For discussion of politics, religion, and other content not fitting the rest of the site
[Return] [Entire Thread] [Last 50 posts] [First 100 posts]
Posting mode: Reply
Name
Email
Subject   (reply to 380)
Message
BB Code
File
File URL
Embed   Help
Password  (for post and file deletion)
  • Supported file types are: GIF, JPG, PDF, PNG, TXT
  • Maximum file size allowed is 11742 KB.
  • Images greater than 260x260 pixels will be thumbnailed.
  • Currently 560 unique user posts.
  • board catalog

File 151125413161.jpg - (109.84KB , 1280x720 , [aniKoi] Yuusha ni Narenakatta Ore wa Shibushibu S.jpg )
380 No. 380 [Edit]
What are some thing you believe that most people wouldn't agree with, or would possibly get upset about if you told them how you really feel about it?
298 posts omitted. Last 50 shown. Expand all images
>> No. 1618 [Edit]
>>1617
Undoubtedly. Alas, I have yet to see one posted to an imageboard, and my image manipulation skills are too weak to realize it.
>> No. 1629 [Edit]
Hitler did nothing wrong.
>> No. 1657 [Edit]
I always find it fascinating when I stumble across drama that makes no sense as an outsider. I don't play video games, but when doing some reading on the state of homomorphic encryption and associated fields (e.g. whitebox obfuscators) I found that apparently there's been someone who has been cracking games obfuscated with "Denuvo" (which along with vmprotect are the two big names in terms of what's practically available today). That by itself is pretty impressive since last I remember it was sufficiently non-trivial to do so that basically everyone had given up. But apparently the drama is that people are angry with her [sic, since apparently it is a female and that's probably also intertwined with the drama], solely over uncouth political views.

I find that absolutely hilarious, that these people get angry at the one person giving them what they've wanted for years. And moreover it's for reasons that don't even impact the actual game itself. It's sheer irony that these so-called pirates kowtow to mainstream social views. (Having occasionally dabbled in the warez/RE'ing scenes myself, I've found an interesting correlation that the best people here are all from soviet countries.)
>> No. 1667 [Edit]
>>1629
He fucked with Russia.
>> No. 1668 [Edit]
>>1657
I didn't know what you were referring to, so I looked it up. Faggotry abound is what I took away from it.

>I've found an interesting correlation that the best people here are all from soviet countries.
Same goes for anything programming in my experience. God bless 'em.
>> No. 1688 [Edit]
* Vaccines are indirectly linked with autism, as they can promote systematic inflammation. They're also linked with autoimmune disorders for same reason.

* Wearing glasses for close-work will worsen your eyesight (this shouldn't be controversial and yet for some reason it is).

* Just because radiation is non-ionizing doesn't mean that it can't have biological impact. It is quite likely that long-term exposure to things like cell-signal and WiFi do cause subtle changes. Inverse square law holds though, so people should just try to avoid sleeping with their phone under their pillow.

* Homeopathy does work, but only because we miscategorize a lot of issues as physical when they're psychosomatic. Back pain is the canonical example. A lot of allergies apparently also seem to fall into this category, more research is needed here.

* Related to #3, the field of bioelectricity is quite understudied, and research into the role of modulated electric fields in coordinating body processes (e.g. healing) was suppressed by both power and radio companies.
>> No. 1689 [Edit]
>>1688
Oh I forgot some:

* There's no such thing as food safe plastics (not very uncontroversial, but no one talks about it)

* Fluoridation and chlorination of water have no benefit, and likely adverse affects on health

* Noise cancelling headphones, in addition to the issue of modulated EM fields near your brain if they're bluetooth, can possibly induce tinnitus by means of psychoacoustic manipulation of what the brain considers a normal noise floor (as well as possibly any artifacts from non-perfect interference)

* Holocaust is exaggerated and the atrocities everyone is reminded about are mostly fabricated
>> No. 1693 [Edit]
When I was 18 I argued online with some woman in her 40s about the age of consent. When I told her my age, she conceded it would be acceptable for someone my age to be in a relationship with a 16 year old.

