supplant "racial egalitarianism" with (((racial egalitarianism))) in OP's post, that post was still referring to an approach to anthropology, a field that I believe in modern times does not accommodate the non-scientific view of (((racial egalitarianism))). If OP was talking about anthropology in general throughout history, then perhaps he would've been right (assuming the term switch).

[Anonymous No.8561291]

>>8561274
>It is a simple explanation of why the scientific community in general doesn't pay much mind to such research.
This explanation is wrong, that's why I said "if you think". Research that makes profit gets more funding, but there is plenty of room for profitless research in a country's education budget.
>a field that I believe in modern times does not accommodate the non-scientific view of (((racial egalitarianism))).
This would agree with saying it's the brainlet's approach.

[Anonymous No.8561297]

>>8560969

>>8561140
It's too late now, you already got annihilated

[Anonymous No.8561307]

>>8561291
>but there is plenty of room for profitless research in a country's education budget.
Very few researchers I know pursue purely profitless research. Even researchers in population and conservation genetics yield somewhat useful results at the end of the day. I"m just saying that you might have an inflated view of how big pure research is.

Anyway, let's assume we have a budget for pure pure research. Why spend it on comparing races? It's not like we'll get any meaningful results. We don't know how the brain works (which is what matters to most race realists)! Not to mention we wouldn't know where to begin the comparison, who to choose, markers etc. It's a clusterfuck that would happen way ahead of its time for no reason. In the future, sequencing technologies will allow for cheaper and more efficient comparison, and a better understanding of the brain will make potential results interpretable. There's literally no reason to pursue such research now unless you're a researcher that has an explcit interest in getting noisy results that he can't make sense of. The time you get your race answers is bottlenecked by brain research, so don't even bother starting genome comparisons in the first place.

>This would agree with saying it's the brainlet's approach.
I assume OP meant an approach within academic anthropology. In academic terms, (((racial egalitarianism))) is not accommodated so it can't be adopted as an approach. If OP meant a layman's approach, then yes, it's the brainlet's approach.

[Anonymous No.8561313]

>>8560969
NO FUCK OFF
GAS THE KIKES RACE WAR NOW
HEIL HITLER
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

[Anonymous No.8561320]

>>8561307
Yes, with brainlets I wasn't excluding laymen. Denying climate change is also an approach to meteorology. Otherwise I agree with most of what you said. The "why" isn't really an issue when professors are assigning thesis subjects to students just because they knock on their door. It seems very far-fetched to come to a definitive conclusion, which is the foundation for an egalitarian approach, instead of remaining sceptic or rejecting it out of practical considerations.

[Anonymous No.8561325]

>>8561145
this

[Anonymous No.8561426]

>>8560969
The day before Christmas.
The day /pol/ got annihilated by /sci/.
Santa gave me my gift early.

[Anonymous No.8562666]

>>8561426
how exactly did pol got anihilated? That doctrine is clearly wrong.

[Anonymous No.8562672]

>>8560969
This sums it up nicely.

[Anonymous No.8562677]

Daily reminder.

[Anonymous No.8562678]

>>8561132
So why are egalitarians always pushing for special treatment of certain groups?

[Anonymous No.8562680]

>>>/pol/104420693

anyone want to crosspost?

[Anonymous No.8562684]

>>8561426

> anon asks question looking for responses
> another anon posts his thoughts while insulting op
> A Wild Faggot Appears
> declares /pol/ btfo

[Anonymous No.8562686]

>>8562680
his idea of egalitarianism necessitates a lack of profiling. a lack of profiling lets some real fuckers through the net.

[Anonymous No.8562688]

>>8560969
>It's a doctrine that promotes that all races be treated equally

So affirmative action is anti-egualitarian then?

[Anonymous No.8562690]

>>8562686

I'm assuming racial equality will only apply to citizens, naturally there are many undesirables from various backgrounds you would ideally weed out at the point of immigration.

