Am i ugly? yes, im a nigger

Fap material by snapchat exploit

Attached: fe74062721bc484fbab64aa0ea7b23f8.png (432x768, 408K)

You'd be cuter if you smiled

why is Yea Forums being wholesome

and no, you're not ugly but damn

never thought it was actually legit

Attached: ce03a122671c43e3bed69f9f42a32892.png (432x768, 439K)

You're not ugly, but your hair is. Get a fresh cut like a fade or something and you'd look good.

I actually like the hair but there might be a better cut that works with your face shape better

Naw, you good. Just cut that fucking mop off your head. Go for a fade.
You can pull good white girl ass as a mixed dude, just tidy up looks and wardrobe.

Good luck broseph.

Ok, whats thick in the question?

It's pretty gay how people take pictures of people they don't like and they come to a shithole like Yea Forums to get funny and negative reactions from anons just to make themselves feel better. Like "Yeah. I knew he was a faggot. lel bruh." Give me a break you sad child

OP here, ill get a haircut. ive been doing nofap and i feel like shit so ive been hard on myself.

thx homie, usually my hair is more up, ill post another pic but i need a haircut.

i can time stamp if u want cuck

epic discord server join now

discord
.gg/Txu5pZs

i

Attached: Fate.Grand.Order.full.2109123.jpg (550x585, 461K)

Your all right for a nigger

my dad is, my mom is a blonde german

>yes, im a nigger

Wow captain fucking obvious. What are you gonna tell me next the skies fucking blue and waters wet. I have eyes I can see your shitskin.

If he didn't say it, what do you think the very first reply would be?

Well I’m pretty damn ugly too ..guess that’s why I’m on Yea Forums

literally, every time i post a pic of myslef and its not on social media i have to specify that im a nigger kek

Don’t call yourself a nigger bro.

hey, it's Yea Forums
it means about as much as faggot

>>broseph
Goldstein can't miss a chance to promote race mixing.

im just used to it, its alright.

Don't tell my fellow darkie what he can and cannot call himself you fucking nigger

Clean up the hair a little bit and look less mopey and you'll be good. Doesn't have to be real short hair but definitely get it trimmed and maybe styled

he's more of a cafe con lechey than a darkie

hair's fine, just tell everybody you're jewish

OP here, i fucking hate jews, not even joking i actually despise them

we prefer the term caramel you ignorant bigot

Redbones always look like cave men to me, as intended. Super Goyim. Doesn't mean they're bad people, but they represent a disgusting agenda.

Attached: Shekelaka2.gif (288x269, 1.97M)

bigots prefer werther's!

Attached: haloween-candy-werthers-original-hard.jpg (1024x1009, 229K)

This

race is a biologically invalid category pseudo-science retard

ecxcept when it doesnt

Yeah but then Yea Forums will hate him for being black and a jew

They've been lying to you, user
nytimes.com/2018/03/23/opinion/sunday/genetics-race.html

no, it always means about as much as faggot
>the two words have roughly the same incidence of exceptions

Please spare us.

Nah, you're not.
Remove that depressed face and you look like an alpha male.

Do you have in your possession a BBC?

OP here, its 7 inches, so nah not really

thx user, ill smile more

>opinion piece

Listen I've already read this a few months ago and it was nothing groundbreaking. The fact is that race is not nearly as hardwired as sex (otherwise we'd have something analogous to race chromosomes), and the human genome project proved that the similarities among genes for all people are so large they can't account for cultural differences and whatnot, with everyone being 94% genetically identical. See: pbs.org/race/000_General/000_00-Home.htm

So what if some white people are taller and asians have smaller eyes? Obviously some phenotypes and some illness risk rates are going to be more common in certain areas by virtue of genetic proliferation but using this to conclude that race is a legit concept is a non sequitur. We couldn't mate with one another, have the same types of fingerprints or blood types, etc.

Also there is a rebuttal to that article here: theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/04/reich-genetics-racism/558818/

Not the biggest but 7 isn't small. Also nice dubs

>dubs

Attached: 1262129833069.jpg (1200x797, 99K)

(((David Reich)))? Lol no thank you

Poor widdle baby.

Attached: b-tard.jpg (500x595, 84K)

bro, you"re good looking. Trust me, all you have to do is smile more and be yourself that's all the top tier bitches care about. Like a lot of the posters have said you're just a teenager that's too hard on yourself. BTW white queens love a man with color and men blessed with some melanin such as ourselves are honor bound to treat these hoes with the dick they deserve.Keep your head up king.

