America Pox

Under AmericaPox:The Missing Plague
Horny Fruit Flies 2 months ago (edited)

"The game of civilization has nothing to do with the players, and everything to do with the map"
This is an important point to remember when arguing with so called "race realists" EDIT: I see
that in typical fashion of race debates on the Internet, statistics about average population IQs are
being thrown around a lot. I suggest to people here to watch "Why our IQ levels are higher than
our grandparents' | James Flynn " on YouTube. It points out that regardless of race, our ancestors
had similar IQ levels to contemporary populations in Central and Southern Africa. This does
suggest that IQ differences may not be completely genetically determined, but that easy access to
education and a revolutionized way of thinking abstractly may be responsible for the surge in IQ
scores in recent times in developed countries. Just food for thought.
83
Piotr Czajkowski 2 months ago

Also know as "racist assholes that desperately want to find a justification for their racism"
21
Nob the Knave 1 month ago

@Piotr Czajkowski Bingo.
2
nukeba11 1 month ago

This statement is not entirely true.
1
Horny Fruit Flies 1 month ago

@nukeba11 Obviously not the only factor, but a major one, and "race realists" completely ignore
it.
7

It's certainly an important factor. Of course. Race realists are wrong who think it's all about the
race and environmentalists are wrong who say it is all environment. It's both. And a I would say
it's a bit of luck thrown in there as well. Plague killing off 90% of a people before an invasion is
just some shitty luck.
4
@nukeba11 Race has nothing to do with it.
2

@Nob the Knave I would disagree. That's being as close minded as the people that say race has
everything to do with it.
5

@nukeba11 Not at all. There is no evidence whatsoever that race has anything to do with it,
hence any perceived difference is entirely personal bias.
7

@Nob the Knave But that isn't true either, nor is finding observation a bias. You almost have a
personal bias against trying to not make any biases lol. That is like saying there is absolutely no
difference between a man and a woman. I'm just gonna say we have very different views and
understandings on what humans are, and just agree to disagree because a youtube comment
section isn't academia's forum for intellectual discourse on humanity. haha
5

@nukeba11 It isnt about "understanding" or "views", it is the fact that race plays no part in this
matter and your refusal to accept that by simply repeating that it does and then attempting to
change the subject. You've yet to provide any credible evidence for your statement and have
preceded to treat a fact as though it were merely opinion. It is not.
9

@Nob the Knave It actually does have a lot to do with understanding and view. I didn't want to
have to type out a long reply because it sounds like you have a very basic view, this guy is
Nigerian, this girl is German. Rather it entails every aspect of the collective of a people. Millions
of untraceable variables, from genetic to even nongenetic such as historic. Culture being a rather
huge one for example. Culture as a reaction to one's environment and to one's self. Being a
human obviously is part of being a part of one's self, but so does one's race. So race, if only as a
variable, plays into the concept of Culture. The Viking Norse ended up not surviving in
Greenland because of their European culture, and because they got sick from eating fish, which
reenforced a culture of not eating a major food source for survival. The Inuit ended up surviving
in the climate and thriving because the race, and the customs they brought allowed them to better
adapt to the environment. This situation, you could argue was purely cultural. Yet, culture
springs from the people, and said race. You can't exactly develop a culture of fish eaters if most
people got sick from fish. Also, to throw away one's whole identity is akin to a societal suicide in
many ways. If you become the very thing you hated, you almost are insulting your whole
genetic/ancestral heritage, and you are no longer you in some ways. The embedded hopes and
dreams for a people that have them led in one direction. Slavery and past persecution is an
important influencer for many African Americans, it isn't purely biological, but to say it not part
of their race would be a poor understanding of race. Different groups of people adapt to different
environments differently. Some of those traits of adaptation are more suited towards being able
to succeed in other environments, than perhaps others are. Strength and speed may help you in an
environment where you have access to food constantly but hostile predators. It however is not
suited to cold climates, where intellect to have preparation for the winter is more important that
strength. It isn't coincidence that African Americans are far more over represented in areas of
professional sports. Or Asian Americans are towards academic and professional fields. If race
didn't matter, then colleges would not be biased against Asians forcing them to have higher
scores to enter a university compared to any other race of people, and you probably would see far
more white guys jumping on the basketball court. These two examples being just small scale
environments of success and failure, but its a proof of concept. Your argument is based on an
individualistic point of view specifically in modern society, but rather we are collectives with
histories. We can be loyal to a country, and should be, but blood tends to run even thicker. If
America was to break apart, and law and order was to shatter, humans would tend to regroup into
collectives of their peers. Most likely it would be racial or religious. Fast forward a thousand
years and if only one group would survive, it would be because of many things, environment
being one, but also how one adapts to the environment that they have. When there is infinite
choices, what is predisposed tends to surface. All this got way out of hand, I'm just saying it is
immature to not say race has no say and its all environmental, just like it is to consider that it is
the only indicator of success. Hell, if we go purely on skin alone then black skin allows for
someone to be in extreme heat for all day, and pale skin allows the maximum absorption of
sunlight. One is good for an environment of extreme sunlight, the other is towards one with
almost no sunlight. You switch places with these two people and one gets burned easy and the
other finds themselves with far less vital solar nutrition. If both were forced to compete in those
environments, then they will do far better in the ones they were suited for. While this is fun to
write, I'm not trying to argue online with a stranger. Just wanting to open someone's eyes to
thinking outside the confines of their logic structure. If two people are having an argument,
usually there are elements of truth on both sides, otherwise arguments could always be logically
solved like the equivalent of just pointing out that 1+1=2.
11
A Friendly Reply 1 month ago

@nukeba11 As sophisticated and compelling your argument may sound, any distinction based on
race is unscientific. There is consensus amongst scholars that the differences between human
ethnicities are too little to distinguish between different 'races'. In the end it's just a concept
humans made up by ascribing meaning to specific traits (e.g. skin colour) while ignoring other
(e.g. foot size).
5

@A Friendly Reply Well, first off I think that is a compliment so thank you. :) Ah yes science, in
many ways the newest religion, with modern day prophets being those that carry a PhD. Science
in many ways shows its limitations with when it turns its gaze from the universe to people. Even
egg yolk for humans, ah good cholesterol, bad cholesterol, turns out it depends on genetics
cholesterol. The laws of the universe seem to be more universal, life however is in a constant
state of change. You are almost getting it though. We argue there is too little to distinguish
humans but then will call a blue jay and red jay two different kinds of birds easily. We look at
specific traits while ignoring others, but the truth is that they come in a package deal. Skin type
of a certain type may also come with foot type and stomach acidity type. The genetic lottery
produces subtle differences over time that become more apparent when circulating within a
certain group of people for thousands of years. Skin type tends to be the common example of
race, but even something as insignificant like feet as you used, can be an important recognizing
factor. Think the Nazis finding Jews through measuring noses being a famous example. We think
it is ludicrous to find a people to expel because a nose, but it isn't the nose. The nose is just a
telling sign of the collective of traits that come, some genetic some non-genetic (if you read my
last post, I discuss this). It is this collective of traits, in a collective of people, that makes a
difference. Even a 1% difference creates a massive change if it is applied to a million people
across a thousand years. If you look at this from a modern science view, tracking gene xyz, and
comparing its survival to gene xxz, then notice that both subjects survive and pass genes along,
then it creates the illusion of nothing being important. However, that is a very individualistic
view, rather than a collective. People complain of Black subjugation leading to a systemic
oppression of the race, forcing them to never succeed... but yet other races have had a far worse
time, including Jewish people far more so. Go back 200 years ago and Asian immigrants and
Latin American immigrants both have an equal start in this new world, yet now one group seems
to have had more massive success than the other. Why is it that foreign animals are not allowed
to be transported to new countries? If released, they may destroy their new ecosystem because
they outperform whatever species is currently in there and there are no natural predators. It
works the same way with collectives of people. One civilization defeating another by harnessing
the environment around them more effectively is the very end result of a long process. A timid
people never risk their lives to tame the wild beats around them. A rash group does, time and
time again, until they find a way to tame an elephant. Anyways, thank you for the opportunity to
get to chat about this stuff. Always have fun talking about complex issues.
5
some dude 1 month ago

Lol give me any civ you on any map and Id beat you. Allow me to choose my civ(each with
unique aptitudes for a reason) and you have even less hope. Player skill makes all the difference.
1
And if you guys actually think that there is a consensus that racial differences are nonexistent or
trivial simply havent looked at the data. The majority of scientists actually acknowledge that
biological differences between different groups of people are significant. Also, if you knew
anything about science you would know that it doesnt work by consensus anyways. Race is real
and it is important
6

@some dude Felt like I was the sole guy arguing for reason here. Thanks dude.
3
Butterkin 3000 1 month ago

@A Friendly Reply It's funny you say that, because many doctors who research sickle cell
anemia would have something to say to you about that statement.
6

@some dude 1. You are suggesting that "the majority of scientists" acknowledge the notion of
human races. Do you have any proof for this claim? 2. Let's assume for one second that "race is
real [in a biological sense]". Why would you think that "it is important"?
1

@Butterkin 3000 And what would they say? Please enlighten me :D
Horny Fruit Flies 1 month ago

@A Friendly Reply They would probably say that it is genetically more common among people
of African descent. "About 80% of sickle cell disease cases are believed to occur in Sub-Saharan
Africa." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sickle_cell_disease
2

