You'll be waiting a long time, fren. White, Western culture has been the defining driver for most every major (and minor) achievement for a very long time.
There is nothing wrong with acknowledging your individual superiority with regards to a talent, ability, or skill set based on merit in comparison to other people. But:
there is nothing superior about one's complexion (or sex or ethnicity); different, but not superior (aka. I'm not superior at things because I'm white; I'm superior compared to some people in some skill areas because I worked at them and perhaps have a talent for said skills...and a lot of people are superior to me for the same reasons, and there are things I'm not very good at all with that others are.)
nobody is (or should be) superior to others in the eyes of the law (and one could argue in the eyes of God and in the rules of civil society)...a lot of people seem to forget this one
I think people either stupidly or disingenuously believe some people unironically think skin color to be the sole reason to justify their views on race, and not actually the common characteristic that precedes genetic/cultural differences that if benchmarked with theirs, proves to be inferior and/or not fit to couple with theirs.
What's written above does not snuff the possibility of kindness, intelligence, innovation, and a lithany of things that makes Humans great, in their culture. That's the common lefty-drone schtick. What it does, is indicate that these cultures cannot merge with ours without friction and disaster, something nobody wants, with exception those that seek power and money in a cheap and villanous way, such as creating artificial division, and fearmongering to such extent where they conveniently swoop in waving their "antidote" at the apex of the conflict, with the catch of being elected, otherwise we can't be "saved".
Genetics isn't culture; we've got plenty of evidence to back that up. And that still doesn't negate the dictum that states "equal under the law".
I don't get to go and harm somebody for criminal reasons, unprovoked because I'm from a different culture than they are.
Similarly, while I believe I come from a more advanced culture than say a Kalahari bushman (and with some evidence to back that up), nonetheless their culture has likely better enabled them to survive in the Kalahari desert (and that's ok; I've not got any real desire to go survive in the Kalahari desert; they may have no real desire to engage in my cultural milieu either....they might have a point with the drag queen story hour, to be honest). I can't help but notice that the Kalahari bushmen are not the ones who created Cardi B, and America/Americans have.
Although I do agree to some extent that cultures can and do have friction points when they come into contact with one another -- sometimes greater, sometimes lesser (although we'd probably disagree on cultures -- I'm firmly of the opinion that the "cultures" the Western world is having a problem with right now are pretty much as a result of the Western world -- we're not having a Kalahari bushman culture problem, for example).
Never said it was, so your point is... well pointless.
I don't get to go and harm somebody for criminal reasons, unprovoked because I'm from a different culture than they are.
A strawman. An individual, or a few, merge with the culture through the means of adaptation, they lose theirs, or force the bits that are incompatible out so they can be succesfully merge their mother, and host cultures.
When cultures clash into violence, it's because there's enough dissenting mass to enable phyical hostilities, through peer pressure, constant brain siege by listening to people hate on the opposed culture, and belief that theirs is superior. This is obvious because we don't remove superiority from our lives, it's stupid.
Similarly, while I believe I come from a more advanced culture than say a Kalahari bushman (and with some evidence to back that up), nonetheless their culture has likely better enabled them to survive in the Kalahari desert (and that's ok; I've not got any real desire to go survive in the Kalahari desert; they may have no real desire to engage in my cultural milieu either....they might have a point with the drag queen story hour, to be honest). I can't help but notice that the Kalahari bushmen are not the ones who created Cardi B, and America/Americans have.
As i previously said, if you benchmark the cultures and compare them to the micrometer, can you honestly say that a western/mediterranean/asian man will lose against a kalahari man? If you drop them in the middle of the desert they'll die, obviously, JUST as the kalahari man would, but put into a life of desert they'd survive, just like your model. In modern society? those races i mentioned have a ridiculously higher chance to not only survive, but thrive.
Play this game so that you don't admit outright that races do play a part; If you were to form a colony on a different planet, would you bring your kalahari man, or a random modernized man? The logical part of your brain will take the controversial answer, why? Because it subconsciously wants to live.
