>>18599383
Race is a social construct. Countries discriminating aganist non-citizens is immortal too and usually don't happen very often anymore in the civilised world

>>18599390
>race is a social construct
Insofar as color is a social construct, yes. Differences in genetics between groups who originated in different regions of the world are objective and measurable.
>Countries discriminating aganist non-citizens is immoral too
So you support open borders? Any form of immigration or work authorization controls are a form of discrimination against foreigners. We make foreigners apply for visas, limit the amount that can come in, while people born as citizens can freely work and use social services.

>>18599383
Racism is not a problem, it's a solution and an obligation.

I invite those who think differently to live in a neighborhood full of indigenous Black Africans.

>>18599390
>Countries discriminating aganist non-citizens is immortal too and usually don't happen very often anymore in the civilised world
Wrong. They don't discriminate against naturalized citizens, but they do discriminate against non citizens.

>>18599383
Racism is considered especially immoral because it threatens the fabric of the multiracial society. If the problematic races are treated according to their danger potential, they will cease to work within society and try to harm it. The only viable end result being deportation or total segregation, with massive upheaval. And because some races are legitimately problematic, racism is an eternally appealing notion, another reason to crack down hard on it.

>>18599383
Because the ruling class had a big plan to use negros as an industrial labor force in the cities of the upper Midwest in the mid 20th century, and this plan was a huge failure, resulting in the destruction of 7 of the 10 richest cities in the world. This humiliating failure cannot be admitted to, so we’re stuck pretending Daquon shuffling about in Milwaukee has some reason to be there.

>>18599394
>Differences in genetics between groups who originated in different regions of the world are objective and measurable.
And grouping them into races is a social construct. Grouping people into races based on their color skin is no different than grouping them into races based on their heights
>So you support open borders?
Yes, as long as it doesn't strain the infrastructure. It's not something that can be done right away because of the economy and geopolitical tensions but every human on Earth should be allowed the freedom of movement and this should be the long term goal of humanity

>>18599416
>And grouping them into races is a social construct.
Like grouping spectra of light into colors is a social construct. But colors are still different from each other.
>Yes
lmao
You're aware that something like 50% of Africa would move to the West if they were allowed to, right? Well I guess you're consistent. Seems to strengthen my point that being philosophically opposed to racism logically implies you should support open borders. Don't think we have too much more to talk about desu

>>18599405
This doesn't happen in a lot of countries and where it happens, it's usually condemn by the international opinion

>>18599383
>doesn't that then imply that the idea of having a country at all is immoral, given that we discriminate against non-citizens
Correct. Culture itself is inherently evil insofar as it functions via exclusion of that which does not conform to it.

>>18599424
They literally have to follow a different set of laws regarded work, education, and residence

>>18599422
>Like grouping spectra of light into colors is a social construct. But colors are still different from each other.
Yes, and every human outside of monozygotic twins have different genes. You can declare that there are 8 billion races and it won't be any less wrong than saying that there are white and black races.
>You're aware that something like 50% of Africa would move to the West if they were allowed to
I wouldn't mind that from any moral or racists reasons. It's only wrong because no country would be able to acomodate tens of millions of new citizens

>>18599425
So how do you propose we abolish all countries?

>>18599432
That's not racism as most people understand it. Countries have all sets of laws to control economy based on citzens labour, taxes and their numbers, that's why you can't just move into most of the countries and declare yourself to be a citizen, it requries a lot of paperwork and procedures to integrate someone into the system, by your logic the fact that you can't just enter your neighbour house uninvited is also a racism, which makes this whole disccusion pointless

>>18599433
>every human outside of monozygotic twins have different genes
Different to what extent though? Apes share the vast majority of our genes, but we recognize the fact that we are objectively different to them. Races are much the same, just on a smaller scale.
>It's only wrong because no country would be able to acomodate tens of millions of new citizens
So discrimination is justified when it means it'll make your country function better, correct? If it's moral to slow immigration because it'll make the country function better, does that mean it's okay to stop immigration altogether if the alternative is a degraded standard of living?

>>18599443
>That's not racism as most people understand it
It's actually very similar to how racism worked for most of the history of the West. We had laws, paperwork, and policies in place to treat people differently based on their race. Our immigration policy only let in whites, we had different universities and neighborhoods for whites and blacks, etc

>>18599383
the only racism that matters is state backed discrimination

>>18599443
>by your logic the fact that you can't just enter your neighbour house uninvited is also a racism
No, but that's a good analogy for illegal immigration.

>>18599444
>Different to what extent though
To various extends, as I said, 8 billion humans have different genes, it's impossible to categorize humans into races based on biology, that's why it's a SOCIAL construct
>So discrimination is justified
Discrimination aganist people based on their appearance is never justified. If an English person had their English citzenship revoked, he should apply for it again in order to be integrated back into the society that he left, based on the same procedures that a non-English person would go through

>>18599383
> What makes racism immoral?
The Christian dogma of imago dei and its variants that you can find in Islam, humanism, socialism and all that junk.

>>18599458
>8 billion humans have different genes, it's impossible to categorize humans into races based on biology, that's why it's a SOCIAL construct
Again, there are infinite colors. Does that mean it's impossible to categorize spectra of light into colors? No, obviously not.
>Discrimination aganist people based on their appearance is never justified
But it is justified based on where someone was born? Why?

>>18599446
And racism is evil, that's why you said "most of the history" since our society advances and learn to treat people equaly without looking at their appearances
>>18599456
It's a bad analogy because illegal immigrants are not given free access to your house

>>18599406
> it’s good to doom yourself to interminable conflicts or Jesus will cry ;_;

>>18599465
>and racism is evil
So why is it fine to discriminate against foreigners (as you must do to have a country)? Have you lost track of the conversation?

>>18599467
I mean anon implied we should have a white ethnostate

>>18599464
Colors are social construct too, they don't actually exists like an hydrogen atom for example.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue%E2%80%93green_distinction_in_language
This should help you understand it better
>But it is justified based on where someone was born?
Because places have existing complex infrastrucue, laws and system that suffers when someone who isn't integrated into the laws starts existing there, in short, it's about tax evasion

>>18599472
Good, that should exist

>>18599481
>Because places have existing complex infrastrucue, laws and system that suffers when someone who isn't integrated into the laws starts existing there
So it's justified because it improves society. So does that mean racism is justified if it improves society?

>>18599481
>Colors are social construct too
And yet we treat different colors differently. Because while the categories may be a social construct, the colors themselves are real. Certain colors have different properties.

>>18599488
racism does not improve the society, it leads to violence, wars and genocide

>>18599492
Pogroms.

>>18599492
Okay then. So we've dug deep and revealed that you don't think racism is inherently wrong, but that you think it's wrong because it has negative side effects.
What do you think about the fact that historically racist countries who intentional made themselves homogeneous and white like Australia, the US, and Canada were extremely successful and prosperous? What about the fact that South African infrastructure and crime has become worse since the end of Apartheid, and that its GDP per capita has gone backwards relative to the West over the past 30 years?

>>18599491
>And yet we treat different colors differently
You treat them diffrently, an Arabic person or a Japanese person would tell you that the sky is green when for you it's blue. Who is right? The answer is it doesn't matter because Colors are language and language is a social construct. When I say that there is no "Black" or "White" race, it doesn't make me any less wrong that you

>>18599467
Yes, that is exactly the leftist position.

>>18599491
Racism doesn't improve society. It just causes animus.
It denies people that is of the minority race the possibility of contributing to society in any major way due to prejudice.

>>18599498
>When I say that there is no "Black" or "White" race, it doesn't make me any less wrong that you
One of those is more true than the other. The "black" race doesn't map on cleanly to genetics, since populations like Khoisan, Bantu, East Africans, and Pygmies are all as genetically distant from each other as Europeans are from Middle Easterners. But regardless, when taken in aggregate, populations from different parts of the world tend to exhibit different characteristics. Would you say that red light has no unique properties compared to other colors, since "red" is a social construct?

>>18599502
Sounds nice in theory, but is that true? Majority white countries are across the board more developed.

>>18599497
>the US
America is great because of its resources, not because White people hated Black people so goddamned much.
For that matter a unique advantage that America has had was that it wasn't close to any other major super powers. So, conflicts arising so easily was virtually a non-issue.

>>18599501
I know and despise it

>>18599511
Lots of places are rich in resources. Africa and Latin America absolutely are.
>America has had was that it wasn't close to any other major super powers.
America wasn't always a superpower. You say it wasn't close to other major powers, but how did America get to the position of being a major power in the first place? That might explain why America is more successful than Europe (which isn't even true in all metrics), but doesn't explain why it's more successful than Latin America or Africa.

>>18599506
>Majority white countries are across the board more developed
They're more developed because of shit like colonialism.
They didn't build empires from the ground up, they had to strip the shit out of resources from under developed countries.
It also disregards the idea that minorities ever made any major contributions to those societies (particularly America).

