Were black people held down by segregation?
Nah they wouldnt of done anything anyways
>>18448591are monkeys held down by being kept in a zoo?the alternative is to release them back into their natural habitat, otherwise they go insane and cause nothing but trouble for the actual people
>>18449054>wouldnt of
>>18449062What is that illustration made by someone who doesn't even know what a gorilla looks like supposed to prove?
>>18449062Is that a fucking Abbo in the top-right? Lmao.
>>18449062>are monkeys held down by being kept in a zoo?Bad example because zoos don't artificially segregate monkies based on their lineage and then disproportionally favor one lineage over another.
>>18449167blacks weren't separated based on their lineage, they were all treated the same, as blacks
>>18449054That's pretty circular thinking anon.
>>18449169>blacks weren't separated based on their lineageThey were if you bothered to read a book
>>18448591No. Limiting people's opportunities for employment or business or education does nothing to impact their lives in a negative way.Thinking that it does is marxian materialist mumbo jumbo.
I remember the days when bait was at least trying to be funny
>>18449214Contrarian or just retarded?
>>18449210I'm actually interested. Any resources on this topic?
>>18449210they monkeys in the zoo don't get special rights based on what kind of monkey they are, not in the per-emancipation Americas anyways.
>>18449167Uh yeah they are. Not all apes and not all monkeys are in the same enclosure lol.>>18449062They can’t refute it so they mock it.
/pol/tranny thread
>>18449062What shitty analogy is this? Like how in the world did you think this would even work as one in the first place?>>18449473Who's "they"?
>>18449054if thats true why were they sabotaged?I agree in theory; let people rise & fall fairly.Problem is your people are never fair, no matter what they claim.
>>18449062>otherwise they go insane and cause nothing but trouble for the actual peopleSo treat people like shit and/or invade their lands, but blame them for being victims of abuse or of military invasions?No wonder guys like you are so fucked in the head.
>>18449708Insanity is the best inspiration
>>18448591>Were black people held down by segregation?It did for the small percentage of high functioning Blacks who thus couldn't take part in White society but it was better overall for Black society, as it forced Blacks to maintain tightly knit communities among the majority White population.So today we have a small handful of successful Blacks like Barak Obama, Denzil Washington, Michael Jordan, etc. but desegregation has been an utter disaster for the vast majority of Black-Americans, who are now almost wholly ghettoized and a drag on American society overall.
Jim Crow was to blacks what DEI was to whites. it didn't strictly hold them back but it made it was a series of inherently racist policy that actively punished people for their race and made it unfairly difficult to find employment depending on quota and sector. If you think DEI was bullshit, you have to also agree that Jim Crow was bullshit
>>18449880The civil rights movement would've been perfect in my eyes if it ended with the legalization of interracial marriage and the equalization of services. The only thing that should've been forcefully desegregated was the government.Alternatively, blacks could've just been given a state or two.
>>18449880>we have a small handful of successful Blacks>names a bunch of washed up actors and bureaucratsDo /pol/trannies get everything they believe about other races from television?
>>18449880>It did for the small percentage of high functioning BlacksBlack poverty and crime has been on decline ever since the end of Jim crow
>>18450726>Someone could argue that DEI is bad since it actively seeks to advance less fit groups, whereas Jim Crow sought to keep the less fit groups from contaminating the fit ones.I don't see the error in this logic
>>18449885>interracial marriage Why though? Nearly every other society condemns it. Why we should we be an exception?
>>18450736They don't though? The most common arrangement is an endorsement of mixed relationships between a male from a dominant group and a female from the dominated group. With ocassional incorporations of the dominated group's "talented tenth" (to borrow a phrase from W.E.B DuBois).
>>18450748Well, not endorsement, but I guess a toleration.
>>18450748>and a female from the dominated groupI don't even mean this in a racist way but...why are Black women so unattractive? I find myself very attracted to plenty of White, Asian, or Indian women. But Black women are almost universally undesirable to me. It's not some racial bias thing since I'm not racist. They simply fail to rouse any desire in me. Is there any explanation for this? I see lots of other people say the same. The only Black women I have been very attracted to have been ones that I knew so it developed more strongly than with a stranger
>>18449882I disagree, Jim Crow was actually a major opportunity for blacks. Having Whites and Blacks only facilities and businesses gave poorer blacks a target demographic to create and grow. If rich whites are going to make a Black Laundromat than a black entrepeneur could. And many did. DEI isn't seperate but equal it is giving preferential treatment to lessers because they have a cool skin color or some bullshit.
>>18450754>but...why are Black women so unattractive?It's called being a homosexual, they tend to not be attracted to women, hope this helps!
>>18448591The reality is people self segregate no matter what.BUT (very big butt) they do not like being told what to do.So, the same way a child might complain and rebel upon being forced to eat a healthy diet despite the fact that it is in their own best interest and the fact their parents take no pleasure in micromanaging their behavior many acts of control in society operate the same way and segregation is one such act.This whole idea of the "laissez-faire" in all realms is not in fact a function of optimization towards some higher precipice but a function entirely towards this exact end.
>>18450754Nigger (figurative), how am I supposed to explain why you have the aesthetic and sexual preferences you have? I'm not inside your head.But well, I'll try, anyway, in the most general way I can. By 'Indian' I assume Asian Indian.Anyway, while you may not be racist, your conceptions about beauty are still influenced by your environment. And your environment tends to consider caucasian features to be the ideal of beauty, African features are the least aligned to these standards, and as such they are the least attractive.
