On the epidemic of truth inversion - Page 11 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

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

All general discussion about politics that doesn't belong in any of the other forums.

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

#15311848
Potemkin wrote:Not all genetic changes in a population are caused by adaptation through natural selection, @FiveofSwords. Random genetic drift can even lead to speciation events, in the sense that populations which are separated from each other for long enough can become non-breeding even if they are brought back together again. None of this has anything to do with adaptation. You don’t seem to like the idea that the existence of different ‘races’ might have no meaning, genetically or adaptationally speaking. In other words, you seem to want there to be a hierarchy of races.


It may not be theoretically impossible for something like you suggest to occur...but it is an absurdly trivial force behind evolution and would take billions of years. That is not how human races develop.

You have a pathological fear that there might be some 'hierarchy of races' lol. That is not how evolution works. The rabbit us not 'superior' to a squirrel. That just makes no sense. You are struggling with some sort of psychological trauma that is much deeper than biological science...and it seems to be trespassing on your ability to think objectively.
#15311849
FiveofSwords wrote:It may not be theoretically impossible for something like you suggest to occur...but it is an absurdly trivial force behind evolution and would take billions of years. That is not how human races develop.

Genetic drift is not a ‘trivial force’ in evolution. Evolution is a random force and has no ‘meaning’ and no teleology. The humble earthworm is just as highly evolved as a human, and there is no ‘Great Chain of Being’, as the medieval European theologians believed. There is a fundamental randomness and equality to the natural world, despite what our own arrogance and self-regard tells us.

You have a pathological fear that there might be some 'hierarchy of races' lol. That is not how evolution works. The rabbit us not 'superior' to a squirrel. That just makes no sense. You are struggling with some sort of psychological trauma that is much deeper than biological science...and it seems to be trespassing on your ability to think objectively.

:lol:
#15311852
Potemkin wrote:Genetic drift is not a ‘trivial force’ in evolution. Evolution is a random force and has no ‘meaning’ and no teleology. The humble earthworm is just as highly evolved as a human, and there is no ‘Great Chain of Being’, as the medieval European theologians believed. There is a fundamental randomness and equality to the natural world, despite what our own arrogance and self-regard tells us.


:lol:


Dude. The reason people far from the equator adapted and have lighter skin is because it is more difficult to acquire vitamin d from the sun. The tradeoff is that it is more easy to get skin cancer. That is adaptation. That is not genetic drift. If you believed race existed, you might understand why black people are called black and white people are called white. For people who are intelligent enough to see racial differences, this is a pattern they have noticed in skin color. And it is related to the latitude these races evolved in.

Speaking with people like you is no different from arguing with Christian creationists in 2010. You have exactly the same psychological hangups and ignorance about biological science.
#15311853
FiveofSwords wrote:Dude. The reason people far from the equator adapted and have lighter skin is because it is more difficult to acquire vitamin d from the sun. The tradeoff is that it is more easy to get skin cancer. That is adaptation. That is not genetic drift. If you believed race existed, you might understand why black people are called black and white people are called white. For people who are intelligent enough to see racial differences, this is a pattern they have noticed in skin color. And it is related to the latitude these races evolved in.

Speaking with people like you is no different from arguing with Christian creationists in 2010. You have exactly the same psychological hangups and ignorance about biological science.

Two individuals having differing amounts of melanin in their skin does not necessarily mean that they belong to different ‘races’ which are necessarily in conflict with each other and are necessarily in some moral or evolutionary relative hierarchy. Which is what you seem to be claiming, and are bending science to try to lend credibility to.
#15311855
Well this thread is a dead end.
I just noticed that “Human Biodiversity” is the new cover term for race realists, whote supremcists or whatever you want to call them. It sounded out of place to me because I couldn’t saw I was seeing it as a term in any papers I read, so I wondered if it had a place in evolutionary theory or if it was just a colorful characterization.

https://anthropomics2.blogspot.com/2019/12/i-coined-phrase-human-biodiversity.html?m=1

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Biodiversity_Institute

Spoiler: show
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9909835/[/url]
Biological anthropologist Jonathan Marks (1995) introduced the phrase “human biodiversity” as a label and a framework for thinking about human difference. The basic aims were to show, first, that human differences are essentially biocultural in character—both biological and cultural diversity are essential to humanity, and neither is reducible to the other. Second, “race,” with its focus on indelible essences, hierarchies, and discrete continental dividing bins is an inadequate framework for understanding human difference. And third, understanding human diversity is simultaneously a project of empirical biological measurement, humanistic interpretation, and critical analysis of ethical and conceptual shortcomings of historical frameworks for understanding.