>>18599497
>you don't think racism is inherently wrong
I do think that racism is inherently wrong, please don't act for me. I think it's both moraly wrong and have negative effect on humans
>What do you think about the fact that historically racist countries who intentional made themselves homogeneous and white like Australia, the US, and Canada were extremely successful and prosperous?
They weren't extremely successful because of the racism. Blacks in USA suffered under slavery, there was a whole civil war, the bloodiest in USA history, over slavery or issues related to the slavery, Racism decreases the overall happines of the society, even if it's been about 95% eradicated compared to what it has been before.
UK engaged in a bloody WW1 (and WW2 if you considered second world war to be part of the first) over the colonialism and who will get to subjugate Africans and Asians more. He who lives by the sword dies by the sword
>>18599504
>One of those is more true than the other
It isn't, when an Arab says the sky is green, it doesn't make it any more or less true than an European saying that the sky is blue. It's a matter of culture and perspective
> populations from different parts of the world tend to exhibit different characteristics
for which, there is no way to categorize them into races based on biology, you can only categorize them based on culture, that's why it's a social construct

>>18599520
Rank lies.
Europeans didn't have colonies to exploit when they sailed across the sea to START setting up colonies and the natives were powerless to stop them.
Germany didn't have colonies to exploit when we fought wars against the big colonial powers of the time and gave them a hell of a fight (even if we lost).
European ingenuity was enough to transform european ressources into the most advanced states of their time. Colonial ressources were a nice bonus, not the foundation of it.

>>18599519
Yeah, but it just so happens that in the case of America having started off as colonies, it developed so much that it cut ties to its host country. Which wasn't the case for those other two continents.
So, America is effectively a case of having its cake and eating it too.

>>18599520
>They're more developed because of shit like colonialism
Most of Europe never owned any colonies in the rest of the world. Countries like Ethiopia were never colonized (only briefly occupied), while countries like Korea (who were brutalized by the Japanese) are now thriving. Colonization is not the reason.
>they had to strip the shit out of resources from under developed countries.
Except this simply didn't happen. You could argue it in the case of Latin America, but that was centuries ago. Plus, colonialism in Africa and India brought education and infrastructure.
>It also disregards the idea that minorities ever made any major contributions to those societies
Economically, technologically, and militarily, no, they really didn't. Culturally they did to some extent, especially black people with jazz and blues music, but music doesn't make you a superpower.

File: global pca.jpg (1020 KB, 4000x4000)

1020 KB JPG

>>18599390
>Race is a social construct.
You might have been able to get away with that horse shit back before genetic testing blew up, but now such claims are unscientific. Race is indisputable biological reality.

>>18599530
Germans exploited conquered regions where Slavs and Jews (and others) lived and (what a suprise!) they declared them to be a different race to justify this

> Recent agent-based computer simulations suggest that ethnocentrism, often thought to rely on complex social cognition and learning, may have arisen through biological evolution. From a random start, ethnocentric strategies dominate other possible strategies (selfish, traitorous, and humanitarian) based on cooperation or non-cooperation with in-group and out-group agents. Here we show that ethnocentrism eventually overcomes its closest competitor, humanitarianism, by exploiting humanitarian cooperation across group boundaries as world population saturates.
https://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/16/3/7.html
Why relinquish what succeeds? The religious tell us because we will receive our reward in heaven. What do materialists, atheists whatever have to say?

>>18599523
>I think it's both moraly wrong and have negative effect on humans
Well when I asked you to justify why it's wrong, you brought up the negative effects.
>Racism decreases the overall happines of the society
Where's your evidence for this? Again, white countries are more developed than nonwhite countries.
>UK engaged in a bloody WW1 (and WW2 if you considered second world war to be part of the first) over the colonialism and who will get to subjugate Africans and Asians more
The world wars were not fought over race. Yes, the colonial holdings were part of it, but that wasn't because of race.

>>18599532
>Which wasn't the case for those other two continents.
Latin America? No? lmao

>>18599535
It's the other way, genetic testing shown that traditional racial categories do not have a biological or genetic basis. Humans are roughly 99.9% identical at the DNA level and the 0.1% variation that does exist does not sort into "races" You can't tell "This person is white, this one is black" based on their genes, you can only do so based on their skin color (which even racists sometimes don't, like declaring Jews to be "non-white")
>>18599542
>Well when I asked you to justify why it's wrong, you brought up the negative effects.
And I answerd. Racism is both morally wrong and have negative effects.
>Where's your evidence for this?
Violence, hatred and discrimination decreases happines. Maybe you enjoy getting killed or discriminated but that's your own thing. Most humans don't want to be hurt
>Yes, the colonial holdings were part of it,
See, that's what I said, Germany engaged in an agresvie forgein policy to gain more colonies, see Agadir Crisis

>>18599537
Slavs and jews were legally equal citizens of prussia/germany since forever and 1812, respectively.

>>18599562
I'm talking about nazi Germany. German Empire had colonies

>>18599560
>genetic testing shown that traditional racial categories do not have a biological or genetic basis
Mixed bag. Genetic testing shows that the "white" racial group maps onto reality well. But the idea that there are only three races or whatever is total bullshit.
>You can't tell "This person is white, this one is black" based on their genes
You quite literally can tell the exact percantages of ancestry based on genes lol

>>18599560
>Violence, hatred and discrimination decreases happines
Again I'd like to see evidence that discrimination decreases happiness. Why would discriminating against black people make white people less happy?
>it'll make blacks less happy
Okay then you should support full-blown open borders, not moderate inflow. Your justification for not having literally unlimited immigration is that it'll overwhelm OUR infrastructure. But it'll be an upgrade for the immigrants.

File: 1737412026313496.gif (313 KB, 220x165)

313 KB GIF

>>18599560
>You can't tell "This person is white, this one is black" based on their genes

>>18599565
>Genetic testing shows that the "white" racial group maps onto reality well.
Human genetic variation changes gradually across geographic distance and doesn't form any sharp lines, genes frequency shifts from region to region, you can't say that races are "scientific", while also arbitlary declaring who among those people are white and who aren't. Also, 90% of differences between human genes come from people around you. When you meet your neighbour and a random Black person from Africa, the black person would be only about 10 to 15% more diffrent genticaly from you than your neighbour, making it a rather marginaly difference in genes
>You quite literally can tell the exact percantages of ancestry based on genes
And you can't use it to separate people in races based on biology.
>>18599570
> I'd like to see evidence that discrimination decreases happiness
Racism = violence
You are asking for a proof that hurting and killing people is a bad thing?

>>18599564
Nazi germany didn't need to exploit other european countries to become advanced. It did need them to fight the war at halfway even terms against colonial empires controlling most of the world. But europeans exploiting europeans hardly supports the idea that europe had to exploit noneurope to become advanced.
Imperial germany had colonies but they were a drain on ressources and quite substantially so. And it had no access to them once WW1 had broken out.

>>18599584
>Human genetic variation changes gradually across geographic distance and doesn't form any sharp lines
That's not entirely true actually. Because of the Mediterranean Sea, there's a massive discontinuity between Europeans and North Africans and Middle Easterners.

File: zonkey.jpg (247 KB, 1080x880)

247 KB JPG

>>18599584
the existence of zonkies doesn't disprove the existence of zebras and donkeys. the existence of brown people doesn't disprove the existence of white and black people.

and when such a zonkey is created, it is an abomination with severe psychological and physiological problems due to extreme outbreeding depression

>>18599584
>Racism = Violence
Lmao what?

>>18599588
Mind you, that's a islam-related post-ancient development. During roman times it was very much part of a continuum.

>>18599595
Maybe in Anatolia. Not North Africa though

>>18599585
>Nazi germany didn't need to exploit other european countries to become advanced
exploitation provides you with resources and cheap or slave labour, which in turn can help you advance more as you provide more resources into reserach of new technologies
>colonies but they were a drain on ressources
Most colonies become drain on resources really, it depends on how you managed it. If you just fully exploiting an given territory, it will never develop properly, it's one of the reasons why nazis were unable to extract enough resources from the conquered regions. Some historians even say that even if Hitler defeated USSR, his empire would fall on it's own due to the enormous corruption and inbility to invest into the huge ammout of conquered land

>>18599600
Who did Korea exploit to become wealthy?

>>18599600
>exploitation provides you with resources and cheap or slave labour, which in turn can help you advance more as you provide more resources into reserach of new technologies
Are you implying that nazi germany wasn't one of the most advanced states in the world in 1939, but was, three years later, once they had acquired all those stolen ressources and slave labor? You're not that retarded, are you?
Ironically, the case of the american north and south suggests that it is in fact the opposite, slave labour hampers development.
>Most colonies become drain on resources really
Not true, but if it were, that would entirely nullify the original argument.
Most colonies (it can be iffy which ones and when) were boons to the colonizers, I never denied that. I denied that these were necessary for europe to become more developed than the rest of the world.
As for nazi extraction of ressources, it was always a short term strategy of maximum exploitation until the war was won. What they would have done afterwards noone knows, not even the nazis at the time.

