I'm not a racist, but I am...

This forum is full of it, but it's all true. The facts are there. Maybe there is a little hyperbole, sure black people can become doctors, fly planes etc... I'm a reasonable human being, I was raised in a liberal environment. I have bullied before, but never been racist and I see bigotry as immature, however I can't escape the fact that they are indeed very unusual looking.

http://unicast.org/forums/forum.php?forum_id=1

"golly, niggers are hideous with their buck teeth, black skin and brillo heads. Egads."

Just do a google search for skull shapes of different races and albino black people... CAucasian and mongoloid skulls are about the same and both these races have obviously exceeded negrito races in culture and civilisation. Even the obscure native americans constructed early civilisations. Their hunter gatherers tribes only existed due to their isolation, deprived of the circumstnaces that allow for agrarian civilisation. Given another 1000 years after the SPanish arrived, and the Gulf of Mexico would be like the Mediteranean circa 1000 B.C..

Though I can't say the same for black civilisations, they were not isolated, theywere exposed to the Egyptians, who were arabic, im not one of these nuts who thinks they are white. I really am not a racist or even a far right conservative...

I can't contain what i think anymore and I shouldn't be afraid of expressing my thoughts. They do look so animal like, it is as if they are a relic from evolution before human civilisation. In fact that's what they are, the only tribal systems outside of sub-saharran africa left by around 1300 were in areas which didn't have much food. Yet in the rich jungles of africa they still lived in the stone age, never utilising the wide range of plants there.

I think the out of africa theory is correct and that blacks haven't evolved much whilst caucasians and mongoloids have had to deal with the ice age.

How should I approach these facts rationally? Liberals say I should just ignore them, conservatives say I should become a whtie supremacist nut. Surely there is another way? Surely there is a way to get society to accept these facts without sinking into depths of paranoia and stupidity.

>>958
Exactly, it's genetic s and the environment. Which is why mexican immigrants are more intelligent than African Americans even though they lived in poverty with less opportunities for education and experience the same if not more racism. Because their genes favour intelligence even when they grow up in such conditions. Not to mention the fact that the genes of a race in a society affects how well they raise their children and develop their economy. A small alteration in intelligence and emotional behaviour can affect a civilisation on a large scale.

The nazis were wrong about it being 100% genetic and the marxists were wrong about it being 100% environmental.

If you had person A and person B of equal age (age could be counted as an environmental factor, this just makes thing simpler), and A was substantially better at calculus we can accertain the following possibilities.

A had a better environment (education) and
:their genes are the same
;A's genes are worse but A's environment was beneficial enough to give A an advantage.
;A's genes are better aswell as A's environment.

A has the same or a very similiar environment as B and
:A's genes are more beneficial.

A has experienced a worse environment than B and
:A's genes are more beneficial.


Unless Mexico's citizens are more well fed and have a better education than African Americans in the US, African Americans must have genes that substantially reduce their ability to learn.

>>957

where did anti-chan throw a tantrum? sounds like someone's trying to win via the "nigger nigger nigger" tactic again. it's funny to say nigger on 4chan,but when people come here thinking we're serious it kinda ruins it

>>961

Excuse me? But where is the data that says Mexican immigrants do better than African American's in the US? Where's the data that says it's genetic and not just that immigrant fulfilling what the immigrant's environment re-enforced it to do? Do these mystery studies account for where in Mexico these people come from? Do the test account for the environments of these people?

And why are you still acting as if there is "genetic race"? Find me the "negroid genes". Show me where the "white genes" exist. You can't. Because they don't. The only thing you've got is skin color and other physical features- but that doesn't equal race. The cultural component is the most important component in race and by relation environment (culture) is the most important component in "racial IQ"

I'm sorry, but your entire post sounds like conjecture and all the studies you (or other posters) used to qualify your points were contested, if not refuted outright around posts >>200 - >>400.

>> Not to mention the fact that the genes of a race in a society affects how well they raise their children and develop their economy.

That's not a fact because there's no such thing as "genes of a race". There's genes for physical features that adapted to enviornments. But that's it. 

A small alteration in intelligence and emotional behaviour can affect a civilisation on a large scale.

Again: Proof. Why is it that throughout history "smarter" civilizations failed as well as "dumber" ones? If we were to believe the bell curve, then the Chinese and Japanese should have the strongest civilization and a majority of the world's power.

Why do you keep stating things as fact without the data to back it up. Why do you keep ignoring history? If you don't have the data you don't have a scientific argument. You have a co-relative theory. Do you even understand the difference between the two?

