Where did this “WASP” bullshit come from?

Race relations have sure deteriorated since Obama was elected and the Dems decided to use identity politics to gain power and stir up trouble. Black and hispanic and minority unemployment were at record lows under Trump. Now watch them go back up again under Dems.

Nah. It's just a big wave of retarded ideology that is getting more mainstream acceptance. The white hate is totally real but it's not something you can assign to an entire race. Can't help an anecdote. I lived in MI around Detroit most of my life, and keep wondering if there'll be some libtard friction to interrupt everyone getting along totally fine there. (I think we're totally behind the times rather than having some merit as a society, wokism will confuse people here). More simply, most black people are nice to me here, and given your extreme statement, my anecdote alone is enough to prove it wrong. Got hundreds of anecdotal counter examples to your point, and then there's people like Candace Owens, the Hodge twins... This is a stupid take, and the outright racist statement is ammunition to be used against patriots.win.

No doubt there are many who fiercely hate white people (some of every race, but wouldn't be surprised if it's higher with white liberals). But it's dumb to mirror the same type of hate. Tons of black people had nothing to do with this shit, but if they use your logic, they will hate you. Obviously you would know this, so, this feels pointless to write. The underlying concern is not unreasonable regarding racial hatred, and it's totally understandable to be paranoid at this point. Yet saying all black people hate you becomes a distraction from a real issue, IMO. A real issue that people indeed are targeting whites and mostly are shitheaded liberals plus some percent of old-fashioned racists.

The logic is sound here, but I'm suspicious of the data on the topic and ability to make accurate assessments of these considerations. Mainly, I wonder about the population distribution getting sampled in IQ tests reflecting an entire race sufficiently, and reflecting possible subgroups. I've come across racial IQ literature links in convos like these before, but a lot of it seemed to come from a small sample. Like, compared to a modern clinical trial, the scale is way smaller, and even clinical trials end up missing various parts of the true population distribution in their sample. E.g., the city within a country tested probably has a gigantic influence. I'm inclined to believe this is a real barrier for drawing conclusions, because the numbers and SD given for groups on the bell curve seems to be highly variable from study to study.

On the topic, if we bring genetics into it, we wouldn't really be using race as something to connect to genetics. A scientific classification would probably be something like the mitochondria DNA of different population groups that yields tons of subgroups in race. There will be some overlap with population group associations and race associations, but it's really crude to lump all people of one color or continent together. This together implies there will be intraracial groups that can be exceptions, rather than only outlier individuals. That argues against racial generalization. Except in a case where the racial effect is extremely robust and strong, I suppose.

While I believe IQ measures something real that can be used to make predictions, that may just hold true at an individual level, given the limited data we have. Might be many other issues, given there are probable major confounding factors that co-associate with race. Frankly, I don't know real IQ tests enough to know whether they can compensate. Most of us in these conversations are only familiar with something like an IQ test you can get online and SATs (that are said to correlate well). Anyway, it would be nice if someone can address this point, but as I've heard IQ data does meet the best standards of psychology research, I'll ignore my concerns about the test for now.

Even if you pick out the outlier, a very, very well-mannered, intelligent person, your children are going to get genes that are closer to the average of the population / race, than the genetic-lottery-winning outlier

That's a misleading thing to say. First of all, how much the children will regress to the mean depends on the trait. For IQ with 0.6-0.8 heritability it'll be closer to the parents.

You'd also get a very poor estimation for a given couple if you use a race average. Family average would be much better due to assortative mating.

In practice I'd be very wary of high variance within the family, especially if you don't plan on having a lot of kids.