@Horny Fruit Flies to the point where unless you have african desent of that kind its almost
impossible to have sickle cell.
1
@A Friendly Reply Yes they acknowledge race as being real in that a race is basically the same
as a subspecies. They many not all like to use the same word for humans and nonhumans but
they are functionally the same. Its not that easy to link stuff from a phone but you can easily find
sources if you look. There was a survey of intellegence researchers a few years ago for example
that showef that researchers believed that the black white IQ gap in the US was about 50%
genetic, with only a small minority saying they though genetic differences between blacks and
whites had no impact.
1
Dat Fishe Boi 1 month ago

almost as many likes as comments OH NO
Lucas 1 month ago

@nukeba11 It's really funny how you use examples of African Americans being better at some
sports and Asians having better exam scores as examples of genetic determinism. As if the fact
that African Americans were enslaved and kept away from academic and professional
environments for centuries, and so could only achieve fame and success through athletic or
musical excellence, had nothing to with it. Or the fact that Asian cultures emphasize academic
effort and discipline as a way to honor your family. Are you gonna argue that Jewish people are
more likely to become lawyers and bankers because of adaptation to the Middle Eastern
environment as well? Give me a break. In the end, all the behaviors you use as examples of
genetics defining culture can be attributed to history and culture themselves. Saying that sickle
cell anemia and lactose intolerance are proof that race is an objective division is fucking
laughable. It's been proven over and over again that there is more genetic diversity inside a
"race" than between them. You can group people into races however you want, but all those
groupings will be artificial unless they are proposed by the people themselves and also take into
account historical and cultural factors. In which case it's called ETHNICITY, not race. Ethnicity
is real, races are artificial divisions made by 19th century Europeans who wanted to find a
scientific justification to feel superior to the rest of the world.
4

@Lucas You ever play sports at a high level? Perhaps study at a high level? I can tell you that
things like natural talent does exist in the world. Some dude can make massive gains with less
effort and a worse diet than another dude can. Genetics. Some people have to study for hours to
get something that another may just pick up immediately. Genetics. Natural talent exists. Yes,
hard work beats natural talent, but natural talent plus hard work beats just hard work. The fact
that these traits can be passed down from parents to children shows that they are transferable. It
isn't hard to imagine that if a particular trait allowed someone to thrive, that it would spread
throughout a group of people as well. If we all were the same, then we all could be Einstein or
Usain Bolt. We aren't though. I was in fact talking about ethnicity too. If you were reading my
messages before then you could tell I was using race to refer to both.
2
TheNuklearAge 1 month ago (edited)

@A Friendly Reply The US army considers anyone below 83 IQ too mentally slow to be useful
or even safe to be around in military conditions. There are many African countries with averages
below 83, some even as low as 70 which is retarded by western standards. What scientist would
look at this and go "no difference"? Oh that's right, the one who is terrified of being screeched at
by people like you and having their career mutilated because someone couldn't emotionally
handle a truth bomb. The "consensus" is only maintained at gunpoint. Nazi scientists also all had
to pay lip service to phrenology even if many of them knew it was bullshit.
1
Hexagonal Studios 1 month ago

That has more to do with the fact that there is less education investments in those countries than
the others. That has NOTHING to do with race whatsoever. You will find the same results in any
other country that does not invest as much into the education sector. This has nothing to do with
biological factors and everything to do with circumstancial factors. Therefore it is without a
doubt that your statement is both infactual and fundamentally flawed which could be attributed
to the lack of any real analysis.
2
Hexagonal Studios 1 month ago

So on the topic of sickle cell anemia, yes it is true that it occurs mainly in people of African
descent but that does not tell us the full picture, for you need to look at the environmental aspect.
Africans originated from an area where malaria is very prevelent, and in response to that, sickle
cell anemia serves to limit the effects of malaria due to the adversely shaped red blood cells,
lessening the impact of malaria. It's simply an evolutionary trait that is not linked to race. If
Malaria was more prevelent in say, Europe or Asia, then it is highly likely that people from those
places would be more susceptible to sickle cell anemia, regardless of Asia. To link it to race is
merely a vast misinterpretation and is simply easy to be misinformed about. I hope this was
enlightening

@Hexagonal Studios You seem to think that race is independent of environment. Genetics are
changed by environment. So yes, if malaria was in Europe, then sickle cell anemia might be a
European trait. The fact it wasn't is just one trait common amongst the African race. We keep
cherry picking genetic traits one at a time. It isn't like that, it is big collectives where some
people may have it and some may not. Race exists and is important because humans are human.
We look at people and notice differences. Even if the difference was only in skin, that is enough.
Let us pretend that there exists a green people and blue people. The majority is green, the
minority is blue. Because the blue people are different, they group together. They take on jobs
where they can get work. Perhaps they even expand their industry until they own a large amount
of industry because they focused on wealth accumulation and collective efforts to help one
another. After generations the blue minority became industry leaders. All this because they
couldn't integrate into the green society. There was no genetic difference other than skin at play,
yet skin became the determining genetic factor for their success. People go and get a college
education to unlearn what comes natural in some of this stuff. The body wasn't designed to care
about the genetic difference, it was designed to visually interpret the world in quick reactions.
That is like telling someone that the blue block and red block are actually the same block to
someone. Genetically they are probably 99.9% the same, but that person would say that is dumb
because they are clearly different. The fact that we are debating this proves this is the case. If
there was no difference, there would be no debate. Your way, in essence, is to have to teach
people not think naturally, like converting someone to a religion. Each generation you have to
convert people to your way of thinking. You have to hope that each new generation keeps
listening, otherwise the whole thing falls apart. The natural way I am discussing remains
perpetual and requires no effort. It will win out, even if that day is in a 1000 years.
1
Butterkin 3000 4 weeks ago

@Lucas Now Lucas, you're just arguing semantics at this point. You're fine with the word
"ethnicity" but "race" makes you feel uncomfortable because of baggage? Just relax. Be more
comfortable in your own skin. People can use either word, they mean the exact same thing. You
should ask yourself what natural selection does to other animals, and then come up with some
sort of explanation for yourself as to why that doesn't apply to human beings, before you do that
though, I have to warn you, the reason can't be because it makes you uncomfortable.
1
Butterkin 3000 4 weeks ago (edited)

@Hexagonal Studios It's an oversimplification to just say that sickle cell anemia = african.
However, it is fundamentally true. The fact that you can acknowledge that the environment
dictated that GENETIC TRAIT means that you can also acknowledge that it can dictate every
other genetic trait. Of course, environmental factors play a huge roll in the way a human society
or people would develop, although, not everyone is a blank slate and to suggest so is
intellectually dishonest. We can certainly have the same software, but there is a hardware aspect
to an organism. If you think that there is no such thing as hardware, and only software applies to
humans, that's also intellectually dishonest. Just remember that so far, no one here is suggesting
to act on the fact that people are different. No one here arguing for natural selection also
applying to humans is suggesting that we should re-enslave all africans or treat people of other
races differently. Personally, I believe that they have their own affinities and they are good at
their own things. This is a logically consistent way of thinking because they have survived and
reproduced in their own respective corners of the world, with many generations dictating that
they become the best at surviving in that environment. I could not go into Africa and survive as
well as a knowledgeable African Tribesman. I could not do that, I couldn't run down and animal
until it faces heat exhaustion like some african people can. I could train day in and day out to be
a good marathon runner, but I may never reach the point where I could do that because of my
genetics. I would never be able to sprint as fast as an african man could either. I am not really
built for sprinting, I am more built for strength and surviving in colder environments. There are
thousands of differences between each collective population and race often times becomes very
blurry but with some consolidation here and there you could identify several of the most
populous races on the planet: East Asians, Sub-saharan Africans and Europeans. All named after
the places that they originate from. Being able to see the differences, there is nothing wrong with
that. What truly is morally questionable is suggesting that we should treat each other differently
because of that. There is beauty in having people be different, if everyone was the same, the
world would be a boring place.
1
TheNuklearAge 4 weeks ago

@Hexagonal Studios There's been bias studies done of only educated African populations:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxAhwYoZQKU&bpctr=1543997933 The result isn't any
better. Also IQ is not related to education, these are highly g-loaded tests that typically don't
even require you to have beyond very basic literacy to understand. Most IQ test questions are
designed not to rely on education, prior knowledge or language proficiency. The fact that
American blacks, having the same access to education as whites (even better considering
affirmative action) still score an average of 85 is very telling. US blacks are about 30-40% white
on average so the fact that their IQ is right in the middle between pure African IQ and pure
White IQ basically confirms its totally genetic.
1
TheNuklearAge 4 weeks ago (edited)

@Hexagonal Studios A disease unique to a single race is by definition a racial disease, the fact
that it was due to environmental stress proves nothing. Black skin is also due to environmental
stress, doesn't mean its not genetic or that its not a racial trait...
Hexagonal Studios 4 weeks ago

Wow a *youtube video*, such a reputable source. I took the time to research the researcher who
did this 'study', Philippe Rushton, and it turns out that most of his work has been, to say the least,
heavily criticized by the scientific community, for both questionable methods and quality, as
well as his rather biased approach to this topic. Him speaking occasionally on a white
supremacist magazine certainly does not help his case. In addition, I took a look at the channel
you linked, and it had quite a bit of questionable content. It seems you just looked up "whites are
smarter than blacks studies", though I am hoping that was not the case since it would say quite a
bit about you.
3

As for sickle cell, it is mainly prevelent in Africans yes but it is NOT the unique race affected by
it, because malaria doesn't just occur in Africa, for it has been both historically and currently
prevelent in the middle east, India and formerly in the Mediterranean area. It's just that the
prevelence of malaria had been more in africa, leading to some people to say that sickle cell is
purely unique to Africans, which is just plain wrong.
1

@Hexagonal Studios Who cares who is associated with who if you're talking about academic
truth? African IQ is known to be low and doesn't rest on Rushton's research, its simply cross-
confirmed fact, many researchers have studied it and its never been above 70-75. Sorry to break
it to you but race is real and there are very significant differences between races that do not
depend on education or living standards. Some people are genetically dumber than others, we
know this individually how difficult is it to believe its true on a group level? You're in reality
denial mode.
1

@Hexagonal Studios The sickle cell version of anemia is something only black people get. There
are other forms of anemia but its sickle cell is unique to blacks just like a variety of diseases are
unique to jews. I have a friend who works in a mass spec lab doing diagnostics for disease
markers. There are literally hundreds of disease that are unique to certain groups of people.
These diseases can only show up if a person has a certain ethnic background.

