Why are white women so unfeminine?
I asked Holla Forums but they just responded with racism instead of the solid materialist analysis you guys are known for.
Why are white women so unfeminine?
I asked Holla Forums but they just responded with racism instead of the solid materialist analysis you guys are known for.
Other urls found in this thread:
nami.org
dennisprager.com
livescience.com
tino.us
www1.udel.edu
abc102.wordpress.com
unz.com
livescience.com
debunkingdenialism.com
nytimes.com
therightstuff.biz
med.stanford.edu
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
www1.udel.edu
britannica.com
news.bbc.co.uk
en.wikipedia.org
www1.udel.edu
soundcloud.com
youtube.com
pss.sagepub.com
link.springer.com
twitter.com
Define white women
...
Because brown women are god tier.
The "white woman" on that picture isn't even a woman tho
How are people from Hispania not Hispanic?
I can't because words don't refer to other words. It's like asking "define how the color blue looks like".
You probably know that already and are just using that question as a rhetorical trick, or you really had a lobotomy done by an analytical zombie who escaped from MIT.
They have moorish blood in them.
because white women bought into the "there's no differences between the sexes" meme
We're white.
hi um stfu????
wait might have made mistake there
You's spookedy spooked muh dear
i dont think he understands that hispanic usually means from latin america.
It's like the last of mohicans, soon genderless blobs will be all there is left of white women.
I hope you're happy, Holla Forums, thanks to your "le gender is oppressive cuntstruct" mem all we have now are endlessly frustrated genderblobs like laurie penny and sad white men who have to go all the way to africa to find a women that loves caring for her bf instead of reading post-colonial theory and cutting herself.
tbh if i cant find any white women aksum is probably the only realistic option
shaking of all those spooks
i hope this pleases your ego
nubians are so black it's like they're necklaced zombies who have become back from the death
ghanese girls are a much more attractive shade of brown, plus they don't have that creepy islamic personality that all black muslim women seem to have. i'd prefer them
i meant amhara but yeah ik what you mean
This is all that awaits you.
...
Hispanic just means from a Spanish-speaking country, usually used as synonymous with "latino" or "mestizo", even though it isn't.
There's still hope outside of white women.
i like all of them, except Sealanders.
is it bad if i dont know thats a girl???
Because "white women" (in this case, I'll be using this as a stand-in for women of most highly developed countries) are close to what could be described as the "peak" of liberation that capitalism will afford them. Women of these countries have often achieved nearly full political equality, and have at least mostly gained similar status to men as wage workers. However, their lives are still pushed and pulled by capitalist economics and exploitation. If, for example, a woman wishes to act in the more "traditional" role as a family caretaker, she is left with two options: do it full time at the price of having to marry and be 100% economically dependent on their spouse, or have to sacrifice essentially their whole individual lives juggling work and family. On the flip side, if a woman wants nothing to do with family life, cultural expectations continue today (albeit a bit more subtly than in times past) that her only worth will be derived from her dedication to labor. We continue to quantify women in both scenarios and just about every scenario in-between as a productive unit rather than an individual. This is not likely to change from any internal source of reform either: capitalism as a system is an inherently commodifying force.
The modern feminist movement is steeped in bourgeois ideology. They recognize that liberation exists beyond completing their most immediate goals, but the range of political thought they've been trained to see prevents them from taking the next truly necessary step: total economic liberation. That's not to say that the achievement of socialism means the job is done, but feminism won't make meaningful progress until changes to the underlying material conditions is made. The "degeneracy" that you seem to be alluding to is mostly just impotent rebellion in the face of holding logically contradictory positions. They want the liberation of women, but refuse to touch systems that actively and brazenly exploits women. Women from less developed parts of the world are often still fighting for more rudimentary rights that the developed world takes for granted. The feeling of impotence for them has not set in because the reform track for change still has some miles left to go.
Also polite sage. This thread has little-to-nothing to do with leftist politics.
It probably means you have autism since autists have trouble with facial recognition.
Still, it doesn't really matter, since attraction is really all about how something looks and acts, not about any biological essence, or else a bunch of pixels could never be arousing. If it looks and acts like a girl, it's all good.
You could say that feminists might become wife material again when we have fully automated luxury communism (though I really doubt that, since those who already practically live such lives are none the better).
I get that everything is actually capitalism and that all else is just diversion from this big other which is ofcourse, another trick of the bourjews to make people believe other things than that, but that wasn't really my question.
Why are women who take an active part in leftist politics (not those who are just generically leftist) almost always dirty, nasty, unfeminine cunts?
i think its because asian males are so effeminate i cant tell the difference between them and their women
White>latino>arab>black>azn
Tbfh
That's only because you watch too much ladyboy porn and not enough jackie chan.
i dont watch ladyboy porn but yeah its been awhile since ive seen jackie chan.
Still, using the flag of spain to represent "Hispanics" is super wrong
this is now a white women appreciation thread
i see what you did there
This. White women are objectively the most beautiful women
me white > iranian/western india > semite > black > azn
though i mean i like central asian women but theyre like white and azn at the same time genetically and in appearance so what do???
jill stein for premier
hahahahahahah this fucking thread hahahaha kys race traitors, its you faggots that gave them suffrage and killed feminity in white women with you """feminism"""
...
Wtf
i didnt do shit fuck off
but why be spooked when you call have a 300 pound landwhale instead to explain to you how telling her to lift her fat ass is an oppressive patriachal construct?
You can thank cultural marxism for that, so that's your own damn fault. Fortunately, not all of us have fallen so low.
...
Why would anyone even need a wife or husband under FALC?