[Anonymous No.8562702]

>>8562688
Yes, philosophically speaking, affirmative action is anti-egalitarian in the strictest sense. It might have a motive of increasing equality, but the action in itself is discrimination. Also, I'm not sure it works so well since someone getting a job/position would further be discriminated against by being accused of obtaining said position based on gender or race rather than merit.

And no, some random feminist that claims she's egalitarian because she supports AA and "ultimate" equality doesn't make it so she represents egalitarianism. Same reason these people don't represent leftism, and the same reason that we don't consider the Democratic People's Republic of Korea to be democratic.

[Anonymous No.8562703]

>>8562690
that is fine for the first generation, but hey, regression to the mean

[Anonymous No.8562704]

>>8560969

fwiw, I've spent enough time here and /sci/ is just a bunch of math/science nerds, mostly in high school or college

/pol/ is a more advanced board. of course 90% of it is trash, but welcome to free speech

to address your point, treating things identically that are not identical is setting up people for failure.

races are equal overall, and the balance can be found in the sum of our differences not in treating every little thing as if it is supposed to be the same

[Anonymous No.8562707]

>>8562704
>races are equal overall

What did he mean by this?

[Anonymous No.8562709]

>>8560969
>muh dystopic society
>if y-you don't treat sub-80 IQ niggers good, then you're literally hitler!
You know nothing.

[Anonymous No.8562710]

>>8561237
>>8561297
>>8561426

>so scientific, wow

[Anonymous No.8562713]

>>8562707

we all have the same life; just different forms of it

[Anonymous No.8562714]

>>8562703
So let's filter by skin color rather than temperament/criminal background?

[Anonymous No.8562716]

>>8562713
>we all have the same life; just different forms of it

The same could be said for tapeworms.
For a scientific boards there are a lot of vague statements for sure.

[Anonymous No.8562723]

>>8562709
There's a reason that anon used the example of asians and whites. What you're saying is basically that asians should be able to roll over whites and oppress them as they want and act as their overlords. It works both ways when you make assumptions about races based on IQ according to which you're not at the top of the food chain.

[Anonymous No.8562729]

>>8560969
This.

[Anonymous No.8562732]

>>8562723
Conquest is the way of the world, you special snowflake. If Asians think they CAN "roll over whites" they are more than welcome to try, but something tells me those limp-wristed degenerates will be content to stay hidden away on their little island nation.

[Anonymous No.8562734]

>>8562716

>The same could be said for tapeworms.

true and you are not "better" than a tapeworm

evolutionarily speaking you are both successful; you are alive, you have both been selected for.

in terms of social morality and policy, it does have an intrinsic bias for humans. it's why we are allowed to confine and slaughter food animals even tho they didn't commit any crime

and let's be honest, bias for self is not confined to just species; we prefer our own tribe, that is also natural, just as we prefer our own families to strangers.

like likes like

[Anonymous No.8562735]

>>8562723
No, the consequences of acknowledging certain racial differences are a different subject than acknowledging them. You are just bringing a lot of implications into the matter in order to evade the OP question, which isn't racist.

[Anonymous No.8562737]

>>8562732
>race war is a good thing
And this is why you can't argue with /pol/. Way to live in the stone age faggot. I can't wait until this alt-right meme dies.

[Anonymous No.8562738]

>>8562737
>gets blown the fuck out
>"wow y-you just can't argue with these people!"
>"srsly I could if I wanted to but I don't please believe me"
You have refuted nothing.

[Anonymous No.8562741]

>>8562737
>>race war is a good thing
No one said this you idiot. Typical emotional rhetoric from /sci/ I see.

[Anonymous No.8562743]

>>8562732
>little island nation
>forgets about fucking china and finland

[Anonymous No.8562742]

>>8562737

war is coming again soon

sticking your head into the sand will get your ass roasted

[Anonymous No.8562745]

>>8562732
>Conquest is the way of the world
The majority of the people that had the smarts to give you the science and technology to say this on the Internet using your computer while you're kept alive by medicine in your home designed by engineers using applied mathematics would disagree with you on this matter.

