Racism is innate

[ApostateAbe]

Racism is innate. True, this claim can be used as a justification for racism, but if the claim is true then acceptance of the claim is probably the best way to know how to respond to it, regardless of one's values. The acceptance of the "innate" claim does not require the acceptance of racism. Murder is likewise probably innate, but that does not mean accepting the behavior of murder.

Starting over: racism is innate. The claim seems to follow directly from these two premises:

(1) The "selfish gene" theory, which is now broadly accepted among biologists. The "selfish gene" theory is, to quote from Wikipedia, that "adaptive evolution occurs through the differential survival of competing genes, increasing the allele frequency of those alleles whose phenotypic trait effects successfully promote their own propagation." As Richard Dawkins put it, "The genes too control the behavior of their survival machines... indirectly like the computer programmer." We are the machines of our genes.

(2) Races are subsets of species with different ancestral geography and different allele frequencies. If races are social constructs, then it would be misleading to leave it at that, because the differences in allele frequencies are how any forensic geneticist can know your race if you leave behind a hair or saliva or semen at the crime scene. The geneticist will not know your religion or language or favorite sports team, but given a non-tainted sample he or she will know your race with 100% certainty, or even better than you know yourself. Races are key to evolutionary biology, they happen after a species diverges geographically and adapts to different environments, and humans are no exception. Biologists would even be justified in classifying human races as subspecies (see "The Seventy-five Per Cent Rule for Subspecies," which is the only numerical rule for subspecies, though now seldom used).

You can think of your own race as a step beyond your tribe. The groups we value, from most valued to least valued depending on genetic similarity, is: (1) our own selves, (2) our own children, parents, and siblings, (3) our cousins, aunts, uncles, grandparents, (4) our own tribes (5) our own races, (6) the human species, (7) non-human species. In human prehistory, races probably directly competed with other races as confederacies of tribes, as larger forces tended to defeat the smaller forces.

You may say, "But, I don't value my own race," especially if you are white. Whites alive today have been trained against valuing their own race. This training is only partially effective, as it works on the conscious mind, not so much on the subconscious mind. Try taking Harvard's online "implicit association test." Odds are high that you will more quickly associate good things with your own race and evil things with racial outsiders. When natural disasters and wars happen, you are more likely to express concern in favor of members of your own race, less in favor of those outside of it. This is no biological accident.

Racism has always been strong in the world, but so have other forms of group zeal, such as nationalism and religion. I expect that those other forms of group zeal piggyback largely on the instinct of racism. The members of your own nation and your own religion tend to be members of your own race. If your nation wins, then so does your race. The racist instinct is channeled into defending a rough approximation of your own race. Memes hijack the racist instinct.

So, suppose you want to stop racism, then how do you deal with the probable reality that it is genetic? I expect that continuing to falsely deny the biology of race and racism is unsustainable, as we are progressing toward a deeper and more certain understanding of human biology, which will include some of the most taboo claims of racial differences. Racists would prefer to channel such knowledge into us-versus-them battles, but such knowledge can also be used to emphasize continuity of racial differences, the within-race genetic diversity, universality of human interests, and the malleability of genetic expressions. The worst outcomes are more likely to follow from allowing racists to lay sole claim to the correct knowledge.

 

[Thurlor]

I hate to be the one to ask this but what definition of racism are you using? What you are describing seems more like in-group vs out-group dynamics.

 

[ApostateAbe]

Good question. By "racism," I mean prejudice in favor of one's own race, not just any group. I don't mean it as a slur. It is a much broader definition than is typical, and that is what I intend.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[Hadoblado]

You're using expert opinion to substantiate your beliefs but then haven't mentioned anything about what those same experts conclude. Do they disagree with you, and if so, why?

 

[Perfectly Normal Beast]

imo prejudice is disarmed where there is a cultural emphasis on individual vs group identity; you can't infer anything about particular individuals from the existence of average group differences

/racism solved (also sexism etc)

 

[Cognisant]

In my experiance people aren't so much racist as classist.

 

[ApostateAbe]

You're using expert opinion to substantiate your beliefs but then haven't mentioned anything about what those same experts conclude. Do they disagree with you, and if so, why?

Expert opinion can be a quick shortcut with so many diverse topics to deal with, but I would not settle on just expert opinion when the chips are down. If there is a claim you doubt, then we can get into the empirical nuts and bolts of it.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[ApostateAbe]

imo prejudice is disarmed where there is a cultural emphasis on individual vs group identity; you can't infer anything about particular individuals from the existence of average group differences

/racism solved (also sexism etc)

This is a surprisingly common error, even among the experts, in my opinion. If you know group differences, then you know differences in LIKELIHOOD between individuals. It is a troubling reality, because it lends some justification to racial hiring discrimination. Even if you add more information, the probable IQ gap between a random white applicant and a random black applicant gets more narrow but still remains. The black applicant has a steeper hill to climb before he or she wins, just because he or she shows up to job interview while black. Even worse, he or she has a "blackish" name on the job application.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[Hadoblado]

I'm not really asking you to settle for it, so much as acknowledge and address it? I have no idea how you can think of it as a shortcut unless you're doing your own research instead.

Do the people whose expertise you're drawing conclusions from come to the same conclusions? If not, why not?

 

[ApostateAbe]

I'm not really asking you to settle for it, so much as acknowledge and address it? I have no idea how you can think of it as a shortcut unless you're doing your own research instead.

Do the people whose expertise you're drawing conclusions from come to the same conclusions? If not, why not?

The experts agree with me on the particular corresponding claims that I make, but not one of the experts who I am drawing from agree with me on the complete theory. Medical doctors as a body of experts would agree with me that biological human races exist, but maybe or maybe not that racism is innate. Expert opinion is a shortcut so I don't need to write an encyclopedic volume to prove every tangential claim that I make. We all have no choice but to rely on expert opinion for most claims of fact, because we have limited time. But, if there is one point among many that you doubt, then we can both dive into it.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

It’s been shown that humans have a preference for people who are similar to themselves in appearance, yes. But it’s also been shown that humans have a preference for the familiar. Eg if you have a feral child that grew up around wolves out in the woods, that child will probably develop a preference for wolves over humans, although this obviously remains a conjecture. Ie I don’t know how one would separate those 2 biases.

When it comes to “racism” at this point in history in the western world, the accusation of racism has developed into a political and social weapon.

