Is it racist to prefer to date white women? - Page 6 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

All sociological topics not appropriate or suited to other areas of the board.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14909262
@blackjack21

I'm not sure where you are getting your definitions. "Ethnicity" is a term of social science.


I probably should've clarified. Ethnicity and race overlap given that race is integrated into ethnicity. Thereby you can use both the terms "ethnicity" and "race" when discussing genes. My argument was a semantic one rather than conceptual.

I specifically studied these topics in college, and had a 4.0 GPA. It's possible that genetic sciences have their own definition of the term "ethnicity". I haven't heard of the term "ethnicity" being used in genetic science. In social sciences, self-identification is one of the modes of classifying a person into a group. Ethnicity is a good example in sociology.


Bringing up your grades in college is worthless in discussion given that it is simply a re-purposed version of the appeal to authority fallacy except with yourself as the authority and such claims are often unverifiable.

My point was to emphasize the relationship between ethnicity and race and thus used them interchangeably. I assumed that you didn't have such information and thus, for the sake of discussion, didn't bring up the nuances of what ethnicity is given that it may prove to be irrelevant to the discussion and only deter from the main topic.

It's not mellowing anything other than your histrionics. There are historical notions that are prescient, but imprecise. There are notions that are clearly wrong. For example, Hippocrates thought that people had four humors. Obviously, his understanding was not only limited, but much of it didn't correspond to biological processes at all. There was no relationship to Earth, Fire Water and Air, or the four seasons. He was simply wrong. Classifying races as African, Caucasian and Asian is simply imprecise. It's a very large grained abstraction.


It seems you haven't read my response whatsoever. I stated that the Caucasoid, Negroid, and Mongoloid categories are based on physical appearance rather than genetics. The terms were coined by anthropologists, people who have no experience in genetics, to organize different human societies into groups (note that even anthropologists today don't use Caucasoid, Negroid, and Mongoloid in their work). It was only adopted by genetic scientists who didn't have any other terms to base their findings on and because scientific chauvinism was trendy back then as a way to legitimize imperialism.

In a way, I implicitly stated that it has some foundation in reality, just that it has no foundation in modern genetics and politics. All I said is that they're outdated terms that can't be used to understand why things are in the world. You can't understand why the Middle East is the way it is through these terms.

I'm still not following. 9/11 can be interpreted totally different based on your point of view. For Al Qaeda, they considered it a great victory. They weren't uncomfortable at all. Yasser Arafat might have been uncomfortable, as the US clearly wasn't too happy with terrorist organizations. If you want to make semantic arguments, I would suggest a more relevant example.


I was talking from the point of view of a 9/11 apologist which you could clearly tell based on the way I tried to mellow it's impact. If you want a better example, a historical revisionist would say that American slavery wasn't horrible, just that it was a tough time for everyone, both white and black people. It attempts to mellow the impact of slavery on blacks by stating that whites were also suffering (and no, this is not a legitimate argument that slavery wasn't that bad).

My civilization lives or dies with little input from me. Again, ethnicity is a social science concept, not a genetic one. If you can submit to me some evidence that geneticists use the term "ethnicity" to define certain genetic traits, I'll concede. However, I do believe you are incorrect in your usage here.


If by "your civilization" you don't mean your idealized ridiculous perception of the White Nation or whatever, then your civilization is doing pretty good. Geneticists don't use it and I am only using the term at my expense for you. Now that you are aware I only used "ethnicity" interchangeably with "race" you can now directly answer my response instead being hung up by something you already discussed previously.

That depends upon what you mean by those terms. White skin will allow your body to create more nitric oxide and Vitamin D in Northern climates. That doesn't translate into abilities like bench pressing 150lbs, for example. However, it does translate into cardiovascular health and bone strength.


Well that certainly isn't enough pros to warrant excluding most of the human population from a set area now is it? Are seriously going to limit your gene pool just for more Vitamin D in a very specific climate that may disappear due to global warming?

This is clearly not a genetic argument. You are tacking between poetry, a misguided use of social science terms and genetics.


