How do we solve the bourgeois non-white liberal LARPing as a leftist attacking the white working class problem?
How do we solve the bourgeois non-white liberal LARPing as a leftist attacking the white working class problem?
Other urls found in this thread:
Hohei huahei as the Bedouins say.
gulag with affirmative action
What's wrong with her claim? There is no such thing as a specifically white segment of the working class. The "white working class" is a non-existent entity made up by populists who want to conflate ethnicity and class to their own political advantage.
Bully Lowtax into clearing out SA. He's been pretty close recently.
You can't win by attaching an ethno-label to class.
You are very special
she has nice lips
i want to breed ok
So the rust belt the people who lost hilary the election. Who were primarily white and are working class coal miners don't exist are you autisitc? Who do you think the American socialist parties of the past fough for?
If you weren't a retarded and pretentious pseud, you'd notice the claim is that no white can be working class.
No see what liberals are saying is:
We are saying:
You are missing the point completely
"white working class" is idpol, I fight for the whole class
antifa destroyed in a single tweet
she is /ourgirl/
He's saying race is a spook and the "white working class" is non existent in that sense, not that people labeled as "white" by society can't be working class.
What is she referring to? The UN with human rights?
society is a spook so therefore class doesn't exist, wow btfo
You misunderstand what I said. My point is that there is nothing special about "whites" within the working class, they do not have separate class interests as "white workers" from their fellow non-whites.
Claiming whites can't be proles is obviously beyond moronic. I doubt that would be the line of thinking of a gal nicknamed "sovietfangirl".
ok then, but non whites don't get to parade their culture and boast about being proud of their skin colour either
nothing more uncomfortable than watching someone screech "black power" or "brown power" and act if their views are somehow radical
but that's exactly what these retarded third worldists think
honestly it's amusing how many leftists have a chip on their shoulder towards whites
She has ok politics in general and she's hot af and she posts here, shame she's an obnoxious tankie
most of them are just ethno-nationalists who think that the goal of Communism is to defeat white people.
That's exactly what she thinks and that's what we're ridiculing. You have a severe case of autism.
are you implying that ideology isnt a greater driving force behind individual interests than class is?
Because if you are, and I think you are, then you're wrong
White = bourgeois liberal. There's no difference in practice.
Are you implying that race === class? (for you non-web-geeks out there, that's strict identity, not just equivalence)
Because if you are, and I think you are, then you're liberal and therefore wrong.
Nice job, comrade.
Not sure what "social tensions" have to do with the propping up of an artificial "white working class".
Are you actually denying that workers have common class interests in favor of some post-modern focus on ideology.
No I'm implying people act on ideological basis rather than material ones
No, I'm saying they don't know or care about their class interests because they're driven by spooks.
Ideology is a powerful thing you idiots
Thanks, fam. The worst is, the fact that most of the people whining about their precious (but illusory) "white working class" right now would be sperging out about "idpol" were they confronted by someone bringing up the (no less illusory) "black working class".
White and non-white workers share common class interests and people who try to divide the working class along ethnicity lines are mortal enemies of the revolution.
Are you suggesting the working class is currently class conscious and not subject to the dominant bourgeois ideology?
or like, anyone really
It's not artificial, whites by and large voted in group interest during the GE; and there's no "artificiality" behind the premise that there exists racial and social tensions in society that have pervaded class interests. You're trying to argue in a framework that isn't even historically relevant right now.
That doesn't change the fact that a "white" working class doesn't exist as some sort of separate entity. There is a difference between false consciousness and actual class interests.
If we followed your line of thinking, we'd also have to acknowledge the existence of, say, a specifically "heterosexual" working class on the grounds that there exists workers who embrace that identity.
The point being: subjective identity doesn't make class, objective relations of production do.
Yeah. We get that. People are talking about the "white working class" in relation to the election and looking at it within the bourgeois ideological paradigm to figure out why Trump resonates with some sections of the working class (by and large whites) but not others. Obviously all working class share class interest but they don't necessarily share the same social interests.
And the working class doesnt give a shit about those things because their ideological leanings are led by the state and the media
How do they differ in "social interests"?
Are you denying the very possibility of class consciousness?
Are you seriously trying to insist that the working class is class conscious?
When was the last time you went outside?
user, you're mistaken. People are laughing at her for believing that self-identified white workers aren't really workers(due to the fact she's a retarded turd worldist), while points out that self-identified white proles have same self-interest as other proles, which is correct, but has no fucking relation to what we're criticizing.
Social legislation affects different portions of the working class harder than others. Shit like abortion access, stop & frisk, right to work, etc.
Do you need any further proof that non whites should not be allowed in socilism?
like the person in the OP pic yeah
so long as they keep whining about whitey i'm inclined to agree
It's a problem of ideology, we kill off the SJWized ones and the problem is solved by itself.
Are these posts "ironic"? I hope so
My bets on latent Holla Forumsyp indoctrination bubbling up to the surface.
Imagine being so dense you don't notice two of these posts are pretty much bitching about SJW identitarianism.
except that's exactly what these clowns are trying to do
"fuck white people" solves nothing
if they act that way then i'm not going to care about racism
"fuck brown people" solves nothing either
I've never said "fuck brown people" either
I'm happy to work with anyone against capitalism, imperialism and fascism. I hate racism, but if their idea is just bashing whites and saying how much they hate white man all day long, nah, I'm out
Pride is not a public interest. If brown people are willing to set their status aside and fall in alongside us, they're comrades, period. Demands that we acquiesce to minority nationalism solely to appease the spook of diversity will be cheerfully ignored as the D&C tactics they are.
You think we all do that? Come on motherfucker don't strawman us all
Nobody is saying that. Are you a burger? "Minorities" are like 40% of the population
Porky is color blind
we is all niggers to the Corporations
We need to be like Porky in this regard
that wasn't a strawman
There are as many white nationalists-probably more as black nationalists.
well yeah, they're like 10x the population of blacks so it makes sense.
some on the left think black nationalism is ok
Stop competing, libtards. There's enough for everyone once people stop thinking that their tribe entitles them to anything.
Ignore the cries of attention
3x the population in burgerland. I'm just saying it doesn't make to say "fuck all black people they are just racist against us whites" when there are also many white people who are racial nationalists.
I may as well say the same thing and say fuck all white people because some of them are racial nationalists.
no, but it does seem to be growing sentiment, judging by what i've seen online (yeah laugh away but it is a sign of social trends)
case in point, fucking fringe opinions. These idiots are going to be a drop in the bucket compared to the strong-arm of the proletariat when accelerationism takes off.
White nationalism is also a growing sentiment
that's pretty much how it goes though.
Every female in every movement ever.
Well we should be above that. It's an unproductive vicious cycle
You killed Rosa.
t. Bernie Sanders
Good. j/k she actually wasn't like this so I don't know why you mentioned her. No-one approves of your SJW bullshit.
The only logical conclusion that comes to mind…
people believe what they're told; the only way to stop these types of calamities is to allow the material conditions to destroy their preconceptions, and give way to the awareness of the illusions of ethno-nationalism, and other social constructs.
this girl rocks. Hope she never stops tweeting
yeah she's definitely helping the right
could almost feel my anger rising as i read her shit
wtf I love communism now
and there's no end (rightly so) to the shrieking on the left to stop that
but when blacks do it, it's all good apparently
Maybe it's too crass but I agree with the sentiment.