 

[Rebis]

Racism is innate only as a dependency of our innate ability to discern differences in the environment. This tree is brown, dark brown, light brown, brown with spots. We have an innate ability to percieve differences, this is obviously apparent in the visual cortex where we have endless shades and combinations of red, green and blue (except those lucky tetrachromats), depth perception and so on. Through investigation what you define as a race, you should go beyond superficiality: I'm not giving a comprehensive example, but a tree with spots and a oak tree show the same formation, operate similarly but show different visual markers.

Honestly, the only valid moment I can think of where racism would be entirely justified is if you were in the bronze age and you encountered someone of radically different pigmentation of you for the first time, without any future reference or knowledge regarding their origin, which would cause you be cautious of their activities. And even in this highly laboratoric situation, the prehistoric man would not identify the other as weak because of their skin, it would just remain cautious. Unless, of course, the prehistoric man saw the differently coloured ape as weaker than himself, and thought to subjugate the weaker ape....... fast forward a few thousand years and you get a model of society built on racial subjugation. All probably stemming from a simple observation such as the one I just described. Socialized behaviour is truly a scary thing.

 

[computerhxr]

Racism is a spectrum, however, depending on the cohort they may have selective attention and attributions to the effects counter to inherent realities.

 

[Rebis]

Wait whoa, I actually read the post. Dude, I do not know how you associate selfish gene with what you define as races. The marker of a species is being able to reproduce fertile offspring. The selfish gene was seen as a way in which people exhibit compassion to others even if they do not know each other. The "selfish" gene, is selfish because it wants genes to be transcripted into other genes, so preserving another life is selfish/self-preserving. Organisms in a larger scale are not seen to be the selfish ones, it is only the genes themselves. Since any "race" can produce offspring with another (I use quotations because Caucasians can reproduce with africans as they are (you guessed it) the same species!), and maintaining the health of other contemporaries in our species preserves the human genus, we act compassionately to those we do not know. Important to note this is a highly evolved model, we can act cruel to each other but in prehistoric bronze age it would've been a constant fight for self-preservation. When preservation isn't that much of an issue we can act discompassionately to another.

 

[ApostateAbe]

Wait whoa, I actually read the post. Dude, I do not know how you associate selfish gene with what you define as races. The marker of a species is being able to reproduce fertile offspring. The selfish gene was seen as a way in which people exhibit compassion to others even if they do not know each other. The "selfish" gene, is selfish because it wants genes to be transcripted into other genes, so preserving another life is selfish/self-preserving. Organisms in a larger scale are not seen to be the selfish ones, it is only the genes themselves. Since any "race" can produce offspring with another (I use quotations because Caucasians can reproduce with africans as they are (you guessed it) the same species!), and maintaining the health of other contemporaries in our species preserves the human genus, we act compassionately to those we do not know. Important to note this is a highly evolved model, we can act cruel to each other but in prehistoric bronze age it would've been a constant fight for self-preservation. When preservation isn't that much of an issue we can act discompassionately to another.

"...is selfish because it wants genes to be transcripted into other genes..."

That's new to me. My reading of the theory of the selfish gene is that the genes are selfish because they effectively compete with other genes for maximum reproduction of their own selves. Transcription into other genes I would take to be a means to that end, but just one among many. The main theme is maximum propagation. The organisms are mere machines used by the genes, and the organisms can be either generally benevolent or generally cruel, whatever works for the reproduction of the genes.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[Rebis]

"...is selfish because it wants genes to be transcripted into other genes..."
That's new to me. My reading of the theory of the selfish gene is that the genes are selfish because they effectively compete with other genes for maximum reproduction of their own selves. Transcription into other genes I would take to be a means to that end, but just one among many. The main theme is maximum propagation. The organisms are mere machines used by the genes, and the organisms can be either generally benevolent or generally cruel, whatever works for the reproduction of the genes.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

I wasn't clear on my point, apologies.

The reason for an innate empathetic concern for individuals in your species is a result of genes recognising each other. That is the selfish gene, genes preserve genes not Races, an accumulation of genes, preserve other races. You are not an entity in the context of evolution, you are a large repository of genes. We can identify someone has the same eyes as us (Using visual cues as it's good for metaphorical understanding). In the selfish gene theory we're purporting genes recognise descendants/transcriptions of itself. We see a part of us in another. A gene is aware of parallel genes in a different organism. If I take a small risk to preserve another organism, then the propegation of our genetic imprint into the gene pool has potentially doubled, even if we had a 10% chance to die. The familial model was used in darwins book for conceptual understanding, it can extend to people that diverged for 3 generations, then overlapped for one, branched a few more and finally you care for a stranger even though you assume you are not related, but could hold parallel genes.

I think you've misunderstood the selfish gene as "the selfish organism", existing within the same genetic pool that could be characterized as race. I don't think this model has been proved or if there's any effective way to ascertain this given the ethical dilemma and complexity of measuring altruism and mutual-gene preservation. Though if societies anything to model this idea around, it's a sure thing we do seemingly self-sacrificing deeds like giving homeless people money out of compassion or caring for people not part of our closely knit circle. It doesn't make sense in terms of resource acquisation for me to give it to someone that doesn't aid the propegating of my family lineage, or racial for that matter.

 

[ApostateAbe]

That's new to me. My reading of the theory of the selfish gene is that the genes are selfish because they effectively compete with other genes for maximum reproduction of their own selves. Transcription into other genes I would take to be a means to that end, but just one among many. The main theme is maximum propagation. The organisms are mere machines used by the genes, and the organisms can be either generally benevolent or generally cruel, whatever works for the reproduction of the genes.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

I wasn't clear on my point, apologies.

The reason for an innate empathetic concern for individuals in your species is a result of genes recognising each other. That is the selfish gene, genes preserve genes not Races, an accumulation of genes, preserve other races. You are not an entity in the context of evolution, you are a large repository of genes. We can identify someone has the same eyes as us (Using visual cues as it's good for metaphorical understanding). In the selfish gene theory we're purporting genes recognise descendants/transcriptions of itself. We see a part of us in another. A gene is aware of parallel genes in a different organism.

I think you've misunderstood the selfish gene as "the selfish organism", existing within the same genetic pool that could be characterized as race.

