Of course this ignores things like invasive species
Ancient Egypt was even much LESS black than today, and even today they're not black.
The majority of black migration to Egypt happened much more recently.
Heritability is based on observational studies.
Rlevant part from your article is "which genes these variants are in and what they do to affect height are only partially understood".
Point being that there are a lot of things we don't know about genes. We don't know in exactly what way height or intelligence is genetic, we only know that they are based on observation and definition. And those are the most well studied, much more than homosexuality which no one wants to touch out of fear of woke backlash.
Essentially, you haven't proven that homosexuality isn't genetic. You've just stated that we don't know for sure yet to what degree it's genetic. If you frame it like that, no one will dissagree with you. Everything is a combination of genetics, epigenetics, and environment. That's not controversial.
You're arguing the exact same way a normie argues if you try to talk to them about the genetic and heritable component in IQ. They start going down a convoluted path to try to discredit you attacking everything from core assumptions to methodology to nitpicking on the smallest meaningless points. The best you can get out of this is a conclusion of "we don't know" but at a riddiculously high epistomological standard.
So it's pointless for you to make a negative argument. Can you put together a convincing positive argument? Something less retarded than "all gays were diddled and that's what turned them gay"? Something that doesn't have even bigger questionsmarks and holes around it than "probably homosexuality developed because group selection is real and there was an evolutionary advantage to having some % of non-reproducing caretakers".
Where is the neonatal allele strand that determines height?
Not only that, but any creative work is the culmination of a trillion creative desicions large and small.
Ideology is making an increasingly larger number of those dicisions for them, by now the majority, and that's why everything made by ideologues is trash.
They're not doing this for 0.1% of the population. They're doing this because they're under the control of a brain virus that is compelling them to force into existence a new culture where hierarchies are formed with the woke at the top.
They're underperforming because they have low IQs, anything else like 'entitlement' or 'they're failing because we help them too much', or whatever else you invent is just cope, rationalization, and post hoc garbage.
There is no reality in which a demographic with a 85 IQ average could do well or compete in modern societies where high information processing skills are required to function.
Besides just the ability to retain and manipulate information IQ correlates extremely well with long term orientation, the ability to delay gratification, crime, low impulse control, violence, success, tolerance of ambiguity, knowledge aquisition, ability for deliberate action, self control, risk managment, ability to learn, and a whole other list of abilities that modern societies expect.
You can collect a group of whites with a 85 IQ average in a neighbourhood and within a couple of generations they will have perfectly recreated for you the inner city life.
Imagine thinking that affirmative action is what's causing violence....
No resentment caused by being made to compete in societies where they can feel they can't possibley succeed is what's causing violence.
Crime being the only viable path to material wealth unless you're artistically or athlethically gifted is what's causing violence.
This is a brilliant idea!
Instead of anti-white we should start using 'whitephobia'.
While 'anti-white' insinuates a deliberate position, 'whitephobia' insinuates a state of being unhinged, mentally unwell, unable to control emotions.
And as a bonus it subtly mocks the left's use of -phobia for everythig.
Don't reveal your power level. Nothing good can come from it.
Fan service = Lack of propaganda
Literally means you're giving people something that makes them happy, instead of trying to brainwash them for the greater good.
Therefore fan service is problematic. It's a missed opportunity and it provides respite, which might in itself undermine other brainwashing efforts.
What movie is that image from?
As someone who has never watched a single episode, is it worth going to the old series?
Where should I start?
This is based on a survey where 97% or so responded that yes, the greenhouse effect is a plausible hypothesis and it's likely that humans are having some effect on the climate.
That same survey only had about 2% or so agree with any sort of doomsday scenario.
Men value looks yes. But we're willing to compromise. More or equally important is kindness, a sense of humor, positivity, peace, meekness, submissiveness, and having common interests.
The women who can't connect or make a relationship work have none of those qualities.
They themselves are looking for men who are strong, powerful, successful, well off, career focused, confident, arrogant, flashy, charming, dominant, leaders, etc.
And they mold themselves into that, thinking that's what men want as well.
Then there they sit with their money, arrogance, condecention, success, dominant personalities, high society habits, and tinder pics next to expensive cars and wonder where all the good men are.
Men aren't turned on by that at all, they are repulsed by it.
The equivalent are boys who think that women like nice, soft, passive, submissive guys, because girls themselves are nice and soft. They end up equally bitter, wondering where all the goof girls are, afterall they should be throwing themselves after someone this kind and obedient and subservient.
The world doesn't work that way.
https://www.teenvogue.com/story/survey-says-young-people-dont-identify-as-straight
57% of respondents said they don't fit into the traditional definition of heterosexuality
Interesting how they they don't break this down by gender. I wonder if it's mostly women identifying as bi / lesbian.
Just to clarify, with "same guy" he is not referring to me.
It was always designed as an infiltration mechanic to proselytize socially degenerative behaviour.
Why? What's the endgame?
Diversity is always bad.
Accidental diversity is neutral. If you make choices with absolutely no regard for inclusion, and only pick the best people and the most true-to-the-story ideas, and you unwittingly end up with a diverse team, or diverse characters which make sense in your story's setting.
But we all know that's not what Diversity means to these people. You know it's no accident that they ended up being "led by women at almost every corner".
They'll keep failing, because their theory that anyone can do anything equally well is wrong.
It's funny how "I don't care", or "I dissagree", or "I think you're wrong" fills them with rage and suffering.
It's an attack on their ideology that they can't refute, and it fills them with anger.
They want you to engage.
A paralell society that just ignores them, and doesn't reward them with money or attention, is the only thng they're truly worried about.
issues like poor problem-solving skills, impulsivity, problems with regulating emotions, and poor self-esteem were found to be quite common in suspected perpetrators
Researchers also highlighted that migrants’ overrepresentation in sex crime could not be explained alone by social disadvantage, citing mental illness, antisocial behavior, the use of intoxicants, and a criminal past as other contributing risk factors.