It's you who told them that being a loving wife is akshually a bourgoise method of oppression to continue their service of capitalism.
because it's pretty nice for someone to hold your hand when the spectacle passes event horizon
Bitch, you masturbate thinking you're getting fucked by demons and fuck random dudes in forests as part of larping. You're even lower than the legbeards.
that aint happening in your lifetime friendo
pic unrelated
mixed race between black and white is the optimum qt racial makeup tbh.
Holla Forums are not leftists.. I am from Holla Forums and I know this
What underwhelming bait.
into the trash
You're shitposting, right?
...
no?
have some theory cuck
Oh boy these guys always have some hot fucking takes don't they.
Very good post. I think people don't give late capitalism nearly enough credit for significantly dissipating non class based oppressions (such as those regarding race, religion, and gender). Marx himself praised capitalism's liberating aspects. Many make the mistake of dismissing these gains as "bourgeois" but that is as wrong as rebuking liberal democratic rights such as freedom of speech, right to vote even if they are incomplete and twisted under capitalism. The negative side effects of such partial racial/sexual liberation come from the fact that they are corrupted and not fully realized under capitalism which causes a host of its own problems.
tl;dr racial and sexual liberation under capitalism while a step forward is corrupted and incomplete just like democratic rights under bourgeois rule such as free speech and voting.
or sailors and slaves? By so doing he supplies us with another case where the
history isn’t dead, it’s not even past! Onwards to health-care by eye-patch,
peg-leg, and hook!
so it's like pirates with more blue hair and discussions about post-colonial theory between the looting and the shooting
b-but capitalist alienation makes me lonely ;_:
Yeah man, just completely stripe away man's prestigious work status and ability to provide, and africanize sexual selection even more by taking everything but muh dick out of the equation.
Total economic liberation = 3DPD, 80/20 rule on steroids, return to a primal nigger reproduction model where unlimited resources favor breeding r-selected savages.
what?
Literally what
I thought stormcucks believed in survival of the fittest? Surely the alphas reproducing more and the elimination of beta genes is a good thing.
radical piratology, that's what
most women don't actually want that shit, it's just feminists convincing them that they do
Don't participate in threads made by racebaiting NEETsocs.
nami.org
Social darwinism is acceptable for the neetsoc until he realizes he is not the fittest.
Some things sound great in theory but turn out disastrously. Like communism.
the thread is about a contradiction that graps both neetsocs and leftists. neetsocs don't like non-whites, yet actually prefer their characteristics in many ways. leftists rever non-whites, and will defend their conservatism, but tend to rage when this pointed out as a positive over white leftists.
it's bait from which we can all take a bite which makes it worthy thread material for funposting and interesting discussions
absolutely, like capitalism
thats why we should have market socialism
...
Forcing productive males to subsidize the slutty behavior of women/single motherhood isn't survival of the fittest.
Humans don't do well with breeding like rabbits in environments that don't have functionally unlimited resources and random predation. If your child is going to die randomly for no avoidable reason, fine, have 10 kids and don't invest in them, the result is that most will die off and those that are left won't be eating each other. In a modern context, such low-investment and high-fertility lifestyles are going to be the death of civilizations where none of these aggressive low-IQ offspring are randomly killed off and they aren't productive.
Welfare and forcible transfers of wealth are completely contradictory to the purpose of social Darwinism, you fucking retard. If the government had a program which only let people with Down syndrome reproduce, and someone were to object to this, "lol stupid neetsocs don't like social darwinism when it hurts them", the government in that case is in no way enforcing "social darwinist principles."
...
Keep on parroting Stefan Molyneux, it still won't give r/K selection a valid basis in political science, and it won't make technocrats magically have a "smart gene" you fucking deluded cuckold.
Capitalist co-opted feminism.
Genuine radical feminism has always been about women. Women getting together, women's say, women's treatment, women's interests. That's where the "man-hating bull dyke" caricature came from.
However, the capitalists came in and completely changed all of that. Instead of being about women, modern feminism took a completely opposite turn. Now feminism is about women trying their best to compete with men, imitating the masculine style, climbing the corporate ladder - being the best cog in the patriarchal system. The natural differences that we once celebrated now were denied, and the image of the (patriarchally) "strong" woman who needs no man was created.
I actually like the way they're called:
Feminazis.
r/K selection is not debatable, it's an accurate way of describing two distinct reproductive strategies. And yes, there's a spectrum, humans are all (relative to animals) extremely k-selective, but some more than others.
>Unironically saying smart gene in the singular
Intelligence is a polygenic trait, no one is suggesting the existence of a "100 IQ gene" or a "106 IQ gene," this would be obvious if you remotely knew what you were talking about.
IQ is a highly heritable trait, so yes, there are genes that contribute to intelligence that are passed on to children. Adoption studies comparing twins reared apart to those reared together, plus a bit of math, proves that yes, IQ is a highly heritable trait.
No shit, when capitalism began to degrade a man or woman's ability to provide for a family, the porkies pushed an agenda of girrrrl power so that women could be exploited just as much as men could.
The reactionary ideology is filled with somewhat accurate assessments followed by piss-scared prognoses about the modern world that basically result in 'hurr we need to go back in time to my romanticized vision of the past'
How is this different than the "man-hating bull dyke" caricature you prefer?
Humans are K selected regardless of what "The Anonymous Conservative" tells you. Yes I've read his shit, no it's not worthwhile.
It was a hyperbole, I understand your lack of rhetorical skills but I'd expect you to be able to hold your own at least in the language department.
Interesting that you didn't bother to A: Explain why this is significant, B: Examine the M A T E R I A L C O N D I T I O N S
Wait, there are people who actually care about this? Oh noes teh wimminz are no longer tradishunal!
Jesus Mary and fucking Joseph.