I was referencing Charles II of Spain. It was meant to be poetic.

You are arguing for argument's sake. 23andMe does provide an ancestry breakdown. I don't have strong match strength for any group except for British & Irish and German. For some reason, you don't like that.


The British, Germans, and Irish aren't Caucasians. All their respective countries aren't even geographically located around the Black Sea. This isn't arguing for argument's sake, this is critically analyzing the claim that you are Caucasian. If you don't have a strong match with any group outside of Anglo-Saxons and Germans, then you're certainly not Caucasian.

Visual processing is widely believe to be in the Occipital lobe at the back of the head.


The Occipital lobe can process exactly what things are, but it can't tell us what we feel about those things. The frontal lobe however, is capable of doing that.

The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex


Darwin doesn't consider beauty at all which is understandable given the time he wrote it. The human mind is more complex than you think it is.
#14909325
Oxymandias wrote:Bringing up your grades in college is worthless in discussion given that it is simply a re-purposed version of the appeal to authority fallacy except with yourself as the authority and such claims are often unverifiable.

I'm not trying to establish myself as an authority. I didn't come away from college all that impressed. I've always been more impressed with people I've worked with that are smarter than me. Collegiates are big into their nomenclature, and you were specifically saying I was wrong about a term. I played their game and did well at it. So I inquired about whether "ethnicity" had taken on a new meaning in the last few decades, which isn't unthinkable given the rate of change in genetic sciences--one of the things I think the West can be really proud of currently.

Oxymandias wrote:I stated that the Caucasoid, Negroid, and Mongoloid categories are based on physical appearance rather than genetics.

In many respects, that is a distinction without a difference because physical appearance is based strongly on genetics as well, not discounting environment.

Oxymandias wrote:The terms were coined by anthropologists, people who have no experience in genetics, to organize different human societies into groups (note that even anthropologists today don't use Caucasoid, Negroid, and Mongoloid in their work).

Right. Some of that is due to the influence of other scientific disciplines. Some of it is due to political influences, in my opinion.

Oxymandias wrote: It was only adopted by genetic scientists who didn't have any other terms to base their findings on and because scientific chauvinism was trendy back then as a way to legitimize imperialism.

Egalitarianism is used to legitimize imperialism as well. We need to ensure those Afghan women get their education, you know.

Oxymandias wrote:If by "your civilization" you don't mean your idealized ridiculous perception of the White Nation or whatever, then your civilization is doing pretty good.

For what it's worth, just because I don't accept left wing orthodoxy whether it is packaged as left wing or right wing, and because I am comfortable talking about racial differences without buying into the political correctness does not mean that I am a "white nationalist." I've stated many times that I am not a white supremacist on the simple grounds that there are too many white people in my opinion that would falsify such a position based on their sheer stupidity, dereliction, etc.

Oxymandias wrote:Well that certainly isn't enough pros to warrant excluding most of the human population from a set area now is it?

I think that is a fine argument to make, and generally I don't disagree with it. However, political correctness and radical egalitarianism, in my opinion, aren't ideas worth defending. For example, in debating subjects like vitamin D deficiency and the associated discovery that exposing the skin to sunlight also produces nitric oxide, I've made casual arguments--more or less the speculations of a dilettante--using hard scientific data noting that the deficiency is more pronounced in higher latitudes. For example, you'll see those deficiencies and the corresponding health consequences are more prevalent in African American populations in Northern cities than in Southern cities. In other words, you'll see the adverse effects more so in Detroit, Minneapolis, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia and New York much more than you'd see that in Los Angeles, San Diego, Houston, New Orleans, Charleston, or Miami. Yet, the mere mention of such an obvious correlation brings condemnation from the political left. In my view, that isn't because my point is to bring about some sort of racial state that precludes blacks from the North. Yet, that is the conclusion they jump to without me ever saying so or even implying it--although, I do find it amusing to see what bizarre conclusions they will come to. If you took white people with fair skin like myself and look at the frequency of skin cancer cases, you will likely find more such cases in San Diego, Honolulu and Miami than you would in New York, Minneapolis or Seattle. It's the same argument. Yet, that doesn't elicit a condemnation, because the obvious answer is that fair skinned white people in those environments need to use sunscreen and limit sun exposure. Yet, if you were to say dark skinned black people in Northern cities should consider getting more sun exposure in the warmer months and supplementing Vitamin D and nitric oxide in the colder month, suddenly you are being "racist". I think that sort of nonsense needs to be dispensed with. Political correctness is a public health risk, among its other blights.

