Explain to me *exactly* what's wrong with being racist

It limits your pool to reproduce with.
It can lower your social standing in some countries.

It may take you a long time but eventually you will get over race as an issue or maybe not and be a grouchy bastard old man in the future who all of the non-racist kids will hate as they walk by your house in the morning. ;)

"Racism" can mean a lot of different things. I think everyone has some degree of prejudice. I think racism is wrong when you willfully deny the fact that some individuals will prove your prejudices wrong, or refuse them the opportunity to do so.

Because there's plenty of legitimate reasons to dislike humanity as a whole. Why single out a particular group?

Well, superiority is the case in some fields, such as black people being more resistant to sunlight than white people because of their skin, and white people having noses that are more adapted to cold air than black people do.
The big question is, are there physical differences in the brain that could affect intelligence or another mental capability? Since the human race is so dependent on their brains, that could mean actual superiority and bigger odds at survival, even within this century's society.

I don't know what specific joy you get from LARPing as someone who is at all interested in conflicting views but its boring and threads like this genuinely lowers the productivity and overall quality of this board.

don't judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree

>The big question is, are there physical differences in the brain that could affect intelligence or another mental capability?

People already tried to answer that in the 1800s and whatever with things like phrenology. The answer is no.

>but people in very specific parts of East Asia are really smart

That's entirely cultural where they beat the shit out of their kids to learn math and how to play the violin when they're 4 years old

The general consensus that every rational human being has come to is that there are literally hundreds of ways to address cultural disparities, inequality and immigration other than racism. Anybody who has any legitimate concerns about the economic, social and cultural problems in places like Africa and the Middle East understands that outreach, infrastructure, education and compassion are how we even the scales between different cross sections of the world population. Racism is about personal frailty, not progress. No one has ever become a racist out of genuine concern for human life.

Oh boy, you really did it now.
>People already tried to answer that in the 1800s and whatever with things like phrenology. The answer is no.
lel
It's the other way around. Take skull size, for example. Asians and whites had something like 150-200 cm^3 on blacks in measurements taken, and sure enough leftists challenged it without evidence:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craniometry#Cranial_capacity,_races_and_19th_–_20th-century_scientific_ideas
>"Stephen Jay Gould (1941–2002), an American paleontologist, evolutionary biologist and historian of science, studied these craniometric works in The Mismeasure of Man (1981) and claimed Samuel Morton had fudged data and "overpacked" the skulls with filler in order to justify his preconceived notions on racial differences. A subsequent study by the anthropologist John Michael found Morton's original data to be more accurate than Gould describes, concluding that "[c]ontrary to Gould's interpretation... Morton's research was conducted with integrity."
Another leftist saying something out of a knee-jerk reaction.

>No one has ever become a racist out of genuine concern for human life.
On the contrary, it's not a big leap when from animal conservation. Different species have entire organizations dedicated to saving them even when they have no unique ecological value--one of the best examples being the giant panda. "Racism" in the sense of preserving one's own is hardly hateful in itself.

Blind humanism is foolish on its own, but that's something for another time.

nothing is wrong

Attached: Chaika+has+best+face+_d37c715e862dcee4979171c408f17f78.jpg (1280x720, 119K)

It depends on the situation.
>there are literally hundreds of ways to address cultural disparities, inequality and immigration
Two of these (the first two) are irrelevant anyway. A "racist" probably doesn't care what people do in their own countries, and incites far less anger or instability than well-intentioned leftists or neocons constantly meddling. Take aid dumps to the third world, which make it impossible for local farmers to survive, or ramming through of Western "superior" culture and pissing off locals so you get extremist movements springing up in reaction.
>blame whitey for colonialism
>have colonial paternalist mindset

kek, basically this.
Leftists like redefining terms to suit semantic games, and this is no different. The term was originally just the first part of pic related, but then they started attaching "hatred" or "supremacy" to it.