Yes, it's an opinion piece. So what? The NYT is not a peer reviewed journal, that just means he's not a journalist. Because he's David Reich, one of the leading figures in the ancient genomics revolution. This is not a random person, this is one of the handful of most prominent scientists studying genetics and the evolution of humanity.

Race exists. The racial classifications loosely map to genetic differences. The long-standing unquestioned scientific orthodoxy that race doesn't exist is completely false, an overreaction to the legacy of the Nazis.

That doesn't mean the other type of racists are right. The patterns aren't the same as the stereotypes, as Reich has clearly shown. But that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about the lie that's perpetuated for political lies. The denial that race matters at all is ascientific garbage.

Now, we have to understand the limitations. Right now, our understanding of human genetics if primitive as hell. There's a risk taking gene that appeared to be negatively affected by the development of rice farming in east Asia, which may be related to more conformist cultures, but that's one of the only examples that can be traced with any confidence to complex social behaviors, like the ones usually ascribed to different races by racial essentialists. Genes are fucking complex. Even when it comes to something that's much simpler than culture or behavior. For instance, height. There's no one gene that turns it on and off, there are literally thousands, all of which have a miniscule effect. We haven't even started to unravel that crazy complexity.

Also, we need to distinguish between populations and individuals. The variation in individuals within a population is 6 times greater than the variation between populations. Even if we do someday figure out what the tendencies mean, individuals matter a lot more.

Underaged, reported, b&

Attached: 1557996164195.jpg (356x600, 83K)

How often do you get the random urge to steal or play the knockout game?

The knocked up game kek

would you?

Attached: 7461624B-2120-463D-BD4B-DA1671E7A3BF.jpg (1936x2592, 1.12M)

Fuck no. That has Vietnam era Saigon hooker written all over it

Would smash

Now you're trying to turn me on

Attached: 0D397EAA-F0B0-49E2-9E45-46739BAAF134.jpg (1936x2592, 950K)

It's really stupid for mixed people to identify as only their black side.

>race exists
>race LOOSELY maps to genes

Sounds like the conclusion is shaping the argument rather than the argument shaping the conclusion. I know who Reich is, and I know that he is ONE of the leading scientists in genomics/genetics, but one is not a lot and taking the opinion of just one man, even if he is an expert, isn't exactly the most scientific or methodologically sound way of approaching things now, is it? Scientists disagree all the time whether it be in linguistics, neuroscience or theoretical physics.

>We need to distinguish between populations and individuals

No, we need to distinguish between populations and race, something Reich failed to do. This was discussed in the rebuttal piece I posted which I'm gonna assume you didn't read. It's another opinion piece from a PhD in bioengineering. Reich commits an embarrassing fallacy of equivocation when he uses the word race as practically synonymous with population, or even ancestry. Just because we can trace genetic links to specific geological locations and map out a relatively reliable morphological ancestry tree doesn't mean that race exists. As of now there is no hard evidence for it, only a ton of information that verifies the claims that "genes are really complex" or variations on this. Of course genes have an impact on behavior but when all humans are so similar on average (again, 94%) and when Africa contains 99%+ of all genes in the genome, and when a karyotype fails to specifically delineate a racial component the same way it does for sex, how exactly do we have evidence that race really is all that real? Reich seems way too reactionary against "muh PC culture", as annoying as it can be, and it is clearly having an impact on how he interprets scientific consensus.

Attached: 1560962146312.webm (420x314, 1.72M)

7/10 id hit it

It's a common thing in the USA, 10 bucks says OP is Amerifat

her

Welcome /pol
OP here

Attached: 1560761316976.jpg (813x458, 54K)

yo i wanna pee in your hair and pinch those pouty cheeks tho

you cute fucking b fag...

what the fucking fuck is there a news article for this

eboy material

Is sky blue?

I'd still fuck you

I already posted this nigger. Where is yours?

Attached: Message_1561171841118.jpg (1920x2560, 909K)

i love sad teen dudes, what can i say

24 is weird

fuck off with the race shit or whatever but like.... i hate whites like me. so whatever. i'm one to talk i guess. LMFAO

own that shit user
practice stoicism, learn how to treat people's opinions and criticisms toward your looks with apathy
shit, just do what the hell you wanna do mate, god bless

haha epic post my brodude

Attached: mdUvYYg6.jpg (1024x340, 91K)

agreed with the stoicism

I'm 43,
All protein
No soy
Southern fried redneck

OKAY FR THO POST DICK PICS OP. WE ALL WANT THEM.

id wager my years salary on you being a disgusting pig faced neckbeard fucking loser. only the most a pathetic coward spews such hatred anonymously. youre scared. youre a bottomfeeder. youre a fuckin worm. and youll die a worm.