Oxymandias wrote:The British, Germans, and Irish aren't Caucasians. All their respective countries aren't even geographically located around the Black Sea.

The origins of white people are generally believed to be from the Caucuses region of Central Asia. That is why the term "Caucasian" is used in an anthropological sense, not a political or ethnic sense.

I was born in the United States. I'm genetically more British than the Queen of England, but you can rightly say I'm not British in a political context, because I wasn't born there. Politically and socially, the Queen of England is British. However, genetically she's more of a German, and her children even more so. So are we to say that the Queen of England is not English? This is why conflating a social science term like "ethnicity" with genetics isn't such a good idea.

Oxymandias wrote:If you don't have a strong match with any group outside of Anglo-Saxons and Germans, then you're certainly not Caucasian.

Not ethnically. Yet, I do have the white skin that ostensibly originated there, and has obviously more than one or two markers as well. I also have blue eyes. Everyone who has blue eyes shares a common ancestor. My DNA doesn't show strong matches to Scandinavia either. Yet, I am I1 haplogroup on Y-DNA, where it is most prevalent on a per capita basis. Those of us with Norman ancestry can trace some of our lineage to those Vikings who plundered Normandy, learned to speak French, and then invaded England. After a thousand years of interbreeding, I wouldn't expect recombinant DNA to show many trace markers of other geographic areas.

Oxymandias wrote:The Occipital lobe can process exactly what things are, but it can't tell us what we feel about those things. The frontal lobe however, is capable of doing that.

Emotions aren't from the frontal cortex either. There is much more evidence supporting the pre-frontal cortex, amygdala, ventral tegmental area, hypothalamus, pituitary, etc. The limbic system is going to play a much bigger role there. That it fires off to the frontal cortex so you can says, "Oooh, she's a hottie!" is secondary. The emotion comes from deeper in the brain in its more primitive structures.

One of the reasons I find it peculiar that advocates of "gay rights" slam detractors as "homophobic" is that phobias denote irrational fears--that is, fears triggered most likely in the amygdala. It suggest that "education" or "awareness" isn't going to solve such problems, because they are triggered by parts of the brain over which we have no voluntary control.

Oxymandias wrote:Darwin doesn't consider beauty at all which is understandable given the time he wrote it. The human mind is more complex than you think it is.

I think it's more complex than modern scientists can understand, which is why I chide people who characterize themselves as experts while lambasting others. That said, I do think that for so many Europeans to be blue-eyed--all tracing back to a common ancestor--there has to be some mechanism or drive to preserve recessive traits. That's why I think racism is natural and will persist no matter how much propaganda, "education" and whatever is done to try to blunt its effects. From social studies, I'm reasonably confident that it won't be a huge problem among people of higher intelligence with comfortable socio-economic status. However, with people of lower intelligence and/or lower socio-economic status, I think there will be more problems.

So a phenomenon like Trump does not surprise me at all. It should not surprise many on the political left who characterize themselves as highly intelligent, either. Yet, they purport to be perplexed by his rise to power. As America and Europe get more diverse, my expectation is that there will be far more political demagogues due to lower social cohesion. The idea that multiculturalism will lead to peace and harmony is a dangerous delusion.

