Many allow him to sock puppet their accounts, and that is a banable offence!
Not yet.
You made it into one, not I.
No, you don’t! but you could if you tried
Maybe it’s time I retook my test, where I got top 4% in just over half the allocated time… imagine what I could achieve with the other (lost) just under half time
I posted about this situation many years ago, so to recap… son… dying… cancer… thoughts… elsewhere… unfocused… mind… otherwise engaged in more pressing thoughts, until I snapped to and got with the (mensa test) programme.
Yes, when something is dark in one’s visual field it is more difficult to discriminate and identify parts. Those unknown parts remain mysterious and we interpret this as a possible threat and danger to us. This effect is an atavism that is neurologically hardwired. Darkness is mysterious, concealing, suspicious. We instinctually want to stay away from it.
May be. Another possible explanation is that since whites domesticated dogs, dogs are more used to whites. I do not remember hearing of negroes domesticating dogs, but I may be wrong here - feel free to correct me.
Anyway, I think that racism is more rooted in biological predispositions - since negros are more genetically dissimilar to me than whites, I will identify with them to a lower extent. I think that’s the core of what is called “racism”, not the fact that negroes are dark. I think my statement is supported by the fact that every species prefers its own kind. If the primary reason for racism was that negroes are dark, then even negroes wouldn’t like negroes, and black nationalism would be impossible.
…and sorry, I don’t watch any videos with black narrators that have religious vernacular in the title, because I’m not going to listen to any bullshit about noble egyptians chosen by god to destroy the white devil, yada yada yada.
I think American racism is rooted in our socioeconomic history (slavery, Jim Crow, etc.). Not saying all racism can be traced to socioeconomic circumstances in the same way (perhaps phenotypical differences do account for some percentage of racism globally), but racism in America is in its own category.
It may be easy for me, being a white male, to accept that it is white males who have, generally, been the most capable ones in the world. 90%+ of important inventors, scientists, philosophers, artists etc. etc. throughout history were white males. White European males had the superior technology, organization and cooperation skills with which they easily conquered the primitive natives of other continents. I understand how some blacks have a hard time coming to terms with facts like that, so they make up ridiculous stories and excuses - it’s a survival mechanism to emotionally cope with the harsh truth.
Imagine how it must feel to be black, and on top of that, a woman? A category of people who achieved next to nothing in history, not that black males fared much better.
naiv8y, and what is socioeconomic history, slavery, rooted in? Biology, precisely, human biology.
You’re trying to explain what is natural in terms of human constructs, ideals, instead of the other way around - explaining the ideal by finding its basis in nature.
Nature has existed for billions of years without humans, it is the human constructs that are the artifices which arise within nature, not the other way around.
Just to make it clear, since it can be very confusing for Americans - I am not an American, and I am not a religious person. I do not think within your Republican-Democrat dichotomy, or care about it. I do not identify with, nor am I willing to defend inbred rednecks just because we may share one common belief, that of acknowledging the differences between races (which the uneducated, fanatical rednecks often overemphasize too).
Pray tell where, when, and how this technology arose?
The rest is whites bestowing whites with labels of grandeur… awesome
The above doesn’t mean that I hold blacks, Asians, Indians, or any other ethnicity in higher esteem… because I do not, as humans do what they gotta do to get by.
The real irony about people (like the racist poster above) is they’re usually under-performing whites (and so all they have is their whiteness).
These are people who cherry pick a few facts (usually fed to them by other racist idiots) and brand themselves a smart person, when in fact they’re the antithesis of intelligence.
Their worldview and synthesis of facts is purely biased, and they don’t even realize it (the signature of stupidity). But it’s no use trying to dialogue with those types. They’re just too stupid.
If racists like that were truly concerned with the integrity of the Caucasian genome, they’d stop having babies
I tell you 10 white males whom I think have made important contributions to human intellectual advancement or who have done great deeds otherwise (in terms of war, conquering, exploration), and you respond to me with a list of 10 black women whom you think are of about equal importance, without whom the world and indeed, our understanding of it, just wouldn’t be the same.
You know, just for fun.
Anyway, here goes my list
Aristotle
Isaac Newton
Alexander the Great
Darwin
Mozart
Leonardo da Vinci
Nikola Tesla
Charles Darwin
Albert Einstein
Christopher Columbus
Interested in your list.
After all, if we’re gonna seriously talk about such issues, examples are crucial. Otherwise, our words are nothing but hot air coming from our mouths, and I’m sure none of us want that, lol!
Aside from having a little fun with your name, I have made no personal attacks at you - I remained polite and gave my honest explanations of things.
Yet according to you, I am:
under-performing (even though you know nothing about me personally, and have nothing to base this generalization on),
cherry picking a few facts (you didn’t point out which facts, and why it is cherry picking)
branding myself a smart person (never done that)
am the antithesis of intelligence (did you just call me stupid)
my worldview is the signature of stupidity (you almost did)
it is no use talking to me (hey, I think your kind is mostly no use talking to)
I am too stupid (ah, there, you finally said it. And not only me, but all like me. But no worries, such blatant personal insults are allowed on this forum if you’re on the right side, or, more accurately, the left side )
a racist (no surprise there, even though you haven’t defined what it means to be a racist despite me specifically asking you to)
I should not have kids (you consider me so evil or whatever, that you think I should not reproduce. Eugenics are fine when they are orchestrated by the likes of you, and it totally doesn’t make you similar to a Nazi)
Dogs originated in Europe, well before white people showed up. Those Europeans have for the most part been bred out against other races (including whites) several times over since then. I recall seeing Magsj on one of the genetics sites I used to visit, she can fill you in. I would hardly claim they are extinct, but their characteristics just aren’t dominant anymore.
Whites are little more than a Steepe Mongrol that pushed into Europe late. Blue eyes came earlier, but they were dark skinned.
Dogs were already in use throughout much of the world by this point.
Have no clue why someone would assume dogs like white people more than black, they like who feeds and shelters them. And some of these “white people domesticated breeds of Dogs” are just fucking atrocious. Miniature Poodles. You can’t blame that on black people. Not all, but most stupid useless breeds of dogs can be blamed on white people who have nothing better to do than to get groups of misfit dogs with odd traits to fuck other groups of misfit dogs with equally odd characteristics till these little freaky toy breeds emerge.
The humans who domesticated dogs in Europe split, with a population migrating away from Europe. It caused the European population to bottleneck, which is noticeable in modern genetic studies (dogs experienced this too).
In the end, we can’t point to modern Europeans or Whites as the original source, as the people who did it spread out all over. We cant even say “Africans” didn’t breed them, as that population would of looked rather black to us, just most of the people we call Africans today didn’t initially play a crucial role. Back in the day though, we were all black.
I just don’t get this thing about having to claim who did what when first… we, as the human race, have come a (collective) long way, but the journey has only just begun, and still we fight like newly-formed tribes in their infancy.
)