I understand the difference between a selfish gene and a selfish organism--an organism may be benevolent while the gene is selfish. Otherwise, I agree with you. The selfish gene theory predicts competition among races much like it predicts competition among tribes or species or nuclear families, just because copies of genes are shared within such groups more than with the outsiders. To me it is a simple argument that follows directly from the basics of established biological theory, but academics seem to denounce it, obscure it, and ignore it for the sake of fighting racism or avoiding racism. It is a part of the recipe responsible for widespread fundamental confusion about our own species.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[Rebis]

That's new to me. My reading of the theory of the selfish gene is that the genes are selfish because they effectively compete with other genes for maximum reproduction of their own selves. Transcription into other genes I would take to be a means to that end, but just one among many. The main theme is maximum propagation. The organisms are mere machines used by the genes, and the organisms can be either generally benevolent or generally cruel, whatever works for the reproduction of the genes.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

I wasn't clear on my point, apologies.

The reason for an innate empathetic concern for individuals in your species is a result of genes recognising each other. That is the selfish gene, genes preserve genes not Races, an accumulation of genes, preserve other races. You are not an entity in the context of evolution, you are a large repository of genes. We can identify someone has the same eyes as us (Using visual cues as it's good for metaphorical understanding). In the selfish gene theory we're purporting genes recognise descendants/transcriptions of itself. We see a part of us in another. A gene is aware of parallel genes in a different organism.

I think you've misunderstood the selfish gene as "the selfish organism", existing within the same genetic pool that could be characterized as race.

I understand the difference between a selfish gene and a selfish organism--an organism may be benevolent while the gene is selfish. Otherwise, I agree with you. The selfish gene theory predicts competition among races much like it predicts competition among tribes or species or nuclear families, just because copies of genes are shared within such groups more than with the outsiders. To me it is a simple argument that follows directly from the basics of established biological theory, but academics seem to denounce it, obscure it, and ignore it for the sake of fighting racism or avoiding racism. It is a part of the recipe responsible for widespread fundamental confusion about our own species.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

A "race" is a collection of genes that have permutations in other races. So the selfish gene can extend to what you understand to be other races, as much as it can extend to even a dog or another great ape.

Selfish gene doesn't predict competition as much as self preservation. Competition can be inferred by self preservation but it is not an active pursuit.

Kinda need to sleep here and work tomorrow, will be back in around 14 hours.

Sent from my VOG-L09 using Tapatalk

 

[EndogenousRebel]

It’s been shown that humans have a preference for people who are similar to themselves in appearance, yes. But it’s also been shown that humans have a preference for the familiar.

I agree with Serac, and will add more to this nonsense about race and intelligence, first looking at statistics, then speculating really about the maybe historical reasoning for any would-be difference in race and intelligence.

Racism is a disease that is more potent the younger the individual(s) are. Yes we are biased towards those we are able to identify with more, but the fact that we are all human and actually do not differ so much outside of cultural traditions just shows how ignorance and malice have defined the argument that is race.

My theory starts with intelligence not really being that much of a big deal, it's overrated. If you want to use IQ, I will live with that though it's horseshit and doesn't paint a whole picture. In reality, 96% of people land between 70-130 IQ. The differences we will see in this range I'm sure is phenomenal, but remember that 68% of people are between 85-115. When you look at the difference between 115-130, sure there may be a stark difference, but I guarantee the one that is wiser will win out, by for example using their time intelligently. Not question about how much effort is being put in, though there are studies that prove being told your smart makes you work less. My point is that our differences do not matter too much in the grand scheme of things.

I brushed up on periodization here because it matters. Basically the argument is that the civilizations that were able to advance the most through more advanced tools that they had and the benefits of society are predisposed through epigenetics. They advanced more not because they were intelligent, but because they had access to the resources that others didn't. Groups of homos that were adventurous traveled upward where resources were more accessible. Sub-saharan Africa did not have any copper deposits, and after being lapped by other civilizations by hundereds of years, jumped directly from stone to iron.

Learn about how the Native Americans were the first professional horticulture and basically started the enlightenment era. Unlucky that they got shafted in the acess to resources department.


better tools = more possibilities = endless imagination. I feel like this is the basis of intelligence, and increasingly those things are available to more and more people.

 

[redbaron]

racism/sexism persists only in areas where people's qualities are vaguely defined. intelligence is difficult to define, and there's a lot of limitations to its predictive capacity.

if you want something from a high shelf, you ask the tallest person in the room. it might be more likely to be a particular race/sex, but if it's not and you're sane, you just ask the tallest individual. there's no height based race/sexism because it's simple and easy to understand

i think assessments of intelligence and ability should largely fall within the same guidelines. you need a task done, you figure out who's the best at the task, and that's who you get to do it. preconceptions don't belong

 

[Hadoblado]

The experts agree with me on the particular corresponding claims that I make, but not one of the experts who I am drawing from agree with me on the complete theory. Medical doctors as a body of experts would agree with me that biological human races exist, but maybe or maybe not that racism is innate. Expert opinion is a shortcut so I don't need to write an encyclopedic volume to prove every tangential claim that I make. We all have no choice but to rely on expert opinion for most claims of fact, because we have limited time. But, if there is one point among many that you doubt, then we can both dive into it.

If you cared about furthering discussion on this issue you'd address expert conclusions instead of side-stepping them. You come here as a guru on your pet topic. You cherry-pick the work of other people where it agrees with you while leaving their conclusions conspicuously absent. You have not told us what their conclusions are, or why they differ from yours - you haven't given us any reason to believe you over a better-qualified expert.

You say you don't want to write an encyclopedia, but this is the seventh thread you've started where the starting paragraph encourages discussion of racial differences (that I've found). You've also brought it up in other threads. You want to talk about this stuff, just not the entire other half of the discussion that disagrees with you.

When I see people stanning for an unpopular interest this way, they're often not the independent actors that they'd have you believe. Usually they're just reproducing the meme of their belief wherever it'll take root, on behalf of a community or influencer, under the guise of honest conversation but the dialogue is always monodirectional and manufactured. They'll only make small claims that seem reasonable, while holding back the views that are less palatable to unbiased listeners.

Are you or have you ever been a member of stormfront, VDARE, anthroscape or any other white supremacist or "biodiversity" forums?
Have you read and do you agree with the claims in the bell curve?

Tell me true now, radical honesty and all that.

 

[Daddy]

It's my expert opinion that this thread and everyone in it is...just racist man.