Then go and provide UNBIASED citations for your claims then, because thus far all you have
done is keep repeating that intelligence is based on race while providing a youtube video that
hosts a cleared biased professor. And to claim that I am in denial just shows a lot about you, for I
tried explaining to you why your viewpoint is inaccurate.
1
Hexagonal Studios 4 weeks ago (edited)

"Only black people get sickle cell" http://www.hematology.org/Patients/Anemia/Sickle-
Cell.aspx Being ignorant is one thing, but lying and being dishonest is another thing. How do
you expect people to take you seriously when you decide to disregard established facts, as well
as saying "my friend this and that". Can you stop trolling and actually start debating like two
civilized beings?
1

@Hexagonal Studios Fuck off with the loaded libtard language. I don't believe in the argument
of authority that somehow just because someone has a certain political view they are biased as
scientists. That has to be proven, guilt by association is rubbish. You honestly sound like a lefty
demagogue circa 2007, that time is over dawg, no one will take you seriously with your threats
of excommunication and "muh bias".
With that out of the way I am familiar with what you are suggesting about IQ. You're suggesting
that Rushton's (and Lynn's) studies are biased while Wichert's is somehow unbiased because he
comes up with a higher IQ and thus its not "so" bad. Wichert's research is basically a bunch of
data manipulating rubbish where he specifically threw out low scores of Sudan because
supposedly its not Sub Saharan and also he also did biased removal of low scores of those who
had illness but not high scores of those who had any illness. Basically he managed to fudge the
numbers up to 82 while Lynn's study said 70, international tests said 74. So ok lets take the
average and say 72, still retarded. You honestly want to argue those 2 points that bad? Yeah ok
Rushton & Lynn maybe were off and "biased" by two IQ points, wow, amazing. In the scientific
community that doesn't discredit you, not even close, the research still stands with minor caveats.
Here's the simple argument : IQ is 80% heritable, if you're low IQ its because you're genetically
low IQ. The big difference in average IQ between two groups is genetic, just by heritability
alone.

@Hexagonal Studios You want to be civilized while accusing me of lying? How about this: go
fuck yourself. I am not going to be civil to someone who makes such a baseless accusation.
Anyways, great job doing no research, like always. Sickle Cell is associated with only a few
haplotype groups: Sub-Saharan and Indian. Indian, why Indian? Because at least 600 million
people in India have Siddi (African) blood. How do you think so many Indians are dark skinned?
They're part African, duh.
Things are a lot less mysterious and difficult to understand when you look at it through the prism
of reality: dark skin, african origin and sickle cell anemia are highly correlated. As for hispanics,
even less mysterious: hispanics are a mixture of white, native and black. You'd have to be
seriously stupid to think that such a bizarre genetic abnormality as sickle cell anemia would
spontaneously happen anywhere there is malaria. Genetic abnormalities from different regions,
from different times and different genetic populations will always differ in their genetic markers
and their expression. If you see a very specific disease type it will always have the same source. I
mean just research this shit, the mutation Asians got for malarial resistance is called the
Hemoglobin-D Punjab and it is unique to people who are ancestrally from the Punjab region,
you'd never mistaken it for sickle cell anemia which is African in origin. Do I seriously have to
explain this shit like you're 5? You're just playing stupid to get a rise out of me, quit it.
2chin4u 3 weeks ago

Dude there is so much wrong with your mentality. How is differentiation and division between
races at all progressive. In fact I would argue that it is extremely regressive. Regardless being a
certain race doesn’t necessarily give me certain attributes. If I were Asian it wouldn’t mean I was
automatically smart. If I was black I wouldn’t automatically mean I’m an athlete. No that would
be stupid. The differences in race are so minute it doesn’t matter. A person given the right
materials and resources can accomplish almost anything in life, some just are luckier than others.
Besides even if people have implicit biases, studies have shown that people tend not to act on
these biases. The point is that there is no point in dividing people by race since we are defined by
so many things much more important than race. This mentality is pseudo liberal and deconstructs
progressive work achieved over the past 150 years. I don’t believe we are perfect, but we always
grow.

So you decided to resort to name calling now? I didn't know we are in a preschool now. And I
thought I was dealing with a competent and mature person. I guess not. Nowhere did I state any
other researcher now did I? Just putting words in my mouth. Since you obviously are not gonna
change your rather interesting views im done here. Your behaviour speaks for itself. Do mature
and have a good day.
1

Fyi you still didn't bring the citations I asked for, and instead going on a long rant about
defending your side with, once again, no citations.

@Hexagonal Studios You don't deserve any respect after calling me a liar. My hands were untied
to say whatever the hell I wanted to after you did that. Don't make false accusations, asshole.

@Hexagonal Studios I assumed you were actually familiar with the subject matter, I noted the
work of some authors and then gave you my opinion on the matter. I guess you've just never
actually read their work and so that is why you are confused as to what I am referring to when I
cite studies. Your position is untenable and honestly sounds lazy and stupid. Everything about
your presentation screams outdated and kitsch as all fuck.

"Only black people get sickle cell" That was what you said, and I listed why that was wrong,
hence my words. You made it sound that ONLY black people had the trait. Even if you would
say that the other races were because of a mixture of black, your original statement was still
wrong, or rather misleading.

And regardless, your rather hostile reaction to what could be attributed to misinformation is
rather excessive. You had the right to defend yourself? Yes Did you have to be very hostile about
it? No

@Hexagonal Studios When someone is splitting hairs you know you have them on the back foot.
Let me remind you of what you actually wrote: "It's just that the prevelence of malaria had been
more in africa, leading to some people to say that sickle cell is purely unique to Africans, which
is just plain wrong." It IS purely unique to people with African admixture, you were trying to say
its a common mutation from malaria and only related to malaria. I simply pointed out that such a
unique mutation can only happen once, anyone with a bio background would know that which
means that it is in fact a very definite marker of someone being either black or part black, its a
black disease.

@2chin4u People are successful just don't think the way you do, they hone in on what they are
naturally good at and keep going at it until they can put themselves on the level where they
actually accomplish something big. Then you come along and say that their talent is worth
nothing, anyone could have done it. You're a nihilist, you hate what makes people unique
because you are religiously egalitarian, you deny people their talents and quirks to say that we
are all one big mass of the same thing, no individuality just a bunch of human biomatter with
some of us getting lucky and some of us not. Typical marxist blathering really: on one hand rob
people of individuality, on the other set up a have and have-not class.
"Regardless being a certain race doesn’t necessarily give me certain attributes. If I were Asian it
wouldn’t mean I was automatically smart. If I was black I wouldn’t automatically mean I’m an
athlete."
Nice straw man, who said anything about every individual following the trend of the average?
No one, you're arguing with yourself on that one.
"The differences in race are so minute it doesn’t matter. "

I previously wrote that the average African IQ would be considered retarded in the West, how is
that minute?
" A person given the right materials and resources can accomplish almost anything in life, some
just are luckier than others."
This is typical goalpost shifting, because if you fail in life you always have an easy excuse to
push your failure off to: "Oh I just got unlucky!". This is a loser's way of seeing the world. No,
you can't accomplish anything you want because there's thousands of people trying to also
succeed and there are not enough spots under the sun. You can do your best and fail, only people
who are overly coddled wouldn't know that.
" The point is that there is no point in dividing people by race since we are defined by so many
things much more important than race. "
Sure you can think there is no point but the reality is that research shows that groups that act
ethnocentrically win in game theory because they are always able to optimize their cooperation
towards only people who they know will cooperate with them (their in-group) . You can be an
altruist but you are just painting a target on your back: groups that think in terms of group
politics will exploit you and beat you. You'll be resigned to fate while they will be crafting their
own fate.