It's been 3 years since then, and somehow I bet her opinion on a 21 year old and 16 year old is different, even though I can tell you first hand not much has changed about myself in that time. In terms of who I'm physically attracted to, I see no reason it would be different when I'm 40.

The elite doesn't care. They'll be in their 50s and have sex with eastern European teens. These "morals", only apply to peasants like me and them. They can't take off their blindfold though and see how meaningless it all is.

What's different about me(and a lot of otaku), is that I give myself permission to fantasize about what the elite is allowed to enjoy.
>> No. 1694 [Edit]
I wish reddit would have died years ago, so maybe people would go back to independent forums. But I guess realistically people will just keep going to discord.
>> No. 1695 [Edit]
>>1694
I doubt it'll die from this. Midwits will often refer to Digg's collapse, but not only was that a substantially different time, Digg was also significantly smaller than what reddit is now.

>But I guess realistically people will just keep going to discord.
Yup, sadly.
>> No. 1696 [Edit]
>>1694
>>1695
Reddit succeeded because people are lazy and love having their ego stroked.
>> No. 1697 [Edit]
>>1695
>Digg was also significantly smaller than what reddit is now.
Yup, the "vocal minority" really applies here, the people who are complaining about the changes are probably a single-digit of the userbase. For about a decade now, reddit has been something closer to buzzfeed than an actual discussion forum. The vast majority of people using it today probably don't care that they can't use 3rd party apps, in the same way they don't see any issue with the redesigned interface. The vast majority of users probably also only care about what's the "frontpage", so they're not going to see any difference.
>> No. 1698 [Edit]
>>1697
Hm I actually looked at the situation and the claims that reddit was blocking api access entirely are a bit off. From what I can see the developer of the 3rd party mobile application that started this whole thing was quoting some outrageous cost only because his system involved continually polling servers for direct messages, replies, etc. So by orchestrating this thing, he is able to deflect blame from himself (for trying sell a subscription service using an API that he had no formal contracts in place for and that could be yanked away at any time) to a major company. It's a clever sleight of hand.

The actual cost without any of the server-side polling is like $2-$4 per month per user, which could easily be passed onto the user, and seems more in line as the amount that would be recovered as ad revenue had the original user been using the "official" application. Or worst case just screen scrape.
>> No. 1699 [Edit]
>>1698
How else do you implement push notifications without webhooks? Reddit is clearly doing this now to improve their IPO...

otoh, Discord forbids third-party applications outright, bans your account if it find out you use one, and few care much about this.
>> No. 1700 [Edit]
>>1699
>else do you implement push notifications without webhooks?
You don't, since the API was not designed to be used in a polling fashion. In fact I'm surprised they didn't ban it earlier. They probably are doing it to increase revenue ahead of any IPO (and because easy money dried up so they're probably strapped for cash anyhow), but their new api pricing isn't really that egregious, and I believe they still retain a free tier with 100 req/min which should really be more than enough for personal use.

Nonetheless it's clear going forward that they don't really want 3rd party apps taking revenue away, nor do they want wholesale scraping like Pushshift did, but charging for API access seems like an entirely reasonable thing. Given the pretty generous free tier and per-user pricing for commercial applications that's not really egregious, one comes to the conclusion that most of the outrage is the lazy activism-du-jour that's come to dominate in recent years.
>> No. 1701 [Edit]
Another perspective to this is reddit's users and moderators feeling slighted since they claim its fortune is due to the content they "create," but I find this ridiculous since it's a two-way road: reddit provides a platform on which one can share and write, and people make use of that. The latter is free sans time, but the former is not. Imagine telling tohno he owes you because you voluntarily choose to spend your time here.

Mind you, I'm thankful for moderation, (see t-c, again, as an example) but this lust for adulation is ridiculous, especially since most overestimate their capabilities as hall monitors.

>>1700
Good post. Given the drama around federated twitter alternatives, it'll be fun to see where this will go with lemmy et al.
>> No. 1702 [Edit]
>>1701
>reddit's users and moderators feeling slighted since they claim its fortune is due to the content they "create,"
I think it's mostly the moderators, and you can see a pattern where the most heavily moderated subs are the ones that seem to have participated. As you mentioned, moderators are useful, but as the saying goes they do it for free: there was never any expectation that they'd receive anything in return.