#racistscrackaswithcheese

 

[ApostateAbe]

The experts agree with me on the particular corresponding claims that I make, but not one of the experts who I am drawing from agree with me on the complete theory. Medical doctors as a body of experts would agree with me that biological human races exist, but maybe or maybe not that racism is innate. Expert opinion is a shortcut so I don't need to write an encyclopedic volume to prove every tangential claim that I make. We all have no choice but to rely on expert opinion for most claims of fact, because we have limited time. But, if there is one point among many that you doubt, then we can both dive into it.

If you cared about furthering discussion on this issue you'd address expert conclusions instead of side-stepping them. You come here as a guru on your pet topic. You cherry-pick the work of other people where it agrees with you while leaving their conclusions conspicuously absent. You have not told us what their conclusions are, or why they differ from yours - you haven't given us any reason to believe you over a better-qualified expert.

You say you don't want to write an encyclopedia, but this is the seventh thread you've started where the starting paragraph encourages discussion of racial differences (that I've found). You've also brought it up in other threads. You want to talk about this stuff, just not the entire other half of the discussion that disagrees with you.

When I see people stanning for an unpopular interest this way, they're often not the independent actors that they'd have you believe. Usually they're just reproducing the meme of their belief wherever it'll take root, on behalf of a community or influencer, under the guise of honest conversation but the dialogue is always monodirectional and manufactured. They'll only make small claims that seem reasonable, while holding back the views that are less palatable to unbiased listeners.

Are you or have you ever been a member of stormfront, VDARE, anthroscape or any other white supremacist or "biodiversity" forums?
Have you read and do you agree with the claims in the bell curve?

Tell me true now, radical honesty and all that.

Yes, to all of your questions. I don't mean to hide anything, and I don't base my primary claims on an argument from expert authority, only the secondary tangential claims, because it is necessary to avoid an even longer and boringer diatribe, and I am explicitly at odds with the majority of the experts. On the topic of human races, they are at odds with themselves. I have investigated the arguments of those who disagree with me closely, and those arguments turn out to be generally misleading, complete bullshit at worst (though a few of them are pretty good). Their fields are explicitly corrupted by an ideology. I will be happy to explain further if you like, and we will get into it.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[ApostateAbe]

I should not be too hostile against anti-racists, because my side of the debate tends to be much worse. They are racially hostile, conspiratorial, abrasive, insulting, trollish, all fitting for people at odds with the whole world, but unfitting to make a positive change. My perspective is that the racial hereditarian perspective is suitable for liberals or for anyone who wants to make a positive change for the world, not just for the white race. Science is like that. I am a lonely voice in the wilderness.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[EndogenousRebel]

Haha "I'm racist because I'm an optimist". What a great way to frame yourself in a positive light, while continuing to dodge making any falsifiable claims.

Trust me man, you are in no way some sort of rebel, you're not saying anything new.

Broken record mode: IQ is classist garbage, and this becomes obvious when you actually try to answer the question "are people poor because they're dumb, or are they dumb because they're poor?"

 

[ApostateAbe]

Haha "I'm racist because I'm an optimist". What a great way to frame yourself in a positive light, while continuing to dodge making any falsifiable claims.

Trust me man, you are in no way some sort of rebel, you're not saying anything new.

Broken record mode: IQ is classist garbage, and this becomes obvious when you actually try to answer the question "are people poor because they're dumb, or are they dumb because they're poor?"

Do you think premises #1 and #2 are both unfalsifiable? If so, I would like to solve that problem. Maybe I can explain further?

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[EndogenousRebel]

Please save time by explicitly stating the premises you're talking about. it's Christmas Eve for Christ sake. You might as well make bullet points with your rationalizations for everything, because I refuse to read mess in the formatting of a mess.

 

[ApostateAbe]

Please save time by explicitly stating the premises you're talking about. it's Christmas Eve for Christ sake. You might as well make bullet points with your rationalizations for everything, because I refuse to read mess in the formatting of a mess.

Ok, here are the two premises, stated more briefly.
(1) Adaptive evolution occurs through the differential survival of competing genes, increasing the allele frequency of those alleles whose phenotypic trait effects successfully promote their own propagation.
(2) Races are subsets of species with different ancestral geography and different allele frequencies.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[Daddy]

I believe it was Gandhi that said "Be the racist change you want to see in the world". Give or take a couple words.

Also when you quote someone's sentence to end your sentence where does the period go
Is it .".
Or ."
Or ".
Which one is right? I need a grammar Nazi please.

 

[Rebis]

That's new to me. My reading of the theory of the selfish gene is that the genes are selfish because they effectively compete with other genes for maximum reproduction of their own selves. Transcription into other genes I would take to be a means to that end, but just one among many. The main theme is maximum propagation. The organisms are mere machines used by the genes, and the organisms can be either generally benevolent or generally cruel, whatever works for the reproduction of the genes.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

I wasn't clear on my point, apologies.

The reason for an innate empathetic concern for individuals in your species is a result of genes recognising each other. That is the selfish gene, genes preserve genes not Races, an accumulation of genes, preserve other races. You are not an entity in the context of evolution, you are a large repository of genes. We can identify someone has the same eyes as us (Using visual cues as it's good for metaphorical understanding). In the selfish gene theory we're purporting genes recognise descendants/transcriptions of itself. We see a part of us in another. A gene is aware of parallel genes in a different organism.

I think you've misunderstood the selfish gene as "the selfish organism", existing within the same genetic pool that could be characterized as race.

I understand the difference between a selfish gene and a selfish organism--an organism may be benevolent while the gene is selfish. Otherwise, I agree with you. The selfish gene theory predicts competition among races much like it predicts competition among tribes or species or nuclear families, just because copies of genes are shared within such groups more than with the outsiders. To me it is a simple argument that follows directly from the basics of established biological theory, but academics seem to denounce it, obscure it, and ignore it for the sake of fighting racism or avoiding racism. It is a part of the recipe responsible for widespread fundamental confusion about our own species.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

The selfish gene is just a model for altruism. There may be difference in environmental adaptation such as epicanthal folds in the continent of asia , EPAS-1 gene for high-altitude oxygenation in the himalyas around tibet or Apoliprotein A1 but there is still a link to humans from 6,000,000 years ago. I don't see much differences in the proteins designed to create muscle or brain development (Again, not subject to genotypical make up.) These genes can be easily be a basis for the selfih gene. We got the same lungs and myelin layers on the eyes, hi-5 fellow visual-interpreting receptacles

 

[Rebis]

I believe it was Gandhi that said "Be the racist change you want to see in the world". Give or take a couple words.