Online, the idea of “human biodiversity” has flourished, but those responsible have pushed an almost opposite meaning to the one Marks originally intended. The Reddit page devoted to human biological diversity defines it as “the study of human genetics and how they are responsible for our inclinations, behaviors, preferences, abilities, intelligence, life span, and other attributes…. Where “normal” human society considers the human mind to be programmable, HBD starts from the other perspective, which is that genetics is the cause and behaviors the effect.”9 Human biodiversity is here defined as both an interest in hereditarian explanation and, more subtly, an approach opposed to the beliefs of “normal human society.” Marks deployed biological diversity as a way of illustrating how incomplete categories for race/ethnicity are, and how even with continuous refinement they can never be part of a clear-cut classification system that people entrust science to produce. But the human biodiversity movement has inverted this formulation, using it on the one hand for establishing the “Reality of Race” and attacking “Fraudulent Science to Disprove Existence of Race,” and on the other as a warrant for investigating the ways that biology determines the social behavior and culture of those races. Thus, the focus of their practice is compiling massive troves of papers, references, facts, claims, and arguments to link these elements.

The public face of human biodiversity includes, on one side, writers for the far right, White nationalist outlets like Steve Sailer of the Unz Review and Jared Taylor of American Renaissance, and, on the other, people who are not ostensibly political but willing to write provocatively about topics like race and eugenics like Razib Khan of Discover magazine and Steve Hsu, physicist and entrepreneur of the company Genomic Prediction (Eror, 2013; Feldman, 2016; MacDougald & Willick, 2017; Schulson, 2017) or centrist liberals like Steven Pinker (2006) who legitimates human biodiversity ideas like the evolution of Jewish intelligence. There is also a large set of less well-known and especially anonymous or pseudonymous bloggers and tweeters in the human biodiversity orbit. There is an effort to conceal or deny how organized human biodiversity is. The humanbiologicaldiversity.com website’s design is attributed to the generically named “James Wilson” though no contact information is offered. Blogger @hbdchick recently tweeted “human biodiversity isn’t a movement” it’s “simply the diversity found among and between human populations that has a biological basis.”10 But journalist Angela Saini (2019, Ch. 6) reports that the movement got its start in the late 1990s when Steve Sailer worked to advance these ideas and identify fellow travelers by coordinating a private and secret email list of scholars in biology, psychology, and social sciences. The secrecy, anonymity, and denial of organization in human biodiversity have at least two functions. First, it helps protect participants whose ideas or associations with provocative racial ideas might make them targets of public opprobrium. Second, it helps align human biodiversity with science that gains much of its authority precisely from the lack of an author. The implicit claim: This is knowledge, not perspective.

The Humanbiologicaldiversity.com website stands as a kind of centerpiece of the movement and it reveals much about its characteristic concerns and bids for authority. The site has the look and feel of the late 1990s—no interactivity and graphics limited to a double helix. The bulk of it is a massive two-column bibliography of over 900 scholarly articles and essays broken into about 20 categories. The linked-to materials range from articles in White nationalist websites, to white papers from far right think tanks, to race science “classics” from the likes of Rushton, Jensen, Murray, Cochran, MacDonald, and Lynn, to mainstream health and genetics articles (about population differences) from sources like PNAS, AJPH, Science, and Journal of Neuroscience. What stands out first about this list is its mass; it goes on and on as you scroll down. Most of the categories have dozens of entries. Secondly is the circumscribed diversity of the topics: From mainstays like “HBD & IQ,” “HBD & Crime,” “Immigration,” and “Evolutionary Psychology, Sociobiology, & Darwinism” to “History and Economics” (mostly about civilization differences and hierarchies), “HBD & Religion” (mostly about racial roots of different religious traditions and whether religion is an evolved instinct), and “Plants and Animals” (which mostly concerns how animal breeding and behavior can be models for human races and race relations). The effect of these juxta-positions is to illustrate that heredity can be observed everywhere. By situating race and IQ, immigration, and crime in a wider field of ideas about evolution and plant breeding patterns, the race science topics are portrayed as naturally another way that heredity is significant.

