people that were purposefully bred to be retarded labor, blacks.
Really breeding in traits requires more generations than blacks were enslaved in America. And eugenics wasn't really practiced on slaves -- they were generally pretty much free to marry (other slaves) at will.
Regardless, there are definitely biological traits and other "averages" across different racial populations. However, the variance between individuals in those groups is much, much greater.
Let's just avoid this racially collectivist bullshit altogether. It's racist when whites do it, and it's racist when blacks do it. We aren't marxists.
Let's just avoid this racially collectivist bullshit altogether.
I couldn't agree more, but don't be afraid to seriously consider the left's approach to policy and the effects of its most reasonable, prudent application in reality. You can't expose these insane religious zealots otherwise.
This is that religious zeal I was talking about. You got triggered.
If we are going to pick a degenerate, genetically deficient, animalistic race using the left's framework
You are still using their immoral framework. Don't allow opportunistic psychopaths to dictate your morality.
Skin tone isn't a useful data point. It is actively harmful to even collect such data as it forces those categories into existence. Citizenship and assimilation into a culture that promotes heirarchal meritocracies would be good categories.
If thou writes a phrase that, taken in isolation without its surrounding context comes off sounding incredibly racist, then in my view the language centers of thy brain let that fly. Thou thought "nah, thy bases are covered by the surrounding context, so it's good", and I don't agree with that at all. I believe if thou can say something like that, at some subconscious level, thy brain actually said "sounds good." That thou said it because at some fundamental level thou believe it, even if at some higher cognitive/moral level thou disagree with it and thy overarching sentence is saying as such.
Let's just avoid this racially collectivist bullshit altogether. It's racist when whites do it, and it's racist when blacks do it. We aren't marxists.
Unfortunately, it's a survival strategy, so its adoption is going to increase, not decrease, as long as there's a perceived threat.
Just as corruption in politics creates alliances of convenience between the corrupt (while honest men and women are isolated), the politics of race is a path to power, and ignoring it when others are engaging in it endangers us.
It would be very healthy for our collective conscience to put the guns down and walk away from this sick Mexican Standoff, but we've spent most of our time in the circle getting shot at and not shooting back. Unilaterally opting out doesn't mean we get to walk away; it only means we leave our revolvers in their holsters, and that's not any more healthy for our collective physique than participating is for our national conscience.
Unfortunately, it's a survival strategy, so its adoption is going to increase, not decrease, as long as there's a perceived threat.
It's not a survival strategy. It's power-gaining strategy that creates an other and establishes them as a perceived threat. The perception never ends, because if it did, racialism would stop being a viable means to power.
Best of all, it ends with everyone being worse off, including the population that's supposed to benefit from the racism.
The classic game theory example of the prisoner's dilemma works well enough as an example. We've been through thousands upon thousands of iterations of the same game, and every time, both prisoners expect the other to betray them, because that is how it always happens.
The first to choose cooperation instead of betrayal will be destroyed, unless they make the leap together.
Asking someone to make the leap on the first iteration is a tough sell. Asking them to make it on the millionth, when generation after generation preceding chose betrayal, is nearly impossible.
Really breeding in traits requires more generations than blacks were enslaved in America. And eugenics wasn't really practiced on slaves -- they were generally pretty much free to marry (other slaves) at will.
Regardless, there are definitely biological traits and other "averages" across different racial populations. However, the variance between individuals in those groups is much, much greater.
Let's just avoid this racially collectivist bullshit altogether. It's racist when whites do it, and it's racist when blacks do it. We aren't marxists.
I couldn't agree more, but don't be afraid to seriously consider the left's approach to policy and the effects of its most reasonable, prudent application in reality. You can't expose these insane religious zealots otherwise.
If you actually did you wouldn't have made the reply he was responding to.
This is that religious zeal I was talking about. You got triggered.
You are still using their immoral framework. Don't allow opportunistic psychopaths to dictate your morality.
Skin tone isn't a useful data point. It is actively harmful to even collect such data as it forces those categories into existence. Citizenship and assimilation into a culture that promotes heirarchal meritocracies would be good categories.
Thou wants religious zeal?
So why did thou use it?
All I'm saying is thou art a hypocrite.
If thou writes a phrase that, taken in isolation without its surrounding context comes off sounding incredibly racist, then in my view the language centers of thy brain let that fly. Thou thought "nah, thy bases are covered by the surrounding context, so it's good", and I don't agree with that at all. I believe if thou can say something like that, at some subconscious level, thy brain actually said "sounds good." That thou said it because at some fundamental level thou believe it, even if at some higher cognitive/moral level thou disagree with it and thy overarching sentence is saying as such.
Unfortunately, it's a survival strategy, so its adoption is going to increase, not decrease, as long as there's a perceived threat.
Just as corruption in politics creates alliances of convenience between the corrupt (while honest men and women are isolated), the politics of race is a path to power, and ignoring it when others are engaging in it endangers us.
It would be very healthy for our collective conscience to put the guns down and walk away from this sick Mexican Standoff, but we've spent most of our time in the circle getting shot at and not shooting back. Unilaterally opting out doesn't mean we get to walk away; it only means we leave our revolvers in their holsters, and that's not any more healthy for our collective physique than participating is for our national conscience.
It's not a survival strategy. It's power-gaining strategy that creates an other and establishes them as a perceived threat. The perception never ends, because if it did, racialism would stop being a viable means to power.
Best of all, it ends with everyone being worse off, including the population that's supposed to benefit from the racism.
The classic game theory example of the prisoner's dilemma works well enough as an example. We've been through thousands upon thousands of iterations of the same game, and every time, both prisoners expect the other to betray them, because that is how it always happens.
The first to choose cooperation instead of betrayal will be destroyed, unless they make the leap together.
Asking someone to make the leap on the first iteration is a tough sell. Asking them to make it on the millionth, when generation after generation preceding chose betrayal, is nearly impossible.