Check your privledge.
and besides being top 3% means little
shh, don't respond to joke ideologies.
i hate americans
The "white working class" might technically be working class but they're spoiled traitors.
Too pampered and comfy for any revolutionary potential.
Not my comrades, nothing of value is lost.
leftist girls are always sexiest
Only White leftists say this type of inane shit.
So they agitate African-Americans for their so-called revolution.
not a fan of the ethnically ambiguous look with massive lips and a sluttish style tbh
Fuck off retard.
lol this is where non whites just come across as laughably bitter
no white person will listen to you, for good reason. why should we give up a supposed muh privilege
By sitting in our armchairs and complaining about them and anarkiddies.
IMHO, this isn't a strictly "non-white liberal" issue― as many white liberals themselves seem to be behind the push for their weirdo white-washed Maoist violent fantasies and their attaqs of the working class white people in America.
One simply has to view footage of the recent Berkeley riots and see the bourgie White students attempting to twerk to hip-hop music as they trash their campus instead of attempting to actually help the true working class… such as Appalachian "white-trash" and African-Americans in Detroit.
As most posters here know, liberals who play their silly games of "who is working class and who is not" are merely our enemies attempting to divide our Marxist dialect with their liberal bullshit.
She has a man face and baboon lips. Eww.
These people will be put against the wall too. They are merely adopting the form of the left with none of the function. They are parasite lifestylists. We must be rid of them because they too are reactionary in their own way. They need the oppression of the workers to remain so that they can keep pretending to fight the system. It will never be in their benefit to actually solve problems.
they use a very broad definition of fascism
really fired my frontal lobe tbh
Posadist agitprop best agitprop
First world privledge is very real.
Because upholding it hurts and exploits other people.
Nobody attempts to help anyone on that level. It's all virtue signalling.
The last time the Black Bloc cared about the big picture was in 1999 Seattle.
kys turd worldist
poor working class white people in their native countries are the overwhelming majority of the population and the original foot soldiers of the communist and socialist parties of the past
the left is doomed because in the West it no longer serves the interests of these people
the left now serves the interests of bourgeoisie metropolitan elites and their neo-liberal capitalist agenda
socialism is no longer about improving the living standards of the working class now its just bread and circuses for the poor
thats why the left is completely doomed
The US is majority white and the majority of the US poor are white. It's almost like you are so unfamiliar with statistics that you've never heard the term before.
Of course you mean liberalism, not the left.
And the reason for lumping the non-white working class to the non-white basket instead of the working-class basket is…?
Class has basis in material reality, race doesn't.
Who did that? There are working class people of all identities (even "bourgeois" identity). "Basket"s are artificial. They're cognitive models. A given entity can belong to multiple categories. Fuck off with your hierarchical thinking and come back when you understand psychology in terms of networks.
"White" people are distinct within the working class in the sense that idpol liberals will separate them from the rest and take a steaming shit on them. Driving poor/working class whites away from interest in wealth/class issues is a huge problem in the political sphere. Pull your head out of your ass with this naive theoretical bullshit and address what is actually happening poltically in the current century you cum-gargling turbonigger.
I guess you just skip genetics dont you
somewhere between Keynesian economics and your sociology tutes
Race isn't based on DNA it's based on the way that people classify other people according to appearance.
How is it real? Because we have more shiny shit to buy? Wow
Also I don't see how it hurts people. I don't consciously decide to oppress non whites for fun.
Privilege is a counterproductive concept. Focusing on people having things good instead of people having things bad is exactly what people mean when they say "communism wants to make everyone equal by making everyone poor." It may be the most obvious psyop ever and dumb motherfuckers like you will still fall for it.
The Democratic Party, of course, thence
I assure you I understand intersectionality and lateral thinking just fine, unlike '689 who appears unwilling to see the transpersonal exclusion along racial lines committed by the use of the term in common parlance. Nobody in the mainstream ever talks about the black working class; for some reason they're not allowed to be working class with us, which is what frosts me about the term. Love you too senpai.
no genetically other races are distinctly seperate from another
you can track a Briton, a German and a Hungarian and there is a distinct difference between the DNA of each racial group
Most of what you consume is harvested, processed, mined and/or manufactured by an over exploited third world labourer.
Your advantage in purchasing power comes from this exploitation. You might find it distateful, but at the end of the day it's a comfy station in life and you take it
Nailed it. It's born out of the anti-imperialist strains of communism's history. Imperialism has become synonymous with white, whereas resistance to that imperialism has become synonymous with ethno-nationalism among various non-white populations. The communist label simply means anti-imperialism to these people and has been extrapolated out to include any other form of "oppression" they can cook up.
Heck, the entire Chinese communist revolution was based on Chinese anti-Japanese and anti-western imperialist sentiment with Mao's loose understanding of economics sprinkled in.
There are general things you can draw there, but there isn't anything you can draw from looking at only DNA. You have to pre-define groups. Of course, this is circular reasoning. Material conditions, though can be described simply by looking at material conditions. This is the main difference.
well thats the fucking understatement of the century
look them up you idiot
i agree that third woorld exploitation is a real issue but what should i do as a "privileged" first worlder? starve myself to death? ;_;
But that isn't what people think of as race, and there is no reason to think this really has anything to do with things we deem important. Furthermore, you have the sticky issue of people who have children or are children of parents of different groups. Is this a new race? How, then do you define race properly? Oh wait, you can't. It's no wonder only internet racists think this is important while geneticists do not.
Also, I think it's funny that Phil hates her because she's not extreme enough
most racial groups are definable by the absence or presence of genes that correspond with haplogroups
a sufficiently mixed race mongrel could logically be defined as a new race if it possessed a unique haplogroup type
but for most its simply the presence of a certain haplogroup that defines their race
by haplogroups the entirety of North Africa and most of the ME can be defined by the J2 gene most prominent in semitic racial groups
most European racial groups are defined by their R genes where it can get extremely complex
stop shifting the goal posts, race isnt a fucking social construct it has a concrete basis in biology, you know ACTUAL fucking science
Good job failing to address my point, which goes to the heart of the assumptions of muh privilege. In a socialist society there'd be no need for the level of redundancy capitalism has produced and we'd see a surge in standard of living globally.
No, it's about retards not understanding that the human family tree both branches (hierarchy) and merges (network), making categorical thinking insufficient at best. What's worse is that racial categories are not even based on actual forks of human evolution, just surface-level impressions based on basic observation.
People don't do that though because genetic testing can't be done ad-hoc by just anybody. Instead they base their categorization on sensory cues. See the above response in this post for more.
Literal buzzword at this point. It's a legitimate concern that identities (all of which are socially constructed) can intersect and magnify each other, but the people who promote the ideas of intersectionality have taken on presumptuous roles as arbiters of Truth, declaring who benefits and who suffers. That would be a less sordid state of affairs if they had the capacity for a little more nuance but they don't and end up painting a batshit insane picture where all whites have it better than all non-whites or all men have it better than all women.
This is the precise logic used by reactionaries who think that "Black Lives Matter" contradicts "All Lives Matter" and feel the need to reaffirm the latter.