Another good point you bring up is the value of data. I don't think it's a coincidence that Sam Altman (of OpenAI fame) had/has close ties with reddit, but more generally as the era of LLMs has made people realize the value of even raw/unstructured data, I think we'll see greater pushes to close off API access in an effort to build data moats.
>> No. 1703 [Edit]
File 168774567511.jpg - (188.00KB , 1280x720 , screenshot.jpg )
1703
I might be entirely wrong here but I've been thinking. From my own perspective at least, it seems the vast majority of transgenders are white/Caucasian, leading to an almost stereotypical appearance. I've also noticed that modern white/Caucasian women seem to be some of the least feminine women of any race. Culturally speaking, it almost seems like they hate anything girly past a certain age. Frankly speaking, they're absolutely disgusting in both appearance and personality, far more so than any other race. They used to be a gold standard, coveted by all, but now they're bloated wrecks physically, while being lazy stupid ill-mannered dirty aggressive self entitled and good for nothing. It's seems increasingly rare to even see one in decent shape, let alone in a dress. The ones I've spoken to who aren't cows, seem to typically have some sort of disorder like being lactose intolerant which keeps them in shape. Even if you find one that looks decent, she'll likely dress and act mostly like a man anyway as is the norm for white women now.
So what does this matter you might ask. What does this have to do with transgenders?
I have a theory that many of these transgender men of today men start out perfectly straight and normal, and what they they want is a perfectly normal pretty girl to call their own like anyone else. Maybe at some point in their lives they wanted to be normal guys with normal girls. The problem is few white men can actually have this while staying within their own race, due to the fall of the white women. So this makes me wonder. What if these men aren't simply confusing their desire to have a women, with wanting to be a woman? People joke about it but they really do seem to try and look or act more feminine than white women do. In other words, what if what they want is a girl with feminine traits, but have no outlet for their desires, so they look to a mirror instead. What if the only way they can see a pretty girl all dolled up, is by pretending to be one? Maybe MTF are men who have simply had their minds broken by a lack of acceptable mates? We see something similar happen in the prison systems, where men are denned female companionship, so they start raping each other.

In all fairness, I think men of today haven't exactly changed for the better either. They're soft and weak, emotional messes, unreliable and unable to support a partner let alone themselves. I think this is likely what has caused a surge in lezing out among young women, that along with women in general slowly filling the role that these men have left open.

Post edited on 25th Jun 2023, 7:18pm
>> No. 1704 [Edit]
File 168805991238.jpg - (358.12KB , 1931x2048 , c833ea38b8f5590a340980b12807588b.jpg )
1704
>>1703
>white/Caucasian women seem to be some of the least feminine women of any race. Culturally speaking, it almost seems like they hate anything girly past a certain age
I disagree. When I'm out and about, I don't notice this, and I'm a college student who lives in the north east. Maybe they dress sloppily/inelegantly, but I wouldn't describe it as masculine or androgynous. Short-shorts, tank-tops, tub-tops, bare ankles, form fitting jeans, yoga pants etc. I'd call this common attire "feminine". Their taste in music and other things is also stereotypicaly feminine. It's not like they're getting interested in computers and locomotives in droves.

There's probably a class component to this as well. If anything "tomboys" are an endangered species, which is a real shame. Attitude-wise, sure. There's variability, but maybe a bitchy, entitled attitude has become more common. I still wouldn't call this masculine. If women are trying to be men, they're not doing a very good job of it. You'd never mistake one for Garry Cooper behavior-wise.
>> No. 1705 [Edit]
>>1703
From what studies I have seen, Caucasians only really make up the majority of 'transgender' because they are the majority where this type of stuff is most common, but going by the percentage of X ethnicity who are transgender vs the percentage of X ethnicity in a country, Caucasians tend to be underrepresented.
Apologies if linking isn't allowed but this study demonstrates my point:
https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/Race-Ethnicity-Trans-Adults-US-Oct-2016.pdf

There is the issue that the study doesn't seem entirely comprehensive, as is a problem with any of these types of studies, and the data is a few years out of date by now, and seeing how fast this "trend" has accelerated in recent years I'm sure the numbers have changed somewhat, but while Caucasians make up around 65% of the country, they are underrepresented in the number of transgenders in the country at 55%, although I feel like these numbers should be reduced some since I know as of the last census that Caucasians are only about 55% of the population.