And please (finally) respond: Why hasn't there been a study on Height and IQ or Weight and IQ? I keep asking why the focus is on race, but I'm getting no answers. If the opposition isn't racist, then maybe we can make a co-relation between height and IQ...the question is: Why haven't we?

How do you not see dividing people up into different races along IQ would be as stupid and ridiculous as dividing people's IQ based on height?

Regardless of the implications to my own argument ("I'm just calling people racist!"), I still question the motives and policies built on the idea that IQ is fate. Clearly, judging by history it isn't- because natural selection doesn't favor intelligence unless people (ashkanazi jews) sexually select for it.

>>963
Perhaps it has to do with religion and not genetics?
They certainly didn't appear to have much of a work ethic when busy sacrificing to temples in the ol' days.

>>964
Religion counts as a very ineffectual environmental factor, you are either educated or you are not. Religious people tend to be better readers and more patient. Unless you are talking about medieval peasant/cult-like religion.

>>963 skin color and other physical features

Like brain size and structure.  100% of which are 100% genetic in origin.

>>956 or a college professor?

lol argument from authority.  College professors say all manner of stupid things.

There was a professor named John Mack at Harvard, a professor of psychiatry, who wrote books in which he claimed millions of people were being abducted and anally probed by little green men in UFOs.

>>963
re·fute     P   Pronunciation Key  (r-fyt)
tr.v. re·fut·ed, re·fut·ing, re·futes
1. To prove to be false or erroneous; overthrow by argument or proof: refute testimony.
2. To deny the accuracy or truth of: refuted the results of the poll.

Hint:  saying "this has all been refuted" does not constitute a refutation.

Dear Mr.>>956,

>>955 is being facetious.  He probably agrees with you.

Thank you.

Sincerely,


>>969

P.S. LOL at "chimp out"

>>965
Obviously. Compare/contrast the religion of each area. You'll see certain similarities between religions in developed areas, I think.

Brain structure is determined by society! Humanity is decided by culture! When monkey's society changed they naturally turned into human beings because society determines physical characteristics. If you taught humans to act like dogs then their children would be dogs. Duh. Are all of you stupid? This is also true of amoeba and dogs. If you starting teaching all dogs advanced calculus they would turn into human beings because culture determines physical traits.. Are all of you ignorant?

>>971
lol lysenko.

>>972
Anyone who says that races are different from each other is closer to lysenkoism that what all of us "anti-racists" are discussing.

>>973
no...  the are similar in that they ignore what science teaches us in order to believe whatever they want to.

>>966

Um, no. Those too were determined by the environment. Feature like those are developed because of environment changes. They aren't just there to be there in the human genome.

>>965
Wrong. Overly religious people tend to be the most uneducation. True then, true now.

Feature like those are developed because of environment changes.

dense
adj. dens·er, dens·est
1. a. Having relatively high density.
   b. Crowded closely together; compact: a dense population.
2. Hard to penetrate; thick: a dense jungle.
3. a. Permitting little light to pass through, because of compactness of matter: dense glass; a dense fog.
   b. Opaque, with good contrast between light and dark areas. Used of a photographic negative.
4. Difficult to understand because of complexity or obscurity: a dense novel.
5. Slow to apprehend; thickheaded.

>>976

Show me proof that changes in physical features occured without coaxing from the environment otherwise you're just full of hist.

>>977
Dude, he was saying that the phenotype is dictated by the genotype (plus some environmental factors, plus random variation).

When we say that your skin colour is based on genotype, we're not referring to how the genotype got that way. Sure, it was due to environmental pressures and cultural preferences over many millenia. So what?

If you're born with white skin, you can get brown with a tan, but no matter what you do, when you're out of the sun, you'll turn white again. Likewise, if you're black, you're not going to magically turn white.

>>978

The *how* of the genotype is the core of the race argument. "So what" is your repsonse because it completely smacks in the face of how you percieve race. Race only has cultural and social definitions (environmental)- not biological. So any co-relations between race and IQ- are environmental.

Again, if you can make co-relations between race and IQ. Why not hieght/weight/eye color? Why are you having such a difficult time addressing the ridiculousness of this?

You don't want to confront the fact that the human genome hasn't changed since the sub-saharan African. The base genotype for skin color is black skin. Mankind comes out of Africa. Sorry to keep repeating this, but you think this means that anything that comes after Africa can be somehow more "evolved" than the sub-saharahan African.

Again, show me scientific proof that this is "evolution" and not what it actually is natural and sexual selection for certian traits.

This leads to another question that I've posed numerous time and remains unanswered: Why is impossible that the sub-saharan African didn't already contain the entire potential for intelligence in its base cast of genes?