>>18599588
Not really, Mediterranean Sea wasn't some impassable barier, people across its shores have continuously interacted, traded, and migrated for thousands of years
>>18599594
zebras and donkeys and not one species so it doesn't apply to humans. also Zonkeys are known for high strenght and endurance, they are just infretile because they are a mix of two different species which chromosones combination unfitting for fretility
>>18599594
Do you think that Racism doesn't lead to violence? Show me one example

>>18599614
>Do you think that Racism doesn't lead to violence? Show me one example
The burden of proof is on you. I don't have to prove a negative.

The thing about it is, is the much of the concerns expressed around racism really come down to capitalism.
Capitalism doesn't necessarily need to be racist. But, the current paradigm via such things as systemic racism and the global north and south dynamic necessitates it to be so. There is a value on everything, that is to say virtually everything is a commodity. Including a person's worth. In which case certain people are valued more than certain others. Especially to the extent at which one could necessarily predict a payoff.

>>18599622
>such things as systemic racism and the global north and south dynamic necessitates it to be so
Can you provide any evidence that these things actually exist?

>>18599623
Voting rights being stripped and sanctions.

>>18599623
>>18599624
I meant to say 'voting rights act.'

>>18599611
>Are you implying that nazi germany wasn't one of the most advanced states in the world
They had very strong industry (which was bulid during German Empire times) but weren't more advanced than other western European countries like France, UK, USA and even Soviet Union was catching up around 1940's
>slave labour hampers development.
That's what I said
>I denied that these were necessary for europe to become more developed than the rest of the world.
You advance when you have a problem to overcome, long distances? We need better ships. We have huge ammout of undeveloped people under our rule? Need machines to make a huge ammouts of goods to sell it to them
>>18599615
I don't know, maybe Atlantic slave trade? Holocaust? Rwandan genocide? Man I bet it will be hard to find the examples

File: species2.png (966 KB, 1393x739)

966 KB PNG

>>18599614
>it doesn't apply to humans
classifying whites the same species as non whites is unscientific and a politically motivated attempted genocide

>>18599623
>>18599624
>>18599625
Also, the CIA.

>>18599624
>>18599625
The Voting Rights Act mandates racial gerrymandering that favors Democrats in red states

>>18599626
>I don't know, maybe Atlantic slave trade? Holocaust? Rwandan genocide?
Mao and Stalin killed millions. Does that mean left wing ideology necessarily leads to death?

>>18599628
This is wrong, all humans are Homo Sapiens
>>18599636
I never said that racism is the ONLY thing that leads to violence. But left wing ideology doesn't call for discrimination based on the appearance, which makes racism far more evil

>>18599560
That’s the cope lecture that anthropology professors give at the beginning of the semester while they spend the rest of the semester showing how race is real.

Genetic testing was very controversial when it first came onto the scene in the 90s btw. Bio anthropologists were actually assaulted by proto-woke activists with water buckets and shit for talking about human genetic diversity.

>>18599624
>Blacks get special representation because of the color of their skin
Sounds like getting rid of that shit is actually ending racism and privilege. Especially since the black population keeps stagnating and shrinking in the US every decade as other groups grow.

>>18599642
>Genetic testing was very controversial when it first came onto the scene
And it ended up proving the fact that race is a social construct and not real

>>18599650
>Different races are not as genetically different as we imagine racists to claim
>Therefore race is not real
>We can still tell people from different races apart with 99% accuracy though

>>18599650
You can get a genetic test today and it will tell you if you are black, white, south east asian abbo, or north east asian. Or some hybrid of those 4 primary groups which collectively form what you are erroneously calling one indistinguishable species.

>>18599650
Species are a social construct too, only a 1% difference between humans and chimps, yet nobody seethes at those classifications beyond lumping and splitting autism.

>>18599652
You can tell them apart based on their apperance like the skin color, which again, is literally no diffrent that categorizing people into races based on their heights
>>18599656
It will tell you what race(a social construct) you are, it can measure your ancestry based on the country too, are there 200 different biological races? If a new country is created, does that mean a new biological race is born?

>>18599640
Does racism necessarily lead to mass violence and death? It can, as can any ideology. But why does it need to?

>>18599656
>Or some hybrid of those 4 primary groups
Just so you know this is a vast oversimplification and not very accurate. I'm a nationalist, just want to let you know.

>>18599667
>You can tell them apart based on their apperance like the skin color, which again, is literally no diffrent that categorizing people into races based on their heights
Utter idiot.
Two normal person can create a tall and a short person. Two tall persons can even, rarely, create a short person, or vice versa. Two black persons can NEVER create a person that will look visually white, nor the reverse.

>>18599667
No, there are four races. That is what genetic testing proved, four basic races: white, light north east asians, blacks, and dark south east asians. Nationality is not race, and nations haven't been based on phenotype since the greeks.

>>18599661
Yes, but humans are categorized as one species because of almost the same DNA, which traces like skin color being just superficial adaptations
>>18599674
If tall populations will breed, it will resolve in their kids being tall too on avarage, those are bascis bozo
>>18599672
>Does racism necessarily lead to mass violence and death?
Yes, Racism states that some humans are better than others and deserve more, which will lead to violence and wars

>>18599675
in other words, generally, human genetics map cleanly onto a four-dimensional vector space

>>18599675
>there are four races
You are free to say so but it doesn't have any scientifics and biological backing, it's just how you see the world

File: genius-brainlet.png (249 KB, 855x687)

249 KB PNG

>>18599679
>in other words, generally, human genetics map cleanly onto a four-dimensional vector space

File: European_genetic_structur(...).png (1.1 MB, 1920x1442)

1.1 MB PNG

>>18599667
>>18599675
Genetics is a multidimensional map. Races are clusters. How many you want to define, how close a cluster has to be to count as race, that is a human definition. But the map is real.
If we wanted to define two human races, it would be africans and everyone else. Three, africans, europeans+middle easterners, asians+amerindians. And so on. You get the idea.
Leftists either do not understand this or intentionally claim to not understand it. Muh race does not exist because the genetic distance inbetween humans does not fulfill the requirements I, an antiracist, declare to count for different races.

>>18599667
Kek, this is the kind of total sophistry and word games that allow anthropologists to cope with the reality that genetic testing brought back race has a viable biological category.

Yes, race is a “social construct.” Fucking EVERYTHING is a social construct. Species are a social construct. Writing is a social construct. Fucking math is a social construct. Do you propose we stop categorizing species, real numbers, and vowels as well? Cut it with the sophist bullshit lad.

>>18599678
If race is "just superficial", why are societies and cultures created by different races so radically different?

>>18599680
>>18599682
>>18599686
as shown here >>18599535 all races when mapped together show unequivocally that there are four primary types, species. zooming into any local region produces nuance that doesn't disprove the larger structural orientations

>>18599678
>their kids being tall too on avarage
Well black children are not black on average. They are 100% black excluding rare diseases like albinism or vitiligo. And even those show black facial features.

>>18599693
So where's the "four-dimensional vector space", you total retard?

>>18599678
How close do you have to be “almost the same” though? 1% difference is pretty fucking close. Why aren’t chimps and humans “almost the same.”

Also you sound ESL so your knowledge is probably 5-10 years behind that of an English speaking country. I won’t judge you too harshly for your ignorance.

>>18599693
>all races when mapped together show unequivocally that there are four primary types
I'm not denying that clustering that human genetic map into four makes sense, but that's a quirk of human history. And frankly, if we separate indians and europeans, we could just as reasonably separate east and west africans.

>>18599703
the genetics of any human can be imagined as the sum of four dimensional vectors, one for whiteness, one for blackness, one for light north east asianness, and one for dark south east asianness. But since higher dimensional spaces can't be visualized in lower dimensional spaces, you'll have to utilize your ability to visualize a spinning red apple, if you can.

>>18599678
It doesn’t though. Racism could very easily just mean someone acknowledge the biological difference between different humans without thinking they should be dominated n shiet.

>>18599711
>but that's a quirk of human history
its a consequence of the divergence of human evolution into four distinct species

>>18599711
I believe race is real but disagree with that anon. I think races can be divided into even more distinct groups than the traditional 19th century “negroid, caucausoid, mongoloid” groups. There are probably isolated island populations that could be considered an entirely different race of men.

>>18599716
I think you go too far calling the different races of humans separate species.

>>18599719
The Pygmies in Central Africa are as genetically distinct from Bantu Africans as Europeans are. They separated 60,000 years ago (and somehow remained separate in the same region lol)

>>18599722
they've diverged evolutionarily, are distinct genetically, visually identifiable, and behaviorally unique

there is no scientific reason not to classify them as different species

>>18599730
They can breed with each other, and there are little rigid discontinuities between us

>>18599686
>But the map is real.
And how you define it is a social construct. In your map it's literally called by countries
>>18599692
Cultures vary across the terrain, just like genetics
>>18599698
There are literally thousands of skin tones across the black spectrum
>>18599705
Usually it measures by DNA similarity and ablity to produce fretile children. Species are social constrcut too (but the line is usually way sharper than declaring people to be different races based on the few genes out of millions that are responsible for the appearance) but going by this logic, we might as well be all mammals, animals, living beings and cluster of atoms. If anything, that's an another reason why racism have no place in science

>>18599733
Why do cultures vary? Why is black American culture so radically different to white Southern culture?