I think you meant to say "conflation" and not "equivocate" dumb feg haha get owned

43? hi daddy

i'm transmale and midwestern asf

OPE

Itt nigger seeks attention. Tranny boomer steals for the winz

I knew a 9 incher dude but it has the diameter of a crayon. We called him rocket man.

Holy shit, story? Someone steal her pump?

not ulgy just a gay bitch ass niger

do it then you faggot. haahaha. you know he's right, you sad, sad little boy.

it takes a special kind of pathetic to do what youre doing

google something like this: sydney swedish trans tourist axe attack

not at all

Sorry niggerfaggot. Try a adopt a NEET thread on /soc
Where this cancer belongs

You look good, being black don't makes you uglier so chill but remember that you need to be a good person so other can see the real beauty that is in you

Nah but you need a haircut for sure

I agree, BUT, is OP gay nig-wordtho?????

Attached: DpEXqdBX4AArVM2.jpg (772x1090, 85K)

Your iq is lower than mine

>EVIE Amati, the transgender woman charged with a terrifying suburban 7-Eleven axe attack, is “in a male jail” and should be released, her lawyers argue.

Thanks

JESUS IT WAS AN AXE? I thought it was a fucking big hammer or something

I actually agree with you. It does seem like most of these threads are someone posting some random guy or girl.

She blamed it on her tranny meds

Estrogen is one hell of a drug lol

Kek. You have no argument against what he said.

The guy who got axed deserved it, he was buying a meat pie. That's sexist!

u good looking man

racial alien
on the day of the rope there will be prepared a noose for you, and a humiliating punishment it shall be!

cringe larping pls stop user

shut up kike

Ugly? No, you're above average, even with your lame pouty edgy teen face.

Nigger? You look biracial, also who cares that you're a nigger, nigger, so am I. Stop wasting time on Yea Forums like the rest of us degenerates and go hang with some broz or get a waifu to smash. Teens are meant to get bitchez not be bitchez, know what I say?

Not sure what you're arguing, he's an authoritative source. Nobody said he was every source. And even the "rebuttal" you linked to said Reich had literally all his facts right. The argument wasn't based on science, but on the perception of the science.

Which is fucking bullshit. Let science be science, don't censor it because you think people can't handle it.

Reich didn't fall to distinguish between race and populations. Have you read his book? The entire book talks about one thing: Populations. That's the focus, that's his work, that's what he's addressing when he's addressing differences. And those population differences do map, loosely (as I said, and you emphasized), to subjective assessments of race. That has implications, like doctors seeing someone who is black and adjusting their assessment of risk for certain diseases that have a higher correlation. We need to stop denying people proper treatment because of the racist denial of science.

And you keep quoting that 94%, as if it means anything without context. That just shows your ignorance. Chimps and humans share 96% of their genome. It's the variation that matters, and as I noted individual variation is 6 times greater than variations between even the most distantly related populations.

Wasn't the same person, user.

Attached: alex-valle.png (281x326, 224K)

Was the word "ONE" in caps lock too much for you to handle? I was arguing that a single authority shouldn't ever be treated as THE authority, as the be all end all. I don't think I need to waste time explaining the pitfalls such a route can lead to.

>even the "rebuttal" you linked to said Reich had literally all his facts right

Then you missed the point of the article. Reich's semantics affected his perception of science, therefore his perception influenced his conclusions. Not exactly hard to figure out how someone's worldview or mentality can impact their hypotheses or the interpretation of results now is it? Are you not aware how difficult it is to avoid fallacies or biases when doing experiments or interpreting data?

I haven't read his book but the article I posted already stated that he omits the word race in favor of the word populations so you didn't need to write that out for me.

Part 2

>like doctors seeing someone who is black and adjusting their assessment of risk for certain diseases that have a higher correlation

What?? Race isn't supposed to be about correlation, it's about causation. Just because the correlation exists doesn't mean the racial causation does. Just because someone of a certain race is more predisposed to a certain affliction does not imply that the race itself was the cause. So sure, of course there is some medical utility for the sake of diagnostics and prescriptions, but that medical convenience that is based on geological backgrounds doesn't magically mean that race is a biologically valid concept just because we've managed to extract some use of it on a level that is by no means being done by molecular biologists (unless every MD also has a PhD in a very specialized field these days)

And dude, the only reason why you think the 94% remark is out of context is because you didn't read the first link I posted from the PBS site. Check it out before you reply to me again.

>Chimps and humans share 96% of their genome.

Lmao you cannot possibly think this is a good argument. The entire human species genome is similar to chimps but I was talking about human INDIVIDUALS in relation to one another, ironic you make this claim with your emphasis on populations vs individuals. So for example if there are 21,000 genes across the entire species' genome, each human has like 20,000 or so, meaning that we are all 94% identical on average (I already said this, don't know why you didn't get it or claimed I was "lacking context").