Although I do agree to some extent that cultures can and do have friction points when they come into contact with one another -- sometimes greater, sometimes lesser (although we'd probably disagree on cultures -- I'm firmly of the opinion that the "cultures" the Western world is having a problem with right now are pretty much as a result of the Western world -- we're not having a Kalahari bushman culture problem, for example).
The answer to this is in the second sentence "Sometimes greater, sometimes lesser" And the answer to that? It's because there's not many friction points. A western American man would work really well with a western French man. Different cultures, but almost 0 to none friction points. As per your kalahari bushmen culture problem, they may not have many, but they sure are warring amongst eachother, more so thatn western, mediterranean and asian countries.
You're wrong, because you're using the marxist definition of race. Race is not skin color, race is a genetically close group of the ethnicities. Skin color is just a convenient, albeit imperfect, phenotype that let's you gauge a person's race at a glance.
The part that you're missing that behavior and intelligence are genetic, and while you can't make assumptions about individuals, you can make assumptions about the population. We know that the last common ancestor between whites and Africans was 60,000 years ago, and that most human brain evolution occurred in the last 10,000 outside of Africa, due to the discovery of agriculture. In addition, we can see morphological and functional differences in brain scans. Africans have smaller prefrontal cortexes, and fewer cortical convolutions (indicating less processing power).
This is all in addition to behavioral we differences we observe, cross culturally. For example, Africans fail the mirror test until they are pretty old.
What you're saying is actually a form of creationism. Evolution is racist, it optimized the different races for the environments they evolved in. In Africa you don't need intelligence to survive, food is abundant and available year round. I. The north, it's not available for half the year, so you need to evolve to be very forward thinking and clever.
White people are better at living in modern societies because our ancestors already paid their dues in the past. There is a reason the Europeans found that Africans were still living in mud huts, and hadn't even discovered written language, while they were zipping around on sea faring wooden ships. We are better than them.
Ok, let's go with "genetically close group" -- there are people in Africa who are genetically more akin to European populations than they are to the rest of Africa (R1b in parts of Central Africa, look it up). That same haplogroup much lower in E. Europe (specifically, Ukraine).
Although I would most definitely agree that skin color is a very poor indication of "race", I don't think anyone wants to make the case that Cameroonians are more European than Ukrainians (maybe some might, who knows).
From there, I would once again posit that neither skin color nor genetic haplogroup affiliation has very much to do with culture -- which can have many variations within both similar skin pigmentations as well as genetic affiliations (Swedes and Swiss are not 100% alike culturally, even if they may look very similar and have very similar genetics, as an example).
And I'm not the one trying to make the "better than them" argument -- I'm just pointing out that no one should be considered better than in the eyes of the law...which IS a marxist/socialist construct ("four legs good; two legs bad; some pigs are better than others" -- no thanks; I don't want to live under that social code).
You're talking a single measure of closeness, which is not a valid argument. Haven't you wondered how gene testing companies like 23andMe are able to determine your ethnicity and race? In the last 10 years, due to advancement in gene testing, we actually can determine (almost down to the region) where you came from due to correlations in alleles and such. You can see such clustering even when examining only a few alleles, here is just one such example https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Plots-of-genetic-similarity-according-to-Eigenstrat-derived-PCA-based-axes-of-genetic_fig1_225095386.
What you're missing, and what most libertarian types need to understand, is that your personality and behavioral profile is mostly determined by the time you are born. Culture is a reflection of genetic predisposition, not an overlay on top of it. The ones asserting that culture create differences in behavior are making the same "blank slate" argument that liberals make when they assert that gender is a social construct.
I'm just pointing out that no one should be considered better than in the eyes of the law...which IS a marxist/socialist construct
Racism is actually a biological construct; being a racist just means that you recognize that evolution is real. And lastly, being equal under the law, doesn't mean equal. At some point you have to ask yourself, are the people that are good making up for those who are not? And when it comes to Africans, the answer is a resounding no. They shouldn't be harmed, but if we keep trying to accommodate them we are only going to destroy our own societies. They need to go back to Africa.
because its factually incorrect and sets up a community of such thinkers for failure.