@Hexagonal Studios I was civil right up to the point you called me a liar.
2chin4u 3 weeks ago

Are you right winged? Cause if so it’s funny how you are taking the side of someone who claims
to be liberal. Didn’t know people on the extreme left and right could agree on something, much
less race. Anyway to clarify I’m not arguing against individuals. I’m only stating that people are
defined by there race. Also in regards to that straw man claim, nukeba claimed multiple times
that race matters and that races are different. I’m trying to argue the opposite that race does
define and doesn’t give you certain characteristics other than skin color. To paraphrase what grey
said, it is not about the people, but the resources people have to work with. You can not deny the
fact that some places are simply more naturally rich with resources than others, that doesn’t
make one race any smarter than others.
Neglo Blaxon 3 weeks ago

Damn your comment sure brought the HIGH IQ LOWLIFES to the front. Can that HIGH IQ
STOP THOSE LOW BIRTH RATES? Can that HIGH IQ stop "White Genocide"?
1

@2chin4u Not sure why you would find that surprising because the truth is out in the open on all
of this stuff. At this point it's like being surprised that both sides of the aisle agree on
fundamental physics. Either you are someone who is ignorant, willfully ignorant or real about it.
Now onto your points here. Why in the world would differences in race just suddenly stop at skin
color? You have to seriously jump through some hoops here to arrive at that conclusion. Other
than skin color there's other physical repercussions. Just look into the Asian eyelid. What's really
funny here is you're really trying to deny genetics. A branch of science that has verified a lot that
people seem to mull over in deference to their own opinions or political ideology. Small
differences in ones genetic code bring about large differences in reality. That statement holds a
lot more weight than people give it credit for.
You seem to think it stops at differences between chimpanzees and humans. It doesn't. It doesn't
even stop at the difference between humans and other humans. Why then is it so surprising to
find out that groupings exist that display very real and observable differences both internally and
externally? The term haplotype wouldn't exist otherwise. This just directly leads into your final
statements about resources and the Guns, Germs and Steel argument. It's lazy and filled with
flaws. I've already talked about the domestication nonsense. The resource nonsense is even more
absurd. Humans still have to bend the world to their will to thrive. The premise is okay but it
goes too far in its theory. In reality, unless you're in some inhospitable zone like Northern
Canada or Antarctica resources are not so scarce that it's just impossible to make work and it
simply comes down to a matter of how the humans in the region actually adapted and innovated.
Lucas 3 weeks ago

2chin4u "Liberals are on the extreme left" LOL
1
Lucas 3 weeks ago (edited)

TheNuklearAge TheNuklearAge I'm not gonna try to argue that ethnicity or race has no
influence in traits like IQ, but you have absolutely no proof for statements like "IQ is 80%
determined by genetics". You're just pulling that number out of your ass and no study can say
that empirically, unless they do some inhumane experiments to raise children from different
genetic backgrounds in an isolated room until they reach puberty. Studies that look at adopted
children are flawed because they don't take into account differences in the gestation period. You
can raise black and white adopted children alongside in a similar environment and measure their
IQs over time, but you won't have a way to control for or know about their mother's nutrition,
stress levels, exposure to toxic chemicals or drug use during the pregnancy, which can affect
their development later in life in a major way. Most studies that use this methodology also don't
take into account the time between the child's birth and when they were given up for adoption.
Bottom line, there is no scientific study that can reasonably make the claim that a certain
percentage of IQ is due to genetics without ignoring a number of other factors which can't easily
be controlled for and can also influence performance in IQ tests. Stereotype threat is an example
of this. Studies that try to control for socioeconomic status by using the parent's income as a
proxy usually ignore differences in living conditions and access to primary education.
1
Lucas 3 weeks ago

nukeba11 Natural talent != genetics. The environment in which a child is raised, even before
they're out of the womb, can have a significant influence in their interests, abilities and talents. A
family that values athleticism or academic excellence is probably gonna instill those values into
their children and focus more of their time and effort in those things. You can't separate that
from genetic factors to reach a conclusion about race defining differences in talent. If you try to
perform a study using adopted children to remove the influence of raising conditions you're just
adding a bunch of variables you can't control for. This type of genetically deterministic narrative
is what fuels racist assholes who claim to be "only looking at the objective facts", like the
Nuklear guy here.

@Lucas You're just making a more wordy version of Hex's argument and it all looks the same:
muddying the waters with doubts. You don't really have any facts to back up anything you said
because the science simply doesn't support the egalitarian version of the argument. The fact that
you can write something as moronic as "Bottom line, there is no scientific study that can
reasonably make the claim that a certain percentage of IQ is due to genetics without ignoring a
number of other factors which can't easily be controlled for and can also influence performance
in IQ tests" really shows how little you know about the area of science you are talking about.
Here's why IQ is 80% Heritable:
1.Have you actually studied the Heritability of IQ? It's never estimated lower than 60 and its as
high as 86 in modern studies. I am actually giving you a pretty moderate estimate, this is well
known stuff.
2. Since I guess you don't know this stuff let me break it down: Identical twin studies. Same
genes, different environments. You can control for the adoptive environment by determining
categories like Family Functioning and Parent Depression, etc. Even with all of this controlled
for the Heritability is 80%. Incidentally, there is basically no correlation between socioeconomic
status and IQ in these studies, which liberals tend to claim is the most important factor in
academic progress. It isn't, the main factors are how sociable a child is and how much raw
intellect he has, the family situation really only affects them in dysfunctional families, which are
controlled out. So yeah, a good family can give you a 20% boost but 80% is just what you
inherited. This doesn't just mean genetics, it can be epigenetics, maternal factors like flora,
hormones and mtDNA, but that is still all functions of DNA its still all from the same source:
your parents, the stuff you inherit regardless of if its literally DNA or not.
3. The Black-White IQ gap widens with age, even if blacks start with some inherent
disadvantage then it would stay constant. The reason its genetic is because IQ Heritability grows
with age, you only get to 80% when you become an adult. That is the B-W gap is smaller at early
age before higher brain functions develop because in our early stages of development all races
are essentially the same. Its the fancy stuff in the frontal cortex that suddenly makes us totally
different people in terms of intellect, discipline , verbal proficiency and all that fancy stuff that
blacks underperform in.
4. IQ subtests are very varied, some of them are designed to test mental features that are heritable
while others test features that are less heritable. If, for example, IQ is 50% heritable you'd expect
to see the same racial gap between heritable subtests and ones that are lesser, because in that case
heritablity and environment have the same effect so the gap should not change based on subtest.
Guess what? It does, and when you calculate the implied heritability it is yet again... 80%.
Anyways, that should give you a little guide on why its 80%, simple stuff. Finally about the
environment: Humans create their own environment. You don't have crops or food or technology
without someone thinking about it and applying themselves. Thus the idea that environment is
somehow random or uncontrolled or not related to your genetics is a seriously questionable
assertion to make. If IQ is 80% Heritable and human intellect is the motor of innovation and
environmental craftsmanship that means that even the presence of the environment is 80%
genetic. But ok, you can have that 20% for now even if that's a seriously doubtful assertion.

@Lucas Yeah your environment can have a 20% effect on you, that isn't small but it also wont
make Lil Jon into Beethoven. The fact that so many white geniuses had families that could only
be described as shit proves you completely wrong. You CAN separate genetic factors, its easy.
You simply design a test: test the parents once and then the offspring multiple times in his or her
development. Then you compile the data of many such cases and compare, this has been done
hundreds of times with all sorts of controls done. Every liberal-leaning scientist has tried to
fudge and control the fuck out of the data any way they could think of and 80% is still the final
conclusion. You lost, this argument has been had for decades and your side has lost. Ohh
"rayyyycist" I was waiting for that shit, I don't care about your shitty labels. This isn't 2007, I
don't care about being excommunicated by a bunch of lefty cucks, fuck you and the butt plug
you rode in on.
By the way, there is nothing deterministic about the individual's fate when I say that high IQ is
mostly determined by your parents. If you are 2 standard deviations above the average then you
can be either a lawyer or a scientist, its your choice what you want to funnel your intellect and
passion into and this is just as true in Africa as it is in the USA. Individual fate is not
deterministic, the fate of a group of people is, underachieving groups underachieve because they
on average inherit less of an ability to achieve. Its sort of like quantum mechanics and
thermodynamics: the individual quantum features can be very varied, but when you average
them you seem to always get the same thing. So even if a bunch of molecules follow very
different paths their average temperature remains the same. You can't deconstruct me. It wont
work, I already know all your moves.

@Neglo Blaxon Solutions are never direct. I am not a political activist, but think of it this way:
we got to this situation by believing in a narrative the left told us. Destroying the narrative and
demoralizing its disciples is a big part of turning this around.
2chin4u 3 weeks ago

Lucas, sorry I wasn’t clear. I wasn’t saying that liberals are extreme left, but the pseudo liberals
that claim they are progressive yet they are not.
2chin4u 3 weeks ago

Funny how you said that me saying that being a different race doesn’t mean you can do certain
things is a straw man argument, yet you keep bringing up African IQ tests. Any way you call me
ignorant, yet it’s clear that you are a racist.