Let's unpack this, since you're insistent on spewing your cancerous retardation everywhere. Nobody in the mainstream discusses this because mainstream culture is shaped by bourgeois media. Booj liberals care about identity qua inclusivity among the bourgeoisie and booj conservatives care about identity qua exclusivity among all classes. The thing is that we're not the mainstream here. We're a socialist discussion forum. Why are you trying to drag the conversation into the booj-approved overton window? What I and other people are saying is that Trump et al spoke to white people in the working class and that won politically. Meanwhile, the opposition failed to speak to the white working class or the non-white working class and that lost politically. These are not "real" groups outside of the lines being drawn by the people who shape mainstream discourse. Recognizing that such distinctions have taken place and have had an effect on the political climate is not the same thing as agreeing with them you dense motherfucker. It's mere acknowledging how in this instance the superstructure (ideology regarding racial and other identitarian distinctions) has shaped and maintained the base (helped capital-friendly politicians get elected and end up furthering the short-term interests of capital).
And yet nowadays you can have people who have genes from many groups or lack others.
So you have to define race all the time because "mongrels" mix too. Is that a new race now too?
That's not how definitions work. Give me a working definition of race or admit it doesn't actually exist.
It's not shifting the goal posts. What you described isn't race and no actual scientists place any stock on the idea. You know, ACTUAL fucking scientists.
you can define groups by their genetic similarity
eg. germans are germans because saxons and bavarians have a genetic affinity compared to catalonians or other europeans, whites are whites because germans and spanish have a genetic affinity compared to nigerians or people living in asia
material conditions on the other hand aren't a permanent state (see Volksgemeinschaft in NS germany compared to social division in Weimar republic)
i guess it can be difficult to correctly assay someones genetic makeup just by looking at them
but phenotypical traits are usually a good indicator
i fundamentally find it difficult to believe in that
hierarchy is always going to exist at this point this dream of equality by raising the standard of living to me is like you're promising some form of religious salvation
i need to see it work once in a macroenviromental scale to believe it
Again, you've pre-defined Germans and found that those people hold x similarities. I could define a non-existent group in a regional area and then claim that genetics prove they exist as a genetic fact. They do not, however. As for material conditions, you're right, they can change for the individual, however the proletariat will still be the proletariat and the bourgeoisie will still be the bourgeoisie even if individuals change teams from time to time. This is what it means to be rooted in material conditions.
Check your privledge? Kill a porky? Finance the revolution? Buy fair trade? (lol)
Just kidding, I expect you to do nothing. If anything, and when the time comes, I actually expect the majority of the "white working class" to side with the capitalists.
You still have to show that this shit even matters outside of prevailing cultural tendencies that pre-judge people by these traits.
The problem, I would guess, is that you think I'm suggesting that the current lifestyle of westerners would survive communism intact. It wouldn't. A great deal of western civilization is a product of economic factors, primarily humans coping with being overworked. Most of the "needs" of westerners only exist to help deal with the unnecessary stresses of work and the existential angst of alienation. With those elements removed there is much less required of the economy to achieve the same "standard of living" (in terms of general happiness and health).
you'd really suck at ecology just saying
Nice lack of argument, you retarded faggot.
No worries. Eventually automation will render third-world labor itself obsolete. This is happening anyway, nothing needs to be done to make it happen.
I feel like your question is actually a stealth
and I feel like this is a low key Holla Forums thread on Holla Forums.
well in ecology we dont predefine anything
we observe new species use their phenotypical traits to lump them together in a group and then genetically analyse them and compare
most of the time its spot on with the phenotypes and species that look and sound similar are related
sometimes its not
we've done this with humans though too
where we've categorised people by their phenotype and called them Germans like Bavarians and Saxons and compared them with groups like Poles
and then we've genetically analysed them
and what do you know
unlike animals it seems we're even more spot on with correlating phenotypical traits and predicted genetic affinity and relatability
and a Bavarian is more closely related to a Saxon than either are related to a Pole
Except this is false. We knew of Germans and Bavarians before we found out about genetics. But that doesn't really matter, because you are now conflating different species with race, which just doesn't translate. You are being dishonest, but I guess you think you're too clever, right?
and a Bavarian is more closely related to a Saxon than either are related to a Pole
Yes, and your sister is more closely related to you than the President, but does that make you a different race there too? Where do you draw the line? Notice you still haven't defined race. It's because you can't and you know it.
race is just a human term for sub-species because we are oh so special creatures above the animal kingdom
there are a myriad of biological factors that could be argued to give more genetic distance between an arab and an indonesian than there is between a great dane and a shihtzu
because those are the largest scale genetic changes you can measure
so im giving people quite a lot of genetic leeway tbh
Except nobody agrees with you on this either. Humans don't have drastically different and isolated populations unless you eliminate all the in-between groups. Humans follow a gradient. You'll not that this excludes the possibility of calling something a sub-species. In either case, subspecies has no basis in biology either. This is an arbitrary class.
And I've already explained to you why that wouldn't work as a definition for race. You yourself admitted that this works "for most", but isn't actually a definition that has any meaningful reason to be except to justify your personal need for race to exist. There is a reason why real scientists place no stock in ideas like yours.
And? Either your definition is correct or it isn't. If you're aiming to please someone, then we can conclude that you might just be full of shit.
butt just because some people fail to properly categorize races it doesn't mean a scientifically accurate racial classification is not possible (one based on haplogroups for example)
germans = people whom are part of the great german cultural heritage (keep in mind that real culture - not the fake capitalist garbage passed off as "culture" or "art" - is the direct expression of the racial peculiarities of a nation)
You're doing it wrong. Sorry to the Holla Forumstard for moving the goalpost I'm not sorry eat shit
When people argue "race doesn't exist" or "race is a spook" is to highlight the fact that people of any race or ethnicity can fulfill any role in society.
and thats why noone believes your bullshit anymore
the refusal to accept hard accepted science as fact
well Rhesus antigens for one but im not going detail it all thats for you to research
what was that about no refutations?
and even more of the former congrats
and thats a fair point to make
I don't care if you're talking about what's theoretically possible. I am talking about what people actually do, and what people actually do is see a nigga and immediately judge him as some kind of subhuman ape.
Okay, then how is sub-species defined and how can I be sure it isn't arbitrary?
Derail what? Maybe you just don't want to actually post an argument.
You haven't refuted shit. Your definition still doesn't hold when taking into account populations that interbreed and it has no meaningful reason to exist.
Notice you're not even making an attempt at backing up your point now. Maybe it's time to give up, kid.
well if it looks like an ape
and smells like an ape
and acts like an ape
well come on
even indiscriminate purely logical machines and algorithms come to the same conclusions
If we jist rangebanned australians and americans these spergfests wouldnt happen
usually a good indicator of a species being a sub-species of another species is if they can successfully reproduce with one another
homo sapiens and chimpanzees are related to one another we're both great apes and you can even successfully transfer chimpanzee blood into a human and vice versa for blood transfusions we dont though because chimp blood is full of viruses and parasites we havent had any experience with and when great apes mix it creates things like HIV from SIRV
but you cant fuck a chimp and create a chimp-human offspring
but among the different racial/sub-species groups of human you can
d-does my officially confirmed neet status qualify me as a honorary fighter of the great capital interests??
everyone on 8ch has a vpn lol
Yeah, except all members of a species reproduce with one another. I asked you how you define sub-species without ambiguity. You still haven't done that. You've just defined species.
