/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.8819178]

Are races biologically different?

[Anonymous No.8819181]

>>8819178
they need different nutritive input, although the way you were raised and gut microbial has certainly a role in this.

[Anonymous No.8819186]

>>8819181
>they need different nutritive input
Really? How?

Anyway, pic related is some evidence for the idea that the races are biologically different. The genes that cause "Asian flush" are almost exclusively found in Asian populations. So clearly different races have different genetics, right? Which makes sense, because different races look different, so it must be genetics driving that.

Just wondering what /sci/ thinks about this.

[Anonymous No.8819191]

>>8819186
how many races are there, can you name them

so i know what you want

[Anonymous No.8819201]

>>8819178
Yes, They have different skin color, different heights etc. But that changes nothing about all of us being human. No race is better then another. We are all equaly intelligent, athletic and robust.

[Anonymous No.8819205]

>>8819178
biological different in what way?
they're still under the human species ya know

[Anonymous No.8819206]

go back there

>>>/pol/

[Anonymous No.8819208]

>>8819201
>They have different skin color, different heights
those are variations within races
see bushmen(shortest ppl) vs dinka (tallest ppl)
skin color, see norwegians and iranians

already there you are incorrect

[Anonymous No.8819213]

>>8819178
Race is a social construct, and there is no absolute genetic border between 'races'. There are certain genetic correlates of what we putative consider to be race, however.

[8819201 No.8819217]

>>8819208
Your argument makes no sense. First you say those are variations WITHIN races (btw, I am not shure, butI think asians have a shorter average height then e.g. europeans) then you list races by stereotypes.

Races are defined as minor differences within one species. So... Yes, of course there are races in the human race.

[Anonymous No.8819219]

>>8819201
>We are all equaly intelligent
Thats a load of nonsense and you know that anon.

[8819201 No.8819221]

>>8819213
Races are defined as minor differences within one species. So... Yes, of course there are races in the human race.

[Anonymous No.8819222]

>>8819208
Dinka is a type of black person, while Bushmen are another race entirely.

[Anonymous No.8819224]

>>8819219
Generally speaking we are all more intelligent then a worm.

[Anonymous No.8819225]

>>8819217
>Races are defined as minor differences within one species
o rly

[Anonymous No.8819227]

[math]\color{red} {\textbf{PLEASE REPORT AND HIDE INSTEAD OF ENGAGING THE POLTARDS}}[/math]

[Anonymous No.8819229]

>>8819227
This is biology. This applys here

[Anonymous No.8819231]

>>8819221
In no way did I imply what you are arguing against.

[Anonymous No.8819232]

>>8819224
Yes but all human races dont have the same average level of intelligence. If you spent time in Africa you would notice how unbelievably stupid most of them are.

[Anonymous No.8819234]

>>8819225
o rly?

[Anonymous No.8819235]

>>8819191
Here are the racial classifications that were given in the 2010 US Census:
>White
>Black, African Am., or Negro
>American Indian or Alaska Native
>Asian Indian
>Chinese
>Filipino
>Japanese
>Korean
>Vietnamese
>Native Hawaiian
>Guamanian or Chamorro
>Samoan
>Other Asian
>Other Pacific Islander
>Some other race
https://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/doc/pl94-171.pdf - page 140

In any case you know what I mean by race don't you? You could divide them whatever way you want. Race obviously still exists. Otherwise it would be completely meaningless when we refer to each other as "black" and "white". What would we be referring to? They are obviously not cultural identifiers - if they were, then somebody of pale white skin, and fully European ancestry, who dressed like a stereotypical black American, would be called black.

>>8819201
>We are all equaly intelligent, athletic and robust.
Do you have evidence of this?

Almost all the top 100m sprinters are black. The NFL has more black players than white players. The NBA is of course dominated by blacks.

Sure you can say this evidence is anecdotal, but it is evidence (while not conclusive evidence) nonetheless. Where is the evidence to suggest that we are all equally "intelligent", and equally "athletic"?

>>8819205
In any way.

>>8819213
This is false. Because if somebody with white skin and purely European ancestry adopted "black" culture, we wouldn't call them black, would we?

That's why it is false to say that race is cultural - it does not cohere with the way that we use the word "race" in real life.

Race is clearly a biological concept. You might say the racial sets are fuzzy sets - yes they are. Should North Africans be included in the "black" group? This question does not mean race is not biological though.

[Anonymous No.8819236]

Non white are more ugly even to non whites themselves

[Anonymous No.8819237]

>>8819217
you didn't understand what I posted.
>>8819222
bushmen are africans with a couple of genes having to do with height knocked out

there are actually 2 types of bushmen with 2 different mechanisms for achieving short height - which strongly suggests it's a minimal change

if bushmen are another race, then there's far too many races, and that's just false

[Anonymous No.8819238]

>>8819227
OP here, which rule am I breaking?

I am guessing you would argue global rule 3 which says "no racism outside of /b/" but I am not engaging in racism.

I am posing a scientific question. This is a question about human biology. I am not making racist prejudices about the different races. I want only a scientifically rigorous examination of the evidence in regards to this question.

[Anonymous No.8819239]

>>8819237
>you didn't understand what I posted.
possible.

[Anonymous No.8819240]

>>8819235
>This is false.
Except it isn't. Ask any geneticist. You haven't actually countered the argument that I made, you've simply stated in a manner of factual way that I am wrong, and then proceded with giving anecdotal 'evidence'.

Anyway, I'm not interested in this discussion anymore. Hidden and reported. Enjoy the 404.

[Anonymous No.8819241]

>>8819235
>Here are the racial classifications that were given in the 2010 US Census:
yes, korean and japanese are different racial classifications

Obviously the US census isn't authority here

[Anonymous No.8819242]

>>8819232
that's due to their culture that doesn't promote education, what's the difference between a dumb fat uneducated yank than an uneducated black person in Africa?

[Anonymous No.8819245]

>>8819240
You haven't provided any argument whatsoever to say that what I have asserted is wrong.

If race is purely a social construct as you claim, then a person with white skin, of purely European ancestry, who adopts the signifiers of "black culture", would be called black, wouldn't they?

This is your understanding of race, if you claim that race is purely a "social construct".

But it is clearly false. Such a person would not be called black. When we call somebody white or black, we do so on the basis of their phenotypical features. Their skin colour, their facial structure - their biological features.

Do you disagree with this? On what scientific basis do you do so?

[Anonymous No.8819249]

>>8819245
how many races are there

[Anonymous No.8819250]

>>8819242
>that's due to their culture that doesn't promote education
I don't believe you have the evidence to back up your confidence in that statement. I know you want to reject racism, but let's not treat truth so lightly.

[Anonymous No.8819254]

>>8819237
Bushmen genes are much older than black genes making them more ancient than blacks thus another race.

[Anonymous No.8819256]

>>8819241
>>8819249
It doesn't matter how many racial groups you create. The question of whether these racial groups are biologically different still remains, doesn't it?

[Anonymous No.8819259]

>>8819245
>When we call somebody white or black, we do so on the basis of their phenotypical features. Their skin colour, their facial structure - their biological features.

that doesn't mean there is a biological basis
this is how the social construct works

[Anonymous No.8819261]

>>8819242
>that's due to their culture
African cultures are primitive jungle stuff how does that promote stupidity?
>that doesn't promote education
No Africans do go to school its just they are well stupid and thus cant do well in their own schools.
>what's the difference between a dumb fat uneducated yank than an uneducated black person in Africa?
The yank is still smarter than the african.

[Anonymous No.8819263]

>>8819256
>It doesn't matter how many racial groups you create.
but it does

this isn't a trick question even, i don't see why you don't want to answer
>>8819254
>words mean whatever i like them to mean

[Anonymous No.8819265]

Its explicitly obvious there are differences. If you say otherwise you are just bluepilled

[Anonymous No.8819266]

>>8819245
Jesus you're dense.

I claimed it is a social construct. That implies it is social in origin (note, not cultural, but social).

Importantly, I also explicitly stated that there are genetic correlates of putative 'races'. No go back and rethink your argument, because you are attacking a position that I never adopted.

That's what I hate about talking with you /pol/tards, you cannot understand even the simplest of things and then completely lose your shit over your own misunderstanding.

[Anonymous No.8819267]

>>8819261
>The yank is still smarter than the african.

not when it comes to making fire with their bare hands

[Anonymous No.8819268]

>>8819259
>that doesn't mean there is a biological basis
Yes it does. If there was no biological basis, then we would not racially categorise people based on observable features.

If race was purely a social construct, then people would be racially categorised based on non-biological features: e.g., hair style, clothing, presence of tattoos, presence of jewellery, etc.

But this isn't the case. We call somebody "black" or "white" on the basis of their biological features don't we? Their genetics, which they have inherited from their parents, which cause them to have a particular skin colour, and particular facial features.

[Anonymous No.8819269]

>>8819263
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/worlds-most-ancient-race-traced-in-dna-study-1677113.html
>>8819266
If race is not real explain why europeans have a specific kind of facial structure not seen in Middle Easterners, Indians or other Caucasoids? You can also tell if a human is mixed with blacks by looking at their facial structure as well.
>>8819267
Thats knowledge not raw intelligence.

[Anonymous No.8819270]

>>8819240
>>8819213
>race is a social construct
>"i'm not interested in this lowly discussion lmao"
>keeps responding

fuck off back to tumblr and then kill yourself morbid SJW whale

[Anonymous No.8819271]

>>8819269
>If race is not real explain why europeans have a specific kind of facial structure not seen in Middle Easterners, Indians or other Caucasoids?