Only good post in the entire fucking thread. The rest of it is cucks bitching about muh ebil kultchural mahrshixts suffrage killed femininmities feminismsm :^(
girls resembling boys > your boring ideals about feminity tbh
It's because these people have a Dennis Prager vision of how women should act toward them.
Read this dennisprager.com
Also I'm off for the night
top kekkkkk!!!!!!
Ignore or mock him. People on this board are so retarded/hypocritical they think religion should be abolished for being an unscientific feelgood cult, while at the same time they deny evolution when it applies to human beings (because some people being inherently superior/inferior to others goes against their equality dogma), they use insults/shaming tactics and bans to silence anyone reasonably challenging their beliefs, and all furiously masturbate to the thought of le moneyless classless utopia (just like christians with heaven), to the point they want to kill everyone who opposes them.
we don't glorify equality, people like you will be gulag'd
Lol ok kiddo.
It's okay to be a nihilist but you can't logically combine it with an "wow.. i can't even" appeal.
Well, I don't prefer any caricature.
The "strong woman" feminazism is patriarchal because the whole "I don't need [anyone]" meme arises from our individualist culture's idea of masculinity. The whole idea of independence and so on. Also the whole idea of being "strong" is attached to characters like Clint Eastwood, ect. which is a very exclusionary idea and obviously hypermasculinal
the only ones who I see doing that are stormfags when they start talking about race.
Yet they shoot themselves in the foot while spouting racist rhetoric, which demonstrates that they have low IQs, and yet they have the irony to demand that people with low iqs should be removed from the gene pool
livescience.com
Wow, Iranians are almost the smartest people in the world.
Nigerians so close. They must have a really high IQ.
Although, I think this is off-topic.
Apparently you missed the part where both in the book and my post: "yes, there's a spectrum, humans are all (relative to animals) extremely k-selective, but some more than others."
Humans are intelligent, relative to animals, this doesn't mean a population from let's say, Sub-Saharan Africa, can't be relatively stupid as far as humans go.
1. It correlates with income
tino.us
2. A majority of surveyed intelligence experts agreed:
"1 Intelligence is a very general mental capability
that, among other things, involves
the ability to reason, plan, solve problems,
think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas,
learn quickly and learn from experience. It is
not merely book learning, a narrow academic
skill, or test-taking smarts. Rather, it reflects a broader and deeper capability for
comprehending our surroundings-“catching
on,” “ making sense” of things, or “figuring
out” what to do.
2. Intelligence, so defined, can be measured,
and intelligence tests measure it well.
They are among the most accurate (in technical
terms, reliable and valid) of all psychological
tests and assessments. They do not
measure creativity, character, personality, or
other important differences among individuals,
nor are they intended to.
3. While there are different types of intelligence
tests, they all measure the same intelligence.
Some use words or numbers and
require specific cultural knowledge (like vocabulary).
Other do not, and instead use
shapes or designs and require knowledge of
only simple, universal concepts (many/few,
open/closed, up/down).
5. Intelligence tests are not culturally biased
against American blacks or other native-born,
English-speaking peoples in the
U.S. Rather, IQ scores predict equally accurately
for all such Americans, regardless of
race and social class. Individuals who do not
understand English well can be given either a
nonverbal test or one in their native language.
'''[Significance:]9. IQ is strongly related, probably more so
than any other single measurable human
trait, to many important educational, occupational,
economic, and social outcomes. Its
relation to the welfare and performance of
individuals is very strong in some arenas in
life (education, military training), moderate
but robust in others (social competence), and
modest but consistent in others (law-abidingness).
Whatever IQ tests measure, it is of
great practical and social importance.'''"
www1.udel.edu
Sure whatever you say fam.
But must it be universally patriarchal? I don't see independence as necessarily masculine.
Part 2, electric boogaloo.
"Obviously, for the brain size explanation to be plausible brain size, cranial capacity, and head circumference need to correlate with differences in intelligence within populations; moreover, brain size, cranial capacity, and head circumference need to be partially heritable. Rushton and Ankney (2009) summarize the findings to date with regards to brain size and intelligence: based on 28 non-clinical published brain imaging samples (N= 1,389) a .40 correlation between IQ and brain size measured by MRI was found; based on 59 published samples (N= 63,405) a .20 correlation between IQ and head circumference was found. These findings are consistent with others. In a meta-analysis McDaniel (2004) found an in vivo brain volume/IQ correlation of 0.33 based on 37 published studies (N= 1535); Reviewing all the data to date (N = 935), Miller and Penke (2007) found a in vivo brain volume/general intelligence (GQ) of .41; the heritability of adult brain volume (N =2494) was found to be .89. Pietschnig, Zeiler, and Voracek, (submitted), found an in vivo brain volume/IQ correlation of .24 based on a meta-analysis of 94 studies published and unpublished."
abc102.wordpress.com
Tell me how blacks living in denser areas, being poorer, or having worse schools (because no good teacher wants to teach blacks) gives them a smaller brain size?
-IQ is correlated with brain size
-Brain size is highly heritable
-IQ is highly heritable
You realize heritability coefficients (e.g. in the U.S.) have proven that environmental variability causes less of the variation in intelligence than variation in genes? Put simply, whatever environmental variables your Jewish Marxist professors claimed are why people are stupid, well, that might be relevant if heritability of IQ was .3 or .4 in the United States.
I had my IQ professionally tested one year ago, 127, does this mean you're going to stop the tu quoque?
Immigrants from any country are usually going to be from the right half of the bell curve. The issue with that is regression to the mean, they don't stay smart. unz.com
I think it's because femininity has usually been associated with subservience to the man (look pretty for me, cook for me, and don't say anything that questions my authority infront of others), and has been a necessary trait for women to adopt in most of history.