Also when you quote someone's sentence to end your sentence where does the period go
Is it .".
Or ."
Or ".
Which one is right? I need a grammar Nazi please.

Doth the Mr. burns seer the steak and announce "Ooooo, can you feel that burn?"

 

[ApostateAbe]

I believe it was Gandhi that said "Be the racist change you want to see in the world". Give or take a couple words.

Also when you quote someone's sentence to end your sentence where does the period go
Is it .".
Or ."
Or ".
Which one is right? I need a grammar Nazi please.

I am a grammar Nazi, and the period goes inside the quotation marks.

Be the racist change you want to see in the world. I like that. The belief that racism is evil no matter what is a lot of trouble since all it takes to be a racist is to accept one of a few facts established beyond reasonable doubt. It doesn't require believing that whites are superior, nor that whites need their own exclusive nation, nor anything like that. No, all it takes to be racist is believing that whites on average are more intelligent than blacks on average. It doesn't even require genetics, but acceptance of that fact is all it takes, and it is a fact established by a library of intersecting data, accepted by all sides of the debate among psychologists who specialize in human intelligence (the debate is about the cause of the intelligence gap, not the existence of it). But, outside of that field, the theory popular among academics is that intelligence is neither here nor there, and the way to deal with racial inequality is to stop the white race from systemically oppressing non-whites in every way imaginable. That is arguably racist in a different way. It seems to be almost a racial conspiracy theory, similar to what white nationalists believe about Jews. We all have no choice but to be racist if we want to deal with these issues. There are better ways and worse ways to be racist. To do it the better ways, we really need to lose the absurd dogmas and get in touch with the science, however troubling the science may be.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[ApostateAbe]

That's new to me. My reading of the theory of the selfish gene is that the genes are selfish because they effectively compete with other genes for maximum reproduction of their own selves. Transcription into other genes I would take to be a means to that end, but just one among many. The main theme is maximum propagation. The organisms are mere machines used by the genes, and the organisms can be either generally benevolent or generally cruel, whatever works for the reproduction of the genes.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

I wasn't clear on my point, apologies.

The reason for an innate empathetic concern for individuals in your species is a result of genes recognising each other. That is the selfish gene, genes preserve genes not Races, an accumulation of genes, preserve other races. You are not an entity in the context of evolution, you are a large repository of genes. We can identify someone has the same eyes as us (Using visual cues as it's good for metaphorical understanding). In the selfish gene theory we're purporting genes recognise descendants/transcriptions of itself. We see a part of us in another. A gene is aware of parallel genes in a different organism.

I think you've misunderstood the selfish gene as "the selfish organism", existing within the same genetic pool that could be characterized as race.

I understand the difference between a selfish gene and a selfish organism--an organism may be benevolent while the gene is selfish. Otherwise, I agree with you. The selfish gene theory predicts competition among races much like it predicts competition among tribes or species or nuclear families, just because copies of genes are shared within such groups more than with the outsiders. To me it is a simple argument that follows directly from the basics of established biological theory, but academics seem to denounce it, obscure it, and ignore it for the sake of fighting racism or avoiding racism. It is a part of the recipe responsible for widespread fundamental confusion about our own species.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

The selfish gene is just a model for altruism. There may be difference in environmental adaptation such as epicanthal folds in the continent of asia , EPAS-1 gene for high-altitude oxygenation in the himalyas around tibet or Apoliprotein A1 but there is still a link to humans from 6,000,000 years ago. I don't see much differences in the proteins designed to create muscle or brain development (Again, not subject to genotypical make up.) These genes can be easily be a basis for the selfih gene. We got the same lungs and myelin layers on the eyes, hi-5 fellow visual-interpreting receptacles

The selfish gene is a perspective on Darwinian evolution in general, and it should not be limited to explaining altruism. It explains both altruism and competition, much like the theory of evolution in general explains such things.

More racial differences exist than you may expect. We don't all have the same lungs, for example, but black Africans have smaller lungs than whites. This is an established fact, but it seems to be little known. You would expect it would come up in discussions of why blacks are so much more likely than whites to drown in swimming pools, but it generally doesn't. Not only that, but blacks have greater bone density and more muscle mass on average. That means they are more likely to sink like rocks in swimming pools. Each of these traits are likely to be environmental adaptations to a hotter climate. And, we really do have a pattern of differences in brains, though the data is limited. Peoples of the tropics have measurably smaller brains. If you doubt the data, then I don't blame you, but it is simply a bad idea to presume equality. The limited data speaks to the contrary.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[EndogenousRebel]

(1) Adaptive evolution occurs through the differential survival of competing genes, increasing the allele frequency of those alleles whose phenotypic trait effects successfully promote their own propagation.
(2) Races are subsets of species with different ancestral geography and different allele frequencies.

So final answer, this is all you're claiming? Don't be dishonest, I've realized that I'm just strengthening your worldview that you will just dump on an unsuspecting soul, no doubt, will not continue after this.

You say competing genes, but in reality, it is the agents who are competing, the genes are just passing on evolutionary data, genes that deter reproduction will naturally be less common, this is not a revolutionary idea. No doubt they form much like hueristics do in the brain, if it works it works, if not it is done away with.

You can create subsets of anything arbitrarily, what makes you think that we should do this with what we call race? We share 99.9% of DNA with all humans. Look at plants, they are unmoving and vulnerable, yet they use their vast repository of genes to adapt when they need to, some even making antifreeze for themselves. It is unwise to judge based on race because you can't see the alleles in humans, you'll just look at them and ass-ume shit that statistically you're probably wrong about. The only reason race is relevant is that agents in society make it so.

The selfish gene is a perspective on Darwinian evolution in general, and it should not be limited to explaining altruism. It explains both altruism and competition, much like the theory of evolution in general explains such things.

More racial differences exist than you may expect. We don't all have the same lungs, for example, but black Africans have smaller lungs than whites. This is an established fact, but it seems to be little known. You would expect it would come up in discussions of why blacks are so much more likely than whites to drown in swimming pools, but it generally doesn't. Not only that, but blacks have greater bone density and more muscle mass on average. That means they are more likely to sink like rocks in swimming pools. Each of these traits are likely to be environmental adaptations to a hotter climate. And, we really do have a pattern of differences in brains, though the data is limited. Peoples of the tropics have measurably smaller brains. If you doubt the data, then I don't blame you, but it is simply a bad idea to presume equality. The limited data speaks to the contrary.