Visual recognition algorithms are not "math" although they do use math. Since they build their libraries based on input they are very easy to cheat (and have historically been subject to cheating). This kind of thing would just indicate that someone was deliberately fucking with the system to identify black people as gorillas. 4chan was wont to do so back in the day as a joke to reveal the problems with crowdsourcing that kind of thing. Holla Forums nowadays does it unironically.
also with larger racial groups they've found differences with concentrations of other hominid DNA
Caucasians appear to have high amounts of Neanderthal DNA caused by cross-breeding with the Neanderthal hominids
same with most Asians and the Denosvian hominids
and with sub-saharan Africans they've actually found traces of homo heidelbergensis DNA which is an even earlier hominid far more primitive and hairy than the Neanderthal and Denosvian hominids
the closest living relative to the Neanderthal is Europeans descended from Alpine populations
while for the Denosvian hominids its the Australian Aborigine and the Andamanese
you define sub-species by visually recognisable phenotypical differences
but by having genetic similarity enough to reproduce with one another and create hybrids
its not one race the human race
its one clade of Homo sapiens with various sub-species
That's a very tricky question, it depends on what's your source of neetbux and what you waste it on.
So are people with blue eyes a subspecies? Because apparently this is all that is required to define a subspecies now. Are ginger fucks a subspecies too? I guess according to you that makes redheads a race too.
butt every serious political project worth of this name is l*terally based on somethig that is "theoretically possible" and should therefore be put into practice
..unlike marxist socialism whom has been proved unsuccessful multiple times.. lol
no if you're feeling uncertain or triggered by this logic peruse some mendelian genetics and his work on snowpeas
it might give you piece of mind but probably not
according to the writings of some of the ancients anyway red hair, blonde hair, blue eyes and green eyes were far more common in certain populations back then than today
we can thank scores of invasions and massacres and plagues on that
You know how I know you can't into fancy book reading? Because you write like a fucking illiterate faggot trying to sound smart. You belong on fucking facebook.
welcome to the big leagues sir famalot
I'm asking you a question. The one that seems triggered is you because you can't into basic logic or consistency of your arguments.
what do you lose if there are subspecies amongst homo sapiens? It doesn't go against any leftist writing
You haven't made an argument, just a claim. But just off the top of my head, the Paris commune worked. Are you going to kill yourself now?
and I answered it
no redheads arent a seperate distinct race
that comes into the dominant/recessive gene area
but this simple truth triggers the liberal leftycuck
even though it doesnt influence his ideology much he psychologically cannot accept it for it invites doubt into his beliefs
what does the Paris commune have to do with human evolution?
This isn't about my Marxist beliefs. This is about refuting bullshit some faggot has made up. There is no scientific body that currently holds that race is based on biology and it is not a useful category anyway. The only ones claiming that race exists and is based in biology are retards that really want it to exist. I'm not offended because muh racism. I'm offended at the intellectual laziness and ideological motivation behind these posts. Science is beyond politics and his shit isn't fucking science.
You'll find far more clinical depression, suicide, and addiction in the first world than third world. I don't know how to measure happiness but that would be a good starting point. Your entire premise is false, people in the first world are subjected to disgusting forms of oppression and dehumanization everyday, and, often, can afford LESS luxuries than many people living in an average Chinese city due to porky's out of control cost of living.
Again, you want to know how I know you're an illiterate faggot?
You do know that people can identify the racial background of a person based solely on skeletal records right?
But they are different and interbreed. That's your definition. Why are they suddenly not a race?
So do other human traits retard.
So in the end your definition for sub-species still has no fucking grounding in biology. It's simply a convenience for talking about geographically isolated groups of the same species with no gradient. How retarded are you?
can you leave the whom meme alone pls?..
it took me hours if not days to force it
i hope you understand
They can also identify readheads with hair record fam
Redheads are a race now
fucking laughing so hard at you right now
as i said
that comes into the dominant/recessive gene area
genetically red heads are indistinct from a brunette of the same race
theres a phenotypical difference but no genetic one
so its not a different sub-species its just a variation of that species like an albino
racial groups however have their phenotypical differences backed up by genetic differences and variations
ergo they qualify as different sub-species
get it yet?
You can identify race by hair records too that's correct.
coincidentally geographical isolation is a great driver of the evolutionary process of speciation which can result in a species diverging into seperate sub-species
> The nose: The nose provides multiple race indicators. In whites, the nasal aperture is long and narrow, with a high bridge and a sharp nasal sill (the lower edge of the nasal aperture projects sharply outwards). In blacks, the nasal aperture is short and wide with a low bridge and a guttered or trough-like nasal sill. In American Indians, the nasal aperture is medium-sized with both a medium bridge and nasal sill.
> The mastoid process: The shape of the mastoid process differs between the races. In blacks, the bony projection is wide, in whites it is narrow and pointed, and in American Indians, a secondary smaller projection forms on the back surface of the mastoid process.
Except he's mostly referring to geographical definitions, not biological ones. Of course people from certain areas might look similar, but this doesn't mean what the other poster has been implying, and it doesn't give us any working definition for those that are multiple ethinc groups. Again, what race are those people now? Is Barrack Obama white or black? He's just as white as he is black. If we're going to have a working definition of race, then it should take that into account. The fact is that no definition will be able to do that because race has no biological basis or necessary meaning.
Yeah but humans are monotypic anyways
Redheads are a race now?
according to whom?
such a convenient admission
According to whom?
subspecies are almost solely defined as population variation due to different geographical histories. No one ever said that subspecies cannot interbreed. Just that when they do it creates a new subspecies.
No there have been different subspecies who have all had red hair based in different parts of the world. It solely cannot define what a subspecies is.
but by having genetic similarity enough to reproduce with one another and create hybrids
You're just contradicting what you said a few posts ago.
Except phenotypes are the result of genetics, so yes, there is a genetic difference. Or what do you mean by "genetic difference".
All phenotypical difference are backed up by genetics. So which differences are you talking about exactly? Or are you just making more shit up to make sure you have some definition to work with. This also gets us back to the old problem of mixed populations. Your definition still cannot deal with those, or maybe you'll claim that you can have a race consisting of a single individual depending on the mix.
Yeah, except humans are not genetically isolated like subspecies often are. There is always a gradient there.
Wrong, monotypic differences are not subspecies
So according to you, there can be such a thing as a race consisting of a single individual and each time those "subspecies" interbreed, then we get more new subspecies. And you think race is a meaningful definition?
This is an appeal to the rulebook?
What does this post mean in non-autism?
For things like organ transplants and differing genetic diseases it is a meaningful definition.
It's almost like the category is made up and has no meaningful reason for its existence.
Just like blood types
Blood types are races now
they were though werent they
for long periods of time
Not long enough to create subspecies tho
you know before wwii and untill early '50s many scientists openly acknowledged the existence of human races. Since then it has become increasingly politically incorrect to touch the subject and today it's basically a taboo to even say the word "race". And by the way not every scientist/biologist is a race denialist, many of them still admit that it's scientifically possible to classify the human specie into races (this is especially true among non-western scientists)
No, they weren't and there always has been a gradient. This is how humans came to cover the world. In either case, humans don't fit the bill to be called a subspecies and it's an arbitrary definition used for convenience anyway. There is no biological grounding for it.
It's creating new subspecies. The reason why it's hard to differentiate new breeds is the lack of skeletons to study
No. Living in the first world has lots of perks and you can't possibly be trying to deny it. I can find maps for any indicator of quality of life, all day.
Beacuse people in the third world with depression or addiction problems simply do not survive.
Bullshit. Cars, for example, cost the same around the globe. Guess who can finance one more easily?
I guess the excess of self determination, freedom, and consumer goods makes their existance feel vacuous?