I never said he was the only authority, you're the one overemphasizing a self-evident fact and being butthurt because I actually addressed it.

And I didn't miss the point of the article, I pointed out why it's wrong.

>Race isn't supposed to be about correlation, it's about causation
And now you go full blown racist. Genes are tendencies not destiny, user. And those tendencies do affect things like risk factors. That's why correlations are useful, because they help with diagnoses and other assessments.

The 94% is still the wrong metric, as I pointed out earlier user. Genes are shared across species, across population groups, and in families, and numbers and percents mean nothing by themselves. What matters is the diversity and variation, in relative terms, like the 6:1 ratio between individual variance and population that I mentioned before. Or the fact that the human species is has very low overall genetic diversity, when compared to other than most other species, possibly because of the Toba bottleneck. Those are useful metrics, not your magic number that doesn't measure anything useful.

indeed it is

Attached: 13636160_323196011404078_1326652536_n.jpg (1080x1080, 75K)

>muh authoritative source

yeah... he's AN authoritative source, see what you yourself did there? try to avoid appeal to authority fallacies will ya user

>Let science be science willya

Pretty sure that's what the guy is trying to do, user. I fucking hate it when overly anti-PC SJW people get outdebated and then they fall back on "muh freeze peach" and "im being censored" all this shit. Maybe you're not being censored, maybe you're just wrong, huh??

>there are dire implications about muh populations and muh maps

Hey faggot ever heard the famous phrase "correlation =/=causation"??? Pretty sure you're comitting a huge fucking fallacy. Just because some scientists are stupid SJWs with a dumb perception of things doesnt mean that non sjw scientists are perfect and free from all flaws and also dont have a warped view of things based on some stupid fucking semantics fallacy. Stop worshiping scientists like theyre these perfect fucking gods incapable of doing no wrong. people like you are just sheep of a different color

He's an actual authority, speaking about his field of expertise. That's not a fallacy.

And you seem to be confused about correlation vis-a-vis causation. I made no such claim. Diagnoses aren't based on the assumption that disease are caused by race, that's an insane position you're stating there BTW. But recognizing that someone is black or has Mediterranean descent can help assess risk factors, or narrow down likely causes of various diseases.

Don't throw around correlation vs. causation if you have no idea what it means.

>black or has Mediterranean descent
That probably sounds like it came out of nowhere. I was going to mention sickle cell anemia, and forgot. Oops.

Fucking kek i knew that was a tranny just from the arms

Holy shit why are you on Yea Forums

>only the most a pathetic coward spews such hatred anonymously
welcome to Yea Forums, faggot
maybe this isn't the right place for you

Been here a while

Okay now you're just getting very autistic. I wrote several sentences that you blissfully and ignorant ignored about the perils of just taking the word of one single source, regardless of the expertise or authoritative status he has "But I never said he was the ONLY one" I know, and that's not the point. My point is, and I've ALREADY said this, that taking his opinion piece as the most reliable and likely opinion is unscientific especially when there are already many other biologists/authority figures who disagree with his methods or interpretations. And stop crying about muh censorship or whatever, you're just as blinded by the over exaggerated PC claims as Reich is. Not everything that disagrees with you is just because everyone who disagrees with you is a cowardly SJW. Ironically, this itself is SJW logic: Everyone who disagrees with me is a Nazi, etc.

You did miss the point of the article - completely, actually. You seem to live in a world where the perception of scientists has no bearing on the claims that come out of science itself. This is absolutely naive and asinine. I don't think I need to point to examples of older racial science to make this point clear. Science obeys many things, including the laws of logic and meaning making. And as humans we make meaning out of words, propositional claims and definitions. When Reich amateurishly used the word race as synonymous with terms like ancestry or populations, or was at least claiming that the former logically or inherently follows from the latter, this was fallacious reasoning. That was what the rebuttal was pointing out. His facts were correct, yes, but his conclusion FROM the facts took a wrong turn because he fucked up his own definitions thanks to shitty, fallacious semantics and what essentially boils down to an etymological argument.

A scientist's perception ABSOLUTELY DOES matter in science. As I've already mentioned before, scientists take classes on how to avoid fallacies and cognitive biases so that they can be as clear and distinct as possible. This is what Reich was being criticized on.

Okay, now this is the part where you really got autistic. When I said "race is about causation" I meant the traditional concept of race as people conceptualize it in the modern day. I was making a normative claim, NOT a descriptive one. When people believe in race, they believe it has tangible, causal effects on people. But all you were able to demonstrate were correlation, NOT causal ones. But nice try with the "hue hue you're le TRUE racist" meme.