Meanwhile both blacks and hispanics are overrepresented by 4% and 6% respectively. So you are correct in that by sheer number, there are more transgender Whites than there are transgender blacks or hispanics in White countries, but statistically this isn't really a 'White' problem, there are just more White people in English speaking countries, but it does exist in places like brazil too so it isn't just limited to White countries. I think it's just an issue of people only seeing stuff in the English speaking world.

>least feminine women of any race
I would probably attribute that to hispanics or blacks, but really, 3DPD are hardly feminine whatsoever, not even the asians. People just like to look at professional photoshoots and try to extrapolate that into being some sort of reality, when the truth of the matter is that 3DPD is the same all over the globe.

>men of today are soft weak emotional messes
You could say that about every progressive generation if you really wanted to. 70 years ago we had the hippies who cried about not being able to drugs in the street, they certainly weren't shining beacons of masculinity. If you feel that an entire generation is messed up, the blame lies solely on the people who should have raised them properly. I do think the current generation has been screwed up by excessive social media use, but they didn't pick a phone off a tree and start using tiktok, that behavior was enabled by their parents who would rather sit them in front of a screen so they can watch TV instead of spending time with their children and raising them properly.

There is also the issue I think of the internet giving rise to grifters who want people to be as miserable as them, so they go on about how you need to emotionally stunted to have 'real life experience'. There seem to be a romanticisation of people living screwed up maladjusted lives, rather than happy and peaceful lives. This seems to be coming from both sides of the political spectrum.
I've seen people like sam hyde repeat this nonsense as well as mainstread 'conservatives' and I've also seen it from all sorts of online 'socialist' communities whether it be from places like 'breadtube' which is a bunch of youtube communists or from run of the mill 'progressives'. It's also very prevalent on TV and places like netflix, if you were to look at the catalog most of the shows are going to be screwed up families or people living in poverty and committing crime or something like that, very rarely will there be a happy family or something like that.
This isn't to say it's done everywhere, but many popular figures repeat this type of nonsense and it feels like most popular media revolves around this type of stuff. I don't think you can blame people for coming up maladjusted when society itself promotes that behavior.
>> No. 1708 [Edit]
Do you ever wonder if wokeness in mainstream culture, political division, and the increasingly anti-social design everything around us in day to day life that automates everything and limits human interaction, isn't perhaps a purposefully designed system to keep people apart and limit breeding with the end goal of population control?
>> No. 1710 [Edit]
>>1708
>limit breeding with the end goal of population control
No, it is indeed distraction but it's with the end goal of keeping people's attention divided turned towards useless things so they can't actually express their discontent in a manner that would be dangerous to societal structures.

On the contrary, they actually want the population to keep growing. They must have this, because our economy is built upon the assumption of year-after-tear growth, and as progress in technology slows down, the only way this can be sustained is by expanding populations. It's why they also want to import immigrants, and why you always see propaganda articles about slowing birth rates in Japan.
>> No. 1711 [Edit]
>>1710
Isn't population growth slowing down across the globe? I've been hearing a lot about how younger generations today aren't particularly interested (let alone financially capable) of having families of their own. That there's also this rise in shying away from seeking partners in general due to having many more distractions around to keep people occupied and not on each other.
>> No. 1712 [Edit]
>>1711
Yes, which is why they're working desperately to import more immigrants.
>> No. 1713 [Edit]
>>1712
I moved away from a town that was mostly Hispanic, where I heard more Spanish than English. Very saddening.
>> No. 1717 [Edit]
>>1688
I recently learned about zeta potential, which links with bioelectricity and models of Eastern medicine. https://www.midwesterndoctor.com/p/why-does-every-vaccine-often-cause
>> No. 1721 [Edit]
Animal abuse does not matter. The act of killing an animal is not inherently bad, and the animal's own 'needs and desires' are irrelevant.