@2chin4u These are some tired ass leftist arguments of being unable to distinguish population
averages and individual abilities, ill just quote myself again since its clear you aren't keeping
track: "Individual fate is not deterministic, the fate of a group of people is, underachieving
groups underachieve because they on average inherit less of an ability to achieve. Its sort of like
quantum mechanics and thermodynamics: the individual quantum features can be very varied,
but when you average them you seem to always get the same thing. So even if a bunch of
molecules follow very different paths their average temperature remains the same." You guys
seriously need some new demagogues so you quit using labels and arguments that are 10-20
years out of date. Reality is racist, boo hoo, cry me a fucking river.
2chin4u 3 weeks ago

I honestly would love to see your reaction minorities who achieve more than you do. How do
you explain racial differences then? Regardless, if you went back 100,000 years ago and were
somehow able to compare the intelligence of Europeans and Africans you know what you would
find? Nothing because there were no Humans in Europe 100,000 years ago. I bring this up
because if there are any differences between races, then they must have been shaped by their
environment. I put stars around this to make sure you would read this part. But from an
evolutionary perspective, allow me to explain why the difference between humans are so minute.
First, modern humans have only been around for 250,000 years, maybe more but in perspective
that is not a long time. How in terms of brain development, modern humans have only been
around for 75,000 years at best. This is all before humans left Africa. Not nearly enough time for
speciation. To make matters more complicated, humans didn’t reach Europe until 40,000 years
ago and the Americas until 25,000 years ago. Even less time for significant changes. There are
more differences between bonobos and chimps than there are between different races of humans.
So clearly there isn’t enough time. Not only that, but humans are also very sociable, and different
groups are willing to coordinate and cooperate with each other. This is one of the biggest reasons
why Humans dominated the earth. Long before we even had guns or advanced weapons. Because
of this and the rise of globalization, it’s hard to see speciation occurring in humans
1

@2chin4u Doesn't bother me, I work with Asian people who I have mutual respect for and who
are aware of what I think on the matter. Why go 100k years when we're talking about today? If
we go back 6 million years and compare our ancestors with chimps then we'd be about the same,
so what? We go back 200 million years and we're as stupid as dinosaurs, what's your point? If
we're talking about 50-75k years ago my ancestors (I don't know your racial background) were
Cro Magnons who originated most probably from Chinese hominids, not African ones. Out of
Africa hypothesis is just that, a hypothesis. You got it backwards, humans are the first species
able to hand craft their environment to their own needs, this started with domestication and the
creation of advanced tools. Even in the Paleolithic Europeans had more advanced hunting tools,
for example, flint-based frangible spear heads was a uniquely Cro-Magnon invention, so yeah we
can go quite far back to see that the difference in intellect is huge.
As for "not enough time for speciation", that's just a matter of opinion, there are finches which
barely differ from each other but are considered different species, meanwhile for humans:
https://imgur.com/a/nbiWV8N You can't compare humans to other animals, humans have had
extremely rapid brain growth in the past 1 million years, every thousand years is a lot of time.
You clearly have not researched human evolution so I will explain it in simple terms: humans are
a success story of a retroviral infection acting in synergy with a species evolution. Our massive
brain size to body ratio is due to a duplication of the retrovirus putting in copies of genes that
cause the brain to get larger into our genome. We went from 500 mL brains to 1400 mL brains in
less than 2 million years. Incidentally, the brain size difference between races is not insignificant
and IQ does correlate with brain size.
Humans cooperate with their in-group, they generally only cooperate with other groups when its
beneficial to their in group and exploit other human groups (or even kill them) when it benefits
their in-group. Have you read any history? Humans are all about subjugation of the weaker
group, not singing Kumbaya. Of course you're a globalist, lmfao, fuck that shit, that marxist
conspiracy is never happening no matter how many evil rats try to push it through.
Lucas 3 weeks ago

TheNuklearAge Lol, you're basically arguing that 96% of each individual's sucess in life is due
to genetics (cuz environment is 80% genetics too, it's science bruh). There is no other way to
describe you besides a racist and an eugenicist. You shouldn't deny that shit, own it and be proud
of it. Wear a sign on your neck that says "I believe in racial superiority". That'll get you far in
life.
1

@Lucas Nah, when it comes to individuals there's a lot more than genetics at work, but when it
comes to populations there's almost nothing else involved , might seem like a contradiction but
it's not, its just another one of life's paradoxes. There goes the "rayciiist" label again, I told you
guys, its old fashion and outdated. Just proves that the left can't meme properly anymore. These
discussions become overly emotionally charged, when did I say any of that? I just pointed out
the difference and that by western standards Africans are on average retarded, so how can you
possibly say there is no difference between the races?
2chin4u 2 weeks ago

Dude just stop already. It’s already clear you have racial biases against Africans. Funny how you
acknowledge that indviduals can achieve different levels of success but just called the average
African retarded. You still refuse to even acknowledge that maybe white people have a higher IQ
on average because white Europeans tend to have better access to healthcare, better education
systems and weren’t the victims of colonization. The fact is that you are definitely a racist, in any
sense of the word you are a racist.
2chin4u 2 weeks ago

But let’s entertain your ideas, if somehow white people are naturally smarter, what specifically
makes them smarter? In other words what makes a white person’s brain somehow more capable
than anyone else’s. I’m gonna save you some time, you won’t find any evidence for this because
it doesn’t exist. Even if you can find a minute difference, it doesn’t matter since speciation has
not occurred in humans, so the only difference is the color of their skin.
1
feihCehT 2 weeks ago

@nukeba11 That's an interesting conception of race but I don't think that's what most people or
racists think of when they think "race". Cultural differences are pretty distinct from the view of
highly separate "races" based on human clines.

@2chin4u So after I showed to you that there are significant IQ differences in populations, and
that they are 80% heritable your reply is "No they're not. Find the gene." The modern left is a
religion, these major differences would not be controversial among leftists if it was any species
other than human because the left is trying to tell an egalitarian narrative. Speciation is arbitrary,
humans evolve much faster than other animals so 50,000 years is easily enough time for
speciation under a more realistic definition. The current exclusion of humans is political, not
factual, there are many animals that are more genetically similar to each other than human races
that are still considered different species.
" I’m gonna save you some time, you won’t find any evidence for this because it doesn’t exist. "
this is a statement of dogma, not fact. To be honest its shocking that someone like you can
believe this. I don't think you are stupid but at this point you are doing little but give lip service
to the dominant ideology of our day. You've been presented with evidence that the differences
are not skin deep but still deny it even in the face of overwhelming evidence.
Anyways, I know this wont convince anyone as blinded by dogma as you, but I will entertain
your "find the gene" query. From "Genome-wide association studies establish that human
intelligence is highly heritable and polygenic": "In summary, we report the first study to show
that a large proportion of the heritability estimate of intelligence in middle to older adulthood can
be traced to biological variation using SNP data. It is the first to show biologically and
unequivocally that human intelligence is highly polygenic and that purely genetic (SNP)
information can be used to predict intelligence. "
From "Childhood intelligence is heritable, highly polygenic and associated with FNBP1L":
"Although no individual single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) were detected with genome-
wide significance, we show that the aggregate effects of common SNPs explain 22–46% of
phenotypic variation in childhood intelligence in the three largest cohorts (P = 3.9 10E-15, 0.014
and 0.028). FNBP1L, previously reported to be the most significantly associated gene for adult
intelligence, was also significantly associated with childhood intelligence (P = 0.003)" (P value
cut off is generally 0.05, as you can see the P values here are miniscule meaning that the genetic
basis of these effects is guaranteed)
From "The new genetics of intelligence" published this year: "It is possible to use multiple GPSs
to boost the power to predict intelligence by aggregating GPSs in a way analogous to
aggregating SNPs to produce GPSs (BOX 3). Including the EA2 GPS, IQ2 GPS and other GPSs
in this multivariate way can already predict up to 7% of the variance in intelligence36,37"
Its not limited to just intelligence, even anti-social behavior is genetically linked. MAO-A with
shorter VNTR numbers cause more aggression and anti-social behavior. Blacks have 10-52 times
(!!!) more of the 2R variant (most antisocial) than Whites.

@TheNuklearAge Oh cool an actual Nazi, take your IQ pseudoscience and sodomize yourself
you useless moron. You've no understanding of genetics or human clines or the variability there
in. As far as Sub-Saharan African countries: I'd like to see sources, that weren't funded by a
racist think tank, on the subject. Oh wait you don't have any and never will. Your kind never
have sources. Exactly your kind of ignorance is what led me out of your delusional belief system.
Never mind the fact that the difference between western blacks and Africans "IQ" shows your
genetic argument is bunk, never mind that the Flynn effect and all the ways that environmental
factors completely shift IQ tests shows that it's junk; answer me this: even if we pretended your
beliefs were true, what difference would it make in a free society. Why would it justify your
discrimination? Why should we treat any citizen any different? Because that's your logical end
step. You propagate your bullshit so you can sell people on your abhorrent nazi solutions. Why
don't you tell your fellows, "gamers rise up" into a fucking noose. You're holding the rest of
society back, you ignorant, degenerate, waste.
2

@TheNuklearAge If you lied, and you did, he's free to call you a liar. That's how truth works,
there's not multiple alternative truths my boy. Sorry that triggered your fragile ego, little nazi.
1

@TheNuklearAge You're in an idiot and should refrain from talking to matters of either political
economy, politics at large, or genetics until you read a fucking book you bad-faith arguing,
dishonest, pseudo-intellectual.
1
@Neglo Blaxon They're too busy smoking heroin and blaming their unemployment on
foreigners to use their high IQs to 64D chess their way out of the (((white genocide)))