The basic sense conveyed is that the biological reality of race and hereditarian explanations for racial differences are massively well-supported by science. This style of argumentation by accumulation is a longstanding tradition in race science. For example, psychologist Audrey Shuey’s infamous Testing of Negro Intelligence (Shuey, 1966) purported to review nearly 400 IQ studies which she interpreted as proving “Negros” are inherently less intelligent than Whites and thus schools should not be integrated. And Philippe Rushton and Arthur Jensen Rushton and Jensen (2005) wrote a notorious review of “race differences in cognitive ability” categorized into 10 lines of evidence that they meticulously scored and added up: 17 for hereditarianism, −7 for culture only explanations of racial differences. In a response Nisbett (Nisbett, 2005) showed that almost all the evidence Rushton and Jensen marshal is non-dispositive for hereditarian explanation of racial differences, and it demonstrates no genetic component to cognitive differences. Reviewing Rushton’s magnum opus book, Barash (1995) averred that combining “numerous little turds of variously tainted data” does not yield results, just a “pile of shit.” It is a good line, but to our argument, it speaks to the cognitive style of the human biodiversity movement: accumulate a giant corpus of decontextualized mainstream science, flawed race science, and political writing, ignore or dismiss any critiques, and then treat genetically determined racial differences in behavior as forbidden knowledge—obviously true, but suppressed by the academic left.



The second type of red pill is less about prepackaged racial information concerning instead to racial theorization to process new scientific findings or draw novel connections to older ideas to develop human biodiversity prerogatives. Though blogs have fallen a bit out of fashion (with YouTube videos and discussion sites are more in vogue), human biological diversity ideas have been worked out on dozens of them.13 Just one example, but an emblematic one, is The Alternative Hypothesis which offers “an alternative to the status quo perspective on issues like race and diversity. We take empirical evidence very seriously, so expect a lot of it.”14 The core topics are typical: race realism, IQ, crime, how genes not politics explain national economies and cultures. There are dozens of pages with extremely long essays synthesizing massive and diverse literatures in the service of racial hierarchy arguments. The writers also do their own secondary analyses—for example, compiling into a single table published frequencies of different MAOA gene variants for Blacks and Whites,15 modeling different possible values of Fst to argue it should not be a criterion against the existence of race,16 and plotting various national economic data over time to argue that colonialism is not the cause of African poverty.17

Such arguments gain their power because of the ways they trade on images and asymmetries of expertise. The areas of research they draw upon are subtle and technical enough that properly understanding the fallacies of their arguments can demand advanced knowledge. Indeed when they misrepresent their sources—as does the Alternative Hypothesis in its tables of Fst and heterozygosity frequencies—it is difficult for non-experts to detect it.18 Further, they frequently err in their reification of statistical correlations, capitalizing on their, and others’, ignorance of standards for causal inference in genetics or social science. Amateur hereditarian arguments are strengthened because they aren’t dependent wholly on the “classics” of scientific racism, but they have put in a massive effort to mobilize a diverse host of information to make the old arguments about racial hierarchy in new ways. In this way, they represent a well-armed, difficult to argue against, DIY intelligentsia of the far right.

Finally, there is a version of human biodiversity that has gone beyond this pseudointellectual movement to repackage biological and social science in the service of racial hierarchy. For some, biodiversity has become a label for White separation and supremacy. For example, the perpetrator of the El Paso massacre in August 2019 issued a manifesto entitled “The Inconvenient Truth” that stated, I am against race mixing because it destroys genetic diversity and creates identity problems…. Cultural and racial diversity [from “Hispanic immigration”] are largely temporary. Cultural diversity diminishes as stronger and/or more appealing cultures overtake weaker and/or undesirable ones. Racial diversity will disappear as either race mixing or genocide will take place.19

The shooter here draws from “Great Replacement” theory (Camus, 2012) that holds that Western countries are facing “White genocide” owing to a conspiracy to ensure permissive immigration policies, racial differences in birthrates, and the inherent violence of non-Whites. Ideas from human biodiversity have served to inform this world view, but in particular it has offered a genetic rationale for White nationalist violence and a specific focus on the preservation of White biodiversity as a goal. Earlier we argued that genetic ancestry tests were attractive to White nationalists partly because they made White genetic diversity visible and aided in the appropriation of diversity as something that Whites should care about and defend for themselves. Here we see how human biodiversity goes beyond a supposedly neutral label for an abstract intellectual interest in human differences, to a specific ideological component of a violent worldview.