Take the example of chicken culling, where we systematically kill male chicks soon after birth because they cannot lay eggs. Thousands of chicks are hatched and then immediately go on the conveyor belt and into the grinder. This does not matter, whether or not they have some capacity to feel pain. We are the most intelligent species on the planet and we have the right to use all its resources as we see fit, because we are the only ones who can. Obviously, I am not saying we should go out and kill all of nature, industrialize the entire planet until it becomes a wasteland from our own inventions. Because that would obviously be detrimental to the human species. I am saying that there is nothing wrong with the act of killing or harming animals in any way, if it is beneficial to our species.

There is no reason to do this 'humanely' either, the only way it should be done is in whatever way is best for our species. Feel free to argue against me.
>> No. 1722 [Edit]
>>1721
You've never had pets, have you?
>> No. 1724 [Edit]
>>1722
I don't have a pet right now, though I had a cat when I was younger. I hope that my opinion would be the same if I had a pet or not, I should really only believe in what I think is logically right regardless of emotional attachment.
>> No. 1725 [Edit]
>>1724
I think the emotional factor is the very reason why people would say it maters.
>> No. 1726 [Edit]
>>1721
There's no objective reason why you're wrong. There's also no objective reason why shouldn't stop giving medical attention to the sick and old. Or go back to caveman society where violence is the way any dispute is settled and there's no concept of human rights. Arguing about morality is kind of pointless and ultimately boils down to feelings and empathy.
>> No. 1727 [Edit]
>>1726
>Or go back to caveman society where violence is the way any dispute is settled
Well at least for this one, there's an argument that avoiding violence is better for the long-term survival of the species as a whole. But that's not really an objective argument since it's based on the belief that there is some "goal" to be reached in the first place.

Questions of ethics/morality only make sense under a given framework, and what framework you use changes what the answers would be. E.g. to most people having children is clearly a "good thing" but under certain branches of pessimism, it's a horrible thing. By default people seem to very loosely work under something like negative consequentialism (they imagine the outcomes of actions as it would affect them), and they might also have spiritual beliefs that they're constrained by.
>> No. 1734 [Edit]
I think Hamas did the right thing. There I said it. I don't feel sorry for all those hipsters and egirls they killed. 1400 less IDF and normalfags.
>> No. 1735 [Edit]
>>1734
Muslims are the ultimate normalfags. All they care about is fancy cars, religion, and producing as much spawn as possible.
>> No. 1738 [Edit]
File 170406655583.png - (1.74MB , 1238x1839 , eaf7cec7202959422cc72546cdcab462.png )
1738
Holding all white people responsible for the actions of some, is no different from holding all jews responsible for the actions of some. A common example is the Atlantic slave-trade. SOME White people bought the slaves, but jews owned the boats, so therefore its all the jews' fault, because when white people do something wrong, its the individual's fault, but when jews do something wrong, all of them are to blame. That's a double standard, and it's bullshit.

If somebody says "but jews have been putting the blame on all white people too", firstly, that's again ascribing the actions of some to an entire group, secondly, two wrongs don't make a right. If somebody says "but white people wouldn't have been able to purchase slaves without the merchants", proximate cause is not the actual cause. Unless somebody is a child, they are responsible for their own actions, not whoever "set everything into motion". If somebody says "you must be a jew", so what? How is that a counterargument, and why shouldn't jews defend themselves?
>> No. 1739 [Edit]
>>1738
despite all your wishes against it, the world still behaves in predictable ways. groups of people act in different ways because of their genetics and cultures. this is such an inescapable fact of reality that even after centuries of people consciously holding liberal ideals, we are still deriding each other for acting like jews and niggers. you do not look at someone and say "wow hes such an individual, hes got so much free will i cant even imagine what hes gonna do next", no, you are subconsciously comparing him to everyone youve met before in order to predict how he will act.

if someone is a failure, it concerns their whole race, because he is entirely a product of his race. you owe absolutely everything to your race, your strength, your intelligence, your beauty, your morals, your work ethic, everything has been passed down in an unbroken chain to YOU. all of your achievements ultimately derive from, and are attributable to, your race. if we take material possessions into account, then other races owe a fair bit to whites, but no other group of people sticks their heads out for white people.