>>18450754>Is there any explanation for this?yes, there is
>>18450871Beauty standards, are, btw, generally socially conditioned. Save for a very few universals we may call innate. Mostly indicators of health. (And not even all of those are strictly universal).>>18450873That study has been shown to have shit modelling that threw the percentages out of whack.
>>18450875>That study has been shown to have shit modelling that threw the percentages out of whack.correct, the real % of monkey admixture found in blacks is significantly higher, which is why people like this guy >>18450754 have trouble recognizing them as the same species
>>18450881>unironically using the term monkey to try and differentiate between members of a species who are already technically classified as apesDisregard anything /pol/trannies say about anthropology.
>>18450873>Homo Erectus>Millenia after it went extinctWhatever population that may or may not have interbred with West Africans, it was no more "archaic" or "primitive" than the Neanderthals who make up equivalent percentages of Eurasian genomes. Unless you want to go off on some tangent claiming that Neanderthals were actually "muh epic aryan hyperboreans" who blessed white people with magic DNA, then your claim is no more meaningful than the discovery of Denisovian DNA was. You'd know that if you had actually read the study you linked too instead of parroting what you've been ordered to say by your masters.
>>18450809I'm very attracted to women of all other large races, it's definitely not that. >>18450871It's hardly just me. I see a lot of other men say they're just not really all that attracted to Black women. It's not some sort of cultural thing since I've never heard some sort of messaging that White women are supposed to be especially attractive (indeed, as I said, I often find Asian and Indian women to be very attractive), and I grew up around plenty of Black girls. But myself, and many other men, say they just don't really find them all that sexually attractive.
>>18450894>Neanderthals were actuallynope, neanders make no meaningful contribution to white people genetics
>>18450900>I'm very attracted to women of all other large races, it's definitely not that.given the variety appearances people who could be called black have, it does seem like that.
>>18449882>>18449885>>18450731>>18449880>>18450807Ignorance isn't cool you know. Who the hell are you guys trying to appeal to exactly? This is the type of shit high schoolers say.
>>18450916welcome to post covid propoganda
>>18450894>read the studyI have, and unlike you, I was able to understand it.
>>18450908I mean look at https://www.colorado.edu/gendersarchive1998-2013/2012/10/01/body-does-not-compare-how-white-men-define-black-female-beauty-era-colorblindness, "Research also shows that black women are overwhelmingly excluded as interracial dating partners, with one study showing that white men excluded black women as dating options at 93%."The numbers aren't especially different in the South, where you might expect more racism: " Interestingly, respondents from the southern region described themselves as attracted or rarely attracted to black women at virtually the same percentage".It's definitely not just me and it's not a matter of racism. I hear this often from other men and the data bears it out. I'm just curious about what explains it.
>>18450925So literally nothing? You also seem to not realize that it probably ia some ghost homo sapien which is common allover the world. You thonk Africa is the only place with it? Thr British Isles had some, one was just recently spotted in East Asia. Many earlier human populations that moved about got absorbed by other groups.
>>18450928What does it mean when it says black women? They don't ask look the same, this seems like a flawed hypothesis
>>18450930>literally nothing?no you fucking illiterate moron, the paper says blacks are up to 19% "monkey" or whatever the fuck you want to call a population that split from humans between 360k to 1.02 million years ago
>>18450931For me it's no Black women. Basically no woman you could describe as African or African-American am I attracted to regardless of the variances. Again not racist, physically they just do absolutely nothing for me, none of them.
>>18450937doesn't that seem really weird to you, though? if the only common denomination is them being black, that must be the reason you say you don't like themof course, I would never make such ultimate claims about my own preferences because that would be silly
>>18450900Well of course, it's a social thing, it's supposed to manifest in groups.> It's not some sort of cultural thing...Not explicitly. But if you actually observe what our society understands as beautiful (without explicit racialization), you might see that black features are disadvantaged.
>>18450935>the paper says blacks are up to 19% "monkey" or whatever the fuck you want to call a population that split from humans between 360k to 1.02 million years agoYou don't even understand your own source you illiterate slob. Like you think just circling a couple of sentences out of a source you havent even fully posted is remktely close to proving that ghost population were "monkeys". You are ao obsseaed about pushing bad faith arguments you out yourself as a dishonest scamp. This is why you are a joke. Screaming about blacks being monkeys like he's fucking Frieza while living in a favela and/or on welfare.
>>18450873The study explicitly states that the average is likely 7%, along with the fact that it's probably present in Eurasians as well (Chinks + Mormons). I swear you faggots are dumber than niggers.That's not even mentioning the other studies on this topic which make this thing being Homo Erectus impossible. It's likely Heidelbergensis, and the mixing at least started before OOA, with some of it *potentially* even predating the San split.
>>18451070This study found it in all populations and suggested it to be Heidelbergensis. It also replicated the idea that a seperate, much older ghost hominid bred with the Denisovans who would later breed with Melanesians, explicitly suggesting that one to be Erectus. The admixture percentages are visibly off though...https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.03.03.709416v1.full
>>18450916This board is full of brown teenagers from twitter. They think it's still the Obama era.
>>18450946Precisely, that's why I wonder about it. And it isn't a cultural label of Black, since officially in American culture if you're half White and half Black you count as Black, but I am very attracted to many half-Black womenBut it can't just be a matter of skin tone, since many Indian women are as dark as many Black women but I am quite attracted to them>>18450984I don't think so. Hispanics would be disadvantaged in similar ways but I find many of them extremely attractive
