Countries don't fundamentally exist

Hey fellow intellectual. I think you'll appreciate our community at reddit.com/r/atheism and reddit.com/r/chapostraphouse. I'm on Jow Forums to monitor alt righters and to guide future revolutionaries such as yourself to a place where we can organise the future state.

Attached: 0CC82BF8-DE29-44FE-ACCE-DA038AF3D56D.png (2000x1332, 1.45M)

I don't use reddit. I've been on Jow Forums since like 2009. Its just an interesting point I would like to discuss because i see a lot of people reifying the convention of ethnicities and countries as though these are objectively existent things rather than conventions.

A negroe is different from a asian mongloid.
You might say "but those are races not ethnicities", which I could get behind. But ethnicities are basically sub-races produced by mixing. National ethnicity is a spook tho

Honestly multiculturalism fails in a lot of countries because you're shit at managing things. You take in tons of poorfags gave them no opportunities and complain they don't behave well lmao

This black person is genetically closer to japanese and tibetans than any modern african person.

but of course they look more like the latter than the former. clearly race based on looks is not watertight classification.

Attached: jarawa.jpg (960x720, 62K)

not sure what this comment has to do with the thread.

>there is no such thing as a fish. only the convention of arbitrarily grouping some boney sea dwellers together and leaving others out.

take your thread to /his/. they might be better at explaining why yourewrong.(or worse)

>western europoorean Jow Forumsellectuals
holy finna fukkin yikesola my mane!

Because the point of "multiculturalism" is creating an underclass that will translate into voting blocs.

There are literal differences in the genes. Otherwise all people would look the same and have the same environmental reactions(eg blacks getting less sunburns) no?

yes that is true. it is not arbitrary. But a fish is only a fish insofaras it is defined to be a fish

and the definition of a fish is only the definition of a fish insofaras it defines as a fish.
There is no common 'black gene' or 'yellow gene'.
all humans have differences in genes from each other, are we all separate races?

Yes we basically are. But the secret is to lump the similar ones into a category. That's also how animal races are classified. So yeah I guess you are right, races as we know them are conceptual

yes so they are a convention.

just like the symbol 2 is not inherently representative of the number two, but it is a convention we use to represent it. similarly races, countries, ethnicities are a convention we use to make sense of things we experience.

>This black person is genetically closer to japanese and tibetans than any modern african person.
So is that an extinct black person?

no, that black person isn't african nor have any of their ancestors been african for about 60,000 years.

>no, that black person isn't african nor have any of their ancestors been african for about 60,000 years.
How many questions are you going to make me ask until you spell it out for me?

The idea that a fundamental unifying quality is necessary for things to be grouped together is itself a spook.

however though an idea(symbol whatever) may be forced at first. once it is in existence it does exist and take on a life of its own.

like lumping together some germanic tribes while leaving out others and call them germany.
the idea of germany exists. and the idea may make people fight for that germany or against it.

though the inception may seem absurd to some. the result is a real entity

what is the question?
the idea that there are things is a spook
yes, by noting that things are conventions that doesn't make them any less useful or real in a mundane sense.

it just stops you from thinking that things cannot change or things are inherent.

for example there is an idea of a self which most people carry, but you cannot find a self upon analysis. however it is still useful to think of your experiences, body, senses, thoughts are pertaining to your self (even after admitting there is none)

Your human rights don't exist nor do laws there just concepts. And people make laws and rights, and what gives them the right to dictate to people.

Bla bla bla I'm a fucking I'm smatter then everyone else.

ps. I'm going to kill you and take your shit because laws and property rights don't exist.

This. I should be able to bash the skulls of those weaker than me and take their mates, as nature intended

yes laws also don't exist outside of convention.

the fact that things only exist in convention does not mean that they are useless or should be cast aside. it just means that we have to recognise them as impermanent, subject to change and reliant on different conditions.

The idea that a concept lacks value on account of it being a spook is itself a spook.

all things are convention, there is no inherent things.

>clearly race based on looks is not watertight classification.
Nice try jew.

>countries don't fundamentally exist.
They do
>nor do ethnicities
They do
>nor do languages
They do

Outliers are meaningless and don't negate the whole