Conquest is, most of the time, very bad for learning and science, so you'd understand why people on this board would disagree with that. I'm not saying all cultures are equally beneficial, sometimes war might ultimately bring great benefits to humanity through the superiority of one culture, but most of the time it's the opposite, so forgive my "special snowflakeness" in rejecting your claim as a general rule.

As for Asians, you can taunt them all you want, if you think Trump cracking a few gook jokes and putting tariffs on their products will stop their enormous economic and military rise or the dispersal of their gigantic population throughout the West, you're deeply fooled, and you're about to find out why might doesn't make right.

[Anonymous No.8562747]

>>8562704
Equality can be applied at different stages. For instance, ensuring the equality of results can be done at institutional or financial levels, corresponding to socialism and communism, respectively.

However, on a social level, "equality" generally refers to the equality of opportunities. It's not that groups of people, not grouped by intellect, aren't able to do a thing. It's that they didn't have the same opportunities as the people who did. If everyone had the same opportunities as everyone else, then there wouldn't be so many confounding variables, and we could actually draw conclusions instead of having to resort to anecdotes and mudslinging to get our points across.

Scientifically speaking, we don't have the data to draw conclusions about how different races would perform if they all truly had the same opportunities. Surely, they would perform differently, but in what ways, we don't know. Even then, the prevalence of racial mixing confounds the entire methodology of such an experiment. Most people in the Americas have some part Native American in them. Most Europeans are crossbred with Neanderthals. Hell, even the leader of the KKK was found to be part African after genetic testing. By this point, everybody outside of Eastern Asia has some mixture of different races, so perpetuating racial separation is ultimately just another part of the races' evolution toward unity.

[Anonymous No.8562750]

>>8562741
Did you read the post that one was replying to?

>What you're saying is basically that asians should be able to roll over whites and oppress them as they want and act as their overlords.
>Conquest is the way of the world

>>8562738
>gets blown the fuck out
I disagree. Merely disengaged arguing with delusionals.

[Anonymous No.8562753]

>>8562745
Not him but you can call it "the way of the world" simply because it gets in the way of a peacefully thriving civilization. Establishing dominance over others or defending your own against those who want to dominate you is a more profound and essential component of human existence.

[Anonymous No.8562755]

>>8562745
>The majority of the people that had the smarts to give you the science and technology to say this on the Internet using your computer while you're kept alive by medicine in your home designed by engineers using applied mathematics would disagree with you on this matter.

majority or not, they would be wrong. study history; look at the evidence. war recurs throughout. it is part of nature itself

[Anonymous No.8562761]

>>8562747
>For instance, ensuring the equality of results can be done at institutional or financial levels, corresponding to socialism and communism, respectively.

sure and you can also jump off a tall building without a parachute

but when you try to force society to be something at odds with nature itself, disaster often results. communism has failed spectacularly. it is discredited by now

[Anonymous No.8562763]

>>8562750
What you said is wrong, even you if pretend not to notice it: >>8562735
Also, a higher IQ doesn't enable a people to conquer other peoples more efficiently. North east Asians could rightfully become the master race if they were able to conquer other peoples, but they lack the numbers and probably the will. Still, acknowledging differences is principally different from acting in a certain way in practice because of these differences.

[Anonymous No.8562766]

>>8562745
>first paragraph: appeal to authority
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

>second: "It's bad because I say so."
Every single country in the world today had its borders drawn through conquest in one way or another. You don't have to like it, but it is still the way of the world and you have not refuted otherwise.

>third: "Haha drumpf! Asians stronk!"
As I already said, they're more than welcome to try us.

[Anonymous No.8562767]

>>8562747

>equality of opportunities

first, there is no such thing. the child of a rich man will have many times more opportunities than a peasant child.

that said, it is much more than just some mythical opportunity. the system favors a certain way of operating. education is compulsory, not basketball, not football. if football were required for 13 years plus 4 more for college and we used that credential to regulate society, white people would not run the place

you need to examine structural biases more carefully. we're setting black kids up for failure by presuming they can compete in our way of life if only given the "opportunity" and then some. does not work

[Anonymous No.8562768]

>>8562745
>The majority of the people that had the smarts to give you the science and technology to say this on the Internet using your computer while you're kept alive by medicine in your home designed by engineers using applied mathematics would disagree with you on this matter.