Capitalism has evolved to a point where women are turned into "breadwinners" too, and thus no longer need to submit themselves to the man in order to function in society.
thats nice kid, too bad IQ doesn't actually means anything, aside from some knowledge about shapes
If you aren't able to attract a mate and reproduce, you aren't fit. Nazis are betas who want muh gubbermint to ensure that they have mates because they're unfit faggots who would never reproduce without forcing women to fuck them.
Was this when you were getting treated for autism?
Spooky, considering the fact that race doesn't exist
AAA 1998: "For example, 'Evidence from the analysis of genetics (e.g., DNA) indicates that most physical variation, about 94%, lies within so-called racial groups. Conventional geographic 'racial' groupings differ from one another only in about 6% of their genes. This means that there is greater variation within 'racial' groups than between them.'"
Keita, S O Y; Kittles, Royal, Bonney, Furbert-Harris, Dunston, Rotimi; Royal, C D M; Bonney, G E; Furbert-Harris, P; Dunston, G M; Rotimi, C N (2004). "Conceptualizing human variation". Nature Genetics. 36 (11s): S17–S20. doi:10.1038/ng1455. PMID 15507998. "Modern human biological variation is not structured into phylogenetic subspecies ('races'), nor are the taxa of the standard anthropological 'racial' classifications breeding populations. The 'racial taxa' do not meet the phylogenetic criteria. 'Race' denotes socially constructed units as a function of the incorrect usage of the term."
There is no race to betray, lad
I agre felau cumuniss frend. Also I hav to sai ppl lice me tat mace up mos of te bord arenot retaradation eider. We ar jus discrimated and are enviramental bad. I culd be ta neccst ainstain if tei dint opres me.
>livescience.com
You realize that this in no way disproves the claim that, among modern human populations, brain size has a correlation with IQ?
>debunkingdenialism.com
I KNOW
Heritability does not mean "what percent is this genetically determined."
I know, coefficients apply to specific populations.
I understand that for extremely deprived populations heritability of height and IQ will be lower.
I understand that because blacks from extremely high economic status produce low-IQ children that this suggests that the gap between blacks and whites is heritable. As the environment of blacks has improved, the black-white adult IQ gap in America has not closed for over the last 100 years (I SAID ADULTS, IQ is more malleable/less heritable in childhood), this suggests the IQ gap is heritable.
>MUH LEWONTIN'S FALLACY
Kill yourself you retard, improve the gene pool.
nytimes.com
Being fit to an insane environment isn't necessarily a good thing. If the environment is "alien dictators have made it illegal for high-IQ, productive, attractive, charismatic individuals to reproduce" ok ,sure, technically those individuals are "unfit for the environment," great point you fucking idiot.
There is no treatment for autism, if there was, Holla Forums would be deprived of such icons as Libertarian Socialist Rants, and its core demographic.
don't mention it potatofam, fascists feefees should decide what is done with your life
you keep arguing about IQ yet you still haven't proved IQ measures intelligence
Yes, I did
But you're arguing in bad faith. Even the intelligence researchers that argue the black/white IQ gap is not heritable don't pretend that intelligence doesn't predict job performance, correlate with income, inversely correlate with crime, it's positively correlated with every beneficial socioeconomic outcome you could think of, which you wouldn't expect if it was just some arbitrary measurement of how well you do "on this test."
I'll post some more
Roberts, Dorothy (2011). Fatal Invention. London, New York: The New Press. "The genetic differences that exist among populations are characterized by gradual changes across geographic regions, not sharp, categorical distinctions. Groups of people across the globe have varying frequencies of polymorphic genes, which are genes with any of several differing nucleotide sequences. There is no such thing as a set of genes that belongs exclusively to one group and not to another. The clinal, gradually changing nature of geographic genetic difference is complicated further by the migration and mixing that human groups have engaged in since prehistory. Human beings do not fit the zoological definition of race. A mountain of evidence assembled by historians, anthropologists, and biologists proves that race is not and cannot be a natural division of human beings."
...
saldy you didn't, all you proved is some people are better at transfering mathematical and geometric knowledge to a piece of paper, hence why studying an IQ test can increase your result
it measures your acquired knowledge, not your intelligence
The modern world is one of the most comfortable environments there has ever been for humans. If you can't reproduce now, you're either sterile or a failure.
Well seeing as none of those traits apply to you, the alien overlords will be good for you.
Yes there is. If you put a gun in your mouth and pull the trigger I guarantee your autism will be gone.
"There Are No Race Genes
A “race gene” is a gene that is present in every member of one race and only members of that race. Such genes do not exist. Some people think that the non-existence of race genes shows that races don't exist either. But this does not follow, because no great racial theorist has ever utilized a notion of race that was contingent upon the existence of “race genes”. Prior to the 20th century, races were almost always defined by where your ancestors came from and what your hair, face, skull, skin color, and general anatomy looked like (Hamilton 2008). In the 20th century race continued to be tied to ancestry, but the traits scientists used to infer ancestry changed from observable physical traits to gene frequencies (Ayala 1985) (Reardon 2005 Chapter 2).
When race realists of the past talked about racial differences in gene frequencies they meant that certain genes were more common among some races than others. It never meant that every member of one race had a given gene that no member of any other race had. Because of this, the non-existence of race genes cannot be taken to demonstrate the non-existence of races."
"Any time we categorize objects we decide to group things one way as opposed to another. In this sense, all categories are social constructs. If we wanted to, we could get rid of the category “table” and, in its place, invent two new categories: one for all “tables” that are brown and another for all “tables” that are not brown. Of course, it is more useful to have one single category which denotes all tables and so that is what we go with. But the point is that we choose to “go with” one category scheme and not the other. Thus, there is something “social” or “artificial” about all categories.