If you're born with white skin, you can get brown with a tan, but no matter what you do, when you're out of the sun, you'll turn white again. Likewise, if you're black, you're not going to magically turn white.

That's strange, because that seems to be exactly what's happened. Over time depending on where you are- skin color will change to suit that environment. But this is already present in the human genome. It doesn't make the new skin color fundamentally different biologically from the prior. 

980get

I don't believe in racial inferiority or anything like that. Personally, I feel the culture is to blame, and it so happens that races are tied to cultures though all members of a given culture aren't necessarily of the same race (see: wiggers, weeaboos)

For example, in the Samoan culture physical violence amongst the family is normal. You hit your wife when she's out of line. You hit your kid to make them show respect. It would be racist to say all Samoans are violent, however it would not be racist to say members of the Samoan culture may have a predisposition to violence.

Same story with blacks. All blacks aren't criminals, but the black culture idolizes 'street life', being a thug, a pimp, a hustler, surviving jail terms as symbolizing toughness, and committing crime simply to make do - after all, without a job you still need money for rent, to eat, etc.

By that measure, being a part of the black culture (and I'm talking specifically about American suburban blacks, not Cajuns, Creoles, Africans, etc.) means you may have viewpoints about these subjects where you find it acceptable to (e.g.) deal drugs in order to make money.

Do all blacks sell crack? No. Is the chance of a black person finding that activity less of a crime moreso than other cultures would think likely? Yes.

>>979
Well, you can only say that race only has social conditions attached if you ignore the fact that many things which are genetically linked are present in that "race".  For the most obvious example, skin color.

That being said, I do believe that most of the inequality between races is primarily social and as you say, environmental.  But that doesn't mean that a genetic component to someone's intelligence doesn't exist, or that it should be ignored.

>> Why is impossible that the sub-saharan African didn't already contain the entire potential for intelligence in its base cast of genes?

It's not impossible, not at all impossible.  But what matters here is the frequency of certain traits within a genetic group.    While there's not yet any accurate genetic survey which maps the genes responsible for intelligence, they have managed to find some genes which do regulate certain nervous system functions that are less prevalent among africans.  This doesn't make them inferior at all, if anything they only represent a slight edge that could be made up for in blacks with appropriate education. 

What I'm saying is that europeans (cro-magnonoids etc) had a more harsh environment.  This did lead to many many changes in allele frequencies...  Possibly even some new mutant genes that might have been advantageous (this would be "evolution") but that hasn't been proven.  The same goes for caucasoids and asians.

>> It doesn't make the new skin color fundamentally different biologically from the prior.

It's still a change.  It doesn't have to be fundamental to be significant. This is an curious debate tactic I've seen you use a lot during this debate, assert that something is not significant just because it doesn't represent a large change.  An electric engine runs 30% more efficiently on 240 volt current than it does on 120, yet the change is, speaking from an electical engineering standpoint, insignifcant. Oh well, I'm just a person on the sidelines.

I do have a LOT to say to the racists in this thread though, about their psudoscience and just plain asenine use of intellect.  I'll get to that in a forthcoming post. 

>>979 Again, if you can make co-relations between race and IQ. Why not hieght/weight/eye color?

You can VERY easily make correlations between race and height/weight/eye color.  I don't understand why you said that.  It seems like such an asenine point.

>>966
Actually, that's not really true...  Brain size can be correlated to genetics, it's true, but strutcure is an entirely different matter...  The form of your brain follows the functions to which it is put to use.  For example, if you're someone who thought a lot about abstract equations and theories a whole lot, and paid little mind to everyday matters, your brain might slowly shift to where your right brian becomes more developed.  This was shown with einstein, and how his brain was a little different from other people's.   You can argue that his brain started out that way sure, but they have actually observed people's brains changing in labs when they are put to new tasks, they have actually been able to see changes in people's brains when they took on a new job that had different demands from their previous one. 

It's just like muscles.  When you excersize them, their shapes change.

HOWEVER; this doesn't mean there are not genetic components to intellectual capacity.  Only that they are not so insurmountable.

>>979
I'm a different poster from 983. I just saw this so I thought I would respond.

Family is culturally and socially defined, and biologically defined as well. Extended family is culturally and socially defined, and biologically defined as well. Race, which is another step up from extended family, is culturally and socially defined, and biologically defined as well.