If you teach such mindset to younger generations, they grow up thinking they don't need to try as hard to compete in anything, and they start blaming any failure, comparative to the 'lesser' people on circumstances rather than themselves.
Better instead to teach that your lineage and heritage are valuable and that value deserves effort to persevere, endure and excel.
Can anybody please explain why it's bad to think you are superior to other people?
I am waiting for non-whites to explain why they think that they are superior.
You'll be waiting a long time, fren. White, Western culture has been the defining driver for most every major (and minor) achievement for a very long time.
There is nothing wrong with acknowledging your individual superiority with regards to a talent, ability, or skill set based on merit in comparison to other people. But:
there is nothing superior about one's complexion (or sex or ethnicity); different, but not superior (aka. I'm not superior at things because I'm white; I'm superior compared to some people in some skill areas because I worked at them and perhaps have a talent for said skills...and a lot of people are superior to me for the same reasons, and there are things I'm not very good at all with that others are.)
nobody is (or should be) superior to others in the eyes of the law (and one could argue in the eyes of God and in the rules of civil society)...a lot of people seem to forget this one
I think people either stupidly or disingenuously believe some people unironically think skin color to be the sole reason to justify their views on race, and not actually the common characteristic that precedes genetic/cultural differences that if benchmarked with theirs, proves to be inferior and/or not fit to couple with theirs.
What's written above does not snuff the possibility of kindness, intelligence, innovation, and a lithany of things that makes Humans great, in their culture. That's the common lefty-drone schtick. What it does, is indicate that these cultures cannot merge with ours without friction and disaster, something nobody wants, with exception those that seek power and money in a cheap and villanous way, such as creating artificial division, and fearmongering to such extent where they conveniently swoop in waving their "antidote" at the apex of the conflict, with the catch of being elected, otherwise we can't be "saved".
Genetics isn't culture; we've got plenty of evidence to back that up. And that still doesn't negate the dictum that states "equal under the law".
I don't get to go and harm somebody for criminal reasons, unprovoked because I'm from a different culture than they are.
Similarly, while I believe I come from a more advanced culture than say a Kalahari bushman (and with some evidence to back that up), nonetheless their culture has likely better enabled them to survive in the Kalahari desert (and that's ok; I've not got any real desire to go survive in the Kalahari desert; they may have no real desire to engage in my cultural milieu either....they might have a point with the drag queen story hour, to be honest). I can't help but notice that the Kalahari bushmen are not the ones who created Cardi B, and America/Americans have.
Although I do agree to some extent that cultures can and do have friction points when they come into contact with one another -- sometimes greater, sometimes lesser (although we'd probably disagree on cultures -- I'm firmly of the opinion that the "cultures" the Western world is having a problem with right now are pretty much as a result of the Western world -- we're not having a Kalahari bushman culture problem, for example).
Never said it was, so your point is... well pointless.
A strawman. An individual, or a few, merge with the culture through the means of adaptation, they lose theirs, or force the bits that are incompatible out so they can be succesfully merge their mother, and host cultures. When cultures clash into violence, it's because there's enough dissenting mass to enable phyical hostilities, through peer pressure, constant brain siege by listening to people hate on the opposed culture, and belief that theirs is superior. This is obvious because we don't remove superiority from our lives, it's stupid.
As i previously said, if you benchmark the cultures and compare them to the micrometer, can you honestly say that a western/mediterranean/asian man will lose against a kalahari man? If you drop them in the middle of the desert they'll die, obviously, JUST as the kalahari man would, but put into a life of desert they'd survive, just like your model. In modern society? those races i mentioned have a ridiculously higher chance to not only survive, but thrive.
Play this game so that you don't admit outright that races do play a part; If you were to form a colony on a different planet, would you bring your kalahari man, or a random modernized man? The logical part of your brain will take the controversial answer, why? Because it subconsciously wants to live.
The answer to this is in the second sentence "Sometimes greater, sometimes lesser" And the answer to that? It's because there's not many friction points. A western American man would work really well with a western French man. Different cultures, but almost 0 to none friction points. As per your kalahari bushmen culture problem, they may not have many, but they sure are warring amongst eachother, more so thatn western, mediterranean and asian countries.