>>18599713
>Racism could very easily just mean someone acknowledge the biological difference between different humans without thinking they should be dominated
It could be but it's never been used that way (and it's also a false from a biological point of view so this kind of Racism makes no sense anyway)

>>18599712
I don't need to visualize 4-dimensional apples. You already posted a picture that literally shows how they map onto a 2-dimensional manifold.

>>18599730
You can cum in an African pussy and it will 99% of the time result in viable offspring. That alone discounts the races being separate species.

>>18599735
>Why do cultures vary
Distance and language most of the time
>Why is black American culture so radically different to white Southern culture?
Both are hundreds more similar to each other than to Japanse or Russian culture

>>18599732
>They can breed with each other
in other words, their distinctiveness can be destroyed through targeted disruptions to their genetic coherency

which is evil, and anyone advocating for it should be treated as a terrorist

>>18599741
there is not such a thing as genetic coherency, most variations of genes occur inside the groups

>>18599740
>Both are hundreds more similar to each other than to Japanse or Russian culture
Look man I've met both Russians and Black Americans and I have to disagree lol

>>18599742
the species are more related to themselves than to different species, so no, the high diversity within blacks, for example, doesn't make them indistinct from whites.

>>18599744
That's your opinion, like most things regarding cultures

>>18599733
>And how you define it is a social construct. In your map it's literally called by countries
You could define it by single human beings, if that was logistically possible, and you would get much the same map.
>There are literally thousands of skin tones across the black spectrum
So? They're still all black. Black skin is a clear sign of black skin ancestry, that's why it's a useful marker. If africans had white skin and were otherwise identical to IRL blacks, we would call them not black but simply african, separate them by ancestry directly or by facial features, and hate them all the same for being dumb and violent.

>>18599746
there is high diversity in all humans, if you live in England and your neighbour is genetically 50% diffrent than you for an example, an African so black that you can't see him at night would be 55% different genetically instead

>>18599733
Who made you the ultimate authority on how genetically distant beings have to be before we can classify them based on their shared, scientifically attested genetic heritage? Also the definition of a species is far more contentious today than just producing fertile offspring. The fact that you don’t know that just shows you have no idea what you’re talking about.

>>18599749
that is incorrect, the species are much more closely related to themselves than to the other species, by orders of magnitude.

>>18599748
>You could define it by single human beings
Yes you could, that's why it's a social construct, it's up to your opinion on how you divide it
>Black skin is a clear sign of black skin ancestry, that's why it's a useful marker
Yes, but you could as well take the height genes, both are genes that inpact your apperance so why choose one over another?
>>18599752
that is correct and proven by the genetic tests that's one of the other anons was so happy to announce

>>18599750
>Who made you the ultimate authority on how genetically distant beings have to be before we can classify them based on their shared, scientifically attested genetic heritage?
Biologists I guess?
If you want to think that even a slightest difference in DNA results in a differnt species, then we have 8 billion different human species

>>18599755
>proven by the genetic tests
what is proved by genetics is that the four primary racial groups: white, light north east asian, black, and black south east asian are each more closely related to themselves than they are to one another, by orders of magnitude. That is an indisputable fact, but if you want to zoom into any of those four local groups, you will find nuance within each species that you might be able to argue justify further classifications of subspecies within each of the four primary species categories.

>>18599755
>Yes, but you could as well take the height genes, both are genes that inpact your apperance so why choose one over another?
Because, I explained this before, skin colour (at least as far as the difference between black and white is concerned) is a marker of ancestry and height isn't. Within the same group of, say, central europeans, you can find height variations within basically the entire spectrum of human height. Within the same group, you will NEVER find one with black skin.
Conversely, skin colour is not a good marker at all to tell europeans and east asians apart. You could take samples of skin colours from germans and japanese and find that indeed, the spectrum inbetween germans or japanese is greater than the difference between their relative averages. Fortunately, we can cleanly tell germans and japanese apart from the shape of their eyelids. Showing that again, germans and japanese are not the same race.
It would even, through some freak coincidence of history and genetics, be conceivable for human groups to look almost identical and STILL not be very closely related. We could not tell them apart visually, but genetic examination would clearly show that they are as closely related as, say, germans and japanese. Because race is neither skin nor eyelid, but our very genes. External features are just our way to tell them apart without biotechnology.

>>18599768
>what is proved by genetics is that the four primary racial groups
They do not prove that, even most racists don't believe in that, idk where you came with this theory

>>18599773
>height
Is a mark of ancestry too, if you have tall parents, you will be most likely tall, if you are short, you will cary tall genes within you. Genes for height and genes for melanin in your skin work in the same way
You keep talking about skin being a "marker" which literally proves my point that race is a social construct that one bases on mostly outward appearance, you can't claim that white and black people have different genes when in reality, you are talking only about genes that are responsible for the skin color
I don't even feel like arguing because you are literally agreeing with me, but in some weird passive-agressive way

>>18599768
what race are Jews?

>>18599774
I see, you are pretending to be retarded and trying to define the overton window favorable to your desired objectives. Please consider suicide because what we are going to do to you is worse if you do not cease and desist with your attempted genocide.

>>18599787
there are no jews, and if they ever existed then their genetic distinctiveness was destroyed approximately 2k years ago

>>18599788
Genetics literally don't prove the existence of 4 races

>>18599797
yes, they literally do and here is a picture projecting the four onto a 2-d plane >>18599535

>>18599784
I literally just explained that genetic variation is about recent or not recent common ancestry, not skin colour. My hypothetical about similar looking, unrelated races shows that.
If you had a lost cousin, you could almost certainly not find him through shared looks from among any group of your own ethicity. But he would still be your cousin, part of a shared family and heritage. Because ancestry and genetic closeness matters to humans, we're evolved for it. Likewise, we care about our racial brethren. Not because they have the same skin colour (so do east asians) or the same eyelids (so do africans) but because we share ancestry. That is what race means.

>>18599792
But Jews exist today, so what race they belong to?

>>18599802
there are practitioners of jew religion, but they are not jews in any genetically meaningful sense

>>18599806
So what race those practitioners of jew religion belong to

File: jew.png (469 KB, 850x621)

469 KB PNG

>>18599811
that depends on the individual

>>18599747
So what's your opinion based on?

>>18599787
Jews aren't a genetic group. Ethiopian "Jews" and Ashkenazi Jews share almost nothing in common, genetically.

>>18599800
that's just a principal component analysis, it doesn't proves that there are 4 different biological races, you can only categorize it that way based on your feelings. Those reserach sample DNA from people who live in very different regions and genetic variation is continuous, not categorical. If you were to sample human populations continuously across the entire globe, the clusters would bleed into one another without any distinct lines
>>18599801
>genetic variation is about recent or not recent common ancestry
and ancestry varies across the regions, that's why it's impossible to categorize them into biological races
>Because ancestry and genetic closeness matters to humans, we're evolved for it.
You mean family? Societies? Countries? (aka, social constructs) That's what race means, and you again agreed that it is a social constrcut

>>18599844
In regarads of existence of races? I based in on the science that proved that races are social constructs

>>18599383
It’s based on a fallacy you dumb fuck
It’s literally indefensible and causes harm

>>18599860
What race are Ashkenazi Jews

>>18599873
>based on your feelings
that is incorrect, the orientation of the data set as it plots into a four dimensional vector space is not conditioned upon anything but the objective truth of the data

your feelings about it are less than irrelevant, and no amount of emotional outrage from you can change the way the data plots

File: Principal-Component-Analy(...).jpg (101 KB, 850x846)

101 KB JPG

>>18599873
Europeans form a pretty distinct genetic cluster actually. The middle point are Cypriots, Sephardic Jews, and Maltese, who are pretty small populations.

>>18599887
White. They're right on the edge of the white genetic cluster, along with Sicilians and some Greeks/Cypriots

>>18599890
>>18599892
I just explaind that this data takes DNA samples from the few people that lives in distincts regions of the Earth. Human genetic traits vary gradually across geography. This kind of data can tell you where your ancestors most likely lived but it doesn't prove the existence of biological races

>>18599895
k thanks

>>18599898
your argument that a smooth continuum can be created between two different species that have reproductive compatibility proves nothing, the existence of a zonkey does not discredit the existence of zebras and donkeys

the existence of brown populations existing along the borders between white and black populations are the zonkeys, their existence is abomination and highly problematic

>>18599898
Anon that chart includes pretty much every West Eurasian ethnicity. There's nobody missing lol

>>18599904
zebras and donkeys are different species which far more genetic difference that humans
If you want to murder mixed people, that means close to 100% human population, unless you arbitrary decide when they are "white enough" based on your feelings
>>18599905
Does it contains DNA of every single person?