But that is impossible due to the fact that there were no subspecies to begin with
Scientists belive the sun orbited the sun
The idea that the earth orbits the sun instead is literally white genoc1de!!
you can differentiate a homo sapiens from africa, asia, and europe based off their skeletal record. In fact it's easier to do that than to differentiate different species of wildebeest
Yeah, and they also believed other stupid shit. That's the thing about science: it moves forward.
Sure, and debate can be had about how useful the definition is if one really wants to, but so far the scientific community has done away with it and I see no way of it coming back. It's a stupid definition with no utility. Can race teach us anything we do not have the tools for now? No, not really. In fact, it's less precise a definition for working with populations, and even if we had a scientific definition of race, it would differ vastly from what any Holla Forumstard thinks.
You can determine blood type aswell, along with hair, these do not make subspecies
Yeah but thats irrelevant
Or maybe race doesn't really exist and you have to try really hard to shoehorn it over what we observe. If you believe these people are new subspecies, then you must also believe that it is possible to create a race consisting of a single individual. If so, then why should anyone give a shit about race since it can't really tell us anything?
nice try but it's not like 16th century astronomers stopped believing in geocentrism because it was "politically incorrect" to talk about it lol
And I can differentiate a ginger from a non-ginger. Does this make them a race? We can likely also differentiate between Europeans. Are there other races there too? We cannot know unless you define race, which you still have not successfully done.
Yes, there is a conspiracy to deny the existance of subspecies even though humans are of monotypic taxon
Obviously the goal of this is to epiminate the white race
This is 100% true
you know this "stupid shit" is actually used in many scientific fields like anthropology, forensic science, archeology, anathomy, paleonthology, histology, dentistry..
social construct magic lol
Blood types are also used on several sciences
Blood types are races now
But it tells us everything. Based on a simple sample you can tell what subspecies a person is from or what mix.
that's probably the big takeaway
Yeah but there are no subspecies because humans are monotypic
why does subspecies spook you so badly?
you know the genetic difference between humans and chimps (actual chimpanzees btw lol) is 1.2%… we are basically the same thing rite?
When someone tells you why your idea is bullshit, that's not really a sign of someone being spooked. Your idea is just stupid.
You forgot the definition for species, dipshit. Chips and humans don't interbreed.
Pic related, clement ostriches of monotypic taxon
Which different feathers
Obviously this is a jewish trick
There is no governing body for taxonomic classifications. Your appeal to authority is pretty funny.
This is exactly nazbol but it's taken seriously because feminists have a fetish for deeply triggering and problematic racism.
That's because they have the same exact skeleton structure. Wait do you really believe that race is just skin deep?
Yet you belive that your polytypic taxonomic order of humans holds any weight?
Obviously there isnt one because the jews want to elimimate the population of white clement ostriches
well blood groups can actually provide many interesting information about individuals
b+ type is prevalent among asian nations for example
still i wouldn't use blood types to classify races if that's what you're trying to say lol
I can understand why you're so stuck on hair color now. Your understanding of biology is based on the exterior. that's a big woops by you
So race is also our differences in blood types?
You do know that blood types go beyond the whole ABO groups right?
Yes this makes sense obviously blood types are related to geography lol
you know it is actually possible to cross different species if you want (hybrids)
are species social constructs too?
Yes but there are no different species in humans
Since you didn't read what I posted
yea the whole continent of africa being almost homogenous is just a coincidence lol
A species has a specific definition. Tigers and lions do not produce viable offspring. They produce ligers, which like mules are sterile. Chimps and humans cannot even do this. Your retardation seems to know no end. Read a book, nigger.
Differences within a monotypic tqxon a subspecie does not make
Lol keep on keeping guys
Oh nevermind I thought you were
Except that Africa has more genetic diversity between groups than, for example, Chinese and Brits. Are you fucking retarded, kid?
as i said before i'm not claiming races are defined by blood types..
why do you keep assuming it? lol
Are you under the belief that subspecies are 100% different? If you have different genetics, different skeletal structures, different blood types exclusive to your race, different Autism Levels, different skin tones, different facial structures, different diseases. What's so bad with admitting that there are different subspecies in homo sapiens?
How are human races defined then, based on what do you label them as subspecies
Have to prove it first, just because it makes you angry doesnt make it true
Differences in monotypic differences are not only "skin deep"
Also based wordfilter
true, but this doesn't mean similar races can share certain characteristic..
that's what biological classification is all about
Well there is Homo Sapiens Sapiens, which is what we are. There isn't any genetic evidence of humans being that different so that they may be considered a different subspecies.
Monotypic differences a subspecie does not make
if you're really interested about the details you can look it up yourself with a google search, i'm not a biologist.. but i guess you're just asking to piss me off
lol nice pun
So if one race interbred with Neanderthals and another one didn't are you stlll going to claim that there isn't any genetic difference?
Hmmmm, that explains it
But who needs a biology degree, those are jewish anyway, you have pol infographics!
Genetic difference isnt race lol
in case you didn't know we're not doing this to convince one guy who thinks different colors of hair proves that there is no difference between the races. We're playing to the lurkers. When one side doesn't post any outside information and one side does it helps lead lurkers to more information. I bet a lot of people reading this thread had no idea that skeletal records could tell you what race someone had
I know dude. It means they're different subspecies.
This probably means that africans and whites/asians are not even the same species btw
Woke af dude! Remember people lack the same critical sense as you!
monotypic differences a subspecie does not make
So not only irrelevant shiting but also specie mixing is good? Better support more blacked porn!
see he only has one argument to make. He ignores the fact that neanderthals only interbred with whites/asians. If he had any bravery he'd follow that line of inquiry.
Are you saying we should support race and specie mixing? Better let more immigrants in then!
how can africans and whites be the same race if one is part neanderthal and the other isn't.
Fuck you tbh famlam
So are you saying whites are halfbreeds neanderthal rapebabies?
You do know neanderthals went extinct, obviously they were subhumans and couldnt compete
If whites are rapebabies of such creatures maybe we should geNOWcide whites hmmmmmm……
he keeps asking for increasingly complex biological technicalities i can't really answer myself and have to look up everytime.. i don't feel like wasting my time spoonfeeding him on the history of african blood types because he's too lazy to do it himself/doesn't really want to know (my neet time is valuable lol) and english isn't even my first language so it takes me time to read & write stuff
"The man of knowledge must be able not only to love his enemies but also to hate his friends." - Nietzsche
how can africans and whites be monotypic if one interbred with neanderthals and the other didn't?
You should learn what monotypic taxons are, the genetic differences do not account for a new subspecie
Anyway you didnt answer my question
Do you not believe in species differentiation then? Whites bred with neanderthals. Africans did not. How could they be monotypic. They have different skeletal structures. Different genes. They can't even use the same kind of bone marrow.
That seems like a big difference in genes to me!
If you don't believe in using subspecies in taxonomy for differentiation then the only answer is that whites/asians are a different species than africans. Nothing wrong with that. It doesn't go against any leftist literature. We're just different and that's okay man. We should celebrate it tbqh
>i know everything about biology
Because the genetic differences found within the monotypic taxon do not account for different subspecies, it doesnt matter who bred with who
This isnt difficult to understand
Yeah but not to taxonomists :/
>I know nothing about biology
So you're saying that a hybrid species is the same as one of it's breeding species?
So Ligers==Tigers and they're a monotypic taxon?
Do you not believe that neanderthals are the same as homo sapiens?