Your belief in race only being a cultural and social construct is incredibly shallow to say the least. Of course race is a social construct. Duh, everything is pretty much a social construct. You're saying this like its something significant. Race, is also biologically significant. That's the whole idea behind race. Sambo blacks with heads shaped like twisted gourds, big fat lips, and IQs below 60 are not white. If you've got blond or red hair, you're a definte shoe in for being white. If you've got a ruddy complexion and a white skull shape, and the higher concentrations of grey matter versus white matter that most white people have, you're a shoe in for being white.

You talk as though something being a social construct is demeaning. That's like saying something that is defined is MERELY a definition. There's no merely about it. Yes, definitions can change, but definitions are also significant and have a reason for being what they are. Yes, green could mean orange, but green DOESN'T mean orange, and that's significant.


White people that are genetically dumb we call retarded. Black people that are dumb are called black. Black people that are average are called smart.

It's all a social construct. But, guess what, EVERYTHING is a freaking social construct. Physics is a social construct. Science is a social construct. School is a social construct. Music is a social construct. America is a social construct. Germany is a social construct. McDonalds is a social construct.

Big deal. 

>>955
This post is so full of psudoscience and just plain inaccuracy that it's unbelievable. 

Just because a certain race manages to figure out certain things before another doesn't mean that it's superior.  It's very possible that in addition to genetics, white people's culture may have favored scientific inquiry more than others. 

>> Demonstrate there is any significant non-genetic factor in intelligence, please.  Barring brain damage and/or severe malnutrition in early childhood, intelligence, as it is empirically, repeatably measured by IQ tests, appears to be 100% genetic in origin.

Fine then.  How about we take twins.  Take one of them, and release him into a field, only let him talk to his parents, give him enough communication skills so that testing will be possible.  Take the other one, and send him to private school.  Fifteen years later, test them both.

Who do you think will do better on the tests?  Well, maybe if the first twins genes are really good, he might be able to score rather high on g-loaded tests.  But still, the one who was sent to school hasn't just learned all the answers to the questions he's been asked...  He's learned how to think.  He's gathered neural connections that allow him to use higher functions of his brain that his brother may not have.  Critical thinking.  Holding more than one idea in his mind at a time.  Excersize, remember?

>> Thus the average White IQ of 105-110 compared to the average pure-blood Negro IQ of 55-70.

This doesn't take into account environmental factors.  The real gap, when considering environmental factors, is closer to ten or so points, which is socially insignificant. 

>>984

Cats don't do well at advanced calculus. People with ADHD have REAL problems that are inheritable. Retarded people have genetic disabilities that no amount of training can truly fix. Dogs smell butts instead of reading sonnets, and you couldn't teach them even if you wanted to. You can't shape something you don't have in the first place.

Most black people are as dumb as a brick in comparison to the rest of the human species. Hardcore truth, but that's what Western Civilization is all about. Next.

>>983

Exactly! It is an asinine point, because an argument for killing off all short people or barring them from jobs because "generally speaking short people are dumb" is just as fucking stupid for doing so because the percieved non-biological racial components of skin color.

>>982


>> But that doesn't mean that a genetic component to someone's intelligence doesn't exist, or that it should be ignored.

Never said that it didn't exist, never said that it should be ignored. If it's a general rule, fine, I've always known that and accepted it. But, to me, dividing IQ among race- something that is based socially and culturally- is stupider than dividing IQ up by hieght or weight.

>> While there's not yet any accurate genetic survey which maps the genes responsible for intelligence, they have managed to find some genes which do regulate certain nervous system functions that are less prevalent among africans.

Not only that, we do not even have a "genetic IQ test". Only an environmental one. And I have still seen no proof that the scores here are from G-loaded test. Second: I'd like to see proof of what you're saying. Without data you have no scientific argument. Only co-relative theory.

>> What I'm saying is that europeans (cro-magnonoids etc) had a more harsh environment.  This did lead to many many changes in allele frequencies...  Possibly even some new mutant genes that might have been advantageous (this would be "evolution") but that hasn't been proven.  The same goes for caucasoids and asians.

THIS IS SUBJECTIVE. If anything the desert was the most harsh environement. When the whites came to places in Africa that were not like Europe- they couldn't survive. (Read Guns, Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond). 

And it's not that "it hasn't been proven" in regards to "mutated genes" it's that: IT DOESN'T FUCKING EXIST. Regardless, without proof your argument is one for myth, legend and maybes.

>>984

PRECISELY. There's not such thing as fate when it comes to genetics. If that was true then WE WOULDN'T HAVE SURVIVED SUB-SAHARA AFRICA AND WOULD HAVE DIED OFF. Regardless of the mental (or genetic) capacity someone is born with we as humans, no, as carbon based lifeforms have the ability to change with enough coaxing from our environment.