@TheNuklearAge Oh look, the one where a Nazi completely misunderstands heritability, that's a
classic.
1

@TheNuklearAge "left can't meme" OOOOHHHHH MY GOOOOOOOOD! I WASN'T SURE
BUT YOU REALLY ARE A RETARDED /POL/ACK! It all makes sense now! Also, I got a
fucking neonazi bingo!
2

@feihCehT Man, I thought the previous guys were fucking cry babies but you take the cake. I
am sorry that the sources give you anal pain, but black IQ really is extremely low, you will never
find an all black population where the IQ is even close to 100, so sure fight me on whether its 70
or 75, its still retarded. Remember that in the US 83 is too low for Army service, so the US army
considers below 83 functional retardation, there is no black country that comes to even close to
that average.
The Flynn effect is nice, except it affects smarter races more strongly: the Black-White SAT gap
is only getting larger, because guess what? Higher IQ = Build a better environment, if IQ is 80-
20 then Whites get a buff to their 20 while blacks only get a buff to their 14, even environmental
effects favor those who are already higher in IQ. Who said anything about discrimination or free
society or how citizens should be treated? I said, quite simply, that its a false claim to say that
there are no biological differences between races. No one has come up with any argument
against that, just excuses and angry accusations of me being a nazi. Its not my problem that you
guys believe bullshit its your duty to educate yourself.
1

@feihCehT You're a classical case of a swine dragging others into the mud and then beating
them with experience. You have no substance so you start getting emotional. I am pretty sure
you're a dude, but you're acting like a bitch.
1
@TheNuklearAge Oh I'm sorry, I'm not arguing with you. This is YouTube. I'm laughing at you.
Because you're an idiot
1

@TheNuklearAge Go argue with the lads at leftypol if you want an argument they'll take any
bait and have the time to cross examine every ignorant nazi. I'm just going to keep laughing at
/pol/'s non subtle attempts to pretend to be completely legitimate "race realists" up until their shit
memes come out.
2chin4u 2 weeks ago

You know, you were making the same arguments that slave owners were making to justify
slavery. Any way I’m not gonna take time to write out why race science is bunk, but I’ll link this
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2018/04/race-genetics-science-africa/

@feihCehT Can you stop replying to this thread, I am far more interested in what the other
people are going to write than what a manchild like you has to say. Stop polluting this thread, it
was interesting until you showed up.

@feihCehT Sure, send your butt buddies from leftypol to this thread, idgf.

@2chin4u National geographic is pop science with a political agenda, not peer reviewed science
which is proofread by other specialists to ensure a minimal amount of bias. Why the sudden
relaxation on standards of proof? You rode my ass about bias, now you're using biased sources.
Remember, the mean old "racist scientists" got their research published multiple times through
the gauntlet of peer review, this had no outside review. Not very self-consistent are we? By the
way, the OOA hypothesis is dying especially among Asian researchers who are not shackled by
political correctness, so its not a white conspiracy - the modern western conspiracy is marxist
egalitarianism. So what, now youre appealing to consequences? The truth has to be suppressed
because slavery? It's not that simple, and its not the 1800s anymore, this isn't relevant.
nukeba11 2 weeks ago
@feihCehT Thanks. Interesting to see such intense debate raging on. I understand my concept of
what race is might be different. Everything is connected though. The smallest difference, even
cosmetic, will butterfly effect into drastically different results. From what is considered
beautiful, to lifestyle, to everything. Consider for example, if you looked into the mirror to see a
super in-shape you. This would boost your confidence, you would interact with other humans
differently. As a result, new opportunities might be open to you even. Not because the looks per-
se, but because how they subtly influenced you to be a different, better version of yourself. That
one is obvious, but the same applies for everything, even if it is much smaller. I just wanted to
say that it is literally impossible for race to not be a factor because of this. I got a life to live, so I
may just stop responding to these comments now. haha. This has been enjoyable but I'm kinda
surprised this thread is still going on.
nukeba11 2 weeks ago

@feihCehT weirdly enough my message did not attach you. Here you go. :) Thanks. Interesting
to see such intense debate raging on. I understand my concept of what race is might be different.
Everything is connected though. The smallest difference, even cosmetic, will butterfly effect into
drastically different results. From what is considered beautiful, to lifestyle, to everything.
Consider for example, if you looked into the mirror to see a super in-shape you. This would
boost your confidence, you would interact with other humans differently. As a result, new
opportunities might be open to you even. Not because the looks per-se, but because how they
subtly influenced you to be a different, better version of yourself. That one is obvious, but the
same applies for everything, even if it is much smaller. I just wanted to say that it is literally
impossible for race to not be a factor because of this. I got a life to live, so I may just stop
responding to these comments now. haha. This has been enjoyable but I'm kinda surprised this
thread is still going on.
2chin4u 2 weeks ago

@TheNuklearAge No the out of Africa hypothesis is not dying out. It is practically universally
accepted. Besides you know when the Out of Africa Hypothesis had it's origins? 1924 with the
discovery of Australopithecus Africanus. Here's a study talking about when humans left Africa
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4844272/ Also Many geneticists completely
disagree with race science.https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/08/geneticists-decry-book-
race-and-evolution . what are you gonna tell me next, that all of these science are corrupted by
political correctness?

@2chin4u You actually read the article you cited? Even the article itself suggests that the
geneticists wrote the letter as a knee jerk reaction and probably had not read the actual book
since their arguments lacked substance and specificity. It's simply 140 geneticists giving lip
service to make sure they aren't sacked the same way biologists gave lip service to phrenology in
the Third Reich. Yes, it is political. Besides, stop trying to score points by someone else's
authority and actually reply to what I wrote about the connection of IQ, heritability and genetics
instead of starting anew each time. As for OoA: I don't care about it that much, but its on a sharp
decline in its current interpretation. There's now modern humans found in Asia at the 120k mark
and modern humans in Morocco at 300k (remember OoA is from Subsahara, not Arabic Africa) .
So I mean even if the OoA hypothesis is true at like the 300k mark its way, way later than what
the OoA people have been saying this whole time with their "parsiminous trees" suggesting 40k
when its not even close to that. So even if OoA is true its such a different time period that its
barely the same theory. The whole point of the original theory was to say racial divergence was
extremely recent, but our new evidence suggests that its much further back in time than
previously thought. A lot of people think that its outright Asia, not Africa, since the fossil
evidence is starting to support that theory more. You're suggesting the debate is over, but it isn't,
just like you were wrong when you said IQ isn't genetic.
2chin4u 2 weeks ago

@TheNuklearAge Listen most of what you are saying is completely wrong and not supported by
the scientific community as a whole. Seriously when the you can't just always say that all the
science that disagrees with you for some political agenda. What are you next gonna tell me? That
Nasa is keeping the flat earth a secret? Or that climate change is all liberal propaganda? Honestly
a quick google search would show that the out of Africa theory is still strong. Any way if we
really did come from Asia, we would look more like denisovans, humans that actually evolved in
Africa. The human body is conditioned to live in an African climate. Don't believe me? Compare
Neanderthals to modern Humans. What you will find with Neanderthals is that their bodies are
short but bulky as well as having a nose that promotes airflow in a cold climate. Our bodies are
suited for an African climate due to our ability to sweat which allows for the body to cool
quicker than most other animals, in fact the entire human body is designed for running which
would more likely evolve in the sahara than anywhere else. Also even though older human
fossils were found outside of Africa, how do we know they survived the toba supervolcano
erruption. The Toba eruption bottlenecked the human population and those that survived were
probably in Africa. We know this because we still see human migration out of Africa after the
Toba supervolcano. However, any way you cut it, Human origins are traced back to Africa. We
know that Humans are great apes and are most closely related to the Chimpanzee compared to
any other animal. Where do you find Chimpanzees? Africa. Honestly if anyone has an agenda it's
you. You are clearly a racist who is trying to promote that white people are some how naturally
smarter. No we aren't naturally smarter. I'll link a page with multiple studies that find that most
intelligence and IQ results have to do with the environment and not necessarily. If it was all
genetics and black people have genetics that don't make them as smart as white people, then we
would never have scientists like George Washington Carver or Neil Degrasse Tyson.
https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/primer/traits/intelligence Also before you say something how these
scientists have an agenda? Fine go ahead, just prove to us where in their studies that they went
wrong. In the scientific community, scientists will jump at the opportunity to call out false
reporting or agenda filled papers. This is the peer review process.
1
@2chin4u Sorry, you can't have it both ways. I cited research that supports what I said, I am very
familiar with the Science community and 90% of said community generally does not make any
public statements or voice any opinions, the data speaks for itself. Scientific consensus is
meaningless on controversial issues, only the data matters. Your opinion and your data can
diverge a lot simply because scientists are dependent on public support and thus easily
intimidated into saying the right words to avoid consequences. I am saying what I say openly
because I am not in danger of any kind of consequences for a variety of reasons, that is, my
situation is not the norm and thus the reference frame I am speaking from is not the general
reference frame. The scientists don't have an agenda, they're just soft white collar people who are
intimidated by militant liberals.
Europeans are a large part Neanderthal, its a well known fact, so talking about body types is
pointless. There's a reason why Caucasians are generally the strongest people and the best
swimmers but not generally good short distance runners. It's a large part due to our more
developed upper body physique from Neanderthal ancestry. Honestly, I am not that interested in
the OOA hypothesis, other than it does not prove that humans are closely related or have recent
ancestral divergence, ok we might have came from Africa 300k years ago, so what? We're
basically different species at this point. I am far more interested in you justifying your claim that
IQ differences are not genetic, which you have made no progress on.
You keep hitting the same wall over and over again, individuals being smart does not contradict
that the general population is retarded. Individual traits can vary a lot but the population remains
consistent, a smart black man doesn't contradict anything I said. You're still arguing at a high
school level against arguments that are college level, its ineffective, up your game. There's far
more white geniuses than black geniuses, I like Neil deGrasse Tyson a lot, but he is the
exception that proves the rule not vice versa.
Your article contradicts what you said, it gives an excessively low estimate of IQ heritability that
isn't supported by data but even 50% contradicts everything you said. You've been claiming
there's no difference in races but cite an article that says 50% of IQ is hereditary (the figure is
bullshit but you've been claiming 0%, so the article doesn't support what you claim). The modern
data says 60-86% is the right estimate for adult heritability.
By the way, you're again not citing primary research, I am getting annoyed at having to point this
out since you gave me a lot of shit about my sources. Check the primary source that your source
cites, this one: Plomin R, Deary IJ. Genetics and intelligence differences: five special findings.
Mol Psychiatry. 2015 Feb;20(1):98-108. doi: 10.1038/mp.2014.105. Epub 2014 Sep 16. Review.
PubMed: 25224258. Free full-text available from PubMed Central: PMC4270739. "It would be
reasonable to assume that as we go through life, experiences—Shakespeare's ‘whips and scorns
of time'—have a cumulative effect on intelligence, perhaps overwhelming early genetic
predispositions. However, for intelligence, heritability increases linearly, from (approximately)
20% in infancy to 40% in adolescence, and to 60% in adulthood. Some evidence suggests that
heritability might increase to as much as 80% in later adulthood47 but then decline to about 60%
after age 80.48" You're citing research that is exactly what I have been saying this whole time.
Quit being so lazy bro. I want you to do this, since its clear what I am writing to you isn't making
a difference: Type in "heritability of IQ" into google and go through the results. You will see that
once you stop looking for biased web sites that support your claims that the general consensus is
in fact that IQ is highly heritable, about 80% in adulthood.
2chin4u 2 weeks ago