Wow that's a cool sentence right there
At least use Stirner for the edgeposting…faggot
Again, it doesnt matter who bred with who, what matters is the percentage in the genetic differences
The genetic percentage of a liger is different than the one in european neanderthal rapebabies
The genetic differences account for different biological types
Its not too difficult
The genetic differences found in european and asia rapebabies do notnaccount for a different subspecie, its not toomdifficult
>I know nothing about biology
you're shorting out.
do you also believe gender is a social construct rite?
Thats right, some genetic differnces do not accountnfor a name-bearing type, see
I am of different race than everybody because I am geneticallynunique and different to others
Those genetic differences do notnaccount for a name-bearing type
Keep struggling polyp
so you don't believe in taxonomy at all? Wild stuff
So you belive the most insignificant genetic difference account for a different name bearing type? Wild stuff
Obama is considered "black" by every one although he is half "white" and half "black". That is the social construct.
What is insignificant? Whites/asians got 1.5-2.1% of their dna from neanderthals.What's your cut off here bud.
What number do you want. We both know once you give it I'll find an example in the animal kingdom that fucks it up. Tigers and cats share 97% of the same DNA. Homo Sapiens and Chimps share 99%
If the fact that whites/asians and africans are at best subspecies of homo sapiens and at worst different species why should this bother you man? In fact I think it's pretty racist that you're trying to deny the rich history of African genetics and how they're pure homo sapiens.
What doesnt a count for a new name-bearing type
Open a taxonomy book and find out why
Theories change man. Why are you so stuck in the past about a classification system created 300 years ago. It clearly is not fit to deal with the fact whites/asians interbred with neanderthals while africans didn't. Some revolutionary you seem to be lol
You belive this lol!
what percentage of difference would qualify for a name-bearing type then?
Bull Terrier is considered a terrier by everyone although it is a cross between a Bulldog and a Terrier. Therefore dog breeds are a social construct.
you can't even type anymore man. You're a mess. Sad! Just remember though for the rest of your life. There is the blood of a complete different species in asians and whites. Africans however do not share this blood. And yet here you are crying about how different colors of feathers on an ostrich means that the fact that africans can't use white bone marrow is just a big ol spook
Scientists defined autism by studying me and then writing a definition based on what I found. I still managed to get what she meant.
There is no golden number at which one organism becomes a polytipical type, but rather what this percentage represents
You need to open a book to know this, this isnt in cherrypicked pol infographs lol!
This genetic difference does not accoundt for a different name-bearing type
Its not too diffifult like just open a book lmao
A+ blood types cannot use blood from other blood types
Blood types are race now
Nobody, not liberals or conservatives and futher right call him what he "is". You are black if you are black at all this goes for whatever race is lower on the social totem poll. The dog comparison is not similar at all.
So everything taught at university is true and should not be questioned in anyway? Might there not be very significant political reasons for why the biology field might not be willing to state that because of the genetic differences between whites/asians and africans that they constitute a separate subspecies. Is after all these hours your only argument still an appeal to authority? And do you not understand why it's hilarious to see a leftist rely on liberal controlled academia. Honestly you should just be posting threads from reddit as your argument. It'd probably go over better
Using the words "Black" and "White" (also Jew) on the thread OP should be a bannable offense.
Wow there are more than 600 races?!?!?
Yes, this is what happens in universities, when someone does a study he is not allowed to point out something, get it peer reviewed and adressed, you get castrated for this
Oh I forgot, it is all a jewish plot aswell! they are using Karltural Marxism which was developed by Frank Furtschool to genocide white populations
Damn how could I forgot this?!?!
Not going tomtrust you, mick
wait are you saying that ethnicities are not a thing too?
They sure are a thing, however they are spooks :^}
>In biological terms, rather than in relation to nomenclature, a polytypic species has two or more subspecies, races, or more generally speaking, populations that need a separate description.
>These are separate groups that are clearly distinct from one another and do not generally interbreed (although there may be a relatively narrow hybridization zone), but which may interbreed if given the chance to do so. These subspecies, races, or populations, can be named as subspecies by zoologists, or in more varied ways by botanists and microbiologists.
Looks like your definition based on polytypic types fits man perfectly
so according to you there's no difference between obama and a pygmy because people would call him black
Almost had it
This. Gene flow has always been super high in humans.
You have seen more than enough blacked porn to know that blacks and whites "interbreed" a lot user :^}
If they didnt they would be subspecies, but they do
So close, yet so far
A monotypic species has no distinct population or races, or rather one race comprising the whole species. A taxonomist would not name a subspecies within such a species. Monotypic species can occur in several ways:
All members of the species are very similar and cannot be sensibly divided into biologically significant subcategories.
The individuals vary considerably, but the variation is essentially random and largely meaningless so far as genetic transmission of these variations is concerned.
The variation among individuals is noticeable and follows a pattern, but there are no clear dividing lines among separate groups: they fade imperceptibly into one another. Such clinal variation always indicates substantial gene flow among the apparently separate groups that make up the population(s). Populations that have a steady, substantial gene flow among them are likely to represent a monotypic species, even when a fair degree of genetic variation is obvious.
Lol, seriously user, use a source that proves your point, not mine
are you kiddin me? lol
So wait your argument is that 300 years ago africans and whites/asians were seperate subspecies but they aren't now due to technology?
So Native Americans and Africans are 100% subspecies of homo sapiens. I'm glad we got an answer finally.
Humans were not isolated 300 years ago lol
No, native americans cant be 100% homo sapiens, as they crossed the bearing stretch, they are asians, like, are you stupid?
Asian and white rapebabies are not a different subspecie from native africans just because of their genetic makeup, itndoes not account for a different name-bearing type lol
Do you have ADHD?
Yeah that is not what I am saying at all. The social construct of race is about the arbitrary ways in which we group people together based on mostly superficial means. Not about pretending that physical differences don't exist. Obama can't ever be considered white, same as a person who is a quarter black and three quarters white. Although some people might draw the line at an 8th or a 32nd it's useless. Where does precisely does "whiteness" or "blackness" begin.
lol at google for having this be in the top results for 75% rule subspecies
Yeah they're a hybrid species I agree very different from Africans. I'm glad we're making some synthesis here man
The percentage of the genetic difference is irrelevant, it doesntn account for a new name bearing type, are you dumb?
yeah geographical location is super important too.
True, monotypic types can have genetic variation , but this variation does notnaccount for a name-bearing type, this means they are the same specie
Pretty easy right?
Africans are from Africa. Asians are from Asia. there is more genetic differences between the two than subspecies from many kinds of other animals. Humans are animals as well so we should not judge ourselves differently. Therefore Africans and Asians/White are subspecies.
WE FUCKING DID IT MAN
75% rule man I think we finally got it. Let's write a paper and become famous. It's up to us to prove to the world that africans and whites/asians are subspecies.
Nope, the genetic difference does not account for a new name-bearing type
Calling an early victory now? Are you ready to ragequit?
When in the same geographical location, monotypic humans reproduce with eachother, they arent subspecies otherwise they wouldnt produce fertile offspring
whoa subspecies can interbreed without worry. Even different species can. I think you need to reeducate yourself on this my man
the 75% rule is what is used most often to define what a subspecies is. I thought you knew biology bro
for more on it
Yes, but they do not produce fertile organisms, your wife's son is fertile, this means there are no subspecie
Lol! Who told you this?
you cannot really tell an eskimo from an aboriginal rite.. very similar!
negroids in africa, caucasoids in europe, mongoloids in asia, amerinoids in america… damn so randum!
so they can have imperceptible difference but ALSO present obvious genetic variation.. wow!
we're talking about genetics, not "superficial means". if people keep using scientific racial terms improperly it's their f*ckin problem tbh
that's the 75% rule as far as I can tell. seems to fit for africans since way more than 75% of the race is in africa.