[Anonymous No.8819272]

>>8819268
>Yes it does. If there was no biological basis, then we would not racially categorise people based on observable features.

again, yes we would, and (some of us still) do

unfortunately as we have since discovered, observable features don't tell you a great deal

[Anonymous No.8819273]

>>8819269
>If race is not real
I never said that it isn't real. I said it is a social construct.

0/10

[Anonymous No.8819274]

>>8819269
>Thats knowledge not raw intelligence.
please define 'raw intelligence'

[Anonymous No.8819275]

>>8819269
>If race is not real explain why europeans have a specific kind of facial structure not seen in Middle Easterners, Indians or other Caucasoids?
russians and poles often look different on average than germans, doesn't mean they aren't the same race

or?

[Anonymous No.8819276]

>>8819273
But social constructs are abstract terms thus not real.
>>8819271
Nice find but the average indian's face can easily be distinguished from a white person.
>>8819274
How fast their brain processes and uses new information.

[Anonymous No.8819281]

>>8819274
>African man spend whole life make fire, get very good
>Burger man spend whole life everything done for him, no know make fire good

[Anonymous No.8819282]

>>8819269
>If race is not real explain why europeans have a specific kind of facial structure not seen in Middle Easterners, Indians or other Caucasoids?
i'm sorry to tell you, but white is a social construct
>>8819276
as i said, the average russian face can too, the average southern euro face etc.

that doesn't mean they aren't the same race my friend

[Anonymous No.8819283]

>>8819275
They still have the same basic facial structure anon.

[Anonymous No.8819284]

>>8819276
>But social constructs are abstract terms thus not real.
Non sequitur.

[Anonymous No.8819285]

>>8819263
>but it does
No it doesn't. The question of whether racial groups have biological differences still remains. In my opinion, they must do, because people are identified as belonging to a race based on presence of biologically-rooted features like skin colour and facial features.

>i don't see why you don't want to answer
People disagree over how finely they divide the races. But the most generally accepted racial categories in the United States would probably be "white", "black", "asian", "native american".

Of course you can divide "asian" into many different sub-groups. But that is an entirely separate question from whether different races are biologically different. The question of whether an Asian person is biologically different from a white person would still remain, whether you refer to the Asian person by the name of their specific ancestral location (e.g. Chinese, Japanese) or not.

[Anonymous No.8819286]

>>8819282
White is just another word for European human breed.
>>8819282
Russians are white though.

[Anonymous No.8819287]

>>8819276
>How fast their brain processes and uses new information.

one of the great features of the brain is neuroplasticity

so, if you grow up in an environment where you need to identify predators, your brain will adapt

some brains are more adaptable than others of course

yours for example appears to not be so adaptable

[Anonymous No.8819290]

>>8819273
everything is a social construct you imbecile

[Anonymous No.8819292]

>>8819287
So what? Has nothing to do with intelligence.

[Anonymous No.8819293]

>>8819285
>But the most generally accepted racial categories in the United States would probably be "white", "black", "asian", "native american".
that's basically true globally as well

[Anonymous No.8819294]

>>8819213
Height is a social construct, and there is no absolute genetic border between 'short' and 'tall.' There are certain genetic correlates of what we putative consider to be height, however.

[Anonymous No.8819295]

>>8819266
>I claimed it is a social construct. That implies it is social in origin (note, not cultural, but social).
What do you even mean by this? It is a concept created by society? Like every concept that has ever been created? So what distinction are you claiming in this case? Since all concepts have been created by society?

Please don't attack your interlocutor with ad hominem remarks, because such a thing is not scientifically rigorous. I expect people of intelligence to be able to approach this topic in a non-emotional, non-prejudiced, non-biased, scientifically rigorous manner.

Do you not agree with me that the concept of "race" is tracking biological differences? If it is not tracking biological differences, then what is it tracking?

[Anonymous No.8819297]

>>8819290
Incorrect.

[Anonymous No.8819299]

>>8819292
>neuroplasticity has nothing to do with intelligence.

AHAHAHAHA wrong

[Anonymous No.8819301]

>>8819178

There is a biological difference between races, but this difference isn't as severe as even the genetic difference between two related breeds of dogs. What do you do with this conclusion?

[Anonymous No.8819302]

>>8819294
That's fully correct.

[Anonymous No.8819303]

>>8819293
Native Americans and Asians are the same race.
>>8819299
I dont see neuroplasticity helping american blacks become more adept at not getting arrested.

[Anonymous No.8819305]

>>8819213
Color is a social construct, and there is no absolute genetic border between 'red' and 'blue'. There are certain genetic correlates of what we putative consider to be color, however.

[Anonymous No.8819306]

>>8819303
>I dont see neuroplasticity helping american blacks become more adept at not getting arrested.

really? have you seen stats for unsolved gang-related incidents?

[Anonymous No.8819307]

>>8819303
>Native Americans and Asians are the same race.
No they are not. Native Americans evolved from asians

[Anonymous No.8819310]

>>8819306
American police are not allowed to take black criminals seriously because its racist.
>>8819307
No they are asians you fucking retard, their closest relatives are the Yakutst of Siberia. Native Americans are also the most recent kind of human in history so they cannot be a new race.

[Anonymous No.8819317]

>>8819272
>yes we would
How? What would we use to determine whether somebody belonged to a particular race?

Let me quote to you what Wikipedia says about race:
>Race is the classification of humans into groups based on physical traits, ancestry, genetics, or social relations, or the relations between them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_categorization)

"Physical traits, ancestry, genetics" - would you agree with me that this is what race refers to?

>observable features don't tell you a great deal
They tell you quite a lot. Every single day people make judgements about race based on appearance; indeed it is the primary method of determining whether somebody belongs to a particular race or not.

People of ALL races engage in this identification based on appearance - for better or for worse.

[Anonymous No.8819316]

>>8819310
>American police are not allowed to take black criminals seriously because its racist.

it's almost like black people have used the system you created against you

that must sting a bit

[Anonymous No.8819319]

>>8819310
Yes they are. They usually have bigger eyes and higher cheeks

[Anonymous No.8819322]

>>8819310
he's right

native americans have their own cluster
they are closer to japanese than to africans, but still
>>8819237

[Anonymous No.8819323]

>>8819317
>How? What would we use to determine whether somebody belonged to a particular race?

what do you actually mean by race?

break it down in scientific terms

[Anonymous No.8819324]

>>8819295
>What do you even mean by this?
It is a concept that are based on the sociodynamics of groups and the phenotypical features that go with it. This is distinct from a construct based on genotypical features, such as 'MET homozygous' individuals, etc.
>Please don't attack your interlocutor with ad hominem remarks, because such a thing is not scientifically rigorous. I expect people of intelligence to be able to approach this topic in a non-emotional, non-prejudiced, non-biased, scientifically rigorous manner.
Get your head out of your ass you pompous faggot. Note: this is an insult, not an ad hominem.

>Do you not agree with me that the concept of "race" is tracking biological differences?
Like I already said, there are genetic correlates of putative races. But race tracks phylogenetic and geographical ancestry, which is subtly but importantly distinct from pure genetics. Morover, it imperfectly tracks these features, because it's rooted in phenotype rather than genotype.

[Anonymous No.8819325]

>>8819275
Slavs are, arguably, a different racial group.

[Anonymous No.8819329]

>>8819316
Blacks dont have even the intelligence to figure out they are the real reason their communities are shit.
>>8819319
They are a different type of mongoloid indeed but they are not a new race.

[Anonymous No.8819331]

>>8819323
From Wikipedia:

>Race is the classification of humans into groups based on physical traits, ancestry, genetics, or social relations, or the relations between them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_categorization)

Would you agree with this definition?

[Anonymous No.8819335]

>>8819325
not really

[Anonymous No.8819336]

>>8819329
>Blacks dont have even the intelligence to figure out they are the real reason their communities are shit.

only some of them, and almost all of them are in one country

does that not tell you something?

(even if you are unaware of their uniquely recent history of slavery)

[Anonymous No.8819337]

>>8819331
no, i agree with this though

>Even though there is a broad scientific agreement that essentialist and typological conceptualizations of race are untenable, scientists around the world continue to conceptualize race in widely differing ways, some of which have essentialist implications.[16] While some researchers use the concept of race to make distinctions among fuzzy sets of traits or observable differences in behaviour, others in the scientific community suggest that the idea of race often is used in a naive[11] or simplistic way,[17] and argue that, among humans, race has no taxonomic significance by pointing out that all living humans belong to the same species, Homo sapiens, and subspecies, Homo sapiens sapiens.[18][19]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_categorization)

[Anonymous No.8819338]

>>8819178
>Are races biologically different?
whats the limit on being different? everyone (but meme twins) has identiacal dna

[Anonymous No.8819339]

>>8819336
>recent
you mean CURRENT history of slavery you dumbfuck
africa is a shithole full of slavery

[Anonymous No.8819343]

>>8819324
>It is a concept that are based on the sociodynamics of groups and the phenotypical features that go with it. This is distinct from a construct based on genotypical features, such as 'MET homozygous' individuals, etc.
I agree - but phenotypical features are rooted in genetics aren't they? They are passed down through ancestry. Which is why I say that race is still biological. Would you not agree?

>this is an insult, not an ad hominem
It's an ad hominem attack, it just isn't an ad hominem fallacy - although arguably you are poisoning the well (a form of ad hominem fallacy), trying to cast my character into doubt in an attempt to make my arguments appear wrong or implausible.

Could you please refrain from such ad hominem attacks, since I don't think it is necessary for examining the question rigorously and unemotionally.

>Like I already said, there are genetic correlates of putative races. But race tracks phylogenetic and geographical ancestry, which is subtly but importantly distinct from pure genetics. Morover, it imperfectly tracks these features, because it's rooted in phenotype rather than genotype.
Would those "genetic correlates" be ethnic groups? Since I have seen geneticists talk about ethnic groups, because they do not like to use the word "race", which is considered to be emotionally charged.