>>18599907
>Does it contains DNA of every single person?
Nigga you can see on the chart that a few outlier Turks are genetically closer to Greeks and vice versa

>>18599907
>you want to murder mixed people
Such people should abstain from sex and castrate themselves for the sake of the heavenly kingdom, I know many will not be able to accept this. Matthew 19:12

>>18599911
Yes, humans who live close to each other share ancestry and genes, and that's why it's biological races don't exist, there are no lines

>>18599915
You can see that there's a massive difference between the average Greek and average Turk though

>>18599917
On this graph that describes how things were few thousands years ago?

Anyone so dumb as to say race doesn’t exist deserves for his first born to pop out with wooly hair and tarlips.

>>18599915
>there are no lines
the existence of zonkeys does not disprove the existence of zebras and donkeys

>>18599932
zebras and donkeys are different species which far more genetic difference that humans

>>18599383
You don't think racism against white people is immoral?

>>18599930
races exists (as social constructs)

File: 1711671570519239.jpg (83 KB, 692x406)

83 KB JPG

>>18599933
the only reason blacks and whites aren't considered different species is a politically motivated desire to destroy the racial distinctiveness of all light skinned peoples by mixing them out of existence

it won't work, and those who try will end up being destroyed

>>18599972
Zonkey's are not fertile. To be considered the same species the offspring must be universally fertile. Blacks and whites are the same species because mixed offspring are still universally fertile. It has nothing to do with politics anon. Only racism is motivated by politics, because it's simply not reasonable or practical to be able to universally prevent people from having sex on the basis of their race. Governments have tried and failed many times in history

File: Screenshot 2026-07-26 at (...).png (671 KB, 1250x849)

671 KB PNG

>>18599972
Why does the "source" for this quote just lead me to this cancer?

>>18599978
>it's simply not reasonable or practical to be able to universally prevent people from having sex on the basis of their race
there are only two ways that have ever worked, one is geographic isolation, which is why until very modern history the dark skinned were forbidden to enter the lands of the light, and religion, which was successful for nearly two thousand years at achieving that same purpose.

>>18599987
>and religion, which was successful for nearly two thousand years at achieving that same purpose.
Has it? The Bible teaches that we are all children of Noah and we are all brothers in Christ. I think for most of history, geographic isolation did most of the heavy lifting, and governments simply renegotiated religious text to fit their own agenda

>>18599990
>Has it?
yes, it was. Christianity, the white man's religion, was the basis for the creation of laws which forbade the mixing of the white with the dark races. Such was the norm, and understood to be completely compatible with the teaching of the Jesus for the salvation of God's children. For how can they be saved if they are destroyed by the mixing of themselves with those that are not?

>>18599928
The unlabeled dots are modern populations, the labeled ones are the ancient ones

>>18599383
Morality is becoming meaningless. US society is so fucked up people don’t know which way is up & no matter what you do things just get worse.
Foundation of morality is making the world a better place, and worlds getting worse
Stay beautiful anons

>>18599584
> You are asking for a proof that hurting and killing people is a bad thing?
Yes, you have to prove it is bad for me and the people I care to do about in every context

>>18600003
which were measured by samples of a few people living in a distinct regions, still nothing that disproves the reality of race being a social constrcut
>>18600012
if you want to hurt someone, they might fight back and kill you, that would be pretty bad i think

>>18600020
How is it "hurting someone" to say they can't access your neighborhoods, businesses, and schools? By that logic having closed borders is violence.

>>18600077
if you prevent someone from accessing the common infrastructure then it's hurting them

>>18600082
not him but thats a bullshit argument because you draw the line arbitrarily, e.g., you wouldn't take kindly to me deciding your house and the food in your refrigerator is common infrastructure

>>18600088
neighborhoods, businesses, and schools are common infrastructure, your refrigerator is not a common infrastructure

>>18600088
There is no ambiguity regarding what it public vs private space anon, nobody would argue that a neighborhood itself isn't public space unless you're clinically insane or something

>>18600089
>neighborhoods, businesses, and schools are common infrastructure
says who, you? "common infrastructure" sounds like some kind of fake and gay social construct dreamed up by communist jews to steal from white people

>>18600092
>says who
The law, you can't make decisions about who can use schools or parks since they are not your private property

>>18599383
>if we get rid of racism, we'll also have to start treating foreigners like human beings
the horror!

>>18599383
It's cannibalism.

>>18599763
Appeal to authority and argument to absurdity.
You're arguing illogically to defend leftist subjective talking points in bad faith and bad spelling.
Eat shit, drink bleach, and die.

>>18599560
>You can't tell "This person is white, this one is black" based on their genes, you can only do so based on their skin color
You're aware that identifying a person's general race by their bones is extremely reliable and an often used technique in modern Anthropology and Archaeology?

>>18599383
What loaded question. It's not. Next!

>>18599410
kek this sounds true

Racists desperately trying to philosophise why they aren't terrible people who deserve to be ostracised.

>>18600362
>oh no i'm a terrible person
so?

>>18599390
morals themselves are an actual social construct.

>>18600362
And black people try to weaponize the concept of racism in every possible way, even trying to justify their intentional crimes.

>>18600374
Have you considered that maybe those are just the bad eggs in the group?

>>18600378
If I offered you 10 candies, 1 or 2 of which were randomly poisoned, would you dare eat them?

Whoever has a soft heart should have a hard butt that's impervious to pain.

File: x.jpg (73 KB, 548x680)

73 KB JPG

>>18599390
>Race is a social construct
Race is a biological construct and if people deny this, it leads to hell on earth

Some races are biologically and genetically prone to being gang rapists and liars who deny this are traitors

>>18600412
why is war rape heavily attested on every continent then?

>>18600408
You might as well be a paranoid lunatic that doesn't interact with anyone since that argument can be used against all the races.

File: 656fd-1dj8ri2yxvy7y_ylbdw6ida.png (215 KB, 1000x714)

215 KB PNG

>>18600418

>>18599383
The elites need cheap labour and prefer an easily controllable population. (White) tribalism is a threat to their economic interests as it puts the preservation of White culture and genetics above "muh GDP go up". So, how do you suppress this tribalism before it can do sufficient damage against your model? You demonize it, make it synonymous with "racism"* and subvert all political parties regardless of their (claimed) beliefs.

Centrists and libertarians will go on about how Third World immigration is necessary for the growth of the economy.
Conservatives parrot how they have no problem with legal™ immigration as long as the state spends a fortune of its budget on "integration" (that totally works).
And then you have White leftists who already hate their own people after being exposed to decades of propaganda, justifying the invasion via past sins, e.g. colonialism.

The result is a society so obsessed with guilt and masochism that it will choose extinction over something as mild as remigration.

*Keep in mind that racism originally referred to a science, but in the modern context it carries mostly the same meaning as "White tribal identity". This should be apparent when you see that leftists claim that Israel, too, is a "White ethnostate".

>>18599738
> You can cum in an African pussy and it will 99% of the time result in viable offspring
For some value of ‘viable’, they get illnesses from incompatible DNA

>>18600020
> if you want to hurt someone, they might fight back and kill you, that would be pretty bad i think
Well now you are making it contextual. If I’m much stronger than that person then there is no problem correct?

>>18600418
The per capita conviction rate of black women for murder exceeds that of white males in the USA. Let that sink in

File: wealth-year-1500.png (350 KB, 1120x794)

350 KB PNG

>>18599520
>Muh colonialism
Spain was one of the biggest colonial powers and today it's one of the poorest countries in Western Europe (partly because of mass immigration).
Poland, the Baltics, and Finland are all doing fine despite centuries of foreign occupation and a lack of abundant resources. South Korea and Taiwan were colonies of Japan and they're among the richest, most developed nations in the world.
China spent over a century being torn apart by civil wars while being humiliated by foreigners before spending another three decades under a retarded communist regime. And barely half a century later, China is a rising power with the largest economy on the planet.
Have you noticed how all the successful nations I mentioned are homogeneous and either White or East Asian? I doubt that that is a coincidence.

Also, consult picrel.

>>18599537
Germany occupied majority-slavic lands for half a decade if you're talking about WW2. They didn't even have the time or resources to set up proper colonies.

File: Nauru_map_english.jpg (646 KB, 2471x1903)

646 KB JPG

>>18600518
A perfect example of the "success" of Black countries is Nauru.

Nauru once had one of the highest GDP per capita in the world, but that was only until the island's phosphorus deposits ran out.

Meanwhile, the unemployment rate on Nauru is currently 90%. The main source of income for the population is benefits from the Australian government. 95% of Nauru's businesses are state-owned, and yet Nauruans refuse to work there – with unemployment at 90%! – and workers have to be brought in from the Philippines or other islands in Micronesia.

>>18600518
>China is a rising power with the largest economy on the planet.
China does not have the largest economy on the planet anon

>>18599383
When you forget that aggregated data sets are not identical to individual data points.

On the other hand, this also means that collective punishments are necessary to correct known collective failures.

File: 1783236402260141.jpg (1.66 MB, 1280x6318)

1.66 MB JPG

>>18600100
Yes.