Aesthetic differences do not account for subspecie differemtiatiom lol
Yes actually, do you belive there was intelligemt design behind this? Lol!
Well, it seems like you quoted something that proves my point, you should add this image to your infograph
Lol, proved wrong by your own post, this is what happens when you ragepost!
Like do you not know what subspecies are im really confused right now man I thought we were in consensus about all of this
Lol, where are you getting this information again? The 75% rule doesnt make sense, as there are animals that share more than 95% of their genetic material and are different species
The amount of genetic material is irrelevant, what matter is where the differences are presented and if the difference in genetic material represents themselves or not
Query isnt a taxonomy book lol
Lol, subspecies do not always form fertile offsprings, are you retarded? Mules and ligers are infertile, and you casually forgot
"whites" and "blacks" engage in sexual selection with one another, something subspecies dont do
If whites and blacks didnt selected eachother for sexual partners youmwouldnt complqin about getting cucked by tyrone lol
Since both whites and blacks enagage in sexualmselection with one another, they are monotypic indivoduals
Lol, i knew polyps were dumb but this is special
It's not genetic matter dude. It's geographical location. If 75% of a subspecies in centered in one location I guess that's the tipping point
wait are you saying wikipedia is wrong about what a subspecies is?
In biological classification, subspecies (abbreviated "subsp." or "ssp."; plural: "subspecies") is either a taxonomic rank subordinate to species, or a taxonomic unit in that rank. A subspecies cannot be recognized independently: a species will either be recognized as having no subspecies at all or at least two (including any that are extinct).
In zoology, under the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, the subspecies is the only taxonomic rank below that of species that can receive a name. In botany and mycology, under the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, other infraspecific ranks, such as variety, may be named. In bacteriology and virology, under standard bacterial nomenclature and virus nomenclature, there are recommendations but not strict requirements for recognizing other important infraspecific ranks.
A taxonomist decides whether to recognize a subspecies or not. A common way to decide is that organisms belonging to different subspecies of the same species are capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring, but they do not usually interbreed in nature due to geographic isolation, sexual selection, or other factors. The differences between subspecies are usually less distinct than the differences between species.
Lol no, again, open a taxonomy book, genetic percentage doesnt matter as not all of the genetic material is active to begin with
All humans orginated in africa, the geographic location is the same
Its sexual selection, and blacks and whites engage in it, they are monotypic individuals lol
Mules and ligers are from pairings between different species. Not subspecies pairing. if you're wrong about something as basic as that I have worries man
Ok, lets see just how stupid are you, explain me this sentence
All life did not an argument lol
Literally told you the 75% rule has nothing to do with genetics. Man you're breaking down here
Wrong, hybrids can be between subspe ies or species
Lol, read a book anytime!
notice you dropped the usually from that. you were almost slick
Which is why it is bullshit, glad we are on the same page
??? I was specifically talking about mules and ligers you brought up as an example. not all hybrids. you're owning yourself dude. Sad!
75% rule again since you never read it I guess. Notice the word geographically. Very important
The usually doesnt matter at all lol, if subspe iesmdo not usually interbreed, then whites and blacks are not subspecies as theyusually interbreed
Omg xd, you need to understand the topic better dude!
And I was talking about subspe ies and spe ies as a hole
Subspecies and species do not usually interbreed, white and blacks usually do, therefore theynare monotypic! Lol! This isnt rocket science!
..if only it was just about aesthetics..
lol nope - just pointing out that the racial differentiation is not random as suggested by the definition
and those ostriches you keep posting only differ for their feathers
that's like saying that racial differences i'm talking about are purely an aesthetic matter.. which is not
But isnt the 75% related to geographical location? If so it is irrelevant, we are discuasing genetics!
I know both start with g, but they arent too diffocult to diferentiate!
According to James P. Allen and Eugene Turner from California State University, Northridge, who analyzed the 2000 Census, most multiracial people identified as part white. In addition, the breakdown is as follows:
white/Native American and Alaskan Native, at 7,015,017,
white/black at 737,492,
white/Asian at 727,197, and
white/Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander at 125,628.
don't really fit the term usually when less than .3% of americans are black/white mixed
Whites and Blacks didn't interbreed 1000 years ago. were they subspecies then?
??? I didn't invent the rule dude lol
like this 75% rule seems like a big thing in taxonomy so I'm not sure why you don't know about it!
Oh so blood types are races now? Lol
Oh but it is, random doesnt mean they do not follow a geographical pattern
It doesnt matter lol, what matters is sexual selection, i already explaied it to the other mouthbreather
Subspecie/monotypic type is a social construct now? Lol why are you quoting garbage?
Yes they did lol, even a lot more years ago lol, they interbreeded with neanderthals didnt they?
Doesnt seem that important if its the older rule lo!
This is why you spend your young reading books and not pol infographs
Lmao, your own source proves your 75% rule wrong!
As usual the polyp completly embarrass himself when he steps outside of his safe space
Ill get online tomorrow at 7:00 pm and continue raping you guys
I've told you like 5 times the 75% rule is about geography and is something that apparently has a 50 year history.Weird as fuck you don't know it. Anyway though thanks for agreeing that race is decided by genetics. Knowing that then the differences between whites/asians and africans due to only one group interbreeding with neanderthals becomes pretty clear. Glad we were able to finish up and reach a consensus. Night man
jesus christ not again…
am i talking to a bot?
unlike ostriches sexual selection in humans is influenced by a shitton of different factors (cultural, educational etc,) The fact that you enjoy blacked videos so much doesn't mean that a multiracial sexual selection is encoded in your dna
w-will you post pics from your ostrich mega-folder??
What in the fuck is she saying?
But as your source said, geographymdoesnt matter
Nope, the genetic difference does not account for a new name-bearing type
Well sorry, but you claim genetic differences account for a new name-bearing type, hence blood can be used to specify race according to you
Racial differentiation is random because organisms randomly evolve, do you evenknow the law of negation?
It's almost like you're illiterate
these retarded nu-leftists just shove words together and call it dialectical materialism
this is the most retarded thing ive read this board
non-whites are lumpenprole
they need to be gulag'd after the revolution.
Seriously though, we can't let the immigrants get their hands on the means of production.
if non-whites are too stunted by racial spooks that's their problem
…. as well as the means to reproduction
stop strawmanning me dude. just because i claim certain genetic differences account for name-bearing type doesn't mean every single genetic difference should be used to create new groups. biological classification simply doesn't work like that. scientists define ranks on the basis of certain shared characteristics, otherwise the whole division of organisms in ranks such as domains, kingdoms, classes, orders etc wouldn't make sense: scientists created these groups on the necessity of identifying organisms in a simple and convenient way that could help them in their studies ..and some of these terms aren't even clearly defined by specic characteristics (the "protist" group for example include organisms that don't have much in common yet the term is still valid for the sake of practicality) or you knew there are organisms who are both autotrophic AND heterotrophic (oriental hornet), does this make the autotrophic/heterotrophic distinction unaccurate or "unscientific"? Now single blood types do not account for a practical division of humans races even though as i said before they can still provide interesting information about individuals.
yea then why even bother with the whole biological classification of organisms.. it's just random shit after all. why even bother studying anything in general? it's not like there some "intelligent design" behind that stuff.. rite? LoL
lmoa nice strawman again. if you seriously believe there isn't any cultural, educational, economical, social factor playing a role in human sexual selection and it's all about genetics i fear we're not living on the same planet lol
why does it hurt you so much to admit that we are not all the same preferring to be a blind race denialist is out of me..