Yes I know genes are not destiny let's not waste time discussing the obvious for crying out loud. Stop misinterpreting everything and acting like you're the one with the woke mindset for fuck's sake.

>94% metric is wrong

Wrong. It's been proven by the human genome project. I know that individuals become more genetically differentiated within families or similar areas, and you would know that I know that if you actually checked the goddamn link I posted a million years ago that discusses it. I mean for crying out loud you even said yourself "the human species has very low overall genetic diversity" so how are you even arguing against me? 94% is just an average, it can be as wide as 85% if you happened to find the right two people. Stop refuting claims you have provided no evidence for, especially when I have a source arguing in its favor. pbs.org/race/004_HumanDiversity/004_00-home.htm

Recognizing that someone is black or Mediterranean doesn't mean that blackness or whatever are scientifically valid or "exist naturally in nature", thats the whole point user

Yes he is you nigger loving faggots.

"Diagnoses aren't based on the assumption that disease are caused by race, that's an insane position you're stating there"

you literrally said "race exists" dude lmao

fuck off neckbeard low tier fag

I'm a literal 10/10 with a super model physique.

Attached: 1560912202374.jpg (720x727, 28K)

Nah you're slick

Attached: Doubt.png (492x280, 85K)

I don't know why you're so obsessed about a single source. I cited a source, said it's an authoritative source, and then argued the rest based on merits. You've become obsessed about that source for some reason, ranting on all kinds irrelevant stuff that nobody except you mentioned (like SJWs), and making false statements about what I said about the source (I never said he was the most reliable or trustworthy source, user -- that's you).

You're arguing that science should be changed, because of the public's perception of scientists. I oppose that wholeheartedly. That's social pressure suppressing scientific results. It's wrong.

Reich is not using the word race synonymously with populations. Stop perpetuating that false claim. Which you know, because I explained that in my first post.

Among other things I never said, I never said that race maps to the other kind of racist's belief in racial essentialist or causal properties. In fact I repeatedly, explicitly said the exact opposite opposite.

You're also badly misquoted me on the 94% metric. I didn't say it was wrong. I said it was the wrong METRIC. That's the entire point of my argument. I said why, and explained which other metrics are more useful, and why again. The fact that you just deliberately misquoted me and argued against that instead of what I actually said completely invalidates the argument you're making, and puts your intellectual dishonesty on display for everyone to see.

If it increases the chance of a correct diagnosis, that's exactly what it means.

It does, the traditional racial groups roughly map to populations with a shared genetic history. Race deniers like you are just as wrong as the racial essentialists who draw all kinds of spurious conclusions based on those races.

Are you white?

you look half white, kinda like a guy i know thats slightly darker than you. not ugly

It's not obsession. I just have nothing to go on because it's the only source you've provided and is therefore the crux of your entire position. Do you expect me to engage in red herrings or something? You did more then just argue on its own merits, you neglected the counter arguments or at the very least misinterpreted them.

For example, "You're arguing that science should be changed, because of the public's perception of scientists." Absolutely wrong. I never once claimed that scientists should cowtow to public perception, that would truly be an insane idea. My position was never about public perception but the perception of the scientists themselves. Why else would I go on and on about semantics, cognitive biases, etc? Did you just skip over those parts, numerous as they were?

Reich's conception of race, while not particularly harmful in any noticeable way, is still based in semantics. When he equates it with the differences observed among populations or geological areas, he is saying "race exists because I have observed genetic differences." This is a silly argument. There is no logical leap to take from the acknowledgement of genetic diversity, to race. It seems your position is heavily contingent on the medical utility of diagnosing diseases that appear more often in certain groups, but this too is a faulty line of thinking (again, the PBS source discusses it). Since blacks and Mediterraneans aren't the only people capable of contracting sickle cell disease, the metric of ailment predisposition as proof of race's natural existence is extremely shoddy. If you want to keep the categories of race for the medical convenience, that's fine. But using that to say that "race exists" as some natural genetic category that exists in mother nature would be disingenuous. This is nothing more than a Is/Ought fallacy, e.g., if we SHOULD use the racial categories, therefore the racial category IS real...No. Literally fallacious by definition.

Buddy, the 94% metric is the right metric. This is my entire point all this time. Obviously specific genetic markers are more useful in your tried and true medical examples but I don't care about that right now, that was never the argument. The argument is whether or not race exists biologically/naturally/etc. So if Human beings are so genetically similar, with any one given gene capable of popping up in any "race", then, how is the concept even remotely tenable or intellectually invalid? Why are there sex markers, genetic markers, but no race markers like in our chromosomes? And don't say "skin color/nose shape" or something like that as these phenotypes are much more nebulous characteristics than people realize or admit as several studies in anthropology and genomics have shown.