Seems its about right. Thought it might’ve been more interesting and fun but guess it is just to sucker contrarians and rhetorically stifle those who can’t articulate a counter argument.
#15311856
Potemkin wrote:Two individuals having differing amounts of melanin in their skin does not necessarily mean that they belong to different ‘races’ which are necessarily in conflict with each other and are necessarily in some moral or evolutionary relative hierarchy. Which is what you seem to be claiming, and are bending science to try to lend credibility to.


I'm telling you that how much melanin people have relates to how close to the equator their ancestors evolved in. The less sunlight there is the better it is to have pale skin so that you acquire more sunlight for vitamin d. That means the difference in this trait is due to adaptation, NOT genetic drift.

Where the hell are you hearing hierarchy in that?
#15311857
FiveofSwords wrote:I'm telling you that how much melanin people have relates to how close to the equator their ancestors evolved in. The less sunlight there is the better it is to have pale skin so that you acquire more sunlight for vitamin d. That means the difference in this trait is due to adaptation, NOT genetic drift.

This particular trait is indeed an adaptive one, and a very recent one at that. But you seem to attach great importance to it, so much so that you talk about ‘the white race”, as though the whiteness of our skin is the most important feature distinguishing our ‘race’ from all others. This is a (literally) rather superficial understanding of human genetic variation. But I was addressing your assertion that genetic drift cannot lead to separate races being formed, which is not correct. Genetic drift can even lead to separate species being formed, if the populations are separated for long enough.

Where the hell are you hearing hierarchy in that?

It seems to be implied. :)
#15311858
Wellsy wrote:Well this thread is a dead end.
I just noticed that “Human Biodiversity” is the new cover term for race realists, whote supremcists or whatever you want to call them. It sounded out of place to me because I couldn’t saw I was seeing it as a term in any papers I read, so I wondered if it had a place in evolutionary theory or if it was just a colorful characterization.

https://anthropomics2.blogspot.com/2019/12/i-coined-phrase-human-biodiversity.html?m=1

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Biodiversity_Institute

Spoiler: show
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9909835/[/url]



Seems its about right. Thought it might’ve been more interesting and fun but guess it is just to sucker contrarians and rhetorically stifle those who can’t articulate a counter argument.


Well clearly it seems like a lot of people are convinced that if they admit human populations are subject to evolution and humans can actually adapt genetically to whatever circumstances they are in, then it necessarily follows that white people are superior.

I personally do not understand how that logically follows. I don't even understand what exactly it would mean for white people to be 'superior'. My first inclination would be to ask what they are superior at doing? But simply declaring to be a race superior, disconnected from any particular talent, makes no sense to me.

But anyeay...since people seem convinced that the theory of evolution logically results in white people being superior, and since it is forbidden to consider white people as superior, they mist necessarily reject the idea that evolution occurs in humans at all.

None of this makes any sense to me. Not the implication of superiority nor the preference of avoiding reality when there is some danger of white people being 'superior'. I'd rather just deal with truth ad it is, personally...but clearly most people are not like that.
#15311859
Potemkin wrote:This particular trait is indeed an adaptive one, and a very recent one at that. But you seem to attach great importance to it, so much so that you talk about ‘the white race”, as though the whiteness of our skin is the most important feature distinguishing our ‘race’ from all others. This is a (literally) rather superficial understanding of human genetic variation. But I was addressing your assertion that genetic drift cannot lead to separate races being formed, which is not correct. Genetic drift can even lead to separate species being formed, if the populations are separated for long enough.


It seems to be implied. :)


When you admit this trait is adaptive, that means you are also admitting that it is NOT a product of genetic drift. Genetic drift ONLY refers to changes in population genetics that are NOT adaptive.
#15311862
@FiveofSwords

"Britney Spears"

We have all the usual colours save yellow pop up here. Oft-times in the same family. Hitler was so disgusted he wanted to pack every one of us off to the concentration camps to be gassed and import nice white northern Italians.