Reality doesn't work by consensus, scidiot.

[Anonymous No.8562770]

>>8560969
>I know you think you appear sophisticated by using words like anthropology and racial egalitarianism, and it works on people that are too lazy or dumb to understand it, but you're on /sci/, you should make more of an effort.
I know you think you're sophisticated by not writing brief, but you're on /sci/ and you should try to not make run-ons.

[Anonymous No.8562772]

>>8562767
>>8562747

"opportunity" also corresponds with ability to begin with. there is both signal and reception

you say, let the reception be teh same; ok, you can't, but even if you could, the signal is not and cannot be the same.

europeans evolved for hundreds of thousands of years thru cold dark winters; that environment selected for advanced planning, ambition/will, ability to hunt, and successfully negotiate conflict that followed these pressures, etc.

[Anonymous No.8562776]

>>8562768
It kind of literally does

[Anonymous No.8562777]

>>8562753
>>8562755
You misunderstand. Saying it's "the way of the world" implies (at least to me) that it has to be this way even in our era and in the future, just because it was the way of the world in past human history. I disagree with that and I think the advances brought on by modern technology have greatly contributed to developed societies NOT encouraging war as remaining the way of the world.

Like it or not, sometimes those "bleeding heart" liberals or hippies make a difference when it comes to protesting against war. And unless you want to end up on the wrong end of the stick, you should do everything in your power to discourage war and to prove that it doesn't have to be the "way of the world", instead of spouting some pseudoscientific evolutionary psychology or philosotard bullshit about "human nature", a question that has been tackled by far greater minds than ours and has not been resolved to this day.

[Anonymous No.8562780]

>>8562768
lol

[Anonymous No.8562782]

>>8562776

Yeah like that time Arkansas declared the value of PI to be 3.
MUH CONSENSUS.

[Anonymous No.8562783]

>>8562777

it's a nice sentiment, but fact and human nature remain what it is;

and look at the time >>104324772

war soon

[Anonymous No.8562786]

>>8562777
>>8562783

>>>/pol/104324772

[Anonymous No.8562793]

>>8562777
No, this is wrong. It's clear that you don't want it to be like this and I don't either, but it's an essential characteristic of human nature to better the standing of your own people or defend them against others who won't let you live peacefully. Even in a peaceful society the schematic way of behavior underlying the principle he mentioned can be found in people's everyday struggles, even if it isn't literal conquest. It would demonstrate a terrible lack of ability to differentiate and think critically not to notice this. Also, those hippies you mention are among the last that are going to prevent different people from perpetrating this human characteristic.

[Anonymous No.8562794]

>>8562777

after the war, peace returns

[Anonymous No.8562796]

>>8562786
Disregarding your comment and the discussion about human nature, ISIS is irrelevant, they don't have the resources or manpower to do anything other than isolated terrorist attacks. Muslim population is miniscule as a total % of European population, not to mention only a very small percentage have extremist tendencies. While I'm not a fan of the recent multiculturalism experiment, it's not that big a deal, and angering them further will cause more problems with local Muslims.

You'd do a lot better to focus on what China is doing if you want to tackle threats to the West. The most powerful country in the world gets to dictate the terms for everyone else. And you don't want that country to be China.

[Anonymous No.8562800]

>>8562796

>irrelevant

>thousands of fighters waiting to strike
>they have WMDs

stay retarded

[Anonymous No.8562803]

>>8562796
>Muslim population is miniscule as a total % of European population,

Do you even understand population dynamics?

[Anonymous No.8562804]

>>8560969
No that's not egalitarism, egalitarism is the belief that all races are equal, and if a race is more successfull at something than an other, measures are to be taken to handicap the successful race, and help the unsuccessfull one.
What you are describing is fascism : no special treatment for the weak.