>le ebin shared genes equals race meme

you sound like you haven't researched genomics nearly as much as you try to sound

said every faggot on this website ever

Attached: Dm4LijNX0AA59Cg.jpg (750x742, 69K)

>race means not innate immutable properties but doctors having an easier time figuring out if you have butt cancer or dick cancer based on properties that are inherently non racial

Attached: 1443871712886.jpg (498x482, 49K)

>roughly maps
>roughly
>implying this opinion is rigorous hard science

It's obsession. I cited one source. An authoritative source. You've called the source a fallacy, questioned its authority, made many claims about what I said, finally agreed it was a valid source, and then started to argue on semantics. None of which is actually addressing the core issues, it's you obsessed with a single link.

The whole of Reich's article is about how scientists avoid certain topics, and present false information to the public. The whole point of the rebuttal is those changes are valid. You're supporting that.

Though in these posts you're finally talking about something of substance, population vs. race. And you know what? You're right that it's a matter of semantics, at least to some degree. But that's because you're misinterpreting the semantics. Reich and I are arguing that race exists. That the traditional races do map to distinct population groups, who share a genetic heritage. That is correct, that is not semantics, denying that is the lie that's been perpetuated for decades.

That doesn't mean -- and I've stated this repeatedly -- that the stereotypes that became some prevalent in the Victorian age and reached their nadir during the reign of the Nazis are correct. Most of it is utter bullshit.

But you know what? A few of those preconceptions will turn out to be correct. And we need to be able to say that, as well. And we need to be able to research the differences, in general. Stopping that is anti-science, and needs to be shouted down as much the other racists call for Aryan purity. (Which is nonsense BTW -- ancient genetics has proven we're all mutts composed of populations that mixed back and forth.) Which should surprise nobody.

No it doesn't, it just implies you're stupid.

You sound like you think memes are an education

Does it suck being you?

Oh, I see. Ugly on the inside...

You again continue to misconstrue everything I'm saying. You don't need to continue saying that you don't advocate racist ideas. I already said I acknowledge that yet you continue to incessantly repeat these obvious truths ad nauseum as if I haven't been paying attention. Enough with the whole "science must not be censored" shit, because for crying out loud I agree with that. That is not the point of this discussion. When Reich says "race is real" he has no justifiable means to do so. I already discussed how acknowledging genetic diversity can't be logically transitioned into the large claims you or Reich make. I mean, how many times do I need to repeat myself? Yes, you can say genetic links can be made to certain ancestries or populations/locations. Explain how you go from "certain traits are more common in region A than region B, therefore race exists"? Sex is determined by karyotype and reproductive organs, but all you can muster is that race is determined by, uh well, a couple of genes that can show up in multiple races and the fact that people have a family tree. This works well as a convenience but is hardly a scientific notion, even IF it has benefits for science (much like how scientists will frequently use metaphor to describe scientific concepts even if metaphor itself is not a property of science)

You never had a refutation for the Is/Ought fallacy, you never had a refutation for the scientist's skewed perception shaping the conclusions (which was truly the point of the rebuttal article and myself), you never had a response when I asked you to check out the PBS link. Still waiting on all of this. BTW I'm going to ask this again for what must be the fourth time now: did you or did you not peruse the PBS link I posted multiple times? Because it heavily disagrees with much of what you say and can do a better job of explaining things than I can.

Aren't like half of the channers here hardcore into the jewish question anyway? not surprising

I think David Reich's problem is that he is a population geneticist, not a genomics expert, therefore he has a very specialized and specific worldview. Whereas his specialty allows him to see the prevalence of certain genes in certain areas (therefore race is real because he sees nothing but straight lines coming from clearly identifiable sources) a broader scope of genomics and the mapping of the morphology of all genes in all humans, the various intersections of certain physical attributes or genes shows that race as a biological concept is invalid, even though it has its uses in identifying ethnicity/culture or other social situations. That doesn't mean it's "real" though, that's like a naturalistic fallacy in reverse, or something. I don't know what to call it exactly or technically. With all the work done in mapping the genome we still haven't found something that definitively points to race existing except for skin color and a few other minor and probably arbitrary dispositions. It is true that local populations exhibit more diversity over time but that is also true for people of different "races" or ethnicities like mixed neighborhoods/couples. That phenomenon isn't just exclusive to all white or all hispanic locales. The fact that you think your cited 6:1 ratio is the only useful metric is kinda proof that you are only seeing genetics through the perspective of a population genetics perspective, kinda like Reich. Biology is far more complicated than that, it can't be solved by a specialization within a specialization within a specialization (population genetics > genetics > molecular biology > biology)

What is "the Jewish question"?