But this isn’t specific to race. All categories are tools and their validity must be determined by whether or not they are useful. And I have already shown that race is useful.
It is worth noting that most biologists have always known this about race. Some of the first biologists to talk about race, such as the previously referenced Linnaeus and Blumenbach, commented on the fact that racial categories were invented by culture and, to some extent, arbitrary (Stuessy 2009) (Blumenbach 1775). And yet both men knew that human races had real and significant biological differences.
Clearly then, race realists have long known that race is a “social construct” and pointing this out does nothing to refute the race realist position."
therightstuff.biz
Self-identified race matches genetically detected race.
"What makes the current study, published in the February issue of the American Journal of Human Genetics, more conclusive is its size. The study is by far the largest, consisting of 3,636 people who all identified themselves as either white, African-American, East Asian or Hispanic. Of these, only five individuals had DNA that matched an ethnic group different than the box they checked at the beginning of the study. That's an error rate of 0.14 percent."
'This shows that people's self-identified race/ethnicity is a nearly perfect indicator of their genetic background,' Risch said.
med.stanford.edu
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Again, you're arguing in bad faith, I feel no obligation to prove again what I've already proven. www1.udel.edu
you haven't proved anything about IQ determining intelligence tho
wanting to get btfo for a fifth time?
Reproductive fitness is not a binary value. High-IQ whites who produce a few productive children are less "reproductively fit" in present society than 80-90 IQ blacks who leach off of welfare and have 6-8 kids. If the state wasn't creating an illusion of unlimited resources with inflation, borrowing, and wealth transfers, then blacks would again be limited in reproduction by their own productivity, making them less fit, the government has created an artificial environment which encourages the reproduction of deleterious alleles, this isn't "survival of the fittest."
I'll off myself right after you pull the potato out of your ass you mick faggot.
...
...
Never stop posting.
Done.
blame capitalism for taxation then
...
also, yes, actually blacks would reproduce more without goverment help, this according to your r/K meme
seems like not only your IQ rethoric proves itself wrong but also you r/K meme one
sucks to be you
How does it feel to be a failed organism who will never pass on your beta genes?
This is proof you're dumber than any nigger.
Most of the children of single mothers would starve to death. So, even if they had more "successful" pregnancies, they'd have much fewer children reaching adulthood.
"Hispanic" just means Spanish and Portugese speakers and the associated culture. It isn't a race, it's a similar concept to Anglophones or Francophones.
yet africa is projecting to have a bigger population than asia
You realize Africa receives billions in foreign aid, not the least of which is food?
Right, so instead of having 1 or 2 kids the mother has 8.
And all 8 starve because whites aren't forced to pay for them. Survival of the fittest.
How does it feel to be a failed organism who will never pass on your beta genes?
No, even if half of them starve 4 would still be around. The reason Africa's population is shooting up( and has always been high than European populations) is because they're shit material conditions require them to have more kids. Wanna provide a source on your claim at least?
top kek
"Ernst Mayr, in full Ernst Walter Mayr (born July 5, 1904, Kempten, Germany—died February 3, 2005, Bedford, Massachusetts, U.S.) German-born American biologist known for his work in avian taxonomy, population genetics, and evolution. Considered one of the world’s leading evolutionary biologists, he was sometimes referred to as the “Darwin of the 20th century.”
britannica.com
Harvard professor Ernst Mayr sorted subspecies with the 75% rule:
"A population is a valid subspecies if 75% of individuals the individuals differ from 97% of the individuals of the individuals of a previously recognized subspecies." p. 109
or
"If about 90% of Population A is different from about 90% of Population B"
If you take 100 of Population A and 100 from Population B, if you mix them together, if you can resort them back into their correct population about 90% accuracy that's a subspecies.
I would have no trouble sorting 100 individuals back into their respective subspecies.
If only language worked that way, nice meme!
What claim?
Are you implying the feelings of a beta nazi isn't a credible source?
Judging by your posts, that's how you think facts work.
How does it feel to be a failed organism who will never pass on your beta genes?
...
thats what we have been telling the fascist, but he keeps reapitng something about IQ and big black cocks
Even the former fucking breadbasket now has to import food, thanks to purging evil whitey. If the rest of the world died tommorow, most of Africa dies with them.
news.bbc.co.uk
"Iran's critically endangered cheetahs are the last remaining survivors of a unique, ancient Asian subspecies, genetics experts reveal.
New analysis confirms Iran's cheetahs belong to the subspecies Acinonyx jubatus venaticus.
DNA comparisons show that these Asiatic cheetahs split from other cheetahs, which live in Africa, 30,000 years ago."
30,000 years in Persia, out of Africa = a new subspecies.
Classic Recent African Origin Model theory is that humans were in Europe starting at least 40,000, up to 60,000 years ago.
Let's get this right:
-Cheetahs become distinct separate subspecies in similar environments with no real winter after 30,000 years apart
-Europeans spend at least 40,000 years out of Africa, Asians even longer, BUT WE'RE ALL DUH SAME from the neck up!
I'm going to keep asking until you answer the question.
How does it feel to be a failed organism who will never pass on your beta genes?
Nice projection.
Our phenotypic variation is extremely low. What you cite is usually only applied to animals with very little gene flow, with humans that isn't the case. Using this criterion, it would be hard to place a Greek and an Anglo back into their respective countries considering(just like with blacks and asians) they would like a combination of the two. So there are either over 200 different races, or due to human gene flow the biological variation between race doesn't allow us to use the classification of subspecies accurately.
Stein looks incredibly not Jewish. I wonder if it's just an anomaly, or whether she comes from a line of especially European Jews.
imported food =/= food aid
if only your autis.. sorry ur IQ helped you to differentiate this
Wrong reply
...