With your childish infatuation with skin colour, where would that place us?


:lol:
#15311865
FiveofSwords wrote:When you admit this trait is adaptive, that means you are also admitting that it is NOT a product of genetic drift. Genetic drift ONLY refers to changes in population genetics that are NOT adaptive.

I repeat: you seem to want the genetic variation in the human population to have meaning, rather than being the result of random non-adaptive processes. In other words, you want there to be ‘races’, and you want the phenotypic differences between those races to have some sort of cultural meaning and value. Evolution and genetic variability just don’t work like that. And why does skin colour matter so much to you? The “white race” has only existed for less than 10,000 years. Why fixate on skin colour and not some other phenotypic difference?
#15311869
Pants-of-dog wrote:Even the evidence cited by the "race realist" shows that race is arbitrary, variable, and not useful as science.

Even the evidence cited by the "planet realist" shows that planet is arbitrary, variable and not useful as science.

What you really mean is that its not useful for your hate filled Cultural Marxist ideology. Roughly half the top chess players in the world have been Jewish. Anyone with a genuine interest in science wants to know, is there a genetic component to this. Obviously there is a Cultural element to this, but could the cultural element be caused by a genetic forcing. Some scientists believe that relatively small forcings can through positive feed back loops produce large scale changes to climate. Could we see something similar with race? Following normal Liberal and Cultural Marxist logic, We would have to blame Jews success in chess on hideous, personal and systemic anti Gentile racism.

Then we have the education and success gap in the United States between Black African slave descendants and other racial groups. The genomic variance of the United states slaves was probably relatively low. Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think there were many Oromos, pigmies or San amongst those brought to the Continental United States. Surely we would want to reduce these differences in outcomes. understanding the genetic and cultural sources of the gap would be of great help in devising policies that actually work.
Last edited by Rich on 13 Apr 2024 15:42, edited 1 time in total.
#15311874
@FiveofSwords

A Maltese woman's experience of otherness at Border Control JFK.

After answering the 'race' question on the disembarkation card for all non-US citizens ...

"An officer questioned my choice. Caucasian or Other? They simply could not agree about my race!"

Why not if it is so simple?


:lol:
#15311879
Wellsy wrote:Well this thread is a dead end.
I just noticed that “Human Biodiversity” is the new cover term for race realists, whote supremcists or whatever you want to call them. It sounded out of place to me because I couldn’t saw I was seeing it as a term in any papers I read, so I wondered if it had a place in evolutionary theory or if it was just a colorful characterization.

https://anthropomics2.blogspot.com/2019/12/i-coined-phrase-human-biodiversity.html?m=1

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Biodiversity_Institute

Spoiler: show
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9909835/[/url]



Seems its about right. Thought it might’ve been more interesting and fun but guess it is just to sucker contrarians and rhetorically stifle those who can’t articulate a counter argument.


It is all code words they use to avoid having to come out of the closet that they are forced to dwell in due to having shoddy science.

Taken from the above cited blog of yours Wellsy:

The essay that follows was declined by the NY Times. However, a few days later (27 December 2019), they published a column by Bret Stephens on Jewish genius (or, Jewnius©) that actually cited the horrid 2005 paper on that subject by the late biological anthropologist Henry Harpending. Harpending was regarded by the Southern Poverty Law Center as a White Nationalist.

That is a very unusual status for an anthropologist. It raises an interesting issue, though, about Harpending’s legacy. I am in favor of his total erasure. I think his racism probably tainted everything he published, however nice he may have been in person, and I do not see what value there is in talking about him at all politely or respectfully, when his legacy is a black eye for the field of anthropology. Adam Rutherford has been crapping on him over on twitter.

The Southern Poverty Law Center’s page on Harpending also uses the phrase “human biodiversity” quite a bit.


---------------------------

I coined the phrase “Human Biodiversity”. Racists stole it.
Jonathan Marks
#15311880
Potemkin wrote:I repeat: you seem to want the genetic variation in the human population to have meaning, rather than being the result of random non-adaptive processes. In other words, you want there to be ‘races’, and you want the phenotypic differences between those races to have some sort of cultural meaning and value. Evolution and genetic variability just don’t work like that. And why does skin colour matter so much to you? The “white race” has only existed for less than 10,000 years. Why fixate on skin colour and not some other phenotypic difference?