I don't buy the whole misconstruing bit, but I don't really care. Let's move beyond that.

Here's the basic question: What is race? At its most basic, it's a way of breaking down the human species into groups. And the reason it's so contentious is because those groups were identified and linked by people throughout history, long before it was examined thru the lens of science. That's race.

Genomics have been used to trace the human family tree, showing migration patterns, ancestry, intermixing, and ultimately how groups are related. And the different races DO map to different branches. Not always perfectly, but overall it's surprisingly accurate.

This is both expected, and a surprise. Expected, because people can consistently and reliably make racial identifications, though that's getting less reliable with the greater degree of intermixing as the world has become smaller and more cosmpolitan. And a surprise, because those distinctions are made based on superficial characteristics -- things like skin tone. Those superficial characteristics only represent a tiny portion of the genome, so they really shouldn't be as good evidence for shared genetic ancestry as they are. Why gets complex and isn't settled, but it basically boils down to group identity being one of the strongest human impulses, and therefore there's strong selection for visual markers that allow people to quickly ID in and out groups.

Races exist. That's what it means. They don't mean what the Nazis wanted them to mean, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.

And I looked at your PBS link, but an interactive flash plugin isn't an argument.

SJWs suck hard, and it's a shame that stuff like evo psychology or criminology are being infested by their PC madness. I just don't see a reason to say race is real. If a logical reason + hard as fuck evidence ever arises, I'll change my mind. So far everything is just circumstantial and correlational at best.

THE GREAT BANANA WAR COMPROMISE

We hold these truths to be self-evident, Yea Forums was not created to be a board for Normal Fags, and that a board culture based on Lulz, being a necessary component to a thriving board, needs to be protected through adequate moderation. When threads become destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to post yellow and to abolish the cancerous threads.

This chan used to be a megical place to me by this board hijacked by INCELS and pedos who post loli to not get the fbi on their front DOOR... ALSO BY DOING IT YOU WILL SAVE THE FORUM FROM PEDOS ! REPOST THE WHITE REVOLUTION

Section 1. Ban all "NORMAL FAG" porn as follows:

- FACEBOOK FAP
- RATE MY GF
- RATE MY DICK
- WWYD (what would you do) THREADS
- CELEB THREAD
- PICS YOU SHOULDN'T SHARE
- FUCK/MARRY/KILL THREADS
- CUCK THREADS
- BLACKED THREADS
- TRIBUTE HER THREADS
- X Girls Thread (x = Latina, Asian, White, Big Tits, any other "NORMAL FAG" basic adjective to describe a girl.)

Section 2. L0li, Sh0ta, S/fur, G/fur, and Traps are TOTALLY EXEMPT from bannings. These types of porn have been on Yea Forums extremely close to Yea Forums's founding. As such, they are a part of Yea Forums's board culture and should be exempt.

Section 3. YELLOW ARMY vows not to shitpost the board anymore if Mods ban all "NORMAL FAG PORN" laid out in Section 1.

Banana_id:xg6kjxwgmf

Lol. Arguing against the medium or format of a website's design instead of the substance/content of the words, data, citations and claims is also not an argument.

no shit you look like trash nigger.

Attached: 1494907229618.jpg (648x591, 128K)

I recommend reading his books. It gets a little annoying how often he says "in my lab" or "the ancient genomics revolution" (it comes across as a little self congratulatory), but he does explain what they learned and their methods.

One of which you're mistaking: It's not about the frequency of certain genes in a population. While they can be used to help establish ancestry, it's actually more about stretches of shared genes. In sexual reproduction, the child is a composite of the two parents. But it's not that gene A is from the father and then its random whether the gene next to it is from the mother. What happens in the genome gets sliced up, and the child inherits long stretches from both parents. Based on the length of shared stretches they can determine things like how long it's been since they shared an ancestor, degree of admixture, and so on. This method only works back so far, but it goes back to the emergence of modern humans (not skeletally modern humans, but behaviorally modern humans).

hey cool dude do you want the fries combo or just the burger

Look at the website, it's an interactive open-ended tutorial for children. It's not a thesis, it's something to explore and everyone will find different nooks and crannies.

>It is true that local populations exhibit more diversity over time but that is also true for people of different "races" or ethnicities like mixed neighborhoods/couples. That phenomenon isn't just exclusive to all white or all hispanic locales.
Skipped it before because it seemed really out out of the blue, but what does this have to do with anything we've been discussing? I'm not even sure what you're implying, here.

looks good to me. would smash, 8/10

why so glum, chum?