in regards to slavery all that has to be known is that whites were the first to abolish it. every other race had to be violently convinced (by whites) to suppress slavery. now the once white idea of abolitionism is simply known as a good idea. everything that whites idealize ultimately just becomes known as whats objectively good, because whites are objectively the best (an ironic form of cultural erasure). this is why i dont shed any tears for the subhumans that died in the genocides or conquests my ancestors undertook. the white way of life is the best, the only thing wrong with violently imposing it on others is that its futile.
>> No. 1740 [Edit]
>you owe absolutely everything to your race, your strength, your intelligence, your beauty, your morals, your work ethic
This is patently untrue. Even in the most charitable interpretation that you meant everything is determined by your genetics(+epigenetics?), this is also untrue because your environment obviously plays a large role in your personality. A random chance event like your parents dying when you are long will influence your emotions, morals, etc.
>> No. 1741 [Edit]
>>1740
i think the very next sentence i wrote put what you quoted into context very well and should clear up all of your misunderstandings.
>> No. 1742 [Edit]
File 170437486939.jpg - (215.79KB , 1000x820 , aab108d64428900103b541808a427caa.jpg )
1742
>>1739
It's natural for people to categorize, but human nature/intuition isn't evidence for something being true, like every action of a person being predictable based on their race. Relativity isn't intuitive, yet evidence supports it. Culture can't completely suppress human nature either.

>you owe absolutely everything to your race, your strength, your intelligence, your beauty, your morals, your work ethic, everything has been passed down in an unbroken chain to YOU
If the out of Africa theory is true, does everybody owe everything to Africans? Do I "owe" everything about myself to my fish ancestors? In some sense, sure, but how meaningful is that? Ashekenazi Jews have plenty of European admixture. Where do their evil traits come from? Where did white people's amazingness come from? Japanese people originate from Korea. Do all of their good traits come from Koreans?

>everything that whites idealize ultimately just becomes known as whats objectively good
Colonialism isn't generally well-regarded. What's "known as" good, also isn't necessarily good. The puritanical mindset that's in vogue comes to mind.

>>1741
Don't see how.

Post edited on 4th Jan 2024, 5:32am
>> No. 1743 [Edit]
>>1742
>It's natural for people to categorize, but human nature/intuition isn't evidence for something being true
lucky for you we have troves of statistics illustrating the differences between the races, all avaliable for free.

>If the out of Africa theory is true, does everybody owe everything to Africans?
no, you owe it to the people who made it out of africa, you know, the ones that actually evolved into higher beings. seriously what the fuck even is your logic? hmmm im white so therefore i owe my genetic inheritance to... AFRICANS. yeah. not the people who passed their genes down to me, my own kin, but some jungle dwelling chimp fucking niggers.

>Colonialism isn't generally well-regarded
so which group of people refuses to occupy white countries now that they have the chance?
>> No. 1744 [Edit]
>>1743
>we have troves of statistics illustrating the differences between the races
We're not talking about averages, we're talking about individuals, and how well an individual's behavior can be predicted by their race. That's tangentially related to my first post anyway, but you decided to make it the main focus.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in your view, all of a person's actions are caused by their race, and can therefore be predicted based on it. I would say neither of those things are true.

>no, you owe it to the people who made it out of africa... i owe my genetic inheritance to... AFRICANS. yeah. not the people who passed their genes down to me, my own kin
All human beings have a common ancestor. You're drawing an arbitrary line between "kin" and not "kin". You said "everything has been passed down in an unbroken chain". Drawing a line, breaks the chain. Maybe you're saying things get added to the chain, but you didn't mention that earlier. If things get added to the chain, that makes individuals' behavior less predictable, and not everything is owed to predecessors.

>which group of people refuses to occupy white countries
Even if we say that's the same thing as colonialism, nobody calls it that because it has a negative connotation. That's the point I was making. I'm not saying people shouldn't have in group-preferences by the way. But your justifications for that are nonsensical and imo unnecessary.

Post edited on 4th Jan 2024, 3:24pm
>> No. 1745 [Edit]
Evolution isn't real :^)
>> No. 1746 [Edit]
>>1744
>That's tangentially related to my first post anyway, but you decided to make it the main focus.
tangentially related? really? so even if someones race could predict absolutely everything about their character (which is the point you believe im making) that wouldnt affect your statements in the slightest? would you still be just as confused as to why people use "jew" as a slur?