Because fixating on race is what he has been doing since day one on PoFo. WHITE GENOCIDE. Remember? :lol: ;)
#15311883
Tainari88 wrote:Because fixating on race is what he has been doing since day one on PoFo. WHITE GENOCIDE. Remember? :lol: ;)

We've already seen White genocide. We saw it in Rwanda. Strange as it may seem the Tutsis were genocided for being White or at least being Whiter. And we also saw that Cultural Marxist Tutsis took part in the genocide of their own people.

We are currently seeing an attempted genocide of the Russians. Now many in Ukraine and other Eastern European countries want to genocide the Russians, because they see them as non Whites as Asiatic sub humans. At the same time many Western Liberals want to see the Russians genocided because they see them as the very epitome of evil Whiteness. Evil White Christians who helped Donald Trump get elected in 2016 and dare to oppose their Islamophillic, homosexual and Trans agenda.

So yes White replacement and White genocide are rational things to worry about, even if we don't know exactly what forms they will take.

I support gay rights by the way, I just don't think we should start a nuclear war with Russia to force my / our views upon them.
#15311885
Rich wrote:We've already seen White genocide. We saw it in Rwanda. Strange as it may seem the Tutsis were genocided for being White or at least being Whiter. And we also saw that Cultural Marxist Tutsis took part in the genocide of their own people.

We are currently seeing an attempted genocide of the Russians. Now many in Ukraine and other Eastern European countries want to genocide the Russians, because they see them as non Whites as Asiatic sub humans. At the same time many Western Liberals want to see the Russians genocided because they see them as the very epitome of evil Whiteness. Evil White Christians who helped Donald Trump get elected in 2016 and dare to oppose their Islamophillic, homosexual and Trans agenda.

So yes White replacement and White genocide are rational things to worry about, even if we don't know exactly what forms they will take.

I support gay rights by the way, I just don't think we should start a nuclear war with Russia to force my / our views upon them.


Well, the way you describe it seems that people from the same racial categories are genociding people from their same racial categories. So it becomes a human race problem of genocide and not particular a generic white race genocide.

So that has to be discarded Rich.

Lol.

Sometimes you think like a fascist, other times like a liberal and other times you are just unconventional in the extreme Rich.

You even said that you believe in certain Marxist thoughts regarding what? Religion?

Why keep voting for the liberals if you feel backstabbed by them Rich?
Last edited by Tainari88 on 13 Apr 2024 13:28, edited 1 time in total.
#15311886
ingliz wrote:@FiveofSwords

"Britney Spears"

We have all the usual colours save yellow pop up here. Oft-times in the same family. Hitler was so disgusted he wanted to pack every one of us off to the concentration camps to be gassed and import nice white northern Italians.

With your childish infatuation with skin colour, where would that place us?


:lol:


I have no clue what you are talking about
#15311888
@FiveofSwords

"I have no clue what you are talking about"

Variations in skin colour that are to be found in the Maltese population, often within the same family group, and Hitler's reaction to our mongrel Arab roots when he was told of it.


:)
#15311889
Potemkin wrote:I repeat: you seem to want the genetic variation in the human population to have meaning, rather than being the result of random non-adaptive processes. In other words, you want there to be ‘races’, and you want the phenotypic differences between those races to have some sort of cultural meaning and value. Evolution and genetic variability just don’t work like that. And why does skin colour matter so much to you? The “white race” has only existed for less than 10,000 years. Why fixate on skin colour and not some other phenotypic difference?

You may be unaware of this, but you are contradicting mainstream science when you suggest racial differences are non adaptive. All dcientigic evidence points to race actually being adaptive.

Meanwhile, it is quite obvious that race is deeply important to everyone in this forum...otherwise you wouldn't care about some 'suspected white supremacist'.

I would say the 'white race' is even much younger than 10k years...but you keep changing your story. Are you admitting the white race exists now?
  • 1
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 17

@Hakeer : Harris is tapped to lose. If she pic[…]

It is not an ad-hominem to point out there are ant[…]

I'd vote for a wet bag of dog shit over Trump, so […]

That's awful. Of course, it's no reason to deny a[…]