The selfish gene is simply an observation of genes that have lasted millions and maybe billions of years. I will repeat. We share 99.9% of DNA with all humans, some people find this fact troubling because of exactly how small our entire gene pool is.

Chess grandmasters also have smaller brains than the average, so they must be retarded right? No, their brain is more efficient, because they are constantly doing one thing, practicing chess, or surviving in the forest, excess has been pruned off.

Smaller = more efficient, unless your source has also measured neuron density and cognitive performance on a series of test, which is actually what you would need to be justified in your stance. You are not justified. You've made an "intellectual" leap of faith based on biased pretenses. Either that or your perspective is that the length of human life is all the data we need to make a judgment based on millions of years of evolution, and that's just absurd.

 

[Hadoblado]

Okay, thanks for your honesty. I genuinely appreciate it even if I feel like I had to drag it out of you. Most people that share your views have continued to hide them ("trolling", but also actually believing so not really...). Your honesty is refreshing.

Spoiler: Argument

Premise 1: Selfish gene
I basically agree.

Premise 2: Races and species
I hesitantly agree. This doesn't overtly wrong although the implications of such taxonomies aren't always consistent (e.g. ring species). The way we categorise species and races is more functional than objectively true.

Conclusion: It might be true, but I don't think you've at all shown how this conclusion follows from your premises. Can you formalise it into a valid proposition? Can you substantiate the conclusion with evidence?

Spoiler: What we agree on

I agree with you on implicit association, that people are more implicitly racist than they are explicitly aware of (including myself). I also agree racism fuels religion and nationalism, and extend this belief to other political views too.

Spoiler: My view

My view is that it could be innate, but if it were I wouldn't care. Rape is probably to some extent innate in men, but we leave that shit behind because people are able to rise above instinct. It's not unreasonable to expect better of people than their baser instincts. Humans are adaptable and a large part of that adaptive ability is nested in our especially complex sociality.

Now I have a concern that you're pulling a bit of a motte and bailey.
You're only arguing that racism is innate, which is something I can entertain. But I suspect that you're arguing this position because it's easier to defend than other views you hold (even though I don't think you've thus far substantiated it).

Is this argument the first step into:
Racism is innate and therefore it's okay to be racist?
Racism is innate and therefore substantial racial differences exist?
Substantial racial differences exist in IQ and therefore some races are more valuable than others?

 

[ApostateAbe]

(1) Adaptive evolution occurs through the differential survival of competing genes, increasing the allele frequency of those alleles whose phenotypic trait effects successfully promote their own propagation.
(2) Races are subsets of species with different ancestral geography and different allele frequencies.

So final answer, this is all you're claiming? Don't be dishonest, I've realized that I'm just strengthening your worldview that you will just dump on an unsuspecting soul, no doubt, will not continue after this.

You say competing genes, but in reality, it is the agents who are competing, the genes are just passing on evolutionary data, genes that deter reproduction will naturally be less common, this is not a revolutionary idea. No doubt they form much like hueristics do in the brain, if it works it works, if not it is done away with.

You can create subsets of anything arbitrarily, what makes you think that we should do this with what we call race? We share 99.9% of DNA with all humans. Look at plants, they are unmoving and vulnerable, yet they use their vast repository of genes to adapt when they need to, some even making antifreeze for themselves. It is unwise to judge based on race because you can't see the alleles in humans, you'll just look at them and ass-ume shit that statistically you're probably wrong about. The only reason race is relevant is that agents in society make it so.

The selfish gene is a perspective on Darwinian evolution in general, and it should not be limited to explaining altruism. It explains both altruism and competition, much like the theory of evolution in general explains such things.

More racial differences exist than you may expect. We don't all have the same lungs, for example, but black Africans have smaller lungs than whites. This is an established fact, but it seems to be little known. You would expect it would come up in discussions of why blacks are so much more likely than whites to drown in swimming pools, but it generally doesn't. Not only that, but blacks have greater bone density and more muscle mass on average. That means they are more likely to sink like rocks in swimming pools. Each of these traits are likely to be environmental adaptations to a hotter climate. And, we really do have a pattern of differences in brains, though the data is limited. Peoples of the tropics have measurably smaller brains. If you doubt the data, then I don't blame you, but it is simply a bad idea to presume equality. The limited data speaks to the contrary.

The selfish gene is simply an observation of genes that have lasted millions and maybe billions of years. I will repeat. We share 99.9% of DNA with all humans, some people find this fact troubling because of exactly how small our entire gene pool is.

Chess grandmasters also have smaller brains than the average, so they must be retarded right? No, their brain is more efficient, because they are constantly doing one thing, practicing chess, or surviving in the forest, excess has been pruned off.

Smaller = more efficient, unless your source has also measured neuron density and cognitive performance on a series of test, which is actually what you would need to be justified in your stance. You are not justified. You've made an "intellectual" leap of faith based on biased pretenses. Either that or your perspective is that the length of human life is all the data we need to make a judgment based on millions of years of evolution, and that's just absurd.

"So final answer, this is all you're claiming? Don't be dishonest, I've realized that I'm just strengthening your worldview that you will just dump on an unsuspecting soul, no doubt, will not continue after this."

It is not all that I claim, but those are the two central claims, and my conclusion that racism is innate follows from those two premises. Everything else is an elaboration of or a tangent to those two premises. You wrote that my claims were unfalsifiable. I took that seriously, as I actively try to avoid unfalsifiability. I am going for the truth. My purpose here is to put my own thinking to the test. Ideas are best tested with the intelligent critics.

"You say competing genes, but in reality, it is the agents who are competing, the genes are just passing on evolutionary data, genes that deter reproduction will naturally be less common..."

"Competing genes" seems to represent the theory of the selfish gene, and I agree with it.

I will continue later. Merry Christmas.

 

[ZenRaiden]

Racism is not the issue here. Its human nature to be very perceptive of differences. Thats why people with big noses and blonds get bad reptuation.
Humans are super programed to be sensitive to any difference between them and others regardless of what it is. Depending on what it is and how society sees the difference you get stuff like racism or bigotry etc.

Obviously these social ideas arent innate, but rather emerge from multiple interactions between individuals.
However being prejudiced towards others maybe a innate thing for humans as a whole.

Also there is a huge societal complex dealing with who is friend and who is foe. This societal complex can be arbitrary and very limited and raw and also very sophisticated and advanced.
Whether you are racist or not you probably feel differently about everyone you encounter and you judge them depending on lot of factors. Its not a simple issue of being racist or not.