Attached: race.png (694x36, 8K)

sadguruband.bandcamp.com/releases

It makes you shitpost on Jow Forums.

Can confirm

Attached: 1503162890261.png (500x600, 270K)

>believing modern propaganda
The bulk of NSDAP and DNVP support was from the middle class, actually (although the aim of the NSDAP was actually the elimination of strict classism, and much of their efforts were on gaining working class support), and in the latter's case the majority of voters for them were women.
>the more you know

Because it denies the sanctity of the individual.

Attached: quote-nonviolence-is-a-powerful-and-just-weapon-which-cuts-without-wounding-and-ennobles-the-martin- (850x400, 74K)

You could say exactly the same thing of laws forcing you to interact with people you don't want to interact with

I am not in favor of such laws. I believe people have the right to be bad people. Democracy exists to maximize liberty, not to force the morality of the 51% onto the 49%.

At least lolbergs are consistent

Well, since you obviously don't give a fuck about logic or facts or have the empathy levels above a developing child, consider how racism will affect YOU.

It makes you stress out and feel bad over shit you have no control about, and is likely to lead to social isolation. Constantly getting worked up about brown people is more likely to kill you from a stress related issue than an actual negro. Besides, pushing blame from your personal failures into others isn't a viable longterm strategy for growth.

>since you obviously don't give a fuck about logic or facts

Attached: Dutch enrichment.jpg (2569x3209, 1.97M)

Attached: 1534145109197.gif (600x400, 763K)

K. Do you have a better system of government in mind?

Attached: 1537583153338.png (1815x1039, 194K)

It's retarded logic that only an absolute moron would believe at this point

Holy shit, some pictures of graphs out of context! And some brainlet trying to interpret them. SANDPEOPLE, BTFO.

I think you can tell already.
Memeing aside, I'd support agrarianism with an emphasis on making sure farmers actually own their land, along with a monarchy and local self-government. It's obviously more complicated than can be explained in a few posts, though.

Honestly, the biggest fault to it is the social stigma attached.

I understand wanting to stand up for your race and community, and I think there is a place for it, hell I would call myself racist too. The main problem comes from doing such things in public and shaming yourself.

Attached: 1515140472532.png (1166x493, 145K)

>monarchy
Opinion discarded.

geneticsandsociety.org/biopolitical-times/race-and-iq-yet-again

The same thing that’s wrong with being a pedophile.

Pedos usually don't harm anyone tho.

I've had his Hitler's trip filtered for ages. He has nothing of value to say and shouldn't be acknowledged or taken seriously by anyone.

>"you hate logic and facts"
>gets evidence posted
>"out of context, correlation is not causation, basement-dwelling virgin manchild neckbeard, etc."
Every time. There is very good reason not to want mixing of different groups, even if you don't give a shit about your own group.

A corrupt monarch can be overthrown and his sycophants shot. In a "democracy", blame is diffused across the whole population while the benefits of corruption remain concentrated. People are simultaneously at each other's throats and numb to bending over and getting fucked in the ass.

And? I don't expect a Harvard professor (with a "certain" kind of last name, no less) to be 'one of us'. The point is that differences do exist, and because of that it's also misleading to pretend IQ is the reason for wanting separation--I'd argue for that no matter what.

Funny, because yet again I'm the only guy ITT providing sources (unless you consider a short news item a "source") that you don't want to look at.

>vague "racism" is worse than pedophilia
Over 90% of white Americans found racemixing wrong up to the point where it was forcibly legalized in 1967. Please do tell me how they all harmed people.
>muh lynchings
a quarter of the victims were white, and most of them were actual criminals-and nevermind the fact that the number was barely 4 a month across the whole country. Twice the total number of lynchings from 1882-1970 are killed every year, and the majority of that black-on-black.

Also, friendly reminder that were it up to the most dedicated racists, slavery would have been nipped in the bud and Apartheid would have never happened. The former because it undercut white labor (since you didn't have to pay slaves) and the latter because the purists didn't care about getting rich off the back of blacks, they wanted a separate country.