@TheNuklearAge I saw you replied but I don't see it here. Anyway I'm gonna respond to it as I
see it in the email. You literally can't keep calling everything a conspiracy by liberals to keep
conservatives down. The articles I cited still proved my point. They specifically say that
environmental effects are the main contributor to IQ. But I guess that doesn't matter to you
because you only want to hear studies that support your claims. My point about the individual
scientists I mentioned was to show that anyone has the capacity to be smart. Not just white
people. My god what am I doing arguing with a racist about objective reality. Honestly I don't
know why I keep going, this is dumber than arguing with a flat earther or anti vaxxer. Do this for
me, admit you are a racist.
2
TheNuklearAge 2 weeks ago @2chin4u Sorry, you can't have it both ways. I cited research that
supports what I said, I am very familiar with the Science community and 90% of said community
generally does not make any public statements or voice any opinions, the data speaks for itself.
Scientific consensus is meaningless on controversial issues, only the data matters. Your opinion
and your data can diverge a lot simply because scientists are dependent on public support and
thus easily intimidated into saying the right words to avoid consequences. I am saying what I say
openly because I am not in danger of any kind of consequences for a variety of reasons, that is,
my situation is not the norm and thus the reference frame I am speaking from is not the general
reference frame. The scientists don't have an agenda, they're just soft white collar people who are
intimidated by militant liberals.
Europeans are a large part Neanderthal, its a well known fact, so talking about body types is
pointless. There's a reason why Caucasians are generally the strongest people and the best
swimmers but not generally good short distance runners. It's a large part due to our more
developed upper body physique from Neanderthal ancestry. Honestly, I am not that interested in
the OOA hypothesis, other than it does not prove that humans are closely related or have recent
ancestral divergence, ok we might have came from Africa 300k years ago, so what? We're
basically different species at this point. I am far more interested in you justifying your claim that
IQ differences are not genetic, which you have made no progress on.
You keep hitting the same wall over and over again, individuals being smart does not contradict
that the general population is retarded. Individual traits can vary a lot but the population remains
consistent, a smart black man doesn't contradict anything I said. You're still arguing at a high
school level against arguments that are college level, its ineffective, up your game. There's far
more white geniuses than black geniuses, I like Neil deGrasse Tyson a lot, but he is the
exception that proves the rule not vice versa.
Your article contradicts what you said, it gives an excessively low estimate of IQ heritability that
isn't supported by data but even 50% contradicts everything you said. You've been claiming
there's no difference in races but cite an article that says 50% of IQ is hereditary (the figure is
bullshit but you've been claiming 0%, so the article doesn't support what you claim). The modern
data says 60-86% is the right estimate for adult heritability.
By the way, you're again not citing primary research, I am getting annoyed at having to point this
out since you gave me a lot of shit about my sources. Check the primary source that your source
cites, this one: Plomin R, Deary IJ. Genetics and intelligence differences: five special findings.
Mol Psychiatry. 2015 Feb;20(1):98-108. doi: 10.1038/mp.2014.105. Epub 2014 Sep 16. Review.
PubMed: 25224258. Free full-text available from PubMed Central: PMC4270739. "It would be
reasonable to assume that as we go through life, experiences—Shakespeare's ‘whips and scorns
of time'—have a cumulative effect on intelligence, perhaps overwhelming early genetic
predispositions. However, for intelligence, heritability increases linearly, from (approximately)
20% in infancy to 40% in adolescence, and to 60% in adulthood. Some evidence suggests that
heritability might increase to as much as 80% in later adulthood47 but then decline to about 60%
after age 80.48" You're citing research that is exactly what I have been saying this whole time.
Quit being so lazy bro. I want you to do this, since its clear what I am writing to you isn't making
a difference: Type in "heritability of IQ" into google and go through the results. You will see that
once you stop looking for biased web sites that support your claims that the general consensus is
in fact that IQ is highly heritable, about 80% in adulthood.

@2chin4u Well as I pointed out previously, the summary you cited on NIH uses primary sources
that don't confirm what you're saying. They're just trying to muddy the water to say its both
environment and genetics, and yeah... Sure it is always going to be both but its all about how you
cut the pie. Environment gets a slice, genetics gets the rest of the pie. If you want my personal
opinion, I don't consider American conservatives to be conservative as they aren't conserving
anything worth conserving. That's why I don't go along with the narrative, I refuse to choose
between republican and democrat as to me that sounds like marxist or marxist. I am beyond that
narrative which is also incidentally why I reject your narrative about racist, I don't give a fuck
about those outdated labels. Yeah maybe reality is "raycist" oh well. Just because individuals can
be smart doesn't make their population smart, do I have to keep hammering this point? Come on.
You're seriously going to compare me to a flat earther or anti vaxxer? That's intellectual
dishonesty, you should be above that. You know that I am right, its just that its against the
narrative. I get it, I followed the narrative too, until I didn't. Just because you don't agree with the
consensus does not mean you are weird or evil or any of that nonsense. Why is it that in the US
we always pretend to value the individual but when the individual acts as an individual he
becomes Satan?
Rub Rub 1 week ago

Sucks for you to not be white
Guaire Fernandez Amil 11 hours ago
@TheNuklearAge If the whites are more intelligrnt that the africans as you claimed Why the
natives of the Canary islands (Which were white) couldnt develop advance civilizations while
Africa could? Why did they stay in the stone age while many african nations had levels of
technology complarable to Europe? Why did the Germans didnt develop advance civilizations
while the Nubias, Ethiopians and Swahilis did? Why was Mali able to become the richest empire
in history if they were so inferior? Why did Africa built gigatox structures and cities while the
Norse, Britons, Germanic, Iberians and Slavs couldnt?

@TheNuklearAge And the IQ argument is stupid, the countries with better education are the
ones with the biggest IQ, and the global population has in average better IQ than before, and that
isnt because we became more intelligent, but because the education has become better. And that
ignoring that counting many kind of intelligences (social, mathematic, memory, etc) in only one
number is stupid.
TheNuklearAge 4 hours ago

@Guaire Fernandez Amil I guess you missed most of what was written about IQ here, I will just
summarize why education has very little to do with intelligence:
1. It's 80% inherited.
2. The Black-White SAT and IQ gaps widen as conditions improve, the Flynn effect makes
racial differences larger, not smaller, because IQ is so strongly genetic.
3. I did mention that not all types of intelligence are strongly inherited which actually allows us
to extrapolate more proof that IQ is overall strongly inherited. To quote: "IQ subtests are very
varied, some of them are designed to test mental features that are heritable while others test
features that are less heritable. If, for example, IQ is 50% heritable you'd expect to see the same
racial gap between heritable subtests and ones that are lesser, because in that case heritablity and
environment have the same effect so the gap should not change based on subtest. Guess what? It
does, and when you calculate the implied heritability it is yet again... 80%."
TheNuklearAge 4 hours ago

@Guaire Fernandez Amil You mean the ancient Nubians that were the slaves of the Egyptians
and who eventually led to the stagnation and ultimate demise of the empire when they became its
emperors? Are you some kind of pan-African "we wuz kangs" sort of guy? I've never even heard
of the claim that Mali was the "richest empire in history", I am pretty sure that honor goes to
Britain. I always find it kind of interesting how people have to start digging deep in the past to
find justification for Africans instead of the present, says a lot.