>>18600540
It's also the most obese country in the world lol

File: racism.png (62 KB, 1020x550)

62 KB PNG

>>18599383
1: It is morally justified to make rational decisions for self-defense purposes.

2: If a group has higher crime rates it is rational to exercise more caution, in lieu of more information about a particular individual.

3: The target should be able to understand this concept and accept your actions.

You may claim someone's reaction is disproportionate, you may ask them out of the kindness of their hearts to stop discriminating anyway, however nothing changes the essential logic here. "Racism" has been overused to the point of losing all meaning anyway, like the boy who cried "wolf". It used to just mean someone with actual feelings of hate for other races. It used to actually have sting as it challenged your morality. Now, ironically, you might be accused of "racism" merely for pointing out statistics, biology, ethnic nepotism or some other plain fact. Now all it does is challenge how much you are willing to stand behind the truth. These 2 sorts of people now find themselves on the same side of the fence, while their counterparts are on the other.

File: 1761743338850247.png (70 KB, 720x960)

70 KB PNG

>>18599560
>Violence, hatred and discrimination
The West views racism as a carnal sin and still suffers from the things you mentioned, partly because "color blindness" made Whites open their borders to millions of foreigners who, regardless of how much money you pump into integration, will exploit their hosts' hospitality and cosmopolitanism. Your line of thinking permits them to further exploit the system, as they can simply brand any criticism of their behaviour or a the formation of a White nationalist movement as "racist".

>>18600362
>terrible people who deserve to be ostracised.
Oh no, normgroids will not want to tell me about the latest episode of Love Island, the horror!

>>18600540
Nauruans are not black, they're pacific islanders

>>18599383
>What makes racism immoral?
Because the current institutional ideology says it is. Last century it was the complete opposite.

>>18600362
You sound like a decent human being. How do I give gold on this site??

>>18599390
>t. Marxist faggot
Go be wrong about everything somewhere else.

>>18600811
Last century was run on a proto form of the current Globohomo ideology, but hadn't supplanted our entire understanding of basic biological functions yet.

>>18600362
Gtfo fag. People won't tolerate you projecting on them forever.

>>18600378
The group doesn't belong. and neither do you. That's why you're a Marxist to begin with. It's obviously not because of some moral wisdom your ideas have, considering how lukewarm and idiotic they are.

>>18600298
>no argument beyond throwing insutls
I won, I'm sorry if reality hurts your feelings but this is just how the world is
>>18600325
It's used to identify a biogeographic ancestry, which is not a race
>>18600763
I don't belive this is true, welcoming imigrants is something that all countries should strive to do, as we are all human beings who deserve a good life
>>18600864
I am right tho, not a single person disproved me yet

>>18599416
>And grouping them into races is a social construct
What do you actually think this sentence communicates? All of taxonomy is a social construct, and yet, there is still a real difference between tigers and lions

>>18599383
Races aren't scientific categories. People get grouped based on superficial appearances like skin tone and facial features.
A dark skinned American might be closer related to his white American neighbor than the white neighbor is to some Europeans.

If you want to discriminate based on genes, at least properly look at people's ethnicity.

>>18601351
And there is not a real difference between humans

>>18601384
In the same way there is no difference any organism, there are no "humans" or "wolves" it's just socially constructed

>>18601404
I guess racism is pretty stupid then

>>18601404
But the difference between humans is almost non-existent

>>18601336
>insutls
Pointing out the flaws in your argument is an argument, neck yourself.

>>18601445
>the difference between humans is almost non-existent
No it isn't.

>>18599416
They aren’t being grouped into races based on anything. They already are distinct clusters. We just happen to call these clusters “races” for shorthand. They are NOT social constructs.
>freedom of movement
Why? It’s completely antithetical to biological ethics.
Biological ethics prioritize expanding your ingroup even if at the expense of an out group.
There is no reason, no pantheon of gods ordaining, a genetic group should not maximize their genes by say genocide or racism if there is no downside to it. For example, there isn’t a reason humans shouldn’t have exterminated certain diseases or fauna.

>>18601384
>>18601445
You can’t tell the difference between a Japanese female and a Pygmy male??
Are you pretending not to understand biodiversity?

>>18599481
Colors are NOT a social construct. They are objective phenomena which can be measured.
>different people call them different things
Yes and there are different words for different people this does not mean people and individuals are social constructs.
>>18599492
>but I did eat breakfast
Not what was asked.

IF racism objectively improved society, would it then be moral?
For example, if there was a race of violent assholes who per capita committed way more crime than everyone else combined, and just outright banning them or deporting them or exterminating them improved everyone’s lives, would it then be ethical to do so?

>>18601336
>biogeographic ancestry is not race
According to whom?
We don’t think race is color. When we say “race” we mean “biogeographic ancestry”.

Let’s use that term then. Would you be fine with discriminating based on biogeographic ancestry?
Like say we don’t allow free access to European people?

>>18601375
>people get grouped on facial features and colors
1. No they don’t.
2. If they did or do, that’s silly and that’s not what racial realists or anyone here is advocating for.

>>18599416
>Yes, as long as it doesn't strain the infrastructure.
What happens when it does?

>>18601521
I accept your concession
>>18601531
The difference between humans is almost non-existent
>>18601532
>distinct clusters
Distant clusters between people who live far away, but humans don't live between 5 separated greenhouses, humans who live near each other share ancestry and it continues to change as you move on
>Bioethics
What? Bioethics is something you apply to medicine, you can't just rewrite words to have different meaning and expect a serious discussion
>no pantheon of gods
Religion is not related to Biology
>a genetic group should not maximize their genes
There is not such a thing as genetic group, humans who live each other share the ancestry, you can't define a "genetic group" other than making an arbitrary line based on your feelings
>>18601537
>You can’t tell the difference between a Japanese female and a Pygmy male
I can tell a difference between me and my father, that doesn't mean we belong to a different race
>>18601544
>Colors are NOT a social construct
Colors are words that describe how your brain expirence wavelenghts, there is no "red" or "blue" in our physical world
>there are different words for different people this does not mean people and individuals are social constructs.
Words that we use to describe them are social constructs (language is a social construct, suprise)
>>18601544
>IF racism objectively improved society
racism doesn't improve society, you might as well asking IF detonating all nuclear bombs would improve society, it's a stupid question that lacks any logic
>>18601547
>According to whom?
Science
>When we say “race” we mean “biogeographic ancestry”.
And there are no rigid biogeographic ancestry, people change continuously as you travel
>>18601550
If there is infrastructure then It should be fine to use it? Why else would you bulid it?

>>18601573
>humans who live near each other share ancestry
Sometimes. But in a country like America or a city like New York, no they don’t.
But in a place like Iceland or a city like Kandahar, yes.
I didn’t say “bioethics” I said biological ethics. The morality which is instinctual to mankind, which is maximizing your ingroup’s genetic quality and quantity.
This is the only biologically discernible purpose.
>religion
Religion can be a source of ethics. I am saying there is no pantheon of gods that says “don’t be racist”. Whether racism is moral or immoral must be answered by instinctual morality.
And humans are instinctively racist therefore racism must be good. This does not mean we shouldn’t moderate racism. Eating calorie dense food is good because it gives you energy, but eating too much is bad because it makes you unhealthy.
The proper amount of food is like the proper amount of racism.
And by racism I mean discrimination against genetic foreigners.
>no such thing as genetic group
Objectively false.
>an arbitrary line based on feelings
????
No one has done this, if they did that’s silly and it’s not what we’re doing here.
Genetic groups exist. They can be plotted out using empirical data.

People can be neighbors without being related. It’s absurd and false to say that people who live next to each other magically share ancestry.
A Japanese man living in the Congo doesn’t magically have Congolese ancestry.

>>18599640
>This is wrong, all humans are Homo Sapiens
Wrong. Whites and Asians have built sustainable long-lasting civilizations. Nobody else.
>inb4 Egyptians
White elite
>inb4 Indians
Same, obviously
>inb4 Native Americans
"Inherited" White-founded civilizations

>>18601573
>I can tell a difference between me and my father that doesn’t mean we belong to a different race
No one said it does. But it does mean you have different genes, ever so slightly but still different genes.
You cluster closer to your siblings than you do to your father.
That is a very small maybe the smallest genetic grouping.
Humans instinctively recognize genetic groupings because genetic groupings are direct results of ancestry.
Racism is instinct.
If it’s instinct it must be an instinct for a reason.
No one needs to be taught to prefer family over strangers, to prefer family (genetic similars) over strangers (genetic aliens).

>>18601336
Nobody's here to prove anything to you. They're telling you off because of your moronic agitation of this thread with meaningless drivel and "I won" cope responses.

What makes racism immoral is the fact that being racist correlates so well with being a low-functioning retard and thus fighting racism allows us to filter low-quality people from decent society.

Once again, there is no such thing as racism. Stop letting Marxists set their own baseline for faithless and pedantic arguments they want to start about why anglo peoples allegedly owe themselves to every foreign occupant under two tiers of law and enforcement.