How does it feel to be a failed organism who will never pass on your beta genes? It's a simple question, be a man and answer it.
bravo
kek
photoshop isn't this fast
...
I actually like the term "Anarcho-Greenie" better than "primitivism". Civilization should have stopped with the Caliphate
maybe you are really good with it
Anyway comrades, I'm actually 1/4 brown people and I have a date with a cute German girl in a couple weeks. I wonder what Holla Forumss love life is like?
Keep projecting cuck.
How does it feel to be a failed organism who will never pass on your beta genes?
Good on you m8. I had a pretty good time with my gf last night but the bitch is too busy studying to fuck me right now.
They've got a hot date with the waifu pillow.
Why are non White women so fucking ugly?
Better check your racism first.
...
How does it feel to be a failed organism who will never pass on your beta genes?
It's a simple question, surely if your IQ is above 80 you can accurately describe what it feels like to know you will never reproduce.
Holla Forumsyp post nudes you've gotten from girls since you are sucha alpha male :^)
...
Why can't you describe it to us little Holla Forumsyp? Do you lack the vocabulary? Here I'll start you off: Knowing my genes will never be passed on since women find me abhorrent, I feel very (blank)
You can take it from here!
I've got one.
How does it feel to be a failed organism who will never pass on your beta genes?
Do I need to write you a template?
...
I did and he STILL doesn't understand it.
How does it feel to be a failed organism who will never pass on your beta genes?
If words are too hard for you just post a pepe or wojac that is closest to how it makes you feel.
I know. The fact that a stormcuck can't even answer a question with help says more than his autistic rants about IQ ever will.
Holla Forums was BTFO, since no one is addressing the mountains of evidence I presented (and when they tried it was just bullshit like Lewontin's fallacy that was debunked years ago), I'm going to call it quits.
Clearly the dumb mulatto on welfare and paddynigger NEET are just going to repeat themselves until they stop getting a response and call that a victory.
I'll leave some redpill resources before I go
www1.udel.edu
soundcloud.com
youtube.com
Hold your pillow tight, she'll never leave you!
We've been through this a million times. I refuted the part about "le subspecies" meme because subspecies generally refers to organisms that for various reasons, would not mate naturally in the wild even though they can produce fertile offspring. Furthermore, the same test in would apply just as easily to different European males as they would do blacks and asians.
Lewontins point is not that "lel races doesn't exist generally" but that they aren't the most basic breakdown of biological diversity. The point is that "races" are not homogenous and are an invalid taxonomical classification. Here are some examples where whites score lower than darkies on average. Furthermore, a lot of these people are second generation immigrants and they haven't regressed to the mean. Academic performance is correlated with IQ.
Furthermore in .4 isn't a high enough correlation to be significant. Einstein had a small brain as well.
Oh come on hammerfriend, we've all seen the infographs countless times by now. Responding seriously to these fags is a waste of time because any evidence that doesn't validate them is "cultural marxist jewish lies and you're a r-selected cuck if you believe otherwise". Just call them faggots and point out that if held to their standards they'd be considered unfit organisms that deserve to fail.
fuck off sudaca. The woman in OP is clearly a hispanic (as in a woman from spain). Hispanic != some native american convert to catholicism.
Leftism, obviously, the one thing you didn't want to hear which is why you retreated to leftypol for a heaping dose of confirmation bias.
...
Come on fam, he's got us figured out. We want to stop unfuckable stormniggers from reproducing because our space communist masters need a hardy mixed race humanity to use as soldiers against the Intergalactic Demonic Reich. Might as well just admit it, we've already won after all.
Leftism, obviously, the one thing you didn't want to hear which is why you retreated to leftypol for a heaping dose of confirmation bias.
ID Holla Forums gtfo
lol nazi user these are all jewish women
because leftism made them that way, you're on a board filled with beta cuck white boys and about 4 quadroons.
OP made a sweeping judgement about an entire race of women and then accuses others of racism
Wow..you won CUNT OF THE DAY not easy here but congratulations!
only southern spaniards
hispanic refers to beaner spics who are a mix of spanish conquistadors muh dicking the native amerindians
if you think white women arent feminine you can blame rampant liberalism and womens suffrage for preaching feminism and equality for the last century to them
all its created is a culture that rewards them for emulating castrated men instead of celebrating and striving towards the qualities of femininity
instead femininity is celebrated when its displayed in men and vice versa for masculine values in men
equality will lead to us all becoming androgynous hairy hemaphrodites at this rate
only southern spaniards
hispanic refers to beaner spics who are a mix of spanish conquistadors muh dicking the native amerindians
if you think white women arent feminine you can blame rampant liberalism and womens suffrage for preaching feminism and equality for the last century to them
all its created is a culture that rewards them for emulating castrated men instead of celebrating and striving towards the qualities of femininity
instead femininity is celebrated when its displayed in men and vice versa for masculine values in men
equality will lead to us all becoming androgynous hairy hemaphrodites at this rate
newfag
That is way too confused.
Being a smelly curry bobble-head designated-shitting-street slob is conservative, but how is that feminine?
How about the fat-as-fatass loud, obnoxious and rude Hispanic?
The only stereotyped conservative that is attractive is jap, non-american-western or eastern european.
Because gender roles are a spook and the western world has reached a level of material advancement where traditional social constructs are massively challenged.
It also ought to be said that people regardless of gender in the Anglo-American world generally eat like shit so wouldn't exactly look feminine either.
nigga women don't exist femininity is the only thing that exist, look at these pics both of these niggas are phallic yet one is feminine the other is masculine
read Lacan
Materialist analysis ? you are asking us to link between subjective false human category and link it to the individual relationship between the individual and the means of production
how many layers of retardation are you in ?