That said: for the OP, I do think that recessive traits are preserved by sexual selection. In other words, racism of the sexual selection variety is natural. There is nothing you can do about it. Godstud can flood you with black pornography, and you probably won't change your views.
#14909527
@blackjack21

I'm not trying to establish myself as an authority. I didn't come away from college all that impressed. I've always been more impressed with people I've worked with that are smarter than me. Collegiates are big into their nomenclature, and you were specifically saying I was wrong about a term. I played their game and did well at it. So I inquired about whether "ethnicity" had taken on a new meaning in the last few decades, which isn't unthinkable given the rate of change in genetic sciences--one of the things I think the West can be really proud of currently.


Fair enough.

In many respects, that is a distinction without a difference because physical appearance is based strongly on genetics as well, not discounting environment.


The issue is that the distinction does not take into consideration genetics at all. Anthropologists only took into account physical appearance not because of genetics but because they liked categorizing people for some reason despite it being nearly impossible to conclude that all of humanity can be categorized into four sections. While physical appearance is a part of genetics, the Caucasoid, Mongoloid, and Negroid distinction wasn't created with that in mind.

Right. Some of that is due to the influence of other scientific disciplines. Some of it is due to political influences, in my opinion.


Political influences were certainly a big factor. Usually when scientists don't have enough information or if there is gaps in their studies, it is often filled in with politics.

Egalitarianism is used to legitimize imperialism as well. We need to ensure those Afghan women get their education, you know.


I'm not talking about now. Any idea of egalitarianism as we know it today didn't exist back then. As I said "it was trendy back then". The only people I think who used such ideas were the Fabians of which existed after the Caucasoid, Mongoloid, Negroid distinction fell flat after genetics became a legitimate form of science.

For what it's worth, just because I don't accept left wing orthodoxy whether it is packaged as left wing or right wing, and because I am comfortable talking about racial differences without buying into the political correctness does not mean that I am a "white nationalist." I've stated many times that I am not a white supremacist on the simple grounds that there are too many white people in my opinion that would falsify such a position based on their sheer stupidity, dereliction, etc.


That seems to be an objection towards white supremacists not white supremacism.

I think that is a fine argument to make, and generally I don't disagree with it. However, political correctness and radical egalitarianism, in my opinion, aren't ideas worth defending. For example, in debating subjects like vitamin D deficiency and the associated discovery that exposing the skin to sunlight also produces nitric oxide, I've made casual arguments--more or less the speculations of a dilettante--using hard scientific data noting that the deficiency is more pronounced in higher latitudes. For example, you'll see those deficiencies and the corresponding health consequences are more prevalent in African American populations in Northern cities than in Southern cities. In other words, you'll see the adverse effects more so in Detroit, Minneapolis, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia and New York much more than you'd see that in Los Angeles, San Diego, Houston, New Orleans, Charleston, or Miami. Yet, the mere mention of such an obvious correlation brings condemnation from the political left. In my view, that isn't because my point is to bring about some sort of racial state that precludes blacks from the North. Yet, that is the conclusion they jump to without me ever saying so or even implying it--although, I do find it amusing to see what bizarre conclusions they will come to. If you took white people with fair skin like myself and look at the frequency of skin cancer cases, you will likely find more such cases in San Diego, Honolulu and Miami than you would in New York, Minneapolis or Seattle. It's the same argument. Yet, that doesn't elicit a condemnation, because the obvious answer is that fair skinned white people in those environments need to use sunscreen and limit sun exposure. Yet, if you were to say dark skinned black people in Northern cities should consider getting more sun exposure in the warmer months and supplementing Vitamin D and nitric oxide in the colder month, suddenly you are being "racist". I think that sort of nonsense needs to be dispensed with. Political correctness is a public health risk, among its other blights.


If your motivation is that, then drawing attention to this is fine in my opinion. If you're stating that these differences can be used to justify certain political actions or policies, then there's a problem.

The origins of white people are generally believed to be from the Caucuses region of Central Asia. That is why the term "Caucasian" is used in an anthropological sense, not a political or ethnic sense.