This is not that complicated.

>>18601573
>there is no “red” or “blue” in our physical world
But there is. Those words “red” and “blue” are words we use to describe a specific wavelength of light. Light exists in the physical world and its wavelength is physical form that can be objectively measured.
Whatever you call that specific wavelength is irrelevant, that specific wavelength objectively exists and is on the visible spectrum.
>language is a social construct
Language is but the things language is assigned to are not, they are objective phenomena independent of language.
All of this just to avoid admitting race is real because it means violent blacks get banned from public transit lmfao.
>racism doesn’t improve society
Not what was asked.
I said if racism did, if it did
>duhhh but it don’t
But if it didn’t, if there was an instance racism improved things, it would be a moral good yes? A moral obligation, Agree?
>banning violent blacks from public transit would be equivalent to detonating all nuclear bombs
?????
>according to science
Can we see this racial “science”?
>people change continuously as you travel
This continuous change is PROOF of biodiversity in humans lol.
If humans weren’t genetically diverse, they would be uniform, there would he continuous change.

You agree that humans exhibit biodiversity yes? Humans are not all identical in behavior and appearance and genetics right?
Furthermore, we agree it’s not random, right?
Congolese Pygmies aren’t randomly giving birth to Russian men, you agree right?

>>18601614
>the low functioning retards of Japan

>>18601624
You're never heard of Hikikomori eh?

>>18601616
That’s true. There is no such thing as racism.
There is a proletariat, consisting solely and entirely of North Sea people. There are the peasant despots of Asia, and the primitives of the global south.
The capitalist caste has wielded the primitives against the proletariat and the peasant tyrannies have prevented the rise of a proletariat in general.

Anyone who isn’t an explicitly Germanic Nationalist or a national socialist is anti-proletariat unironically.

Marxism has genuinely good ideas, but its adherents today are all freaks and high mutational load mutants, no small number of nons who hate successful Whites too.

>>18601588
>Sometimes
Always.
>But in a country like America or a city like New York, no they don’t.
Yes they do.
>But in a place like Iceland or a city like Kandahar, yes.
No, people do travel there.
>biological ethics. The morality which is instinctual to mankind, which is maximizing your ingroup’s genetic quality and quantity.
So you just make up some word that doesn't exist in the English dictionary and you expect me to understand what are you talking about?
>Religion can be a source of ethics
But it's not a source of biology, which is the topic, so I'm not interested in talking about religion
>And humans are instinctively racist therefore racism must be good
No, even if a behavior has evolutionary roots, it does not mean that behavior is morally right or beneficial in modern society. Nature is full of harmful instincts, violence, rape, infanticide. Humans are progressesing by using reason, empathy, and ethical frameworks to overcome primitive survival instincts that cause harm to others
>Objectively false.
Wrong, genetic group don't exist, you can only categorize different human populations into made up lines based on your feelings
>People can be neighbors without being related
Almost never happens, people travel and migrate all the time
>A Japanese man living in the Congo doesn’t magically have Congolese ancestry.
It's a geographic ancestry, Japanese and Korean people share ancestry, Korean people share ancestry which Chinese people and it goes all the way into almost every place on Earth, how you define races is based on arbitrary boundries
>>18601597
>Racism is instinct.
As I said, nature is full of harmful instincts, racism being one of them
>>18601603
>Nobody's here to prove anything to you
Then leave, instead of clogging the thread with your worthless spam

>>18601633
That seems rather high functional to subsist in total self imposed isolation.
Blacks unironically could never. They’d go insane in a week.

>>18601644
>That seems rather high functional to subsist in total self imposed isolation.
Most of them live with their parents or off of government gibs
I was mostly joking but Japan does have some very degenerate, low functioning methheads in a lot of rural villages

>>18601619
>Those words “red” and “blue” are words we use to describe a specific wavelength of light.
You can't "describe" a specific wavelength of light by using colors, it's a word that describes an arbitrary group of wavelength who are close together, sounds familiar?
> things language is assigned to are not
They can be, such as colors
>I said if racism did, if it did
It doesn't, there you go. It's like asking if killling people would be okay if you were actually healing them, it just doesn't make sense
>Can we see this racial “science”?
You are free to read books, check the sites, watch videos, Internet is right there
>This continuous change is PROOF of biodiversity in humans lol.
And the proof that race is not real as human continuously change as you travel

>>18599390
Also don't forget that the modern conceptualization of racism came from slave owners in the US being upset that white indentured servants showed class solidarity with black slaves and decided to drive a racial wedge between the groups: you might be getting fucked over by the system left right and center, but at least you're better than the people who are getting fucked over and are black.
Also seen historians argue that the Crusades brought about a sort of proto-racism that rulers at the time used to justify their wars against the Arabs.
Though judging by the (you0's you got I'm gonna assume the children on here don't like that very much.

>>18601642
>always
No.
>yes they do
No.
I am not of Swedish ancestry, if I move to Sweden, do I now share ancestry with my Swedish neighbors?
No.
So obviously we can establish you may live among people to whom you do not share ancestry.
>make up some word
All words are made up ;)
>doesn’t exist
Biology and ethics both exist.
I am using a term for moral instincts.
Do you know what instincts are? Where do you think moral behaviors come from?
Ultimately from instincts.
People instinctively prefer honesty to dishonesty, they instinctively reinforce honesty through instruction and punish dishonesty.
This is a form of moral instinct we can see, it is biological ethics.
You understand?
>I am not interested in religion
My point was, we aren’t appealing to religious belief for ethics, right? We get our morality not from religions but from moral instincts, right?
>nature is full of harmful instincts
>rape murder incest etc
And the morality of these is instinctual lol.
You have an instinct which tells you, without needing to be taught by a priest, murder is wrong, rape is wrong.

You also have an instinct which tells you anti-racism is wrong.
If you don’t then you’re some kind of amoral/immoral mutant.
>genetic group don’t exist

What would I need to show you to prove they do exist?
Like what evidence do you need to see to say “yes genetic groups exist I was wrong”
>never happens
What never happens?
>people travel
Yes that’s the point. You can travel to some foreign place and live among people who are genetic aliens with whom you share no ancestry.
You are agreeing with me now?
>it’s geographic
That’s “geographic ancestry” is what we enlightened people call “race”.
>define races
Races are genetic groups.
>genetics groups aren’t real

What evidence do you need to see to admit they are real? If you can’t be swayed by evidence, what evidence do you have to prove they aren’t real?

>>18601642
>racism is always harmful
Prove it.
We can prove that lying is generally harmful but not always harmful.
For example, you can save someone’s life with a lie if a murderer comes to your house asking where your friend is, and they state their intent to do them harm, it is a morally good thing to lie to protect your friend.

>>18601649
Japan is broadly racist tho.
So is Korea.
And Israel.
And Taiwan.
These are all high functioning, extremely high HDI countries (except Israel but they are high functioning).

>>18601642
Faggot you really need to quit mass replying and gtfo with the tedious point-by-point. You've already had your chance not to be a retard about this subject, and you've sadly failed.

>>18601638
>Marxism has genuinely good ideas
Not really.

>>18601655
Colors are literally the description of a particular wavelength LOL.
>arbitrary
You have to prove it’s arbitrary.
If it were arbitrary then it would be indistinguishable from non-visible wavelengths.
It’s not, so it can’t be arbitrary.
One type is visible one type is not.
This is not a difference based on opinion but on the biological reality of what humans can observe.
>racism is like killing people
Are you unable to be serious?
Am I wasting my time?
>you are free to
I went to college, took biology and basic genetics.
I have “read the books”.

What youre saying is “I am full of shit and cannot cite any sources” lol.
You have no “science”.
All the science about genetics we have is in support of my position that human biodiversity exists.
>humans continuously change as you travel
This PROVES race is real.

Race = biodiversity.
Ancestry isn’t random.
Ancestry ten generations back isn’t shared among all humans. Ancestry 100 generations back isn’t shared among all humans.

That is real biodiversity and proof of racial/genetic/ancestral groups.

>>18601680
I unironically liked when Marx said Germany and Sweden should form a pan-Germanic union and go on a crusade to exterminate Slavs from Eastern Europe.

>>18601664
>No.
Yes
>I am not of Swedish ancestry,
Never said you were?
>All words are made up
Words can be only used to communicate things if both people agree on their meaing, that's why schools and dictionaries exist
>Biology and ethics both exist.
Ethics describe social behavior, Biology describes molecular mechanisms and chemical reactions, those are two different things
>moral behaviors comes from instincts
Doesn't mean that all instincts are good
>You have an instinct which tells you, without needing to be taught by a priest, murder is wrong, rape is wrong.
You also have instncts that tell you that murder and rape are right, but as much as you hate to admit it, humans evolved above being animals
>What would I need to show you to prove they do exist?
You can't, it's like trying to prove that Earth is flat. You can't prove something that doesn't exist
>You can travel to some foreign place and live among people who are genetic aliens with whom you share no ancestry.
But when you start travel, the ancesty keep shifting across people you pass, and there is not a biological border where someone "stops sharing the ancestry". Thus, races are not real
>>18601666
Racism targets innocent people, so it's harmful, it creates harm to people, it's pretty simple
>>18601678
cry more
>Colors are literally the description of a particular wavelength
Which color are Gamma Rays?
>You have to prove it’s arbitrary
wavelengths can be split and combined in an endless number of ways, you would have give a word to each one of them to make it non-arbitrary
>This PROVES race is real.
Then at what point race change?