H O W ABOUT Y O U READ S O M E FUCKING B O O K this time pol
and how many levels of shitty grammar i am in
kek
My absolute greatest fetish is turning a butchy, bitchy rainbow-hair dyke into a loving, nice, feminine, submissive little girl.
It's just a fantasy, but it gets my rock hard
dumbfuckville Holla Forums
I have no idea what I'm talking about: The Post
what you did was commit a blatant contradiction; your materialism is just as much of a "social construct" as anything else, and so is just as false.
stay assmad :^)
Ah, I see, you probably mean the marxis'd ones with warning hair colors, obesity, idiot doorknockers in the nose, and so forth.
Well, a prize dog with mange won't look as good, either.
No, they are not.
Neither are they "constructs of society".
The other way around is the truth, actually.
You think you'd be living in the same society if being a tumblerista with open relationships/homosexuality, were the default/strongest position?
Nay.
Society springs from conduct, it's a feedback loop to an extent, but every time you mess with people, you change society, too.
How are fixed ideas on how you should behave not spooks?
...
all you're implying is your implicit racism :^)
… And what is your basis for such a bold claim?
This is Alessandra Kollontai, Russian bolshevik and feminist advocate of free-love.
and she is dominated by white, patriarchial beauty standards of the 19th century. So, again, you're implying your implicit racism and sexism.
:^)
hello Holla Forums
sorry I busted your torture chamber
_torture chamber_**
Your argument is the same as "lol commies have iPhones how ironic heh?"
...
If you remove monogamy and reinstate "the alpha takes all" (which women will gladly accept) then you'll have men fighting over women again, because both sexes want to propagate the species, if they're healthy, of course.
Men who fight over pussy don't exactly bring you into space, so to speak.
Biology and human behavior, cause and effect.
How many surviving homo pride parade free love open relationship civilizations do you know?
Yes, but only to an extent.
I've seen shitting in a toilet instead on the street as an example before.
As in, "You can conquer your instincts and stuff and shit in a toilet instead of anywhere you are."
But I consider that aiming at the wrong thing.
You just change where you shit, not actually conquering human nature to shit in the first place.
Same with sex/procreation.
You know, the thing that keeps the species going and gives meaning to any achievement or effort beyond the current generation.
Those are not spooky things, those are just simple biological facts.
this is what a feminist looks like. What you posted is a relic of an oppressive white society. By using that relic as an example of beauty, you're implicitly supporting its oppressive structures.
so you are a racist and sexist
...
I'm not arguing anything. I'm just having a giggle at your expense.
Is your physician aware that you take all of your meds in one go?
What's wron with "opression" tese women are talking about, anyway? Some measures of opression are essential.
It's all Krustchew fault, he was a closet homo.
What's wron with "opression" tese women are talking about, anyway? Some measures of opression are essential.
It's all Krustchew fault, he was a closet homo.
...
Yeah, he told me to take an extra hit of oxygen to the brain, actually.
But you don't believe in "medication" like that.
Except that's not what happened. Quoting Engels:
"Bachofen is also perfectly right when he consistently maintains that the transition from what he
calls “Hetaerism” or “Sumpfzeugung” to monogamy was brought about primarily through the
women. The more the traditional sexual relations lost the native primitive character of forest life,
owing to the development of economic conditions with consequent undermining of the old
communism and growing density of population, the more oppressive and humiliating must the
women have felt them to be, and the greater their longing for the right of chastity, of temporary or
permanent marriage with one man only, as a way of release. This advance could not in any case
have originated with the men, if only because it has never occurred to them, even to this day, to
renounce the pleasures of actual group marriage. Only when the women had brought about the
transition to pairing marriage were the men able to introduce strict monogamy – though indeed
only for women."
Also the form of marriage is determined by material conditions, not much by the will of propagating the specie. If that was the case, we'd still have free sex without marriage.
...
How is materialism is a social construct
go ahead tell us
Quoting that is nice and all, but the fact of the matter is:
Men want women and women want men.
Men have the testosterones (even if that's hard to believe nowadays.) and not getting the nookie nookie frustrates many of them.
Therefore monogamy is best for society because it's the most "pacifying".
Women, on the other hand love strong genes, so if they could get away with only getting the best sperm inside them, they would.
(This does not scale to big populations, though, but the only reason we have such big populations in the first place is because of monogamy, too.)
pretty much any worldview is a "social construct". The Marxist notion of progress for example is basically just another religion.
thus, it is pointless to complain about something on the basis of it being a "construct" since any such complaint implicitly witholds from constructivism a non-constructed real referent by which it rejects "constructs", but that too is a construct, so your entire argument is undercut :^)
Japs are flat as boards and have alien skulls.
Spics are white, as for the crossbreeds in south america, they don't count as a race outside of America.
Arabs look like niggers, they just hide it under rags.
Unpolluted white females are the best.
not knocking on mestizos, but seriously goyim?
let me get this straight :
materialism: martial reality is the source of ideas is the same as the general will to a given society
you are a retard
...
Roles are spooks because they only exists as ideas in the spirit's world, and subjugating individuals to their will is the only way they impact real life. My materialism is not a spook because it serves my self interest, and would become one if one day I sacrifice myself to it.
That also means if for some women behaving according to their role makes them happy, let them be, and if they are happy rejecting their role, let them be too.
Men want women and women want men.
indeed
indeed
The total emancipation of women, in a communistic society, would result in a monogamy for both sexes. Generally speaking.
Couples would form and dissolve freely from both parties.