Attached: 75B23781-40C0-4473-81C4-26CA221AE7F1.jpg (640x360, 62K)

But there's nothing wrong with being a pedophile though. "Statutory rape" is a RECENT legal fiction. As long as she consents, it doesn't matter how young she is. Are you saying that kids can't consent when there are children who are smarter than you will EVER be? Do we need IQ tests before we have sex now? Not that IQ is legit anyway.

Oh god we're having this argument now.

I agree that statutory rape is a legal fiction, albeit for a very different reason. Fornication is the core problem.
Although generally you should wait until at least the end of puberty to make sure the impulsiveness is gone before making a commitment as great as marriage.

Also, to this effect, several states still have it in the books that with both parental and judicial approval, minors as young as 14 can legally get married, provided they're close in age. Iirc New Hampshire is one of the most lax states in this regard.

>cue ephebophilia copypasta

Attached: 2663A20D-C3F1-42B3-AB63-E0E5BBD17595.jpg (223x213, 16K)

I don’t think I even need to explain why that’s wrong. Go sit in the corner.

>using pragmatism to supplant morality.
Eat a cock you humongous faggot. Monarchies are immoral, and that's all that matters.

Well, there is genuine benefit in engaging people like him on a public space, so tend to give them a limited time. Not as good as downright filtering but hey, someone is wrong on the Internet. Though holy shit, he seems even below the average Jow Forumsak.

...

I think having pedophile thoughts is very different than acting on it. I have those thoughts a lot, but I’d never act on it. I think guilt would never allow me to actually interact with a young girl. I mean not only is it wrong but they don’t understand. You may want to say they are smart and consent and understand to make you feel better but. The truth is they are still children, young and immature. They can’t understand the actual gravity of something like sex.

it makes you do bad things
>Explain to me what *exactly* is wrong with getting hammered at a children's birthday party.

So you're just gonna post that picture next to an inflamatory, off topic question every single time

Okay

Well, what i'm thinking about are inherited genes and the way children grow up. In different societies this was affecting the past. Let's say that in one society the IQ of the people strongly affects their birthrate and/or survivalrate and the general way their offsprings grow up. In this society, people with a low IQ mutation will not get so many offsprings as high IQ people. This then slowly rises the general IQ in the society. Added to that, a child usually gets a better childhood for their development. Smart parents grow their children up to be smart too, pretty much. This is usually the case in more advanced cultures. In these cultures you had many different ways of life and access to real academical materialI, generally said, a child could develope good, the parents might for example teach it how to read if the parents have a high IQ themselves already. Then again, in not developed societies, the opposite is the case. If you take for example a small tribe then there isn't really anything existing to help a child grow up more intelligent and the IQ in general doesn't affect it that strongly since everyone does the same pretty much anyways. The thing now is that you had many very high developed societies in especially europe and east asia for a long time. You never really had much in "africa" in the first place (mind you that the egypts were not black). After that their life as slaves made a proper education impossible. North and south america's highly developed cultures got destroyed during the colonialisation. All this in mind, the chances that the people in europe and eastern asia are on average still to this day more intelligent due to their past are high. This does not mean that the race itself is an issue, but at this very moment, racism might be partly true. In a few generations it should be all normal again in all the countries with at least a decent education but right now, there is a difference.

I grew up in a small town that was very white 12,000 people and it was a nice quiet town. I watched a large amount of black people immigrate here from the city because of the reduced income housing being created. I don't wanna sound racist but a lot of the black people I've encountered here are really rude and they like to yell shit at you from their cars.

If you’re actually saying that there’s nothing wrong with being a pedophile, then you’re fucking stupid. You might even be as stupid as people who take scientology seriously.

All types of socialists and pedos should be gassed.