 

[ApostateAbe]

Rebis, I am replying here to a post of yours in another thread, to move talk about race out of the IQ thread.

I suppose your ideology is you want to surpass a limitation of humans by preserving isolated evolution to lead to divergent new species, and that these divergent species will produce fertile offspring compared to inter-racial offspring that are receding to older versions of humans? I understand your point.

I didn't think about that, but it would be a good idea. Preserving genetic diversity would be a good idea for our own species much like for any species.

An example of european evolution would be white skin and blue eyes, this trait helped the absorption of vitamin D3 in geographical regions of low UV light. Africans were climitatized to a saharan desert where there was intense UV rays so UV absorption wasn't lacking. In contrast, if someone with white skin was to live in africa the pigmentation of their skin would let too much UV light in causing sunburn, skin ruptures leading to cancer and other biological problems.

Yes, that's true for skin color, but limiting your perspective to the external traits may be misleading, because a diverse array of traits varies significantly among races. Evolution does not distinguish between the inside and the outside of the body. There is a large set of external traits that vary among the races (not just skin color, but also the number of skin layers, the hair color, the hair profile, the ear geometry, the nose geometry, and the cranium shape), and this is parallel to the internal traits that vary, variations that are part of every system of the human body, both the important and unimportant. This follows from the theory of evolution: different subsets of the species took different evolutionary paths, as allele frequencies differed among the races following from natural selection, bottlenecks, and genetic drift. You may have heard that races are nothing but different skin color, and every medical doctor knows otherwise.

 

[Rebis]

I know evolution isn't just visual but it is a marker to how we humans define race: Occam's razor would be pigmentation. All of these differences seem like subtle variations of the same species based on climate and topology. These differences clearly don't lead to infertile offspring.

Given modern globalism is new, I don't see how this will lead to a lack of gene diversity. There will be a lot to go around for a long, long time, and if we reached a point of singular qualities we could split ourselves up then. But then the environment is becoming singular: Similar food, nutrition, sleep-cycles, sedentary lifestyle, blue-light glare, carbohydrate fixation, whatever. Evolution for the most part was scrapped as a necessity since most of what we do today will not be honed in for 1000s of years for evolution to sprout a newly revolutionary mutation.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

How significant/big of a difference does something make if, within a generation or two, that difference is essentially gone? Not really a question it is perspective. Our tiny lifetime isn't the perspective we should see things from since our biology stretches hundreds of millions of years. It's poor foresight, poor frontal lobe, poor empathy.

 

[Minuend]

Tbh this reads like "I feel this about people, so I need to rationalize it and find arguments for it because it feels better if I think I have facts and logic on my side"

The feeling about people come before the logic and arguments you present. And then whenever people disagree, ironically you'll accuse them of being emotional and blinded. Because what you feel is real and true, you've read so much about it. People are just ignoring it because it's uncomfortable.

Obviously you need to feel this is real and you want it to be real, and no amount of facts or valid perspective from others will change that. You are a prisoner of emotion, just like everyone else ever. Sorry you had a shitty childhood and life that makes you cling to this shitty type of seeking false logic and order in your life that you think will make you feel better. Doing this during holidays where people usually spend time with people they care about and who care about them is only more telling. You are not spending the holidays with people you care about and who care about you. You are spending the time here, with strangers, trying to make other people feel more shitty.

 

[Rebis]

Tbh this reads like "I feel this about people, so I need to rationalize it and find arguments for it because it feels better if I think I have facts and logic on my side"

The feeling about people come before the logic and arguments you present. And then whenever people disagree, ironically you'll accuse them of being emotional and blinded. Because what you feel is real and true, you've read so much about it. People are just ignoring it because it's uncomfortable.

Obviously you need to feel this is real and you want it to be real, and no amount of facts or valid perspective from others will change that. You are a prisoner of emotion, just like everyone else ever. Sorry you had a shitty childhood and life that makes you cling to this shitty type of seeking false logic and order in your life that you think will make you feel better. Doing this during holidays where people usually spend time with people they care about and who care about them is only more telling. You are not spending the holidays with people you care about and who care about you. You are spending the time here, with strangers, trying to make other people feel more shitty.

I suppose in your point, you are somehow liberated from cognitive bias? Given your direct opposition to him it doesn't seem like you are a free agent, thinking of it on your own will. I haven't really detected emotion in his points, it seems like he's came to a realization that they feel people often overlook. He's opposing cultural mythos if you will: people think because IQ isn't definitive, they tell others. These people inherit the belief and start to say its useless without coming to an understanding themselves. Likewise, people that emphasise racism and equality in my eyes are ones that were labelled with a bias from the start and haven't been liberated from this. Why? They need to emphasise their lack of racism, the way I've understood every person I've met is they're a conscious entity, observing the world like I am. There is no derivative from that realization that could create any real divide among me and others.

Basically your point is you're simply rejecting his, but instead of interpreting the point and suggesting criticism you are just going for the good old, context-independent criticism "You're rationalising something out of nothing".
It's a weak counterpoint, similar to those when opposing a posit like "most of the time, x leads to y" with "but not always". If you have something to say go ahead, just don't assume that people that think differently from you are just confused and irrational.

Attack the opinion not the character, discussion 101.

Sent from my VOG-L09 using Tapatalk

 

[Minuend]

I suppose in your point, you are somehow liberated from cognitive bias? Given your direct opposition to him it doesn't seem like you are a free agent, thinking of it on your own will. I haven't really detected emotion in his points, it seems like he's came to a realization that they feel people often overlook. He's opposing cultural mythos if you will: people think because IQ isn't definitive, they tell others. These people inherit the belief and start to say its useless without coming to an understanding themselves. Likewise, people that emphasise racism and equality in my eyes are ones that were labelled with a bias from the start and haven't been liberated from this. Why? They need to emphasise their lack of racism, the way I've understood every person I've met is they're a conscious entity, observing the world like I am. There is no derivative from that realization that could create any real divide among me and others.

Basically your point is you're simply rejecting his, but instead of interpreting the point and suggesting criticism you are just going for the good old, context-independent criticism "You're rationalising something out of nothing".
It's a weak counterpoint, similar to those when opposing a posit like "most of the time, x leads to y" with "but not always". If you have something to say go ahead, just don't assume that people that think differently from you are just confused and irrational.

Attack the opinion not the character, discussion 101.