@TheNuklearAge the ancient nubians were and independent people, sometimes they were
conquered by the egyptians, but most time they werent. And the slaves didnt led to the demise
and stagnation of Egypt. I am a persons who has read about African history, the we wuz kangz is
mostly something made up by conservatives with very few people actually believing that. Maybe
i have exagerated about Mali, but it impossible tk say that it wasnt the richest state of the middle
ages and No,the british empire while rich i doubt that it was the richest, the richest persons in
world history wasnt british. There is no need to diggging deep in past to say that Africans arent
less intelligent that Europe. During most of the previous century most african countries were
richer than china, and even today many countries in Africa are richer that European ones. And
you didnt answer the questions I made

@TheNuklearAge and you are completely lying about IQ. It is only 50% genetic and even if it
was greater that doesnt proof that races has different IQ, there are great differences in heigh in
Africa and Europe even though heigh is inherited
TheNuklearAge 4 hours ago (edited)

@Guaire Fernandez Amil I will just quote myself again: "Since I guess you don't know this stuff
let me break it down: Identical twin studies. Same genes, different environments. You can
control for the adoptive environment by determining categories like Family Functioning and
Parent Depression, etc. Even with all of this controlled for the Heritability is 80%. Incidentally,
there is basically no correlation between socioeconomic status and IQ in these studies, which
liberals tend to claim is the most important factor in academic progress. It isn't, the main factors
are how sociable a child is and how much raw intellect he has, the family situation really only
affects them in dysfunctional families, which are controlled out. So yeah, a good family can give
you a 20% boost but 80% is just what you inherited. This doesn't just mean genetics, it can be
epigenetics, maternal factors like flora, hormones and mtDNA, but that is still all functions of
DNA its still all from the same source: your parents, the stuff you inherit regardless of if its
literally DNA or not.
3. The Black-White IQ gap widens with age, even if blacks start with some inherent
disadvantage then it would stay constant. The reason its genetic is because IQ Heritability grows
with age, you only get to 80% when you become an adult. That is the B-W gap is smaller at early
age before higher brain functions develop because in our early stages of development all races
are essentially the same. Its the fancy stuff in the frontal cortex that suddenly makes us totally
different people in terms of intellect, discipline , verbal proficiency and all that fancy stuff that
blacks underperform in. 4. IQ subtests are very varied, some of them are designed to test mental
features that are heritable while others test features that are less heritable. If, for example, IQ is
50% heritable you'd expect to see the same racial gap between heritable subtests and ones that
are lesser, because in that case heritablity and environment have the same effect so the gap
should not change based on subtest. Guess what? It does, and when you calculate the implied
heritability it is yet again... 80%.
Anyways, that should give you a little guide on why its 80%, simple stuff. Finally about the
environment: Humans create their own environment. You don't have crops or food or technology
without someone thinking about it and applying themselves. Thus the idea that environment is
somehow random or uncontrolled or not related to your genetics is a seriously questionable
assertion to make. If IQ is 80% Heritable and human intellect is the motor of innovation and
environmental craftsmanship that means that even the presence of the environment is 80%
genetic. But ok, you can have that 20% for now even if that's a seriously doubtful assertion." I
don't need to prove races have a different IQ, that's already known via statistical studies over the
last 100 years. Like I said, the Flynn effect has only widened the gap, not made it smaller which
proves how strongly genetic it is. “
TheNuklearAge 4 hours ago (edited)

@Guaire Fernandez Amil "There is no need to diggging deep in past to say that Africans arent
less intelligent that Europe. During most of the previous century most african countries were
richer than china, and even today many countries in Africa are richer that European ones." Yeah
by selling some of the world's most expensive and high-in-demand natural resources, if you look
at a GDP-per-capita map of Africa you can easily see where the good stuff is. Also, remember
that places like the Ivory Coast might have high GDP-per-capita but most of the people living
there are no better off than Liberians. You don't need to be intelligent to sell oil or diamonds but
you have to be real smart to be producing airplanes, computers, novel research and medicine.
The latter stuff is all monopolized by US, Europe and East Asia.
Guaire Fernandez Amil 4 hours ago (edited)

@TheNuklearAge Again only 50% is inherited, and you didnt answer the questions I posted
1

@TheNuklearAge Wow, everything you said is false, and again answer the questions
1
TheNuklearAge 45 seconds ago

@Guaire Fernandez Amil So let me get this: I provide solid evidence that its 80% but you just
say "Its definitely only 50%" great argumentative form. Shows you have basically no argument
left to use other than asserting a position that has already been destroyed.
TheNuklearAge 1 month ago (edited)
The video was good until the domestication part where it completely fell apart. As someone who
has looked into this matter in the past I can say its not true. 1. Aurochs were extremely physically
imposing, on par with American buffalo. They actually still existed 500 years ago and this is how
the Romans described them: "aurochs were not concerned when a man approached, but when
teased or hunted, an aurochs could get very aggressive and dangerous," HMMM a bit like I don't
know, an American Buffalo? Aurochs were domesticated by a very simple method because all
cattle are herd animals (by definition): by abducting their young and adopting them into human
families the individuals become tolerant of humans. By breeding the most tolerant animals
together you get a cow from an Auroch and natives in the US could have done the same, but did
not. So there goes the theory of "no suitable candidates". 2. Horses were present in the Americas.
Aurochs were domesticated in the old world at around the same time that American horses died
out, probably from overhunting. 3. A cow doesn't have to be as tame as a dog because its not a
companion animal, it has to be human tolerant. If you've ever been around cows you'll know they
still have some fear of humans they simply lack aggression. Making an animal docile really isn't
that hard to breed in as its relatively easy to identify undesirable behavior. Dogs were probably a
lot more challenging but, guess what? Wolves are also present in the Americas. So there were
animals to domesticate and they were present in the same time periods as horse and cattle
domestication took place in Europe and Asia. Your video is correct until you give an explanation
why: there wasn't a lack of candidates for domestication, they just weren't domesticated. Recent
experiments on fox domestication shows that animals that are not usually associated with
domestication can be domesticated. You basically left out the most core component of animal
domestication: the human will. It takes time, many generations of time and patience and
perseverance to domesticate an animal.
17

America Pox

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Descrição original:

Direitos autorais

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

America Pox

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Under AmericaPox:The Missing Plague

Horny Fruit Flies 2 months ago (edited)

Piotr Czajkowski 2 months ago

Nob the Knave 1 month ago

nukeba11 1 month ago

Horny Fruit Flies 1 month ago

nukeba11 1 month ago

nukeba11 1 month ago

Nob the Knave 1 month ago

nukeba11 1 month ago

Nob the Knave 1 month ago

nukeba11 1 month ago

A Friendly Reply 1 month ago

nukeba11 1 month ago

some dude 1 month ago

nukeba11 1 month ago

Butterkin 3000 1 month ago

A Friendly Reply 1 month ago

A Friendly Reply 1 month ago

Horny Fruit Flies 1 month ago

some dude 1 month ago

Dat Fishe Boi 1 month ago

Lucas 1 month ago

nukeba11 1 month ago

TheNuklearAge 1 month ago (edited)

Hexagonal Studios 1 month ago

Hexagonal Studios 1 month ago

nukeba11 1 month ago

Butterkin 3000 4 weeks ago

Butterkin 3000 4 weeks ago (edited)

TheNuklearAge 4 weeks ago

TheNuklearAge 4 weeks ago (edited)

Hexagonal Studios 4 weeks ago

Hexagonal Studios 4 weeks ago

TheNuklearAge 4 weeks ago

TheNuklearAge 4 weeks ago (edited)

Hexagonal Studios 4 weeks ago

Hexagonal Studios 4 weeks ago (edited)

TheNuklearAge 3 weeks ago (edited)

TheNuklearAge 3 weeks ago (edited)

2chin4u 3 weeks ago

Hexagonal Studios 3 weeks ago

Hexagonal Studios 3 weeks ago

TheNuklearAge 3 weeks ago

TheNuklearAge 3 weeks ago (edited)

Hexagonal Studios 3 weeks ago

Hexagonal Studios 3 weeks ago

TheNuklearAge 3 weeks ago

TheNuklearAge 3 weeks ago (edited)

"The differences in race are so minute it doesn’t matter. "

TheNuklearAge 3 weeks ago (edited)

2chin4u 3 weeks ago

Neglo Blaxon 3 weeks ago

TheNuklearAge 3 weeks ago

Lucas 3 weeks ago

Lucas 3 weeks ago (edited)

Lucas 3 weeks ago

TheNuklearAge 3 weeks ago (edited)

TheNuklearAge 3 weeks ago (edited)

TheNuklearAge 3 weeks ago

2chin4u 3 weeks ago

2chin4u 3 weeks ago

TheNuklearAge 3 weeks ago (edited)

2chin4u 3 weeks ago

TheNuklearAge 3 weeks ago (edited)

Lucas 3 weeks ago