>>987

continuing on from 987, according to the social theories of reality, biology and GENETICS are social constructs. What you want to do though is play hooky and combine social theory with relativism (there are many different social constructs that could be right) with nihilism (social constructs are JUST/MERELY social constructs so they don't have any value whatsoever) so your social construct of race is not significant, and then pull a 180* and say, "but the social constructs I believe in are not social constructs or not MERELY or JUST social constructs." 

It's a very convoluted and hypocritical view.

As for >>988, statistical analysis is a touch and feel sort of thing. If 56% of short people are stupid there probably wouldn't be any relationship there. After all, statistics doesn't say anything about any one individual but instead gives a characteristic of a group. So, 56% probably wouldn't mean anything.
But, what if 95% of short people were extraordinarily dumb... Then we could start making group judgements on short people being dumb.

And, so what? It would be the truth. Smart short people might not like it. Stupid short people might not like it. But, it would be true of short people in this mythical situation. Short people with a little bit of sense would just learn how to live with it or try to better themselves. Screaming at people who are quite frankly just being observant is just silly and backward. Don't complain! Don't blame society! Don't blame the message or the one bringin' it! Become a geneticist and do something about it if it freakin' bothers you so much.

Look, in the case of black people, if you don't like black people being dumb so much, then go out there and isolate the genes for intelligence and get the blacks to willingly undergo somatic gene therapy or an inheritable type. Heck, I wouldn't mind my kids having some extra brains, so count ol' whitey here in as well.

Stop blaming whitey for having eyes to see what nature does!

990get

>>991
failget

>>990

I would also like to mention that all of this whiney anti-racist bullshit is quite frankly some of the most passive and pathetic drivel I've ever seen. It's the drool and bile of people that go out there and whine instead of dealing with reality and creating real change for the better.

>>985

I don't care how shallow you think it is. Humans have barely changed in thousands of years. Humanity is shallow in and of itself as proven by this discussion. Anyone who wasn't shallow wouldn't argue against judging people as individuals and instead judging them based on HASTY co-relations made from MIS-INTERPETED statistics.

Your arguement is so shitty that your low IQ is pretty much a given. Am I to assume by your post that you're RETARDED? Or BLACK? Use your brain.

Everything is NOT "pretty much a social contruct.", you dolt. We have a system for measuring height that is based on numberical measurements of biology.

But we don't divide IQ by hieght: WHY?

That's what you haven't asked yourself and this lack of skepticism and self-questioning is first and foremost the most fundamental reason for ignorance and low IQ. So are you retarded or BLACK? You see the problem your ignorant characterization pose? I don't see people by race, but instead by individual back round.

How do you not you see you're doing the same thing to blacks that you don't want them to do to you (judge you based on your skin color).

Race is a social construct that is based on perception. The problem with perception is that it isn't ALWAYS true. Just because see it, doesn't mean it's always fucking there. You don't know what assortment of halpotypes someone could have in their body because solely based on perception- they're deemed "BLACK" or "WHITE".

There was a time when redheaded people were considered a DIFFERENT RACE altogether. This is what you don't get. Race is a social construct that has done NOTHING for mankind as a whole but divide us and just because something is a "social construct" doesn't make it TRUE.

You do know what absolute truth is, don't you?

PROTIP: It ain't a fucking "social construct".

'But we don't divide IQ by hieght: WHY?'

Because it doesn't seem to correlate to IQ. Race does.

As for everything being a social construct, everything IS a social construct. I mean, Pierce's pragmatism was practically based off of this. Sociology is pretty much based off of this. It's really a very post-modern idea of science. Language is a social construct, science is a social construct. But, they aren't MERELY social constructs. They aren't haphazard social constructs.

>>989 IT DOESN'T FUCKING EXIST.
Without proof, you can't say it doesn't exist. It goes both ways.  I talked about that cautiously, a skill you should excersize when presenting information that you're not really sure about.   "without proof your argument is one for myth, legend and maybes."

>> dividing IQ among race- something that is based socially and culturally-
Well, not really.  It's been stated many times in this thread that since you can divide skin color (A genetic trait) along race lines, it follows that it might be possible to divide other traits along them too.  All skin color is is a collection of genes that determine certain things; since it's possible to find simlarities between individuals in one trait, is it not conceivable that there are similarities in other traits?

>> 998
We also don't have any genetic strength test, yet we know that some groups of people have greater capacity to build strength than others.  It doesn't mean that all people from a certain group will be stronger than all people from another.  But the discepency is still there.  You can't call them exactly the same because they aren't. 

997get

998gey

999get

This thread has over 1000 replies.
You can't reply anymore.