The problem is whitey is too stunted by comfort to have any revolutionary potential.
right back at ya, just because some genetic differences account for a new name-bearin type, doesnt mean all genetic differences do, the enetic differences between humans do not account for a new name-bearing type
please keep struggling
yes, the key here is that some individuals are more genetically related to others, some account for new name-bearin types, other's genetic differences do not account for a different subspecie
culture, education and social factors were the result of humans, humans created the desire of sexual selection between monotypic individuals
we are not the same, we are all equally different :v)
however these differences do not account for a new name-bearing type
keep up lol!
and don't forget to check those trips, cuckold
Former SJW here. Not gonna lie, it's hilarious watching liberalism crash and burn, but seriously we can't let white men get their hands on anything.
They're harder to justify because it becomes uncomfortable if we use the rules of taxonomy that are used for every other living creatures for humans. If we did then they would be no way to not justify that there are separate subspecies in homo sapiens.
This isn't hard lol
Like just because a liberal says something PC doesn't mean it's true. You'd think lefties here would get that lol
I'm white and I hate SJWs but ever since Trump won, white people are getting are my nerves. I don't know exactly how to explain it, and I've never felt quite like this before.
start with people like deray mckesson
so is she a troll?
and that's where we disagree. my point is that these relatively small genetic differences contribute to differentiate us greatly, that's why a name-bearing type is justified. eg. San people and japanese people create very different societies in the long term (im not saying one is better than the other) If name-bearing types would help explaining the black-white test score gap why shouldn't we use them?
just because the genetic differences of certain individuals do not account for a different subspecie doesn't mean categorizations aren't possible. that's like saying that not having a definite dividing line between your body and the external world on the atomic level means it's stupid to categorize "individuals" or "persons". According to this logic the whole idea of biology is irrelevant and unscientific.. tbh all this deconstruction of the notion of "race" is nonsensical and can only lead to nowhere.
humans also created cultures that considered miscegenation "wrong" and "immoral". does this make man a polyptic specie?
i can agree on this
..but not this
looking through her tweets and she's a massive Assad and North Korea shill but memes give her PTSD
an interesting type of retard
in truth biologists are in the process of re-ordering the taxonomic system because as it turns out many of the species that have been lumped together in one clade arent genetically related at all and they have been lumped together based on phenotypic traits when they aren't genetically related
so now ecologists/biologists are currently genetically analysing all of the animal kingdom and re-ordering the taxonomic kingdom to reflect genetic relatibility instead of 'they look similar so they're probably the same species'
im laughing so hard, i started this shitfest speaking in scientific terms and look how its devolved, because some autistic liberals on here cannot and will not comprehend accepted scientific fact
nope, this is where you claim to know more about taxonomy than taxonomists, there cannot be a disagreement because that would put both ideas on a leveled field, but this is incorrect, you are simply wrong lol!
yes but this doesn't matter as you are not a taxonomists lol
this is irrelevant lol, societis do not exist as isolated events
categorization is possible as long as the differences account for a new name-bearing type, there is no such thing between humans lol!
nope, as other genetic differences do account for new name-bearing types
no, as the negation of the sexual selection in an specific group inside a tribe, does not eliminate the fact that humans produce fertile offsprings within the genetically different monotypic individuals
well, taxonomists seems more qualified to create taxons than polyps lol!
citation needed lol
this is a jewish plot!
you're implying that the totality of the biologists/anthropologists on earth are race denialists. Statistics and polls say you're wrong. And anyway taxonomy is a flexible science. eg: biologists/zoologists often disagree on the exact number of subspecies/breeds within a given animal species yet this doesn't make taxonomic classification a "wrong" or "inaccurate" science
..well are you?
like it or not societies and culture are strictly related to the racial background of their founders/individuals
categorization is actually possible according to many experts..
again you're assuming taxonomy/biology is a "black and white" science while it clearly isn't. (just like physics or medicine to be sincere) There are many "gray" areas that by your logic should make taxonomy an invalid science. read my previous message again
too bad (to quote your definition) "In biological terms a polytypic species has two or more subspecies, races… …who may interbreed if given the chance to do so" heh
the qualified ones do not categorize monotypic humans under "race", you are quoting "scientists" that have their own agenda
so why is your taxonomic definiton of subspecies existing in humans correct then?
I am not, however I am quoting qualified taxonomists, unlike you
they are on the wrong side of history user lol, those "many scientists" have an agenda
nice, but you forgot
humans usually interbreed in nature, therefore the differene is not that of a polytipic specie
remember user, they hey here is
humans do "interbreed"
human "interbreed" is fertile
despite being able to notice the differences between the monotypic human specie, there are no clear dividing lines among these groups
this happens with humans, lets see what gene flow means
whoops! wrong again lol!
the key here is*
and remember to check my trips again, cuck! KEK wills it!
This thread proves how depressingly far the left and race are apart.
I wish racism didn't exist but seeing the bloodthirsty nature of some towards whites just makes me want to give up
ehh, dont be too hard on them, many of them are new radicalized people that were annoying liberals this time last year
hmm i wonder if that has anything to do with the majority of the white working class being hostile to liberals and always siding with the people that fuck them over(and then get them to blame racial minorities). Huh, really makes you think.
probably because most 'liberals' are muh privileged babies
people who work 6 days a week from daybreak to sunset dont like being told what to do by a drug using, unemployed, sexually 'liberated' layabout who thinks by volunteering 5 hours a week at a vegan cooperative they are making their contribution to society and start acting like a fucking martyr because of it
the working class hate liberals because of what they are
and what they are is the metropolitan elite
funny cos i could say the same about the scientists you are quoting..
did you know China has an official consensus on race? guess what it is
fact is that non-western scientists are more likely to believe in race (they're less influenced by political correctness) but this doesn't mean you can't find biologists/anthropologist in the western academic world supporting the existence of human races
not gonna spoonfeed you with stuff you can find with a simple google search
eg. see pic rel. Source is Daniel Lieberman, professor of human evolutionary biology at Harvard university
because it works. Races can predict and explain things about our species. and predicting stuff is what taxonomy (and science in general) is all about. eg. researchers can predict someone’s self-identified race with more than 95% accuracy using measures of their skull, and over 99% accuracy by looking at their genome
nice appeal to authority (the correct one of course!)
lol do you actually believe in the "right/wrong side of history" meme?
i admit that this subject is heavily politicized given its implications and potential repercussion but how can you be so sure that your sources are the right one and your scientists don't have an agenda? i could make the same accusation of you.. would this prove me right?
as i said before the human species is a complex organism and its sexual selection is influenced by a moltitude of factors not necessarily related to genetics. in nature the instinct of tribalism gets the upper hand serving as deterrent to crossbreeding
ayoo i was lolling at my polyp typo lmoa
whites treat non whites better than they would
given the chance, plenty of non whites would happily massacre whites
I don't care about MLK and Gandhi
They're useless shits. I have more respect for people like the Black Panthers or even Gaddafi than I do these clowns.
If race is a social construct, then stop blaming le evil white man/white working class all the fucking time. It's just boring. I don't care about the bitter whining of non-whites.