Sent from my VOG-L09 using Tapatalk

Your first thought is that criticism or opposition equals emotional bias. How do you tell who is reacting emotionally from who is recognizing his shit is just that- shit?

 

[Rebis]

I suppose in your point, you are somehow liberated from cognitive bias? Given your direct opposition to him it doesn't seem like you are a free agent, thinking of it on your own will. I haven't really detected emotion in his points, it seems like he's came to a realization that they feel people often overlook. He's opposing cultural mythos if you will: people think because IQ isn't definitive, they tell others. These people inherit the belief and start to say its useless without coming to an understanding themselves. Likewise, people that emphasise racism and equality in my eyes are ones that were labelled with a bias from the start and haven't been liberated from this. Why? They need to emphasise their lack of racism, the way I've understood every person I've met is they're a conscious entity, observing the world like I am. There is no derivative from that realization that could create any real divide among me and others.

Basically your point is you're simply rejecting his, but instead of interpreting the point and suggesting criticism you are just going for the good old, context-independent criticism "You're rationalising something out of nothing".
It's a weak counterpoint, similar to those when opposing a posit like "most of the time, x leads to y" with "but not always". If you have something to say go ahead, just don't assume that people that think differently from you are just confused and irrational.

Attack the opinion not the character, discussion 101.

Sent from my VOG-L09 using Tapatalk

Your first thought is that criticism or opposition equals emotional bias. How do you tell who is reacting emotionally from who is recognizing his shit is just that- shit?

Because you disregarded the source of the content and preferred to say they were confused and by the point you made at the start of the comment about them rationalising their point because of they felt that way.

Basically there can be no validity to their point because they feel that way, a universal criticism to virtually anyone who has ever felt their opinion to be true.

You are criticising the premise of his opinion as faulty logic based on irrationality that's not only a criticism but a disregard to their point.

For example:

You are just being emotional @Minuend, you are just rationalising your view as being the true one.
Sent from my VOG-L09 using Tapatalk

 

[Rebis]

Ultimately the whole point of a discussion is to discuss the content of the thread and all I've seen is a disregard. Disregard isn't just acknowledgment, it's showing you haven't take the time to interpret another person. And if you disregard while taking the time to interpret their thought, there shouldn't be a need for personal attacks to occur.

Sent from my VOG-L09 using Tapatalk

 

[Minuend]

[QUOTE="Rebis, post: 607441, member: 16283"Because you disregarded the source of the content and preferred to say they were confused and by the point you made at the start of the comment about them rationalising their point because of they felt that way.

Basically there can be no validity to their point because they feel that way, a universal criticism to virtually anyone who has ever felt their opinion to be true.

You are criticising the premise of his opinion as faulty logic based on irrationality that's not only a criticism but a disregard to their point.

For example:

You are just being emotional @Minuend, you are just rationalising your view as being the true one.
[/QUOTE]

Sure, disregarding retarded opinions is emotional. I'm sorry I don't take every retarded opinion to heart. I mean, if someone has the opinion people with buck teeth are inferior, I should agree, or I'm just being an emotional idiot. I mean, look at all the facts.

 

[Rebis]

[QUOTE="Rebis, post: 607441, member: 16283"Because you disregarded the source of the content and preferred to say they were confused and by the point you made at the start of the comment about them rationalising their point because of they felt that way.

Basically there can be no validity to their point because they feel that way, a universal criticism to virtually anyone who has ever felt their opinion to be true.

You are criticising the premise of his opinion as faulty logic based on irrationality that's not only a criticism but a disregard to their point.

For example:

You are just being emotional @Minuend, you are just rationalising your view as being the true one.

Sure, disregarding retarded opinions is emotional. I'm sorry I don't take every retarded opinion to heart. I mean, if someone has the opinion people with buck teeth are inferior, I should agree, or I'm just being an emotional idiot. I mean, look at all the facts.
[/QUOTE]

You don't have to agree, but the substance of your disagreement shouldn't be character assassination. And if you think they're retarded opinions, well just say they're retarded. If you think they're retarded then you have nothing to prove, right? Well, if you have nothing to prove there is no need for a vector like character assassination to go on.
I know you were quite light on it, and mainly my opposition has kinda stemmed from the thread as a whole and isn't really directed at you, but it's all too common that people say others are confused because they hold a different opinion or try to understand the world differently.

 

[Minuend]

[QUOTE="Rebis, post: 607441, member: 16283"Because you disregarded the source of
[/QUOTE]

You don't have to agree, but the substance of your disagreement shouldn't be character assassination. And if you think they're retarded opinions, well just say they're retarded. If you think they're retarded then you have nothing to prove, right? Well, if you have nothing to prove there is no need for a vector like character assassination to go on.
I know you were quite light on it, and mainly my opposition has kinda stemmed from the thread as a whole and isn't really directed at you, but it's all too common that people say others are confused because they hold a different opinion or try to understand the world differently.[/QUOTE]


Ideally, sure. But is any opinion ever free of association, character assassination? Not really.

To summarize, people are shit and have shitty beliefs and think themselves above other due to retarded shit like racism. They actually go far and beyond to justify their petty belief systems, seek desperately for their emotional beliefs to be true somehow. They so need their belief to be true. Please, let me be right about being better than my colored self. I need to be right about being better, smarter. What is my value if not so? Please, intpforum, you need to believe me when I say I'm superior to blacks, it's not racism or anything, its just facts.

 

[peoplesuck]

Abe is just mad he got designated as the small calve race, cheer up pall, at least you arent the small dick race.

EDIT: omg im so sorry you are white arent you?
xoxo

 

[sushi]

It’s been shown that humans have a preference for people who are similar to themselves in appearance, yes. But it’s also been shown that humans have a preference for the familiar. Eg if you have a feral child that grew up around wolves out in the woods, that child will probably develop a preference for wolves over humans, although this obviously remains a conjecture. Ie I don’t know how one would separate those 2 biases.

When it comes to “racism” at this point in history in the western world, the accusation of racism has developed into a political and social weapon.

thats because the white man has been raping and colonizing the 5 continents not long ago. if you lived 100 or 150 years ago this phenomenon would be completely opposite, with european supremacy fully justified.

then hitler push that idea to extreme, decolonization, and civil rights movement lead to idea of racial equality and coexistence. now if you say something offensive and controversial, people will throw shit at you and call you a racist. The Jewish and black community gets the most butthurt, but they are entitled to it.