[Anonymous No.8819344]

>>8819339
yeah it's almost like slavery fucks people up

who knew

[Anonymous No.8819347]

>>8819336
>only some of them
>some
>some
>some
Wrong you clearly have never once lived in a black american community, you would notice the majority of blacks are violent lazy maniacs who commit rampant violent crime for little rational reason even if they are given welfare. Blacks cause so much crime that just putting in 100 in even a small town skyrockets the crime rate. Here is the weird thing, hispanics are the second highest in America yet blacks commit 50% of the violent crime in America despite only being 13% of the population. This violent crime plague has also been a feature of blacks since presegregation times where they would attack and terrorize humans for no reason and whites had to lynch them constantly to make them stop.

[Anonymous No.8819349]

>>8819347
>Wrong you clearly have never once lived in a black american community

>anecdotal evidence used to defend a general statement

carry on you dumb cunt

[Anonymous No.8819353]

>>8819335
They are genetically different. They are just less genetically different from Western Europeans than, say, Africans are.

>>8819337
>Even though there is a broad scientific agreement that essentialist and typological conceptualizations of race are untenable, scientists around the world continue to conceptualize race in widely differing ways, some of which have essentialist implications.
Surely that is a contradiction. If there are some scientists whose conceptualisations of race have essentialist implications, then clearly it isn't the case that there is a "broad scientific agreement that essentialist and typological conceptualisations of race are untenable", is there?

At least, it can't be that broad.

[Anonymous No.8819355]

>>8819349
https://newspaperarchive.com/tags/?pep=negro-attacks/

[Anonymous No.8819359]

>>8819343
>phenotypical features are rooted in genetics aren't they?
Not purely. That's the whole point.
>Would you not agree?
No, I would not, as I've already explained.

>Could you please refrain from such ad hominem attacks
No, go fuck yourself. I'm saying you're wrong, and you're a faggot. I'm not saying you're wrong because you are a faggot.

>Would those "genetic correlates" be ethnic groups?
No, those would be clusters of genes that are *on average* more prevalent among putative races.

You have to google words you don't understand. I'm not going to keep chewing everything out for you.

[Anonymous No.8819360]

>>8819343
a scandinavian can look like an alpine and still be completely scandinavian if you sequenced his genome - looks(muh phenotype lul big word xddd) is a very small part of the genome
not to mention blond greeks etc. - same logic

go back to /pol/ k
before you start talking about race and genetics you need to actually know what's what

[Anonymous No.8819362]

>>8819338
Do different racial groups have biological differences from each other? That's the question I'm posing here.

[Anonymous No.8819363]

Race in the terms that we define it is not real. The traits we use to classify people are arbitrary for the most part (typically phenotypic traits). We could also use non phenotypic traits but even then there's an incredible amount of overlap between 'races'.

Most genetic variation is not separated by races.

[Anonymous No.8819364]

Here is evidence of black on white rape before segregation

https://newspaperarchive.com/tags/?pep=negro-rapes/

[Anonymous No.8819367]

>>8819353
>They are genetically different. They are just less genetically different from Western Europeans than, say, Africans are.
that doesn't mean russians and french are a different race - which is kind of the point

[Anonymous No.8819371]

>>8819353
there are enough vested interests promoting certain worldviews and systems of opinion that it would appear to a casual observer that evidence is well-distributed

[Anonymous No.8819372]

>>8819347

(Black person here)

Have you ever lived in a black American community?

While crime rates certainly are higher, my father (ironically) is literally the only criminal in my family. The rest of my family (all from the same area) is composed of (a) people who work with their hands, (b) active professional athletes, (d) retired professional athletes who are now university sports coaches, (e) a few "starving artist" types, and (f) old ladies who sing and like to go to church. Aside from my father, none of the above describe "maniacs who commit violent crime for no reason," and, even in his case, his crime was mostly related to his drug addiction (and it ceased once he was able to get through it).

[Anonymous No.8819373]

More old black on white murder

https://newspaperarchive.com/tags/?pep=negro-kills/

Why are you ignoring proof of black on white crimes in the past?

Anyway I have made my point the blacks have always been a criminal race in America only rising due to jews forcing them into music, and sports. Even when they are placed in sports or music the blacks cannot put a stop to their natural behavior.

https://nbacrimelibrary.com/

[Anonymous No.8819374]

>>8819362
yes. the most obvious is the melanin distribution and facial features

[Anonymous No.8819375]

>>8819355
you were talking about communities, try to stay on topic

[Anonymous No.8819376]

I genuinely want to talk about genetics, but these threads always devolve into polfags just being racist against blacks or say completely retarded shit like slavs are a race or humans have breeds.

What is even the point?

[Anonymous No.8819377]

>>8819347
Please go back to >>>/mlpol/

[Anonymous No.8819378]

>>8819375
>evidence is always off topic
>muh feels are always on topic
kill yourself

[Anonymous No.8819381]

>>8819372
Disregarded.
>>8819376
If you didnt say race is not real we wouldnt have to start these debates.

[Anonymous No.8819382]

>>8819378
now you're just getting salty

this is embarrassing

[Anonymous No.8819385]

>>8819359
>Not purely. That's the whole point.
How do they come about then if it's not due to genetics?

>No, I would not, as I've already explained.
In my opinion you haven't given a convincing explanation of why this conceptualisation is wrong.

>I'm not saying you're wrong because you are a faggot.
And I'm not saying that you are which is why I said you made an ad hominem attack but not necessarily an ad hominem fallacy (although as I say, poisoning the well - which arguably you are engaging in - is a form of ad hominem fallacy).

>No, those would be clusters of genes that are *on average* more prevalent among putative races.
So there is a genetic basis to race then? It seems to me that you are deliberately trying to avoid conceding such a point, even though it is essentially what you are saying, just with a bit more nuance.

If you prefer we can use the term "ethnic group" since that is considered less controversial. As I say I have heard scientists admit that ethnic groups have genetic differences from each other. They are just reluctant to use the word "race" because of its social taboo.

[Anonymous No.8819387]

race isnt real
any human can mate with another and produce offspring capable of having offspring.

[Anonymous No.8819388]

>>8819382
>>>/tumblr
You have to go back

[Anonymous No.8819389]

>>8819178

[Anonymous No.8819390]

>>8819388
at least your dubs are relevant
>>>/mlpol/

[Anonymous No.8819391]

>>8819372
lmao this is gold

[Anonymous No.8819394]

>>8819387
Race doesnt mean species you fucking idiot.

[Anonymous No.8819396]

>>8819373

Black guy from before here. Are you implying that criminality is the "natural behavior" of blacks? This certainly has not been true in my family. My family moved to Philadelphia post-slavery (and pre-civil rights), settled, and has for the most part been quietly working and growing.

As I said before, there is heightened criminality in black areas, but this hypothesis of yours that blacks are inherently criminal except for when """">the Jews"""" step in is beyond flawed.

[Anonymous No.8819397]

>>8819390
>spams shit like "now you're just getting salty, this is embarrassing" with absolutely no content
>"Stop posting irrelevant posts and make high quality content!"
a SJW being a hypocrite? WOWIE

[Anonymous No.8819399]

>>8819397
i fucking destroyed you just stop you gigantic mong

[Anonymous No.8819401]

>>8819381
I have been arguing for race is real and what I think it is, and what races there are etc.

I just don't want to limit the discussion to stereotyping blacks.

Like >>8819373
>blacks have been a criminal race
this is obviously false since a vast minority of blacks have been criminals.

These threads are unfortunately just an excuse for polfags to talk crap about black people.

[Anonymous No.8819404]

>>8819381

>has view challenged
>disregarded

This, my friends, is truly the way of science.

[Anonymous No.8819405]

>>8819360
>a scandinavian can look like an alpine and still be completely scandinavian if you sequenced his genome - looks(muh phenotype lul big word xddd) is a very small part of the genome
>not to mention blond greeks etc. - same logic

If I am reading you correctly, you are saying that looks / phenotypical features are not always accurate for telling a person's race / geographical ancestry?

Okay. But that's a separate issue, surely, from whether race is biological.

I guess you could say "since you can't always accurately identify a person's race / ethnic group / geographical ancestral origin from their appearance, you can't make assumptions about what genetics that person might have purely based on their appearance".

Okay. In which case let me pose this question - would you agree that different ethnic groups have different genetics?

[Anonymous No.8819408]

>>8819367
It really depends on how you draw your racial groups doesn't it?

>>8819371
That may well be true.

[Anonymous No.8819409]

>>8819396
Jews did nothing but make blacks more widespread in media, they didnt do a thing to your genetic criminal behavior. Jews profit of your genetic behavior via the rap industry anyway.
>>8819401
>minority of blacks are criminals
If America was actually allowed to be serious with blacks most of them would be in prison considering how many blacks violently assault humans for no reason all the time in America or attempt murder in America or steal stuff in America or break into houses in America you get the idea.
>>8819404
No you are black its futile trying to explain whats wrong with your race because you will always deny it.

[Anonymous No.8819412]

Evidence that blacks have always been thieves

https://newspaperarchive.com/tags/?pep=negro-robs/

[Anonymous No.8819413]

>>8819405
different groups are defined as mostly having different frequencies of the same genes

groups, for the most part have the same 'genetics'

[Anonymous No.8819417]

>>8819385
>How do they come about then if it's not due to genetics?
Google phenotype and there's your answer.

>In my opinion you haven't given a convincing explanation of why this conceptualisation is wrong.
Then there's not much we can do about it. You missed the point. Too bad. My advice would be to go back and read each of my posts carefully.