I was born in the United States. I'm genetically more British than the Queen of England, but you can rightly say I'm not British in a political context, because I wasn't born there. Politically and socially, the Queen of England is British. However, genetically she's more of a German, and her children even more so. So are we to say that the Queen of England is not English? This is why conflating a social science term like "ethnicity" with genetics isn't such a good idea.


Actually evidence points to the contrary:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... casus.html (note that I have a study in mind to link to, simply that I cannot find it currently. This is the only thing I can find now)

I simply used ethnicity because I thought you were unaware of the nuances as to what ethnicity means. Your average joe usually considered ethnicity and race to mean the same thing so I talked to you like an average joe and used terms that you would understand in your particular social context. Not that I'm talking down to you or anything.

Not ethnically. Yet, I do have the white skin that ostensibly originated there, and has obviously more than one or two markers as well. I also have blue eyes. Everyone who has blue eyes shares a common ancestor. My DNA doesn't show strong matches to Scandinavia either. Yet, I am I1 haplogroup on Y-DNA, where it is most prevalent on a per capita basis. Those of us with Norman ancestry can trace some of our lineage to those Vikings who plundered Normandy, learned to speak French, and then invaded England. After a thousand years of interbreeding, I wouldn't expect recombinant DNA to show many trace markers of other geographic areas.


White skin didn't come from the Caucasus. I will give you several scientific articles on the matter shortly. I simply have to renew my Jstor subscription, go through Taylor & Francis, etc.

Emotions aren't from the frontal cortex either. There is much more evidence supporting the pre-frontal cortex, amygdala, ventral tegmental area, hypothalamus, pituitary, etc. The limbic system is going to play a much bigger role there. That it fires off to the frontal cortex so you can says, "Oooh, she's a hottie!" is secondary. The emotion comes from deeper in the brain in its more primitive structures.

One of the reasons I find it peculiar that advocates of "gay rights" slam detractors as "homophobic" is that phobias denote irrational fears--that is, fears triggered most likely in the amygdala. It suggest that "education" or "awareness" isn't going to solve such problems, because they are triggered by parts of the brain over which we have no voluntary control.


Actually sexual hormones releasing have nothing to do with emotions. The frontal lobe notices beauty which then interacts with the limbic system and sends information saying "Wow, she really is a hottie!". Beauty is specifically a frontal cortex institution and not every part of the brain is responsible for only one thing. The brain itself is a glorified network after all.

Actually people aren't inherently homophobic or afraid of gay people. In fact, historical evidence points to being gay being relatively accepted in the ancient world. It's only Western and, to some extent, Eastern society which makes homosexuals seem undesirable. The frontal cortex is the thing that creates values and other ideas which don't offer any biological advantage but does impact stuff in the "grand" scheme of things. The frontal lobe is responsible for basically creating society as we know it because society and culture is simply a overlapping set of ideas and values. Therefore, if you think that the frontal lobe isn't running the show, then why are some people homophobic?

I think it's more complex than modern scientists can understand, which is why I chide people who characterize themselves as experts while lambasting others. That said, I do think that for so many Europeans to be blue-eyed--all tracing back to a common ancestor--there has to be some mechanism or drive to preserve recessive traits. That's why I think racism is natural and will persist no matter how much propaganda, "education" and whatever is done to try to blunt its effects. From social studies, I'm reasonably confident that it won't be a huge problem among people of higher intelligence with comfortable socio-economic status. However, with people of lower intelligence and/or lower socio-economic status, I think there will be more problems.


Not many Europeans are blue-eyed, nor are many Europeans homogeneous. Simply because some Europeans have recessive traits doesn't mean that there is a wide scale hidden biological movement in Europe to keep recessive traits alive just like how just because they're some "white" eyed Arabs doesn't mean that there is a large biological movement in the Arab world to keep recessive traits alive.

That said: for the OP, I do think that recessive traits are preserved by sexual selection. In other words, racism of the sexual selection variety is natural. There is nothing you can do about it. Godstud can flood you with black pornography, and you probably won't change your views.