>>18599383
Is not immoral at all. Racism and discrimination are fundamental pillars of civilization. Anyone who seeks to destroy such vital infrastructure are enemies of mankind. The real problem, the real immorality is the obscene waste of resources.

File: vdhs67g7o22e1.jpg (281 KB, 1305x1974)

281 KB JPG

>>18601662
>Though judging by the (you0's you got I'm gonna assume the children on here don't like that very much.
Nope, that's just one autists who mass reply to something when he has melty, he usually does the "nazis good" thing

>>18601689
Marx was a fat, lazy, and pampered shut-in who genuinely did not understand the things he was talking about, nor most of the ongoings in the outside world. He was a larper who claimed to be a workers rights revolutionary, who never worked a day in his pretentious faggot life. Your hatred of Slavic people doesn't change that fact.

>>18601712
He had a wife and 7 children

>>18601712
You must be confusing Marx with Jeremy Bentham or Herbert Spencer.

>>18601704
>no
To be clear, you said anyone living next to anyone else is related to them, this is false because people move.
>never said you were
It was an example to illustrate the movement of people.
>words cant only communicate if people agree
this is totally irrelevant to what we are saying, even if we had no language and no communication at all, what I said is still objectively correct because it is a material empirical phenomenon.
>ethics
>biology
Social behaviors come from biology necessarily, where else can they come from? Without a biological being, behaviors dont exist.
biology precedes and determines behavior.
What else could determine behavior? magic?
>not all instincts are good
are you arguing moral instincts are not good?
Our moral instincts are by definition good because its the only way we can call something good is if it aligns with our moral instinct to preserve and propagate our blood.
>you have instincts that tell you to murder and rape
?????????
No I dont, do you? Furthermore does your moral instinct excuse these things?
Not only are these instincts absent in most people, those who have them recognize they are morally wrong at an instinctual level.
>above being animals
what does this even mean?
>you cant
You cant be wrong?
Then there is no point in arguing because you didnt not arrive at your position by logic, therefore logic will not convince you.
>you cant prove something that doesnt exist
you can actually, there was a time when people believed the earth was flat because they looked at the horizon and it was flat, this was proven wrong.
You CAN prove the earth is flat, for example if the earth actually was flat, you could go into space and expect to see a flat disc or a half circle, if that were the case, the earth would be proven flat.

You are essentially saying its impossible for you to be wrong.
Then you must prove your point, (You) havent proven anything, youve made wildly absurd and unscientific claims and provided no evidence.

>>18601704
What would we expect to see if it were true that races were real and genetic groups existed? how would you prove genetic groups are real or fictional one way or the other?
>racism targets innocent people
????
So does romance, broken hearts are far worse than broken egos.
Should we enslave people and force them to be single lest they risk the great harm of heartbreak?
no one has ever killed themselves over a racism, many many have died over heartbreak.

Therefore we can establish, not everything that causes harm is inherently bad morally speaking.
Its pretty simple, surgery causes harm because it creates harm, it hurts to recover from life saving surgery, therefore we shouldnt have life saving surgery correct?
it causes harm, and anything that causes harm is by default an absolute evil that we cannot have according to you.
>what color are gamma rays
They are not on the visible spectrum, but you agree gamma rays exist right?
They are a particular wavelength.
>wavelengths can be split and combined in an infinite number of ways
no they cant be, wavelengths are specific and particular to the visible and non-visible spectrum and certain thresholds create empirical and meaningful differences, such as color, sound familiar?
>at what point race change
When you can distinguish 80% of a population from another population.
That is the textbook, I remember it from Biology in college, shorthand for speciation.

But you agree human biodiversity is real right?

>>18601662
>the modern conceptualization of racism came from slave owners in the US being upset that white indentured servants showed class solidarity with black slaves and decided to drive a racial wedge between the groups
Is there any evidence whatsoever this EVER happened anywhere ever?
>its about heckin class
Marx himself said slaves arent proletariat.

Just to be clear, you are arguing people did not have a sense of familial or tribal or clannish solidarity prior to the American South in 1820 right?

>>18601594
you didn't refute the notion that all humans are homo sapiens.

>>18602016
the subdivisions within homo sap are much more significant as we can see.

>>18602016
I did my dark skinned brother in Christ
You may be homo but you are not sapiens
Only sapiens are civilization builders

>>18600501
proof?

>>18602023
>Only sapiens are civilization builders

why? most people, including you, didn't build shit. you just live day to day, same as anyone else. what makes *you* better?

>>18602040
>including you
>but I want to come over and live in the country your ancestors built
>I am equal to you even though I spent 1 day in your country and have contributed nothing but poverty and crime
>let me tell you how your national identity includes me and my family and friends
Say it with me: Access to White people is not a human right.

File: IMG_20260727_121553030.jpg (2.09 MB, 4096x3072)

2.09 MB JPG

>>18599383
Don't discriminate against what a person didn't choose
>race
>nationality
>sex
Discriminate against their choices
>annoying
>no motivation to learn
>disgusting

Simple as

>>18602063
Literally none of those things are choices lmao.

>>18602052
you made up a bunch of stuff i didn't say. why are you like this?

>>18602085
Becaise that's where the conversation was going and I simply cut to the chase
I believe there should be 0 migration

File: 102412993264912.jpg (68 KB, 1024x1024)

68 KB JPG

>>18602063
But what if those "choices" highly correlate with race/nationality/sex?

>>18600753
>even Germans can be converted into law-abiding citizens
Wow, impressive. If ethnic Germans of all peoples, after the 20th century, can be made to stop the looting, pillaging, rape, and murder, surely all human beings have that capability.

>>18601951
>To be clear, you said anyone living next to anyone else is related to them, this is false because people move.
How?
>biology precedes and determines behavior
That doesn't mean you should murder, rape and kill infants just because it's le natural
>are you arguing moral instincts are not good
moral insticts like being kind to people are good, harming people is evil
>No I dont,
Beside the fact that you spam this board 24/7 with how much you want to kill people, harming, raping, murder and stealing are all natural insticts that are bad and sane humans don't follow them
>what does this even mean?
We can choose to not harm another person even if it would sometimes benefit in the short term, something that animals don't do
>You cant be wrong?
I can be wrong. Not on this topic tho since the science stands behind me and no one was yet to prove me wrong anyway.
>you can actually
No, you can't. You can't prove the existence of things that don't exist. That's the defeniton. If a thing exist, it may be proven, if it doesn't, it can't.
>What would we expect to see if it were true that races were real and genetic groups existed?
I don't know, I have no interest in thinking what would be expected to see if Moon was made from cheese. Something either exist or it doesn't.
>So does romance, broken hearts are far worse than broken egos.
I have no idea where this came from, I guess it's just some random offtopic thing
>no they cant be
Yes they can. The total ammount of colors is either infinite or so large that we can treat them as being infinite
>When you can distinguish 80% of a population from another population.
So never when you apply it to humans, because they continuously change across the region. Not to mention you only take the visible traits (skin color) You could as well apply it to the height to create completely different races
>But you agree human biodiversity is real right
Everyone but the identical twins have different DNA

>>18602099
they don't

>>18602095
>Becaise that's where the conversation was going

conversations don't work like this lol you can't just skip the cutscene and fight the boss lil bro

>>18599383
>The usual justification for racism being immoral is that discrimination based on characteristics you can't change is wrong.

Not exactly, the reason it's wrong is because you illegitimize justice by attributing traits to individuals based on the actions of others due to an unrelated (to the action) trait. You're judging people for a resemblance to someone else due to an action someone else took and that resemblance is arbitrary to the thing you're judging them for.


>But doesn't that then imply that the idea of having a country at all is immoral, given that we discriminate against non-citizens?
No, that doesn't but nation states are wrong. The discrimination you're talking about here is entirely justified within the context of the law because the thing the people outside the state are being judged for is not arbitrary and is in fact directly linked to who each individual is and their individual actions. You are not judging and grouping them collectively due to something someone else did but by the fact that they exist outside of your nation.


>If anything it should be less immoral, because race is hardcoded into your genes
What we generally think of as race isn't, lots of people are brown, black, white, yellow, red, and all of them have tiny variations between them and then groups around the edges that blend two or more traits. Actual genetic groupings probably wouldn't be as visually verifiable as you think and there would be surprises and exceptions and unicorns. The issue is attributing to individuals traits from a collective and judging them based on your judgement of the collective and also making them pay for it even if they don't show any of the behavior you condemn the group for and only show a cosmetic similarity to it.


>while citizenship is a social construct that can be given and taken.
yes