The crux of it all revolves around the point that there is a difference between a correlate of a construct, and a mechanistic basis of a construct. These two differ in fundamental ways. Race has genetic correlates, but it's mechanistic basis is not genetic. It's mechanistic basis is social. Again, go back and re-read some of my earlier posts, because I've explained this in detail.

>If you prefer we can use the term "ethnic group" since that is considered less controversial. As I say I have heard scientists admit that ethnic groups have genetic differences from each other. They are just reluctant to use the word "race" because of its social taboo.
There's no taboo. Geneticists don't like the word race because it is a non-genetic construct. That doesn't mean you can find statistical differences in the prevalence of genes between putative races, that's trivial. But it's non-trivial that these differences do not form the basis of how we define race, and as such, the concept is of limited value for scientific investigation. Moreover, it means that we cannot say anything *causative* about the genetic makeup of an individual based on the construct of race alone. Think of this as 'Most apples are red' not implying 'this is an apple, therefore it is red'. Understanding this is key.

[Anonymous No.8819419]

>>8819372
Question since I'm interested. Do you think that black and white people have different genetics? To me it seems the answer to that question is clear, since black and white people look different.

Now a much more controversial - certainly very controversial - question. Possibly the most controversial question about race that there is.

Do you think it is *possible* that different rates of crime between blacks and whites in the US are rooted in genetics? Scientists have found, after all, genes that are associated with higher crime levels (this was not a study to do with race whatsoever - they were just looking at criminals and non-criminals). Pic related, and here's the source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-29760212

If one is to accept that:
>a) the races have different genetics
>b) genetics can cause elevated crime levels
Then surely it is *possible* that the differences in crime levels between black and white Americans could be - IN PART - due to genetics. Or does this seem implausible?

[Anonymous No.8819420]

>>8819417
>That doesn't mean you can find
can't*

[Anonymous No.8819422]

>>8819399

Still no arguments to be found except diverting from the original question or repeating the question in a meme manner.

In other words, thanks for proving my point. :^)

[Anonymous No.8819423]

>>8819413
That's what I think too.

[Anonymous No.8819425]

Evidence of black savagery in the United Caliphate

http://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/search/results?basicsearch=negro%20kills

[Anonymous No.8819426]

how can there be more black criminals if you can't be black because race doesn't exist????

[Anonymous No.8819427]

>>8819422
you didn't make a point

[Anonymous No.8819429]

>>8819427
You are out of the game, that's what you wanted.
I'll spend some of my energy to tell you a few things.
First, you are one adorable monkey to my eyes, a really stupid one, since what you just said is wrong, since you can talk about math using words, one plus one is two, and you can understand nature without understanding math, you drop an apple, it falls and so on :)
a small tiny lecture to you, understand it.

And since you are not in, you don't want to know how to.. for example know how to calculate how to get your dream job? Like I have.. or.. How to be the perfect father?
Those are all states of everything in existence, plausible ones.


And yes, I am aware this is waste of time, like trying to teach algebra to a dog, but to others here who don't get this, be humble, don't attack me, but the theories, we will never be finished, but we can use these for literally anything..

be smart, for once in your life at least.

[Anonymous No.8819432]

>>8819426
>Far less british negros than americans
>yet they get jailed at a higher rate than even the native brits

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2010/oct/11/black-prison-population-increase-england

Explain this now.

[Anonymous No.8819434]

>>8819426
there's 2 reasons for your chart
first is racism (yes i know you won't like that, but blacks aren't that much more criminal)
you are more likely to be put away if you are black than white in the same situation, that's a fact

second thing is, perhaps they are slighly more criminal on average, just like whites are more criminal than asians

boo hoo

[Anonymous No.8819435]

>>8819409

I am aware of what is wrong with my race. As a black person with an education and a visible career in science, I make a goal of inspiring other blacks to climb out of the holes they're in by addressing these issues.

As a black person, however, I will understand more of the subtlety behind what is plaguing the black community than you by simple means of the fact that I am a member. Your generalizations that "blacks are just naturally criminal" is in no way interesting, correct, or useful in addressing the issue. You're attempting to get by with the absolute minimum level of thought necessary to justify your view of blacks.

As a scientist who is also black, I believe that the various things wrong with the American black community would benefit from a scientific analysis. In the same way that you're not satisfied with there being a non-negligible rate of outliers with respect to the theory of gravitation being applied to create an aircraft you're in, I'm not satisfied with these insufficient generalizations being applied to the community in which I live.

[Anonymous No.8819446]

>>8819432
stop and search is the biggest factor, in terms of correlation by date at least
poverty is another, but that's more complex
recent cuts in youth services funding are going to make it worse as well

[Anonymous No.8819447]

>>8819435
Your race has a history of being seen as dumb wild animals by other humans, the arabs, the jews, even the ancient egyptians regarded your kind as dumb wild animals that couldnt possibly be human in any manner of the mind.

We have done everything we can to make you act human buts its futile completely futile BECAUSE YOU WILL NEVER FUCKING CHANGE.

NEVER

EVER

GONNA

HAPPEN

I am sorry genetic outlier but you negros are just wild humans that never meant for any civilization ever.

[Anonymous No.8819451]

>>8819434
>da white man is racis das why dey jail us
>I-I mean we-we're just... SLIGHTLY more criminal on average!

kek

[Anonymous No.8819453]

>>8819446
>muh poverty
Poor whites are dirt fucking poor compared to brown people in Bongistan because only brown people get benefits. Yet poor whites dont have these crime rates, explain now.

Explain why poor whites in America dont have this crime rate either.

EVEN BETTER EXPLAIN HOW THE FUCK BLACKS KEEP COMMITING MORE CRIME THAN HISPANICS EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE 40% OF THE US POPULATION.

[Anonymous No.8819455]

>>8819447
Hey buddy, why don't you go fuck off somewhere. Preferably back to >>>/mlpol/.

t. A white male

[Anonymous No.8819456]

>>8819432
explanation is in the article
>According to Roy Walmsley's World Prison Population List 2009, the US jails 756 of every 100,000 of its population. The corresponding figure for England and Wales is 153. Based on the figures above, America jails 3% of its black population, and England and Wales 1%. This means that a black person in the US is three times as likely to be imprisoned as in England and Wales.
that doesn't mean they still can't be overrepresented

in the US whites have an imprisonment rate of 450, it's apparently ~150 in the uk

that's part of the reason

it's basic math

[Anonymous No.8819457]

>>8819453
>poor whites dont have these crime rates

are you sure?

[Anonymous No.8819461]

MUH IQ hehehe
MUH LE NIGGERS HEHEHEHE

Guys am I le redpilled yet? XDXD Have I achieved the intellectual superiority I wanted? xxxD

[Anonymous No.8819462]

>>8819455
Disregarded.
>>8819457
If poor whites had those rates of crime it would be white majority poor areas as the most dangerous areas in America you idiot not black majority.
>>8819456
Does it ever dawn on you that blacks seem to always fill prisons in any country they exist in?

[Anonymous No.8819463]

>>8819462
>Disregarded.
but you responded

[Anonymous No.8819468]

>>8819462
It dawns on me that they are more criminal on average.
The difference isn't big enough to treat them indiscriminately as slaves or something.

Did it dawn on you that you had to read your article and look up the US numbers for whites just to at least see what the proportions actually mean and imply?

[Anonymous No.8819469]

>>8819457
yes.

[Anonymous No.8819475]

>>8819462
>>8819463
"disregarded" means "im butthurt and too retarded to make sense anymore" not "im not actually going to respond"

[Anonymous No.8819476]

>>8819419

>black and white people having different genetics

There are obvious differences in the genetics of black and white people. These differences, however, are miniscule. Since your own opinion is based upon how people look, note that, for every subtle phenotypical expression which is different for blacks and whites, there are thousands and millions of phenotypical similarities between the structures supporting these features.

>Do I think it's possible that different rates of crime between blacks and whites in the US are rooted in genetics

I believe that genetics can influence behavior so as to have an effect on crime. For example, there is evidence that addiction tendencies are linked to genetics, and it's common knowledge that addiction may lead one to commit violent crime. How do you distinguish between a person whose genes influence an addiction which leads to violent crime and a person whose genes influence a person to commit violence? The presence of drugs isn't necessarily a separator, as drugs are often involved in both groups.

I do not, however, believe that "crime genes" are localized to either whites or blacks.
In my experience as a black person, it tends to hold that good families produce
good people; in back neighborhoods, you can generally guess who will grow up
to cause trouble, but even this isn't necessarily related to genetics. The generalization that blacks are more criminal than whites due to genetics is therefore,
in my view, both inaccurate and dangerous.

tl;dr
>yes, genetics can affect crime
>no, I do not believe that crime-related genetics are concentrated among blacks
>conflating an effect (crime) with one of many potential clauses (genetics) is erroneous, and generalizing black genetics off of the observation of crime is just a
generalization of the same sort of logical error

[Anonymous No.8819478]

>>8819461
we should just give them what they want and deport everyone under 100, i will enjoy waving them all off

[Anonymous No.8819479]

Every.
Fucking.
Day.

[Anonymous No.8819480]

>>8819447

Thanks for the meaningless response.

[Anonymous No.8819482]

Poverty and culture etc. can totally be an explanation for crime.

See hispanics.

At least that's fortunate so we can know that they won't be trouble in the long run, right.

[Anonymous No.8819483]

>>8819417
>Google phenotype and there's your answer.
Okay I have done. The definition by google says that phenotype is the result of the interaction between genotype and the environment. Then I found this on the Wikipedia article for phenotype, which explains it in a bit more detail:
>A phenotype results from the expression of an organism's genetic code, its genotype, as well as the influence of environmental factors and the interactions between the two.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenotype

So essentially this says that a phenotype is the result of genetics, right? Plus environment, sure. I am not for a second denying that environment shapes genetics - of course it does.