[Anonymous No.8562806]

>>8562796

China and the West are on the same side in the coming war, as far as I can tell. it's Russia you need to be worried about

>>>/pol/104324812
>>>/pol/104324867
>>>/pol/104325129

etc.

>this is it, the apocalypse

[Anonymous No.8562811]

Has anybody ever thought about the good sides of ethnic segregation?

It would be more interesting in the long run. Surely it would lead to further differentiations and specializations in the evolutionary path of the human species.

[Anonymous No.8562813]

>>8562796
15% today, 50% in 50 years. That's nowhere near minuscule.
Recents polls show that 2 thirds of european muslims want sharia.( wich include death to homos, stoning women accused of adultery and other "non-moderate" things)

[Anonymous No.8562814]

>>8562811

https://arxiv.org/abs/1110.1409

[Anonymous No.8562815]

>>8562776

no it doesn't

parrots don't tell you anything new

[Anonymous No.8562817]

>>8562776

it can help but it can also mislead

[Anonymous No.8562819]

>>8562777
Modern technology cant prevent wars over resources or any type of manipulation to another country. Yes, technology can provide a satsifying life to an individual family unit, but it will not prevent a slightly less satisfying life. Knowing most nations and humans have a bias toward what they consider as part of themselves(their populstion), they will wage war to make sure that quality of life is maintained or advanced if they feel like it is beingg threatened by rising superpowers such as China such as briefly described by this anon here>>8562796.
Once again, I agree that technology promotes peacefulness, but only up to a certain extent. Otherwise this is more of a >>>/his/ type of discussion

[Anonymous No.8562820]

>>8562804
>What you are describing is fascism : no special treatment for the weak.

Fascism introduced the first forms of welfare state in Italy. Some fascists institutions are still alive today.

[Anonymous No.8562821]

>>8562800
I can't count the times I've read some doomsaying article about bioterrorism from dubious and non-dubious sources. Some of this shit is 2012 mayan apocalypse tier. Whether you like Americans or not, they always get this shit under control one way or another, I wouldn't hold my breath over that.

>>8562803
Is this the Muslims will outbreed whites argument? Their birth rates are higher now, they will likely drop after a few generations and if they show no sign of stopping people will elect a bunch of far right populists to do it for them. Meanwhile you should worry about how much these far right rulers will curb your civil liberties after they've stomped the Muslim problem.

>>8562813
>50%
What? Where are you getting these stats from? Source?

[Anonymous No.8562830]

>>8562821
Those far right rulers aren't all literally Hitler like you read on celebrities' twitters. Are you aware of the projections of future migration movements related to climate change and overpopulation of Africa?

[Anonymous No.8562831]

>>8562819
You quoted the same person, me. Anyway, the Cold War was arguably much more heated than this new Cold War 2.0 with China and nothing big ever happened. The Soviet Union's dissolution is a prime example of a peaceful transition from a vastly different/hostile society to a West-like model. It was the first time in history something like that happened and a World War 3 was prevented. We haven't had any major wars as of yet, which is encouraging.

Only time will tell. Who knows, if for instance cheap VR machines were made and everyone spent their lives living in their fantasies maybe real world matters would matter much less than we think they will. My point is, there's too many possibilities we haven't factored in. And you're right about the >>>/his/ part, I'm stopping here.

[Anonymous No.8562834]

>>8562821
>Is this the Muslims will outbreed whites argument?

Yes

>Their birth rates are higher now, they will likely drop after a few generations

Source: my ass

>and if they show no sign of stopping people will elect a bunch of far right populists to do it for them.

Maybe, maybe not

>Meanwhile you should worry about how much these far right rulers will curb your civil liberties after they've stomped the Muslim problem.

Yeah, muh civil liberties. They are on paper only already, you fucktard.

Anyway for a board that's supposedly scientific, many people here really don't seem to get the connection between how shitty a country is and the % of muslims inside it.

[Anonymous No.8562837]

>>8562834
Considering country's shitty-ness isn't a scientific measure