>monarchies are immoral
Why?
It was a fact that your typical peasant had more freedom than a wagecuck now, even more so in countries like Denmark which came closer to my ideal than ones with large serf populations.

The average Jow Forumsack is inconsistent enough to be attacked on that basis, that's why you hate me (for example, they do exactly the same thing you do when presented with evidence for climate change). Please do provide sources. I still have the standing offer that if I am shown things blowing my views on sexuality and to a lesser extent """diversity""" out of the water, I will shut up and leave. But people think shouting and saying "you're a baka" is a substitute, which it isn't.

Ok, pedo. You may be accepted in society if you keep this under tight control, but any behavior associated with it can't be. Although wait a few years, I'm sure we'll see "love is love" platitudes being reprised again. Kids can already consent to chopping their own dicks off.

The joys of diversity.

Attached: Iowa enriched by HUD.png (1313x625, 802K)

Pedos should definitely be gassed. Not socialists though.

What if I'm a racist pedo?

Attached: Faggot_bat.jpg (960x711, 43K)

Good luck finding the .01% of people that don't want you dead

"It's ok to have sex with children unless they're black."

I'm also a socialist!

In that case, i would force you to cut your own face off with a piece of glass, and then cut your tounge in half with a box cutter.

>your typical peasant had more freedom than a wagecuck now, even more so in countries like Denmark which came closer to my ideal than ones with large serf populations.
>comparing ancient monarchies to modern democracies
Are you actually retarded or just pretending? Look at any monarchy in sandland and tell me you want that filth. Unless you intend to go back in time to before the technology to enforce laws on a large scale existed, monarchies are universally a plague upon their subjects.

Attached: lel.gif (330x297, 1.58M)

Pfft. Move out of the way, sissy. I'm a full-blown Maoist.

Get of the racism meme and try to keep your pedophilia in check.

> Look at any monarchy in sandland and tell me you want that filth
>unironically using the Middle East as an example
This is logical to an egalitarian lolberg, but the premise is flawed.
>Unless you intend to go back in time to before the technology to enforce laws on a large scale existed
Hence why I qualified my statement by saying that the farmers absolutely needed to be self-reliant.
>monarchies are universally a plague upon their subjects.
And tyranny of the majority, bought out by moneyed interests isn't? Democracy is at best guaranteed mediocrity, at worst exactly what I described above, a monarchy in effect without recourse to rebellion, but at least there's the "freedom" to buy silicone sex dolls that look like children.

Don't mistake my support of monarchy as a concept for support of monarchs. Most of them were and are selfish degenerates.

I know humans have no shortage of flaws, whatever the system, but you did ask what my ideal would be.

That's mean!

What if i’m a racist and a sexist, but not a pedo?

Once again
>pragmatism
Stop with this meme my friend.

It depends how you define racism and sexism.
If you mean you hate anybody of X race or X gender on that basis, it's still degenerate, but if it's simply the well-supported belief in inherent differences, then there's nothing wrong with it.
It's the opposite. My ideal of monarchy is purely in the sense of idealism, as the word would imply. I have some really out there ideas for "what if" scenarios but it's pointless to bring them up because it would never happen.
If I wanted to be pragmatic I would make vague appeals to democracy so I didn't instantly piss people off with whatever conception of monarchy they already had.

I know, that’s why I said it.

The fuck is wrong with you guys? You're like edgy atheists but instead of taking somewhat reasonable points too far, you take retarded points and conclude that because even the most intellectually stunted brainlet can tell they're retarded, they must actually be a secret truth hidden from you by the Jews.
Do you ever take a moment to evaluate your beliefs or is that just a trick ((((((they)))))) created to inject doubt into your WokeAf™ brain?

What the fuck is wrong with being an athiest?

What do you expect people with nothing going for them to do? It's escapism into memes, pulling an hero or self-improvement, and who the hell wants to bother with the latter?

Nothing at all. Being an edgy atheist is childish though.