>Race has genetic correlates, but it's mechanistic basis is not genetic. It's mechanistic basis is social
But it is tracking genetic differences, isn't it? It is tracking people who differ phenotypically, due to different ancestries.

>There's no taboo
Then why do scientists not investigate questions such as "what are the causes of disparities in crime levels between self-identified racial groups" and "are there differences in IQ levels between self-identified racial groups"?

>But it's non-trivial that these differences do not form the basis of how we define race
Given that phenotype is how we identify race, and given that phenotype is an expression of an organism's genotype, then surely genetic differences DO form the basis of how we define race?

>Think of this as 'Most apples are red' not implying 'this is an apple, therefore it is red'. Understanding this is key
If most apples were red then you could make a probabilistic guess that if you find an apple, it's more likely to be red than not red. Surely you could make similar probabilistic judgements about people who belong to a particular race? If somebody belongs to a particular race it might not be a guarantee that they will have gene X, but if gene X is more prevalent among that race, the likelihood of them having gene X is higher, right?

[Anonymous No.8819486]

[math]\color{red} {\textbf{SERIOUSLY, REPORT AND HIDE INSTEAD OF ENGAGING THE POLTARDS}}[/math]

[math]\color{red} {\textbf{YOU ARE SHITTING UP THE BOARD}}[/math]

[Anonymous No.8819488]

>>8819486
Poltards need to be refuted, I'm sorry.
Just read the thread and you'll see, it's for the better.

[Anonymous No.8819492]

>>8819486
>>>/r/eddit

[Anonymous No.8819493]

>>8819482
>b-b-but I didn't mean to say that with this chart
>it was supposed to be about the negro
>muh trump, muh illegals, spics aren't white, who cares about crime

[Anonymous No.8819498]

>>8819486
back to >>>/pol/ nigger

[Anonymous No.8819500]

>>8819483
>So essentially this says that a phenotype is the result of genetics, right?
No, it's the result of gentics, environment, and the interaction between the two. This is key. This answers the point you made after this one.

>Then why do scientists not investigate questions such as "what are the causes of disparities in crime levels between self-identified racial groups" and "are there differences in IQ levels between self-identified racial groups"?
It's very simple: they do.

>and given that phenotype is an expression of an organism's genotype
No, see above.

>If most apples were red then you could make a probabilistic guess that if you find an apple, it's more likely to be red than not red. Surely you could make similar probabilistic judgements about people who belong to a particular race? If somebody belongs to a particular race it might not be a guarantee that they will have gene X, but if gene X is more prevalent among that race, the likelihood of them having gene X is higher, right?
Yes. We can make probabilistic predictions. But nothing beyond that.

[Anonymous No.8819504]

Holy fuck I'm glad I'm not retarded and racist.

[Anonymous No.8819507]

>>8819476
>I do not, however, believe that "crime genes" are localized to either whites or blacks.
Why not? What evidence do you have to suggest that this isn't the case?

Black Americans have crime rates that are gigantic compared to white Americans, but not only this; in Africa, violence is far more widespread and brutal than in Europe.

>The generalization that blacks are more criminal than whites due to genetics is therefore, in my view, both inaccurate and dangerous.
It could be true. The thing is that this question is never really investigated because of the social taboo. It it were investigated though, it could turn out as true that people of African heritage have a higher prevalence of genes associated with crime.

Which of course would not mean that everybody of African heritage is destined to commit a crime. Also I admit that the factors you identify - families, and drugs - certainly play a role in crime levels too. That is undeniable.

I don't think one can rule out genetics though. It's a very controversial topic of course. But I don't think this factor can be conclusively ruled out. And from my understanding of genetics, it's certainly possible.

Ideally a criminal would only ever be judged by their actions, irrespective of their race. But there are some who argue that high crime rates among black Americans are purely down to oppression, racist white police, etc. And I admit that these things are factors. But I think it's possible that genetics could be another factor, given the high levels of crime and violence that are present not only among black Americans, but among black Africans in Africa as well.

[Anonymous No.8819511]

>>8819498
>>>/mlp/ol

[Anonymous No.8819520]

>>8819242
The Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study discredits all of your unsubstantiated claims.

[Anonymous No.8819524]

>>8819520
what are some limitations of adoption studies you reckon

are there other adoption studies conducted, have you tried reading up on that?

[Anonymous No.8819525]

>>8819482
It doesnt explain blacks though as they cause more crime thsn hispanics despite the fact that hispanics are more competent criminals than blacks.

[Anonymous No.8819527]

>>8819525
Well, you should be glad then, demographically and racially.

[Anonymous No.8819530]

>>8819500
>It's very simple: they do.
I disagree. The topic is surrounded by controversy.

E.g. it is perfectly possible that black Americans have a higher prevalence of genes associated with crime. Such a thesis has not really been put to the test though.

[Anonymous No.8819532]

>>8819527
Glad for what? Niggers are so cancerous that people pay attentiom to them when they bring up white genocide in America and not hispanics who will actually be the new ethnic majority.

[Anonymous No.8819534]

>>8819532
>white genocide
lol, k
whites have increased in numbers since 2000, m8

just because the hispanics % is growing means nothing

[Anonymous No.8819538]

>>8819534
Its genocide because whites cannot halt brown people entering America. I meam 30,000 niggers from the Congo being imported into Minnesota what the actual fuck.

[Anonymous No.8819539]

>>8819181
not sure if bait or

[Anonymous No.8819543]

>>8819530
>I disagree.
But the facts disagree with you. For example (this took literally one minute to find, google scholar returned over 42000 articles):

>http://annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.soc.31.041304.122308
>http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/cjccj32&div=29&id=&page=
>http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/644532
>http://www.jstor.org/stable/27592124?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents


Entire fucking books have been written about this subject. For example:
>https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/the-nurture-versus-biosocial-debate-in-criminology/book238854

I'm starting to think that you use bing instead of google.

[Anonymous No.8819557]

>>8819543
Interesting, thank you for the links, I will look at them.

Out of interest what is your opinion on the possibility of black Americans having a higher prevalence of genes associated with crime, or violent behaviour? Do you think such a thing is a possibility?

[Anonymous No.8819573]

>>8819530
>>8819557
>E.g. it is perfectly possible that black Americans have a higher prevalence of genes associated with crime.
Sure. But when you find a recurring gene, it doesn't mean anything. They all have a gene for dark skin for example. You have to show that those genes directly lead to a mental mechanism for crime-committing, and that when white people have the same genes, they are not simply diagnosed with BPD or something. It's extremely unlikely anything like that will be found.

[Anonymous No.8819574]

>>8819557
>Do you think such a thing is a possibility?
It is possible but also unlikely. 'Criminality', if there even is such a thing, is highly polygenic by virtue of being extremely complex behavior. What we do know from behavioral genetics is that phenotypic variance in such complex behaviors can almost never be accounted for by genetic influences alone, because the genotypic variance between individuals isn't large enough. Specifically, the majority of the total genetic variation between humans is found within populations, and vastly outweighs the variation that is found between populations within a phylogenetic cluster. Besides theoretical arguments, empirically the available data (e.g. the studies cited in the previous post) suggests that if there are genetic contributions to crime, they are of vastly smaller effect size than environmental factors. This is not settled science yet, but the data indicate that the answer to the above question is 'unlikely'.

[Anonymous No.8819625]

Here's some food for thought on Mexicans. Using the SNP's on the right(identified via GWAS studies to be worth around 0.3 iq points difference each) I can compare Europeans to Mexicans (living in LA).

rs10457441:
European avg: 0.53 Mexican in LA: 0.28
rs10119:
European avg: 0.71 Mexican in LA: 0.8
rs11584700:
European avg: 0.23 Mexican in LA: 0.1
rs4851266:
European avg: 0.39 Mexican in LA: 0.33
rs236330:
European avg: 0.77 Mexican in LA: 0.84
rs17518584:
European avg: 0.63 Mexican in LA: 0.64
rs7923609:
European avg: 0.51 Mexican in LA: 0.7
rs17522122:
European avg: -0.51 Mexican in LA: -0.63
rs2721173:
European avg: -0.54 Mexican in LA: -0.45
Average Mexican frequency: 0.512222222222
Average European frequency 0.524444444444
Source: 1000 genomes project

Now obviously there's more genes involved, but probabilistically it's hard to imagine that the most significant SNP's won't show a difference if there actually was a difference.

This basically proves that an IQ gap can be mostly environmental in nature.

/pol/ should be ecstatic about this. I imagine they won't be though.

[Anonymous No.8819631]

Daily reminder that pygmies are just as capable as white men, and no amount of autistic screeching can change that.

[Anonymous No.8819632]

>>8819625
The last two numbers are negative because the correlation is negative, when the avg is calculated you just get the complement value right

has to do with the way studies identify which allele they look at as having positive or negative correlation

just in case brainlets can't really read

[Anonymous No.8819635]

>>8819305
But color is a social construct. It's literally just different wavelengths of light. No such thing as color but only light at certain frequency.

[Anonymous No.8819639]

>>8819635
>the electromagnetic spectrum is a social construct

[Anonymous No.8819640]

>>8819625
The fundamental problem that I have with this is that these genes are supposedly IQ-related, whereas in the original publication that identified them they were 1) related to academic attainment, not IQ directly, 2) this relationship is correlative in nature rather than causative, and 3) the correlation did not even include confound analyses to rule out spurious coincidence of the gene with the trait.

I appreciate the effort, but we'd best stick to solid lines of argumentation. Especially because that very table is often used by the /pol/tards as evidence for a genetic origin of race-IQ differences.