Then of course if some people wanted to have group marriages or whatever kink, there would be nothing wrong with it.
marriage was a mutual social-contract to prevent the races from destroying themselves so as to maintain a semblance of order, and this was a Christian notion of order of barely sublimated equality. You give a little to get a little, literally. Its that simple. The gommunism is autistic sperging nonsense.
nah, you're the dumbass, bud. You're so far up your own ass that you no longer recognize your own autism.
you're basically saying your materialism is not a spook because it is materialism. You're just re-referencing your own construct, doubling-down on it doesn't make it any less of a social construct (spook), though it is inevitable given that you too are participating in a religion.
sorry to bust your bubble
No, I'm saying it is not a spook because for me, myself, it is useful. If it wasn't useful for me and I was still clinging to it, that'd be a spook.
yes, you're saying your materialism is not a spook because it is materialism. "Useful" here is contextually determined, just like roles.
That's not what I meant, so I'll dumb it down for you.
Materialism, for me, is not a spook because I like it very much.
You're retreating now. Before your thought it could be rationally defended until I pointed out that the rationality you were using was itself irrational, and now you've retreated to muh feels, thus proving everything I've been saying. By your own admission now, roles too can't be spooks since some people also like them very much.
stumped :^)
Roles can be spooks for some and for some other can't. Same thing for whatever idea there exists.
Posts Pale-skinned "Brown" woman. What, can't stand dark chocolate?
Material reality is in the purest possible sense not a social construct. The exact opposite of a social construct if you will.
Here's what you ought to understand. Whether or not something is effective at regulating social behaviour doesn't make it any less of a spook. It might make it a spook you would reconsider abandoning, but none the less it's just as much of a spook as any less "desirable" fixed ideas.
Also
Getting real spooky in here.
but that's not what you were saying before. BTW, retreating into the perspectivism I've employed to try and nullify my attack also undercuts the materialism since its "universal homogenous state" claims too are now contextualized, which is to say destroyed.
I was saying gender roles are spooks, and they surely are. Then if some women are using them for their advantage and whatso, good for them, but for most it is a spooky spook in their heads. Same thing for materialism, just I can hardly think of anyone that is spooked by it. Materialism is a tool to analyze history and society and so on, you can call it a spook just for the sake of it, since how can you be spooked by a worldview which is still rooted on self interest? You can call it a spook rightly because maybe in the USSR people were a bit too much into it and killed some innocents.
Another PDF on the closing of the black white IQ gap.
I've always found Rushton's rhetoric in this regarding cultural bias in IQ test very misleading.
this
bois are the best death to all traditional femmes
I don't give a fuck, it's not an IQ test. Not all academic test for "g" as well as the SAT, and the SAT gets up to about a .83 correlation with IQ, if there's two populations and one has a higher SAT score that's suggestive that the higher scoring population is more intelligent, but not definitive. It's even less definitive when you're using a test which could have an extremely low correlation with IQ. The fact that you also failed to post the source of those infographs makes me discount them even more, the source probably says a variety of things that are unflattering to the idea that you can present this as "lol totes legit IQ test." The fact that Nigeria has an average IQ of 84, and Nigerians are outscoring Brits on a test, means that you're looking at the first generation of the most intelligent and most ambitious people who left Nigeria; there are 800,000 blacks in America with IQs over 115, if we sent them all to Poland and tested their children for the first generation, yeah, they might outscore the Poles on academic tests for 1-2 generations, give them an IQ test on the 3rd or 4th generation and you'll see they've regressed a long way towards the mean of 85, not saying all the way but certainly below 100. They'd probably end up around 95 or 90, because you're only breeding from the most intelligent, in reality this doesn't happen because people aren't that picky about IQ.
Way to not address my argument, you're just asserting the opposite with no reason as to why Ernst Mayr is incorrect
>We've been through this a million times. I refuted the part about "le subspecies" meme because subspecies generally refers to organisms that for various reasons, would not mate naturally in the wild even though they can produce fertile offspring.
Wrong, subspecies can overlap in region:
"Resolving the migratory connectivity (identifying non-breeding grounds) of migrating bird populations that are morphologically similar is crucial for an understanding of their population dynamics and ultimately their conservation. Such is the case in Black-tailed Godwits Limosa limosa, where the Iceland-breeding subspecies islandica shows overlap during the non-breeding season with the continental-Europe-breeding limosa. On the basis of variation in the control region of mitochondrial DNA, it was already shown that there is a clear geographic structure in their phylogeography and a clear discrimination between the haplotypes of the two subspecies. We can thus assign subspecies of non-breeding individuals on the basis of a molecular assay. Here we validated this approach using samples of 113 birds with known breeding origin, and on the basis of haplotype variation, all birds were properly assigned to each subspecies. We then tested for overlap during non-breeding season using a sample of 278 birds from an Iberian wintering and staging area, the inland rice fields in southwest Iberia (Extremadura, Spain). We showed that even in this inland area, 6.5 % of the birds belonged to islandica subspecies, thus demonstrating the usefulness of genetic markers as an alternative or supplementary method to the most common approach, individual colour-ringing.
link.springer.com
Not to mention, humans met this category of "not mate naturally in the wild" for tens of thousands of years, the genetics of most racial groups are largely in tact, if they were subspecies in 500 AD when no racial groups had significant gene flow with other large racial groups, those individuals still carrying those genes which were distinct enough to be called subspecies then are still distinct enough to be called a subspecies now. Homo sapiens neanderthalensis didn't magically not become a subspecies as soon as they interbred with Homo sapiens sapiens, you fucking idiot. Not to mention I debunked your "LE RACE ISN'T SUBSPECIES" bullshit, which you haven't addressed.
Pic related, addressing muh "Human Races Are Not Genetically Distinct Enough To Be Valid Biological Categories": therightstuff.biz
this image is stupid, arabs live in asia too