Show me one post in this thread where I blamed da jooz for anything.
> even the most intellectually stunted brainlet can tell they're retarded
On what basis? An idea can be a very smart and well-conceived one even if it's employed towards a horrific end. Take meme Nazism as defined by the most exaggerated wartime propaganda--there are logical and efficient ways to go about murdering millions of people without making moral judgements on whether or not that's a good thing to do.

Calling the goal itself stupid while ignoring the values and desired ends behind it is the sign of a brainlet that gets his opinions from groupthink, and that's the sole reason why many beliefs are blacklisted by "civil society".

kek, have fun eating each other
I'm in uni.

Wrong. Nazis and commies gotta go.

You should read Guns Germs and Steel, by Jarred Diamond.

Its funny. Studies keep coming out that show the "superiority of the white race", but then they always get examined and debunked. Yet, despite the fact that any evidemce supporting the claim can be easily disputed, people believe them anyway.

Racism is wrong because it is _factually_ wrong. being racist doesnt make you evil, it makes you an idiot. Worse, it makes you an idiot with a superiority complex.

Attached: great post.jpg (380x349, 25K)

I guess I've met my match now. Racism is wrong because it's morally wrong, not because it's fallacious.

Citing "socioeconomic factors" doesn't constitute debunking.
And the assumption racism = supremacy is also an incorrect one, and if this is to be the accepted definition from now on, I can confidently say that despite wanting an ethnostate (because of it, even) I am not racist in the least.

Attached: 4ce.jpg (676x540, 55K)

>at this very moment, racism might be partly true
You're using junk science to reach an unnecessary conclusion. I'll break this down.

1. IQ tests are hugely unreliable. They were never designed to properly gauge general intelligence and were designed for the sole purpose of justifying the sterilization of the mentally ill. A study was done recently that found a minimum of 6 separate tests were required to get an accurate picture of overall human intelligence. Even the scientists who conduct these studies shy away from making the concrete statements you have about generational IQ because the data on environmental factors that contribute to overall intelligence is so ambiguous and unknown. General intelligence is immensely more complicated than low IQ + low IQ = low IQ. You're making an assumptive leap about inherited genetics that even geneticists decline to make. I say again; racism is not a solution to anything nor does validating the base of their twisted logic contribute to a productive conversation. Racism is absolutely irrelevant in a conversation about how we can better address global education resources.

close, but I have anime posters too

And I drink coke, not monster.

> IQ tests are hugely unreliable.
This is true of the old IQ tests which do give a massive advantage to certain groups of people, like pic related (which I think is obvious to anyone isn't my actual tested IQ).
Newer ones, not so much. It a very consistent indicator of potential, although what someone does with that potential, in terms of how they use it, where, and why, is obviously open to more variation.

You are right that it is more complicated than simple "high IQ's should breed with high IQ's"--regression to the mean of the general population from both ends is observable.

> racism is not a solution to anything
It's a way of thinking, not a policy, of course it isn't.

Attached: IQ.png (1920x1029, 247K)

Foiled again!

Climate change is man made, I don’t see how anyone could think otherwise.

Stephen King is an underrated writer.

I demand more environmental regulations

Why are you so mean!?

Racism is ineffective because it attempts to narrow down genetics and heritage with skin color. A Hungarian doesn't share the same history as a Swede, nor does a Jamaican share the same history as a Nigerian.

It is an American fabrication to think that all men colored alike should be allies. Even Hitler understood there was more to the Aryan than just his skin color; "whites" would be sent to the gas chambers like everyone else.

>Racism is ineffective because it attempts to narrow down genetics and heritage with skin color.
That's not what it does.
>A Hungarian doesn't share the same history as a Swede
And nobody is saying that they're the same, but they do have more in common with each other than either does with a Nigerian.

>Hitler understood there was more to the Aryan than just his skin color
Well, this should tell you that maybe the meme of "race is just skin color" is probably not reflective of what "racists" actually think.