You're wrong, because you're using the marxist definition of race. Race is not skin color, race is a genetically close group of the ethnicities. Skin color is just a convenient, albeit imperfect, phenotype that let's you gauge a person's race at a glance.
The part that you're missing that behavior and intelligence are genetic, and while you can't make assumptions about individuals, you can make assumptions about the population. We know that the last common ancestor between whites and Africans was 60,000 years ago, and that most human brain evolution occurred in the last 10,000 outside of Africa, due to the discovery of agriculture. In addition, we can see morphological and functional differences in brain scans. Africans have smaller prefrontal cortexes, and fewer cortical convolutions (indicating less processing power).
This is all in addition to behavioral we differences we observe, cross culturally. For example, Africans fail the mirror test until they are pretty old.
What you're saying is actually a form of creationism. Evolution is racist, it optimized the different races for the environments they evolved in. In Africa you don't need intelligence to survive, food is abundant and available year round. I. The north, it's not available for half the year, so you need to evolve to be very forward thinking and clever.
White people are better at living in modern societies because our ancestors already paid their dues in the past. There is a reason the Europeans found that Africans were still living in mud huts, and hadn't even discovered written language, while they were zipping around on sea faring wooden ships. We are better than them.
Ok, let's go with "genetically close group" -- there are people in Africa who are genetically more akin to European populations than they are to the rest of Africa (R1b in parts of Central Africa, look it up). That same haplogroup much lower in E. Europe (specifically, Ukraine).
Although I would most definitely agree that skin color is a very poor indication of "race", I don't think anyone wants to make the case that Cameroonians are more European than Ukrainians (maybe some might, who knows).
From there, I would once again posit that neither skin color nor genetic haplogroup affiliation has very much to do with culture -- which can have many variations within both similar skin pigmentations as well as genetic affiliations (Swedes and Swiss are not 100% alike culturally, even if they may look very similar and have very similar genetics, as an example).
And I'm not the one trying to make the "better than them" argument -- I'm just pointing out that no one should be considered better than in the eyes of the law...which IS a marxist/socialist construct ("four legs good; two legs bad; some pigs are better than others" -- no thanks; I don't want to live under that social code).
You're talking a single measure of closeness, which is not a valid argument. Haven't you wondered how gene testing companies like 23andMe are able to determine your ethnicity and race? In the last 10 years, due to advancement in gene testing, we actually can determine (almost down to the region) where you came from due to correlations in alleles and such. You can see such clustering even when examining only a few alleles, here is just one such example https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Plots-of-genetic-similarity-according-to-Eigenstrat-derived-PCA-based-axes-of-genetic_fig1_225095386.
What you're missing, and what most libertarian types need to understand, is that your personality and behavioral profile is mostly determined by the time you are born. Culture is a reflection of genetic predisposition, not an overlay on top of it. The ones asserting that culture create differences in behavior are making the same "blank slate" argument that liberals make when they assert that gender is a social construct.
It's actually not, anti-racism is actually the Marxist construct. The soviet union was the first to publicly assert that race didn't matter, and that class did https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2020/06/15/despite-its-complicated-history-soviet-antiracism-was-ahead-of-the-historical-curve-a70569.
Racism is actually a biological construct; being a racist just means that you recognize that evolution is real. And lastly, being equal under the law, doesn't mean equal. At some point you have to ask yourself, are the people that are good making up for those who are not? And when it comes to Africans, the answer is a resounding no. They shouldn't be harmed, but if we keep trying to accommodate them we are only going to destroy our own societies. They need to go back to Africa.
because its factually incorrect and sets up a community of such thinkers for failure.
If you teach such mindset to younger generations, they grow up thinking they don't need to try as hard to compete in anything, and they start blaming any failure, comparative to the 'lesser' people on circumstances rather than themselves.
Better instead to teach that your lineage and heritage are valuable and that value deserves effort to persevere, endure and excel.
You can think that. It doesn't mean you are that.
Why else would people cringe, go into convulsions, and beg for understanding when called racists?