Nothing you have said suggests that. Beauty is more of a driver in sexual selection than race ever will.
#14909703
Oxymandias wrote:Anthropologists only took into account physical appearance not because of genetics but because they liked categorizing people for some reason despite it being nearly impossible to conclude that all of humanity can be categorized into four sections. While physical appearance is a part of genetics, the Caucasoid, Mongoloid, and Negroid distinction wasn't created with that in mind.

That's being a bit facetious. New Yorkers live in NYC, because they like living really close to each other. Whereas, people who live in Wyoming like to have a little more space. By contrast, anthropologists were more or less studying the norms and values of each society. They weren't studying genetics or biological heredity in general. Today, the process is to find and promote "shared values" as the foundation of a global society for the new imperialism. Multiculturlism--as dangerous and misguided as it is--stems from this effort.

Oxymandias wrote:Usually when scientists don't have enough information or if there is gaps in their studies, it is often filled in with politics.

That seems to be the case even when they do have enough information. Scientific research receives much of its funding from the government; hence, why most of it ends up being worthless erudition.

Oxymandias wrote:Any idea of egalitarianism as we know it today didn't exist back then.

Sure it did. It just didn't have political currency.

Oxymandias wrote:That seems to be an objection towards white supremacists not white supremacism.

It doesn't take much of a logical leap to find white supremacism an ill thought out idea by extension. One of today's most important forms of bigotry is based on IQ. The reason the Bell Curve was trashed was because they didn't adopt radical egalitarianism, not because they were pushing white supremacy.

Oxymandias wrote:If you're stating that these differences can be used to justify certain political actions or policies, then there's a problem.

Why? Let's say we need to test men for prostate cancer, but we don't have enough tests for all men. So we want to identify people who have a higher risk. 1 in 4 black men will get prostate cancer, whereas 1 in 8 white men will. That's a simple formula for suggesting that we should allocate more of the scarce tests to black men than white men. If we're class-based--and we are--we say that the person who can most afford the test gets it. Since whites tend to have higher incomes than black, more tests would go to the whites. Assuming those are the only two scenarios you could choose from, which one would be more fair?

Oxymandias wrote:White skin didn't come from the Caucasus. I will give you several scientific articles on the matter shortly. I simply have to renew my Jstor subscription, go through Taylor & Francis, etc.

That's fine. I just don't think that these types of things are much more than semantic arguments. Some suggest whiteness comes from interbreeding with Neanderthals. That's also a possibility.

Oxymandias wrote:Actually people aren't inherently homophobic or afraid of gay people. In fact, historical evidence points to being gay being relatively accepted in the ancient world. It's only Western and, to some extent, Eastern society which makes homosexuals seem undesirable.

In general, I disagree. Adolescent males engage in aggression, in part, to establish a dominance hierarchy. Gay men tend to be more effeminate.

Oxymandias wrote:The frontal lobe is responsible for basically creating society as we know it because society and culture is simply a overlapping set of ideas and values.

It is indeed responsible for many social behaviors.

Oxymandias wrote:Therefore, if you think that the frontal lobe isn't running the show, then why are some people homophobic?

The term "homophobic" was invented by homosexual advocacy groups to suggest that those who don't like homosexuals have something wrong with them. It is nothing more than reverse psychology. Disgust is an interesting behavior, because it has both voluntary and involuntary properties. Darwin observed this in "The Expression of Emotions in Man and Animals."

Different groups within society may also express disgust differently. For example, mayonnaise is an emulsion of egg yolks and butter, often with some additions for flavoring such as lemon or mustard. Egg yolks and butter are primarily fats. So they are not sought after by ants, etc. and they preserve well. In Northern societies, food preservation is valued due to the human requirement to eat when hunting, fishing, harvesting, etc. will not be bountiful in the harsh Northern winters. Consider the primitive diet of a Congolese and a European before the industrial era. The Congolese will have a diet consisting often of fresh fruits and vegetables and fish from the river. If that can not be obtained, they often resort to bush meat. Humans have long learned to recognize poisonous plants from beneficial ones, and that gets transmitted from generation to generation. They also have some basic instincts about recognizing what is fresh and what is rotten.