[Anonymous No.8819641]

>>8819362
Yes and no. It all depends on what you mean by biology.

Example: a soldier goes off to war and gets his leg blown off. Does he have a different anatomy? Yes: he only has 1 leg. Is his physiology different? No. His liver works the same with a leg as without.

Are blacks anatomically different? Yes. They have a greater expression of melanin, different skulls and much larger penises than anyone on /pol/.

Physiologically, is there any difference? No. Black sperm can, and often does, impregnate eggs from white women the same way that the sperm from the virgin racist cucks on /pol/ would. That is, if the /pol/ permavirgins could ever find a willing woman. But you'd have to go to /x/ to talk about fantasies.

[Anonymous No.8819647]

>>8819639
please tell me the wavelength of magenta

[Anonymous No.8819652]

>>8819178
We have this thread every day.

[Anonymous No.8819657]

>>8819479
>>8819479
>>8819479

[Anonymous No.8819658]

>>8819640
What you are saying is reasonable, especially the part about what causes what and is it just a correlation. Obviously NO actual mechanisms have been suggested.

BUT, it's funny that the table was originally doctored by the /pol/tard to show something fake AND they actually didn't even make it a point to check if the Mexicans, a growing minority actually fits their little theory. And as you know, Mexicans are a very important part of the whole race discussion, immigration etc.

It's just a fun way to show polfags have no idea what they are doing, when they post their charts, they have no idea what they are talking about in their little HBD bubble. Like when they post a sourceless picture of IQ curves and Asians are always on top. That's amusing to me that they repeatedly shoot themselves in the foot.

Here's an example.

[Anonymous No.8819667]

>>8819658
Sure, I get your motivation. I'm just saying that it's probably not a good idea to fight fire with fire. We'd be shooting ourselves in the foot as well.

[Anonymous No.8819672]

>>8819635
that's not the point jackass, EVERYTHING is a social construct. social justice imbeciles like to throw around "hurr race is a social construct so it doesn't exist" like something being a social construct means shit

[Anonymous No.8819679]

>>8819672
>EVERYTHING is a social construct
This statement is either profound but false, or trivial but true, depending on your definition of social construct.

You should read the thread, multiple people have detailed exactly why it is an important distinction to make for race, and how that makes it distinct in a profound sense from genetic constructs such as blood type or sex.

[Anonymous No.8819687]

>>8819667
Not really.
There's no 'we' here. Just me.
The point is to show they are wrong, their framework is entirely incorrect etc. This is what this thread and all the threads that get made are about.

Saying that all the (very recently emerged I might say) IQ gaps between any two groups are genetic is completely wrong. Saying that all of them are purely and entirely environment is also wrong.

Things are complicated, but the main point is there is no racial agenda to be found in IQ measurements.

[Anonymous No.8819692]

>>8819679
>I think you're wrong and I'm 100% sure guaranteed that you can justify my argument by reading 10000000000000 posts here!
no
social "science" is shit

[Anonymous No.8819695]

>>8819692
suit yourself faggot

[Anonymous No.8819702]

>>8819687
>Saying that all of them are purely and entirely environment
Suppose I wore to adopt this radical viewpoint for a moment. What evidence do you have to dispute it?

[Anonymous No.8819703]

>>8819695
make an argument for yourself if you want to be taken seriously, brainlet imbecile

[Anonymous No.8819706]

>>8819703
I did but you ignored it.

[Anonymous No.8819713]

>>8819181

>they need different nutritive input

nope. Even the meme metabolisms like lactose and alcohol are only limited to some of the population.

[Anonymous No.8819719]

>>8819702
GWAS showing that ~50% of the variance in intelligence is due to genes

[Anonymous No.8819720]

>>8819178

Of course they are, who cares?

In terms of genetic diversity, human races are less far apart than individual chimps that live in the same tribe.

Also, race is mostly skin color, and a little bit facial features. If everyone on earth was pale and blonde, I guarantee nobody would give a shit about the genetic racial differences.

[Anonymous No.8819721]

>>8819305

So would a black white person be considered white?

Something tells me no. Hence social construct.

[Anonymous No.8819729]

>>8819719
That's not direct evidence at all. All it shows it that IQ is partly heritable, which is trivial. What we're talking about is between-race differences. You need to show that these specifically are genetic.

[Anonymous No.8819741]

>>8819721
>a black white person
well, hopefully with crispr i can finally get my melanistic cutie

imagine a perfect young skinny female with perky tits, tiny joints, and straight BLACK hair, BLACK eyes AND a skin as black as pic related

it would be pretty cool to see, aesthetically

[Anonymous No.8819874]

>>8819266
>not cultural, but social
oh geeze

[Anonymous No.8819884]

>>8819874
not an argument

[Anonymous No.8819892]

>>8819266
not an argument

[Anonymous No.8819906]

>>8819892
Except it is.

[Anonymous No.8819928]

>>8819906
not an argument

[Anonymous No.8819957]

>>8819928
You have to read more.
>http://annals.org/aim/article/710064/medicalization-race-scientific-legitimization-flawed-social-construct
>http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0735275114550881
>http://aaronhood.net/wp-content/SocialConstructionRace.pdf

[Anonymous No.8819959]

>>8819221
From whom'st're'll've you gotten that definition from?

[Anonymous No.8819961]

>>8819957
>read these opinion pieces by people whose entire field revolves around being paid money for saying race doesn't exist
gee, sociologists are shit and the ones who specialize in race are the worst
are you in the wrong board? it does say /sci/ up there, you know. were you looking for /tumblr/?

[Anonymous No.8819963]

>>8819957
>race groupings have been legitimized by their use in medical literature and practice as acceptable descriptive labels that are integral to the proper diagnosis and treatment of disease in humans
>but I don't like that so let me play sociologist and change the name of these tools to "ethnicity" instead to be politically correct
????????????

[Anonymous No.8819966]

>>8819741
>jaguar.jpg

[Anonymous No.8819967]

>>8819961
>annals of internal medicine
>sociology
try again

>>8819963
That's a pretty big collection of straws you have there. Might just make a whole man out of them.

[Anonymous No.8819969]

>>8819967
not an argument

[Anonymous No.8819974]

>>8819969
>>>/mlp/ol

[Anonymous No.8819975]

>>8819974
>spergs out
not an argument

[Anonymous No.8819976]

>>8819975
>>spergs out
the fucking irony

[Anonymous No.8819977]

Of course they are, moron.

[Anonymous No.8819984]

>>8819976
not an argument

[Anonymous No.8819987]

not an argument

[Anonymous No.8819989]

>>8819987
Correct. It's your turn for an argument.

[Anonymous No.8819997]

>>8819989
not an argument

[Anonymous No.8820003]

>>8819997

[Anonymous No.8820029]

>>8820003
>stop shitposting! here, let me post a shitty 9gag tier gif of a cat. this proves you're shitposting! wow!
definitely engages my synapses

[Anonymous No.8820041]

>>8820029
thought involves a whole lot more than just synapses you fucking brainlett

[Anonymous No.8820043]

>>8819534
>whites have increased in numbers since 2000, m8
Bullshit, there is not a single country except in eastern europe where whites have more than 2.1 children. Open immigration is overcrowding white countries and puting a strain on their economy leaving the place in a shitty state, discouraging whites to procreate, because only a shitty live awaits their children.

[Anonymous No.8820060]

>>8820041
>correcting a meme
not an argument

[Anonymous No.8820061]

>>8820043
you have to go back

[Anonymous No.8820066]

>>8820060
>implying a meme is an argument

[Anonymous No.8820086]

>>8820043
>Open immigration is overcrowding white countries and puting a strain on their economy
oh so the banking crisis never happened, good to know

[Anonymous No.8820105]

>>8820043
whites in US have increased by about 12.5 mio between 2000 and 2010

http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-02.pdf

[Anonymous No.8820111]

The mere idea that we are all equal in every way would go against evolution itself. Physically, it's obvious. Even in organ transplants the success rate increases when organs are matched between people of similar ethnic backgrounds. People’s blood type, tissue marker, and size are often correlated to their race and ethnicity.

http://www.centralbloodbank.org/donate-blood/ethnicity-and-blood-donation

The only reason "race doesn't real" to some people is because in-between the massive swaths of red and yellow exists the shades of orange. So therefore, neither red nor yellow exists. You might find a way to word around it, but the simple fact is: humans have evolved in different climates and geographical regions, causing different traits in different races, just like every other species of animal in the entire world.

Humans are animals and we abide by the laws of nature and evolution. The state of sapiency does not make use equal in mental or physical capacity. This should be common sense.

[Anonymous No.8820112]

>>8819186
>>8819539
Vitamin D deficiency for peoples from the tropics who are living at higher latitudes.

[Anonymous No.8820117]

>>8820112

[Anonymous No.8820261]

Slightly. But that's like asking am I biologically different from brother. Yeah, but it's not enough to really matter much at all. Segregate the races from each other for a couple of hundred thousand years more and there'll be a more noticeable difference.

[Anonymous No.8820279]

>>8820105
Thats mainly due to increased life span, whites are below replacement rate that's a fact, once the boomers die their population will be greatly reduced and declining fast.

[Anonymous No.8820297]

>>8820279
yeah, it's very bad

literally genocide

[Anonymous No.8820301]

>>8820297
another way of putting it is that whites are the least fit in the evolutionary sense, kek

[Anonymous No.8820303]

>>8820301
>Yes, fuck white people and drumpf

fuck off tard

[Anonymous No.8820309]

>>8820303
you missed the point you dumb shit

[Anonymous No.8820312]

Why are race threads so full of brainlets.