Attached: 13319548191742.jpg (337x354, 30K)

You're just being dismissively sassy now and engaging in low-tier insults. Made for children? Please no one is gonna fall for that one, the citations list alone is more than enough for any PhD to handle let alone a 5 year old. And you would find an argument or a "thesis", several actually, if you had a more mature attitude about this and actually put effort into reading it

It's not an insult, it's an observation. It's an educational tool you're supposed to explore at your leisure. You can't just start at the beginning and read through to the end because it's like a choose your adventure, different every time. Those are good at demonstrating possibilities and engaging students, but poor at presenting an argument, which is why they're generally accompanied by a summary or a lecture.

If you have an argument, make it.

Ur kinda cute, id put my dick in u

I dunno i'd have to see the nigger dick to know for sure

This

Sorry but no, you ironically choose to see it as a choose your own adventure book. I see once again you have a conclusion that is shaping your arguments rather than vice versa. The site is clearly ordered and even has an index like a book so this idea that it can't be treated as such is blatantly incorrect. Judging the quality of the sites arguments before even checking out the arguments is utterly invalid. Should I just copy-past the entire site into multiple comments?

Incidentally, one of the background readings has a decent summary, which would have worked if you just linked to it:
pbs.org/race/000_About/002_04-background-01-11.htm
The problem is it starts with the assumption that when someone says race, they really mean subspecies, and since humans don't have subspecies, race doesn't exist.

Which is a bad argument, because a subspecies is just a distinct breeding population of a species, which is what Reich means when he says races exist. That human groups haven't diverged enough to qualify as subspecies means human subspecies don't exist, not that races don't exist.

yes, you're a mutant

Fuck you, the site has a zillion little pop up boxes you to click on see everything, and a very non-linear style. If you think it's a great site, then summarize, or at least link to the relevant parts. (Hey look I one for you wasn't that hard.)

Sigh, the fact that Reich defines race as such IS the problem. I don't know how many times I have to say this.

buzzfeednews.com/article/bfopinion/race-genetics-david-reich

"For example, sickle cell anemia is a meaningful biological trait. In the US it is commonly (and mistakenly) identified as a “black” disease. In fact, while it does have a high prevalence in populations of people with West and Central African ancestry, it also has a high prevalence in populations from much of the Arabian Peninsula, and parts of the Mediterranean and India. This is because the genetic variant that causes sickle cell is more prevalent in people descended from parts of the world with a high incidence of malaria. “Race” has nothing to do with it. Thus, it is simply wrong to say that the higher prevalence of sickle cell trait in West African populations means that the racial category “black” is somehow genetic."

"Human beings are 99.5% genetically identical. Of course, because the human genome has 3 billion base pairs, that means any given individual may differ from another at 15 million loci (.5% of 3 billion). Given random variation, you could genotype all Red Sox fans and all Yankees fans and find that one group has a statistically significant higher frequency of a number of particular genetic variants than the other group — perhaps even the same sort of variation that Reich found for the prostate cancer–related genes he studied. This does not mean that Red Sox fans and Yankees fans are genetically distinct races (though many might try to tell you they are)."

inb4 >buzzfeed

dude just click on the fucking part that says "site map" holy shit dude

I still don't see a link to a specific argument, faggot.

La luz extinguido

It ain't my fault you navigate the internet like a 4 year old. Here: pbs.org/race/004_HumanDiversity/004_01-explore.htm This is a good place to start. Anyway I'm off to bed. I know neither of us have convinced one another but what can I say, I'm fucking pooped. Sweet dreams my fellow faggot and remember to kill your local nazis *smooches*

No, that's really the only reasonable way to define race. The arguments against it are just circumlocutious exercises in semantics.

I notice you haven't addressed a single point I made. And you should remember that I already used sickle cell anemia as an example, it just proves your definition is ridiculous. You're looking at it from the viewpoint of racist essentialists, not from the perspective of phylogenetics.

You're attractive FOR a nigger.

You're the one who presented a website designed for 4 year olds, and you still haven't provided a link.

'Night. It's been annoying how often you've mischaracterized what I said, but you never went full sperg and you seem to at least have given it some thought.

No, you have nice hair :3

>wholesome

Honestly, any black girl would find you attractive, just be a good man, vote conservative, and teach your children to love the country and not be degenerate. Chicks love traditional men.-- Manly traditional men, if you're a cuck they'll find you repulsive.

and soon we can all live globo-homo with our BASED black grandkids

Attached: SO BASED.jpg (474x265, 26K)

Ngl you're pretty hot (if that's actually you and not a stolen image)