Whites learned to preserve fats, because they are calorie rich and preserve well. In fact, most of the societies that evolved and migrated from Africa learned different modes of food preservation. Hence, preserved meats, animal fats, oils, etc.

Yet, some blacks notoriously find mayonnaise disgusting.

Undercover Brother - Mayonnaise

If you consider food from the perspective of freshness, much of what we eat is disgusting. Consider a pizza as preserved grains, preserved tomatoes, preserved milk fats and preserved meats cooked up in a pie. It's a disgusting as a glass of wine, which is fermented and preserved grape juice--nothing fresh about it.

"Homophobia", however, seems to be widespread. Homosexuality leads to low reproductive fitness for the groups that practice it, so there may be a biological basis for people finding it disgusting.

Oxymandias wrote: Simply because some Europeans have recessive traits doesn't mean that there is a wide scale hidden biological movement in Europe to keep recessive traits alive just like how just because they're some "white" eyed Arabs doesn't mean that there is a large biological movement in the Arab world to keep recessive traits alive.

I've never even suggested that there is some hidden movement to keep them alive. My point is that recessive traits--in a memetic sense--have to want to preserve themselves in order to survive. Blue eyed people all share a common ancestor. So you can make all the in-breeding jokes you want. It's true. Yet, 1 in 4 Europeans is blue eyed. No other population on Earth can say that. For a trait that is traced back to one person to persist over thousands of years, it is reasonable to think that there is some biological mechanism that makes that happen. That is also why I say there are few if any secret societies of white people to behave in racially insensitive ways to blacks. Rather, I think it is innate.

Oxymandias wrote:Beauty is more of a driver in sexual selection than race ever will.

There are too many ugly breeders for that to be true.
#14909709
In regards to the OP, let us assune it is a form of racism. If so, the only real impact is that the racist dude will not date black women. Since black women generally do not want to date racist white guys, the impact is negligible.
#14909745
Pants-of-dog wrote:In regards to the OP, let us assune it is a form of racism. If so, the only real impact is that the racist dude will not date black women. Since black women generally do not want to date racist white guys, the impact is negligible.

Possibly. However, we see this phenomena observed in other cultures too. Third degree covered this:

ThirdTerm wrote:I think it's natural to look for a genetic match. Japanese men usually don't find white or black women attractive at all, as if they were from a different planet. Only those with some Asiatic features are acceptable, such as brown eyes or dark hair, which may point to ancient Uralic ancestry.

Image


Nobita seems to think that race doesn't matter when dating Japanese women:


Nobita talks to a black man who has dated Japanese women:


I'll have to post more Nobita videos. The guy has me cracking up.
#14909747
I generally agree with what the Japanese guy said in the first video, while his pronunciation needs to be improved by speaking proper American English. The Japanese have their own beauty standards and accusing others for having their own is disingenuous and out of question. This is what is especially appreciated in Japan. If Evgenia had blue eyes or blond hair, she wouldn't have been this popular and accepted by the Japanese audience.

#14909906
@blackjack21

That's being a bit facetious. New Yorkers live in NYC, because they like living really close to each other. Whereas, people who live in Wyoming like to have a little more space. By contrast, anthropologists were more or less studying the norms and values of each society. They weren't studying genetics or biological heredity in general. Today, the process is to find and promote "shared values" as the foundation of a global society for the new imperialism. Multiculturlism--as dangerous and misguided as it is--stems from this effort.


Throwing around hyperbole won't make your argument any more effective. Your response here does little to contradict mine. In fact, our viewpoints may agree with one another in this instance. In this response you simply reinforce the idea that the Caucasoid, Negroid, Mongoloid distinction (from now on, I will abbreviate it as CNM) wasn't created for genetics or to be used by geneticists but as another way of examining society. Anthropologists at the time wrongfully thought that physical appearance influences society and, because of this, made certain assumptions about the societies they were examining due to attributing certain aspects of those societies to physical appearance.