[Anonymous No.8820314]

i have a question for racists

what are you going to do about global warming?

[Anonymous No.8820318]

>>8820309
no i didn't
don't you know 'white people are being bred out of existence'
that's what i'm saying

just look at the numbers, minorities all have 5 kids while poor ol white people have 1 kid, so they can feed the minority children with taxes
>>8820297
>>8820105

white people won't exist in 50 years

LITERALLY genocide

[Anonymous No.8820320]

>>8820318
>no i didn't
I assure you, you did miss the point.

[Anonymous No.8820336]

>>8820320
of course whitey is unfit unlike virile black men
never mind that the white man has replaced 2 of the main races and exists on all 5 continents

that will soon be over, because whitey is getting genocided as we speak, just look at the statistics it's horrible

[Anonymous No.8820341]

>>8820336
buddy, you gotta go and read up what the concept of fitness means in the evolutionary biological sense, then maybe you'd get what I was saying

by the way, if you're so concerned about low birth numbers, perhaps you should leave your fucking basement and find a wife to procreate with

but oh wait, you're a retarded autist

[Anonymous No.8820350]

>>8820297
It is.
Unlike other races Whites and Asians are more K selected, once they feel overcrowded they have less children to balance their population to an equilibrium point where they stay at 2 children.
Other races being more r selected have an overcrowding point way highe.
Letting them invade white countries force Whites into a permanent state of overcrowding and low fertility.
Unlike Asians, Whites have no safe space where it's 100% whites, keeping the population from ever going extinct.
At the moment everywhere on earth the conditions are perfect for the reduction of white population, and any suggestion to change it is faced with violence. This is the literal definition of genocide.

[Anonymous No.8820351]

>>8819201
that's wrong.
They have been hundred of studies which all found consistent results which show that there are very significant differences in IQ between races.

[Anonymous No.8820355]

>>8820350
please go back to >>>/mlpol/

[Anonymous No.8820357]

>>8820350
hispanic rate is 2.4, white is 1.8
you are being completely hysteric

go look at european statistics, here, have a sweden chart
half the euro immigrants are just eastern europeans, the other turks or some alternative caucasian like arabs or north africans

just face it, some % of the population will be minority, no matter how strongly you want to see an ACTUAL genocide comitted against them, you will never be justified

[Anonymous No.8820364]

>>8820341
> if you're so concerned about low birth numbers, perhaps you should leave your fucking basement and find a wife to procreate with

Adding 1-10 children will change nothing, it's the condition of white countries that need to be changed to revert the fertility to 2.
Right now shitposting is more efficient than procreating to increase the white fertility.

[Anonymous No.8820366]

>>8820364
>birth rate is too low
>increasing the birthrate won't do anything
sad

[Anonymous No.8820370]

>>8820366
You don't even understand the concept of derivative, why are you on /sci/ ?

[Anonymous No.8820375]

>>8820370

[Anonymous No.8820377]

>>8819178
Yes. Just look at the fucking skin. White=/=brown
/thread.

[Anonymous No.8820380]

>>8820370
are you for real?

[Anonymous No.8820384]

>>8820377
In fact, far from it. Races have underlying implications going far beyond skin color and facial features.

[Anonymous No.8820385]

>>8820380
Yes I'm real, ading a constant to function will not increase it's derivative incase you still don't understand what I'm talking about.

[Anonymous No.8820395]

>>8820385
kekekekek you're serious, this is great, you're even dumber than I thought

it's not often you run into a post that has the perfect combination of smugness, utterly simplistic reasoning which evidently took great effort, and utter stupidity

thanks for that gem, this is going in my examples of /pol/ retardedness folder

[Anonymous No.8820418]

>>8820395
Your bluff isn't working here, you are just humiliating yourself even more. You thought adding whites was equivalent to increasing white fertility, I called your stupidity and instead of laying low you double down on it.

[Anonymous No.8820423]

>>8820418
>You thought adding whites was equivalent to increasing white fertility
You dumb fuck, it's literally as simple as that. The birth rate is the number of people born relative to the population. Thus, adding more whites increases the birth rate. Protip: children can have children as well. That's how population growth works.

>Your bluff
It's like I'm talking to a five year old.

[Anonymous No.8820426]

>>8819178
Human races are at least as different as dog breeds.

Communist egalitarians BTFO.

[Anonymous No.8820428]

I was under the impression that no one sensible would deny such a thing.

The question is how much of a difference is there, and how much of that difference matters in real life.

[Anonymous No.8820453]

>>8820423
1)I only talked about fertility, not birth rate.
The fact that you confuse them definitly prove you don't even understand basic maths such as derivative.

2)Even assuming we were talking about birth rate:
> The birth rate is the number of people born relative to the population. Thus, adding more whites increases the birth rate.
You just said : A=x/y
if you increase y you increase A.

I really hope you are 13 years old or younger, your stupidity may be excused, if you are older than that you are a failure as a human and you should considere killing yourself.

[Anonymous No.8820464]

>>8819186
No shit. You realise every country has a different genetic stock? Some countries (like 80% of European countries) have some unique genes. Are 80% of European countries now distinct races?

You can catagorise people by genes but the broad" black, white and asian is retarded, doesn't tell you anything except geography and political history.

[Anonymous No.8820541]

>>8819372
lol

[Anonymous No.8820551]

>>8819178
My race/region intelligence question

>intelligence is due partly to upbringing and partly to genetics
>is there the possibility that this genetic intelligence is distributed more frequently among certain areas than others?

inb4 /pol/ this is a legitimate question

[Anonymous No.8820558]

>>8820551
My view is that suppose one "race" or people from a certain region were to be more intelligent than another, why would this matter to anyone other than skinheads?

It would still be morally wrong to discriminate on the basis of race when one race tends to be slightly smarter than another.

[Anonymous No.8820563]

>>8819178
of course don't be dense

[Anonymous No.8821058]

We need chemo

[Anonymous No.8821082]

>>8819294
Bad example desu. What we consider tall has actually changed significantly in the last 60 years. Funny how you blew yourself out trying to be smart.

[Anonymous No.8821085]

DAAAAAAG

wyte pippos is UGLY

[Anonymous No.8821154]

>>8819435

Do you ever think that Africans having an average IQ of 70, a full standard deviation below Europeans, might hinder your efforts just ever just so slightly? It's very established science at this point that intelligence is at a minimum 50-80% heritable, and also the greatest predictor of impulse control, civilizational success, positive life outcomes, etc.

Apparently once you control for the IQ difference most of the difference in criminality rates quietly disappears, as violent psychopathy and low intelligence are all strongly correlated.


And those in turn are traits more commonly found in black people, hence the whole "our 12% black population committing 50-75% of the nation's crime" thing.

[Anonymous No.8821184]

>>8820558

>"slightly"

An IQ of 85 was the definition of mental retardation until it came to light that the average african american was mentally retarded.


So they dropped it to 70. 75 or so is what Africans without european dna have back in their original environment in africa.

Europeans average 100ish. Asians 103-105ish. Hispanics are in the 90s, and also tend to do better the more european and the less native dna they have in their genome.

Do you want to live in a country full of 68 iq "persons"? That place exists, btw--it's called Somalia. Japan and European countries have the highest iqs, which is why shit works there, technology exists, and people don't constantly kill each other for no reason. Or did, in the case of Europe, as their national iq have been plummeting every year due to globalists genociding and replacing the native europeans in america, australia, and europe.

Sub 90 iqs can't build or even just maintain a first world infrastructure. Just look at rhodesia and post apartheid south africa. Democracy stops working when people have literally no intellectual capacity for basic abstraction or conception of long term planning.

[Anonymous No.8821485]

>>8821184
>>8821154
all of what you are saying is completely false
heritability is measured at 50%
subsaharan african iq is actually ~80
asians average ~107
on hispanics >>8819625
finally, whites aren't being genocided by the ((globalists))

[Anonymous No.8821490]

>>8821485
oop, i forgot, the metastudy on sub saharan IQ, the only thing that isn't already in this thread

http://www.iapsych.com/iqmr/fe/LinkedDocuments/wicherts2010.pdf

[Anonymous No.8821533]

>>8820453
It's difficult to put into words the absolute level of cringe in this post

[Anonymous No.8821539]

We need to stop saying humanity is in races. We need "race" to refer to other peer level aliens. "Species" is too scientific for common prose, it may not even apply to certain forms of life.

[Anonymous No.8821658]

>>8819227
you fucking retard

[Anonymous No.8821887]

Why is /pol/ yammering about muh white genocide and degeneracy so much now?

[Anonymous No.8821900]

>>8819178
How the fuck is this a question? literally look at the people in your picture.

[Anonymous No.8821904]

>>8821887
Helps distract them from actually pertinent issues and their poor decisions

[Anonymous No.8821905]

>>8820558
No that's fucking retarded kill yourself.
You should judge people individually because OUTLIERS exist in every population.

[Anonymous No.8821916]

race is a way of categorizing lots of different ethnicities , this grouping is a social construct maybe but if different ethnicity exists then what is really the difference

[Anonymous No.8821954]

>>8819178
All species are subject to evolution. It would be foolish and arrogant to apply this rule to everything but humans. When seperated geographically for adequate time periods, humans will evolve for different traits. I think it is ridiculous that evolution is so widely accepted and then completely ignored when it comes to us.

[Anonymous No.8822013]

>>8821954
I don't think anyone's denying that humans are subject to evolution

[Anonymous No.8822016]

>>8822013
a lot of people are saying humans have "defeated" evolution

[Anonymous No.8822020]

>>8822016
the point is we have so much technology and comfort that you can reproduce even with conditions which make you living shit and wouldn't let any reasonable animal reproduce. traits that get passed on are basically random at this point

[Anonymous No.8822024]

>>8822016
These people will lead us to an evolutionary dead end. We no longer have pressures for survival sure, that just means we have to take evolution into our own hands.