What could it be... We just don't have a concept that can explain this at all. If only IQ hadn't already been debunked by marxists.
The role on academia in the next decades will be to clean the records.
They will scrub everything unwanted. Texts, data, studies, records, books, papers. It will all be memoryholed.
You can't have data or studies casting doubt on blank slate theory, or consequntialism as a sound ethical model. You can't just have stuff like heritability and twin studies lying around.
Academia will be reduced to a toolbox to support leftist thought. It's already almost there.
They'll hide the methodology behind paywalls, traditions and customs, groupthink, and gaslighting, and people will only see the headlines.
Lo and behold - it turns out that the leftists were right all along! About everything! Look, the Science proves it!
In the future the Pence rule will extend to any public or private interaction, IRL or online.
Got to love it.
They can have their precious independence, while boys can have mentorship, unsolicited advice, correction, ego checks, and truth.
Let's see how this strategy of responding with guile, hatred, condecention, and rightousness works out for them.
Your house loans and student loans are probably the last things you should be putting money into.
Their interest rates are between 2%-3%, which is very managable. As long as you can expect a higher yield than 3% on your assets then you're earning by investing.
The stock market gives on average 10% per year (over the last 100 years), so even just putting your money into an index fund will outperform your loan interests.
Secondly, inflation. Your loan amount stays the same, but inflation is making that amount worth less every year. So while inflation is hurting your savings, it's helping you with your loans, they're getting devalued.
Ok, but what about risk?
If we're talking about the risk for runaway inflation, then you should definitly not put extra money into paying back loans, as they will devalue too.
And if we're seeing massive inflation, why would the price of things denominated in the inflationary asset go down? Presumably they would go up. Just because there's massive inflation doesn't mean that stocks will crash.
In times of high inflation, people want to borrow money. Which means more money in circulation, which means securities and correlated assets should be expected to go up, because where else would you put your money?
If the stock market crashes, and you are young, let's say in your 20s or even 30s, then you're probably still fine since historically the 10% return has remained even through rough times, if you give it a couple of decades.
Real estate is not as profitable as most people think, unless you're a deveolper. Just buying a home you should think more about as something you're doing for the next generation. If it weren't for the costs associated, it'd be a better move than an index fund. But because of the costs, unless you can afford unexpected expenses, and hard times where taxes are still due, then the risk is higher than some index fund.
You changed the goalposts here from 'compete' and 'succeed' to 'function'.
Can a 70 IQ person function in society? Only with help. Unless we're talking about a village where he can stare into the sky all day and lift things when asked and generally just exist in the open and eat with the community.
Can a 85 IQ person function in society? Sure, they can be productive in many different ways.
Can they compete? Can a group with a 85 IQ average achieve parity in terms of salary, or positions of power in corporate or government sectors, or education, or innovation? No. No they can not.
Can they ever be expected to commit crime at a similar rate to 100 IQ groups? No.
You conveniently skipped my paragraph about how IQ correlates with so many other traits than just information processing.
Just having lower impulse control and lower ability to delay gratification means the group will be higher represented in crime statistics. Just those two things alone mean they're much less likely to finish an education, that they will be less reliable workers.
The US military doesn't take anyone with an IQ under about 83. They've done experiments with admitting people with IQs of 80 and high 70s, but concluded that it's not worth the cost, damage, and effort. That is to say that people in the lowest 10th percentile are not only not useful, they actually harm the organization.
This paragraph is not really relevant. Do women sex select for higher IQ? Sure why not. Do they sex select for percieved IQ which is not real IQ but just some adaptability metric / success / how well an individual fits into society? Sure why not.
But we're not talking about how other people see you. We're talking about how well you can score on a standardized test. Go back 200 years and a random ashkenazi jew would probably outscore a random englishman, it doesn't matter that he was percieved to be lower IQ.
If you leave people with 85 IQ alone, they will become smarter? They will have smarter children? You must be joking.
IQ is highly heritable. Its heritability quotient is about 80, that's the same heritability quotient as height.
Now you can critisize the analogy and claim that IQ is determined by several other factors like epigenetics, environment, and passive genes. Ok, it's not the greatest analogy. Maybe that community would become smarter, maybe not. But we know blacks aren't becoming smarter, so whatever epigenetic or passive gene effects are at play, are clearly not affecting that particular demographic.
An 85 IQ society will only become a 100 IQ society if you recalibrate the tests to reflect their normal distribution. Then they will be 100 IQ by definition. However compared to outside groups they will always be 85 IQ.
Sure, maybe, probably. But the alternative to AA is to just accept that blacks will not be able to compete, will be poorer, will have shittier jobs, etc.
Blacks not being as intelligent as other races isn't in itself a black pill. That's a solvable problem, to make sure that they all have some purchasing power and vested interest in society means some structuring is necessary. As a species we're not more hostile or less empathetic to people with lower IQs. Quite the opposite. There are ways of dealing with the fact that some people do worse in society. If you want to keep the multicultural society and solve for lower crime and more stability, that probably means UBI, socialized housing, and legalized drugs.
But as long as the woke cling to blank slate theory, the fact that blacks are underperforming will be a motovator to keep tearing down society. That's the real black pill.
It's why education is being dismantled - equity thrhough tearing down the intelligent to appease the dumb. It's why heroes in popular media are being destroyed - equity through tearing down the brave to appease the anxious.
Accross the board, everything that is good will be torn down to cuddle the feelings of those who can't hit the standard. The lowering of all standards is something you can observe, and while wokeism is a cancer on any society it's clearly much more damaging in societies where lage portions are low IQ, than in more homogenous ones like e.g. China.