Sure it did. It just didn't have political currency.


Modern egalitarianism i.e. the idea that everyone is equal didn't exist until after Marxism, Feminism, the Abolition movement, and the development of American democracy. Specifically after these concepts became powerful. Without these ideas, egalitarianism has we know it wouldn't have exist. These ideas didn't have full power until the latter part of the late 20th century. Basically, egalitarianism didn't exist until the late 1970s and didn't have political currency until the early 2000s.

It doesn't take much of a logical leap to find white supremacism an ill thought out idea by extension. One of today's most important forms of bigotry is based on IQ. The reason the Bell Curve was trashed was because they didn't adopt radical egalitarianism, not because they were pushing white supremacy.


Your response doesn't seem to fully dismiss white supremacism. Instead, you're talking about the Bell Curve in a particular context.

In general, I disagree. Adolescent males engage in aggression, in part, to establish a dominance hierarchy. Gay men tend to be more effeminate.


This response has very little to do whether or not homophobia is inherent an is weakly cited. Furthermore, being gay doesn't mean you're trans. Many gay men I know seem to engage in the same exact play "fighting" that other men engage in (passive aggressive language, roasting each other, etc.). The only difference is attraction.

"Homophobia", however, seems to be widespread. Homosexuality leads to low reproductive fitness for the groups that practice it, so there may be a biological basis for people finding it disgusting.


Humans are social animals and therefore society influences it's evolution. This is something that many geneticists don't seem to understand. Even if you look into history, homosexuality has been accepted for the latter part of human history only to be curbed by the dominance of evangelical Abrahamic religions such as Islam or Christianity and even then, homosexuality was still practiced by the Christian and Islamic elite for most of their histories, only to be kept in secret.

I've never even suggested that there is some hidden movement to keep them alive. My point is that recessive traits--in a memetic sense--have to want to preserve themselves in order to survive. Blue eyed people all share a common ancestor. So you can make all the in-breeding jokes you want. It's true. Yet, 1 in 4 Europeans is blue eyed. No other population on Earth can say that. For a trait that is traced back to one person to persist over thousands of years, it is reasonable to think that there is some biological mechanism that makes that happen. That is also why I say there are few if any secret societies of white people to behave in racially insensitive ways to blacks. Rather, I think it is innate.


As I have stated, the idea that all blue eyed Europeans come from the same ancestor is false to a large degree and blue eyes developed in Northern countries to fit their natural environments.

There are too many ugly breeders for that to be true.


When you're ugly, it's often wise to lower your standards (this is actually good relationship advice for everyone). Furthermore, we're talking about sexual selection. Everyone would want to choose a hot, sexy woman if given the choice but that's not how the world works now is it?
#14909973
Blackjack21 wrote:When you're ugly, it's often wise to lower your standards (this is actually good relationship advice for everyone). Furthermore, we're talking about sexual selection. Everyone would want to choose a hot, sexy woman if given the choice but that's not how the world works now is it?
Not actually true.
:lol:
6:00 in for the cute vs money one.
#14910163
Agent Steel wrote:I mostly am into white women and sometimes Latin American/Mediterranean women. However I almost never am into blacks.

For me the skin is a turnoff. It just looks ugly to me.

Is my mindset racist?

Yes it is racist but so what? We are all racist, it is inherent, it has survival value and it exists in two forms, suppressed and expressed.
#14910170
To make any comparison between races is by default racist. However the label is universally misunderstood. To say Negroes have a superior and inherent sense of rythym or are superior at sport is racist. Racist remarks can be wonderfully complimentary.
Incidentally, I am a highly qualified purveyor of the bleedin’ obvious.
#14910171
This is only because these women are tired of dieting. Their big booty will be an asset rather than a flaw.
Israel-Palestinian War 2023

@JohnRawls There is no ethnic cleansing going o[…]

They are building a Russian Type nuclear reactor..[…]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

Hamas are terrorist animals who started this and […]

It is possible but Zelensky refuses to talk... no[…]