[Anonymous No.8822060]

>tfw himalayan yak-breeder and ethiopian mud-pie artisan are identical
feels good to be in the right side of herstory

[Anonymous No.8822071]

>>8822024
Idea: Make an artificial yet controlled environment that can push the limits of human creativity and endurance.

Basically: A holodeck.
Kids go to school in V.R.
Then to show them how to appreciate what they have we send them to V.R Hell in their final years.
Have them live all the wars of the past.
Have them do advanced calculations.
Save countless lives with virtual patients.
Everyone comes out battle hardened and loving with the badass capabillities of a doctor, nurse and lawyer.

The graduates will not be told it is a simulation and that they will be released but it was secretely a simulation to lead them into a test that will show people their character under pressure etc etc

[Anonymous No.8822091]

What an embarrassing thread, holy shit. Filled with communists, obviously.

Some guy made a thread about the neuroanatomy of blacks and whites literally a couple of hours ago. If it isn't deleted just read it and tell me if races are biologically different.

[Anonymous No.8822096]

>>8822091
Can't find it, give me a quick rundown

[Anonymous No.8822115]

>race is a social construct
>get bone marrow from another race, die
>get organs from another race, die
>steppe dwelling mountainfolk have extremely high bone density compared to those living in the african plains
>sickle-cell is found almost exclusively in one race
>these are all environmenta factors
>evolution is an environmental factor
>humans did not evolve to be different, as humans are all the same
>race is only skin deep except when it's not

Uncle Ted was right, technology was a mistake.

[Anonymous No.8822120]

>>8819178
White people are unfit and must face their extinction.

[Anonymous No.8822174]

>>8819178
Okay i'd like to know because this is beyond retarded now.
>"they" say races don't exist
>by they i mean supposedly scientists or TV scientist representatives
>differences are too minor to be considered different races

But i'd like to know, aside from the stupid narrative of social bullshit to avoid racism by telling there's no such things .. is this even true ?
Do you even think just because you'd say we are all the same race it will make true deep racists go
>oooh, okay i was wrong all along, my bad, let me hug you negr- i mean mean my black brother
It's as likely to work as billboards for wife beating prevention with actual wife beaters.

As far as i can remember, western europe whites are hybrids of 2-3 different previous dwellers who migrated north.
Some are hybrids of only 2, some african tribes are not hybrids, asian are also a mix of whatever (you get my point).
So there's no race .. uh.
I'm just a different hue of a fucking 3 feet tall african pygmy or from a ancient mayan descendant coming totally different hybridation.
Really makes you think.

[Anonymous No.8822186]

>>8822174
>>8822115
>waaah waaah why haven't scientists endorsed a ban on having mixed kids

[Anonymous No.8822197]

>>8822186
"We" whites are already mixed kids.
Go be retarded somewhere else.

[Anonymous No.8822208]

>>8822197
what exactly do you think should happen to blacks, then?
just make it a point to inform everybody blacks are an inferior race because they have a lower iq or what
(forcibly) move and segregate everybody in their own little racial pocket
punish all of them for their higher crime rates by calling them a criminal race of humans?

[Anonymous No.8822229]

>>8822208
That's my problem. I don't give a fucking shit about the supposedly crime rates related to genes (it's probably a part of it because more likely to be addicted etc). But it's kinda obvious it's mainly environmental so i don't care about that.
What i care about is WHY we should all agree races don't exist if they actually do just to pat some faggots on the back because of muh racism.

[Anonymous No.8822243]

>>8822208
thats literally /pol/'s wetdream

>>8822229
double standards 101

[Anonymous No.8822343]

>>8822174
What's the usefulness of races existing? Let's say races are well defined and have distinct differences from each other. What do we get out of it? A shitty excuse to subjugate entire groups of people? Validation to treat some people like shit?
>>8822229
Because if it were true like you're saying all you're doing is giving shitty like tenuous validation to be shitty people

[Anonymous No.8822352]

>>8822343
>if it doesn't have a purpose that I agree with then it's false
fuck off. things are regardless on what the current trend in fucktard politics is

[Anonymous No.8822358]

>>8822343
Shitty people don't need scientific accuracy to be shitty.
I only fucking care about what's accurate.

[Anonymous No.8822362]

>>8822352
>>8822358
So then what's accurate? Where's the clear and well defined basis for race?

[Anonymous No.8822372]

>>8822343

> What do we get out of it?

Prevent dysgenics obviously

[Anonymous No.8822373]

>>8822352
>>8822362
i agree
races are:
caucasian, african, asian, australian, native american
proof:
>>8819237

another proof is that when you cluster human populations, you get the best cluster with K = 5


OBVIOUSLY you can cluster people with 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and many many other ways, but the largest amount of discontinuity is expressed when you have these 5 groupings

sjw don't like this because they don't like the concept of race at all and they think it leads to racism(like one of you), /pol/ doesn't like it because caucasian is too broad and includes some icky brown people

but if you want races, this is the best way to define them

[Anonymous No.8822378]

>>8822372
are you stupid
whether your mom fucks a 90 iq black or white man and has a kid it's the same result

dysgenics has nothing to do with race

[Anonymous No.8822389]

I think the point is whether we observe characteristic differences between what ever we mean by races, that isn't a justification to say a race is "superior". If niggers are dumber in average well that only means you will probably see less successful niggers in average. But that really entitles people to feel superior for being of certain race? At the end of the day, the people who are intelligent are by definition minority so by pure statistics you are not going to be really that much smarter. Crime and other social factors are not reducible to plain intelligence and there is a ton going on.

[Anonymous No.8822421]

>>8822389
True, but since this is essentially a /pol/ thread and how /pol/ itself has been shitting up various boards with "MUH DEGENERATES, NIGGERS AND JEWS ARENT PEOPLE, DA JOOS DID IT ALL" rhetoric nonstop. if you tryo to inject logic and science into this they'll justa cancerous democrat or something

[Anonymous No.8822424]

>>8822421
Nice try, shareblue, $0.02 has been deposited in your account

[Anonymous No.8822428]

>>8819178
No.

[Anonymous No.8822432]

>>8822428
typical leftist degenerate

[Anonymous No.8822436]

>>8822432
>Being a racist
How about you tell that to your boss?

[Anonymous No.8822440]

>>8822436
>LE RACISM IS bad meme
gas yourself hillary supporter with theother degenerates

[Anonymous No.8822441]

>>8822436
believing in races doesn't mean you have to be a racist, pol false flagger

you aren't clever

[Anonymous No.8822442]

>>8822440
>>8822441
Typical online fedoras.
You'd never say that in public.

[Anonymous No.8822877]

>>8822358
>I only fucking care about what's accurate.
You sure are passionate about affirming your superiority. Classification in biology has never been an exact science. Why are you forcing it? Most biologists don't really care about racial classifications because it doesn't actually mean much. There's loads of studies on how racial categorization is outdated, inaccurate, and non-useful for genetic/ancestral analysis.

[Anonymous No.8822885]

>>8819178
No, Races and Genders doesn't exist, it's just bigotry invented by white people.

[Anonymous No.8823438]

>>8819658
>Asians are on top of the IQ rankings
Asians are cheaters, asians are drones, muh creativity argument, etc.

[Anonymous No.8823591]

>>8819206
He's asking a scientific question asshole

[Anonymous No.8823608]

>>8819282
What part of facial structure do you not understand dipshit? He clearly wasn't talking about the coloration of that Indian's (because yea i can tell from a glance) skin and hair

[Anonymous No.8823612]

>>8821082
> What we consider tall has actually changed significantly in the last 60 years
Yeah no. I see plenty of manlets today and I don't think everyone was so short IN 1957 for them to be avg height or even tall. A height in the 6'0" range was considered to be the tall range just as it is today

[Anonymous No.8823617]

>>8819324
>Get your head out of your ass you pompous faggot. Note: this is an insult, not an ad hominem.
You clearly were just calling him a /pol/tard, and casting his opinions in doubt because of who he may or may not spend his time with. You sir are a faggot; see, that's how you insult, explain the flaw in his argument first, and then you can call him all the names afterwards

[Anonymous No.8823628]

>>8819461
Wow faggot, read the thread. It started as a genuine interest in race until faggots like you started sperging out and calling them /pol/, even though the thread has nothing to do with politics

[Anonymous No.8823635]

>>8819641
Why the fuck are you so obsessed with /pol/ you utter fucking faggot? You call /pol/acks virgin losers for obsessing over things, so you might as well be the greasiest, fattest, most virgin loser out there then

[Anonymous No.8823637]

>>8819687
>There's no we
>But there is a them
Spooked much??

[Anonymous No.8823642]

>>8819720
Haha, look at Albino negros. Clearly look different even with the fair skin. And what do genetic differences matter if you just brush them away with, "lol who cares, they're not THAT different anyway!" We are 99% related to chimps by the way, so that minuscule fraction of a percent actually can change a damn lot

[Anonymous No.8823645]

>>8820423
Hey retard, you having 20 children if the rest of your group have less than 2 on average isn't going to do shit to change anything.
But of course you would see that if you weren't up your own individualist asshole

[Anonymous No.8823651]

>>8821904
You can't direct your attention to more than one issue at the same time? What are you, a brainlet?

[Anonymous No.8823657]

>>8822343
Why does it need to have a use?

[Anonymous No.8823661]

>>8822442
>Oh you like Jews and think they're just as German as anyone else? HA bet you wouldn't say that to the SS guy standing over there, coward!
Sometimes certain views are socially unacceptable and thus it is disadvantageous for you to express them publicly