>Correct me if I'm wrong, but in your view, all of a person's actions are caused by their race
"all of your achievements ultimately derive from, and are attributable to, your race"
im saying that everything you need for success in life is derived from your race. and the earth i guess, because we use its resources.

>All human beings have a common ancestor. You're drawing an arbitrary line between "kin" and not "kin".
very debatable, but even so your point is meaningless. it isnt an "arbitrary line", its a measurable genetic difference, and to anyone who isnt being dense they can see that difference in their everyday life.

>If things get added to the chain, that makes individuals' behavior less predictable, and not everything is owed to predecessors.
not to any meaningful degree. evolution works very slowly.

>I'm not saying people shouldn't have in group-preferences by the way. But your justifications for that are nonsensical and imo unnecessary.
im saying we need to build a society based on the truth of race. but im curious as to what your in-group preferences are.
>> No. 1747 [Edit]
File 170447325866.jpg - (122.50KB , 600x450 , ZJJpAcMo.jpg )
1747
>>1746
>would you still be just as confused as to why people use "jew" as a slur
Where have I mentioned slurs? My first post was about double standards I've seen wignats hold. I don't feel like going along with this diversion anymore, so this will be my last post along these lines.

>everything you need for success in life is derived from your race
So to be clear, environment doesn't matter? This is what the other anon brought up. If someone is raised by a pack of wolves, or locked in an empty room all day, I doubt they'd be successful regardless of their race. On this very website, there's people who had fucked up circumstances while growing up. I'd be willing to bet they'd be more successful had their circumstances been different.

>its a measurable genetic difference
Then can you give some numbers? A numerical criteria for who you consider "kin"? Your ancestors who left Africa, might be closer to certain Africans(there's more than one kind) than they are to you. Also, do you consider all white people to be your kin? If you're Polish, are the French your kin?
>its a measurable genetic difference, and to anyone who isnt being dense they can see that difference in their everyday life.
Not everybody's day to day life looks like a /pol/ comic. There are those who know smart black people and stupid white people. Again, this is about individuals.

>im curious as to what your in-group preferences are
Anyone who looks like me and or shares my disposition. Tohno is half Guatemalan, yet I have more affinity for him than most people who are closer related to me.
>> No. 1748 [Edit]
File
Removed
>>1747
>Your ancestors who left Africa, might be closer to certain Africans(there's more than one kind) than they are to you.
>> No. 1749 [Edit]
File 170448289092.png - (1.21MB , 1280x720 , buggy.png )
1749
>>1748
sorry, have an anime clown instead. doesnt really have the same effect though imo...
>> No. 1750 [Edit]
>>1749
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_drift
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founder_effect
>The difference in gene frequencies between the original population and colony may also trigger the two groups to diverge significantly over the course of many generations.
>As a result of the loss of genetic variation, the new population may be distinctively different, both genotypically and phenotypically, from the parent population from which it is derived. In extreme cases, the founder effect is thought to lead to the speciation and subsequent evolution of new species.
>> No. 1751 [Edit]
>>1750
neither of those articles purport that a european could be genetically closer to an african than another european. at all. but im glad youre taking a closer look at genetics.
>> No. 1752 [Edit]
>>1751
>neither of those articles purport that a european could be genetically closer to an african than another european
Where did I say this? What I said was "the people who made it out of africa", were Africans, probably close to some modern Africans. This isn't hard to understand. I'll give you the benefit of doubt and assume you're just dishonest.
>> No. 1753 [Edit]
>>1752
no yeah when i think of my ancestors i think of a pitch black nigger wearing a lip ring. what you really thought i was stupid? of course i know the original europeans were black, i watch cable tv like everyone else.
[Return] [Entire Thread] [Last 50 posts] [First 100 posts]

View catalog

Delete post []
Password  
Report post
Reason  


[Home] [Manage]



[ Rules ] [ an / foe / ma / mp3 / vg / vn ] [ cr / fig / navi ] [ mai / ot / so / tat ] [ arc / ddl / irc / lol / ns / pic ] [ home ]