Skip to content
  • Indra Kaw

    niceme.me

  • St. Nicked!

  • free_peach

    What can be a mystery to many, is that now they can buy stuff, because there is wellfare, they are employed, seem flashing expensive clothes, online in any game lobby you enter, but you still see their kids stealing. Even in high school and college they mug people, there is many videos showing. I think mugging people became some kind of tribal thing where they affirm their superiority. Clearly we see things differently.

    • QuickshooterMk2

      African Criminality
      stealing and killing is in their nature, not to mention the concept of “Gratitude” is foreign to them https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/4841609fd8ff99695b9a821d731c20e10e427d845cce8ec91cb53d198142bef7.png

      • Narg.Vate111

        Is there actual evidence that cruel, unethical actions, and crime are in African’s genetics?

        • QuickshooterMk2

          in the absence of whitey’s civilization blacks will always revert to their chaotic merciless nature
          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/3cbf2fd6ecb69b4da8a6212452e95d0b2b570904c80412cf9a40d963d3bea845.jpg

          why do blacks act like N iggers? simple, it’s the frontal lobe they’re missing
          the part of the brain which allows for humans to think rationally
          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/83ea78839c548b50ab0e97c4cb8359073f1598f970738922d4ebe56e16208a0a.png

          why are they missing this part? well one might argue that N iggers are not human and therefore a specie that is distant from us
          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/fd0516ffe578a4eded6ebac752f9a374e66dd294fe3c38534a750cadc8c80581.png

          another theory is that they’re simply unevolved, as Africans ate fruits from the forest floor and did nothing but chuck spears for thousands of years
          while whites had to deal with freezing weather and other harsh winter climate–which made them evolve

          regardless weather they’re non-human or simply subhuman is of little importance
          the important part is to get those chimps back in Africa so civilized people will not have to suffer the constant crime, theft, r ape and other maladies blacks inflict upon their European hosts

          • Twilk9

            Another perfect example of people trying to use science to back up their arguments, but not actually UNDERSTANDING science.

            Fortunately, neuroscience has more advanced techniques than “a line drawn down from the eyes.” ACTUAL brain analysis done by MRI scans, volumetric analysis, and gross weight show that not only is there no difference in frontal lobes between caucasians and blacks, if anything the orbitofrontal cortex (part of the frontal lobe) is larger in blacks. Not significantly, of course.

            And secondly, your cute little genetic graphic there is only of the X/A ratios, not of any actual genome sequence. The X/A ratio, in essence, is just a measure of how likely a child is to be male or female.

            Sorry. If you’re going to use science, make sure you KNOW the science. Everyone’s entitled to an opinion, but dont use points that are objectively wrong or misleading.

          • QuickshooterMk2

            The genomes of blacks and europeans are still far more similar to each other than either are to non humans, and in fact many europeans and blacks have sequences closer to each other than those within their own race.

            press X to doubt

          • OMITTED

            How did you post 3 images at once? I tried to do so and my post is still hidden, awaiting verification from site owner.
            Anyway, I’ll try to post them separately. Here’s skull volume that Twilk9 is lying about:
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/adb528fb33e1b60836143929c25642f6ec6c73ace6b12a1a3b81c731f2a090e0.png
            (source by Kenneth L. Beals, Courtland L. Smith, and Stephen M. Dodd)

          • Twilk9

            Lying? Hahaha
            https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2964318/

            And as for your graphic, it comes from an article where the authors CLEARLY state that their measurement data are based on external measurement and are not a substitute for true cranial capacity. Their research was aimed at trying to see if overall head size and skull morphology had a climatic evolutionary pressure.

          • OMITTED

            Right, it’s not a substitute. It just so happens to perfectly correlate with brain volume. The study you linked shows a wopping 10% difference in brain volume, I seriously wonder if you’re just trolling. 10% is no difference, fraction of a percent in genome is no difference? Hell, maybe chimps are humans too, what’s the difference, a percent or two?

          • Twilk9

            Hahahaha so let me get this straight

            When YOU present data showing that Germanic peoples have skull size 7% (at MOST) larger than sub-saharan Africans, it’s relevant and important proof.

            When I show data about actual BRAIN size that shows 10% difference the other way, it’s no difference and I’m just trolling?

            Can you tell me why that is?

          • OMITTED

            Are you pretending to be retarded right now? I didn’t say it didn’t matter, I said it’s a “w(h)opping 10% difference”, which is huge. The data I posted is not about brain volume, but then you’ve proven my point by posting the data that shows that there IS a large difference in brain volume (in African-Americans, by the way, not even Africans who would probably show a worse result), which didn’t need to be pointed out because cranial capacity correlates with brain volume anyway. You were right about the frontal lobe though. I wrongfully assumed that you claimed that their brains weren’t deficient.

          • Twilk9

            And again, if you didnt ignore the paper and just cut to the parts that back you up (once again), you would have seen that although volume might be different, ACTUAL grey matter, white matter, and the regions that make up the thinking (and non-structural/fluid) brain are the same, EXCEPT for one instance; the orbitofrontal cortex, part of the frontal lobe, was larger in blacks. When you said 10%, I assumed you were talking about the difference that actually might matter.

            Skull size is a poor estimate of brain volume, because other factors like age are more important. But it’s all moot, because overall brain size itself is a poor measure of intelligence with only weak correlation.

          • OMITTED

            They aren’t the same, most values have around 5% difference. You keep downplaying the differences, and they aren’t even Africans. There’s also a high probability they were testing university students, since most of them were younger, which is really suspicious.
            I don’t believe that correlation between intelligence and brain volume is weak. According to https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-2896(02)00137-X, brain volume has a very strong corellation with racial traits (0.94). African(-American)s still have their 10% smaller brains and asians have slightly bigger ones. According to multiple studies, brain volume and IQ correlation is significant, 0.3-0.6. Asians having a higher IQ and Africans having a lower IQ is practically common knowledge. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/a47504ccda491482857bed887258de04aa1180f5fff61e8a2d76694e35aa2792.jpg

          • Twilk9

            Well, theres a difference between “difference” and “statistically significant difference.” The latter is the one that has been effectively empirically proven beyond error; in this case, it has not been.

            That 0.3 -0.6 value translates to roughly 10%. That’s a number I would consider insignificant, since studies have shown that eating a moderately higher protein diet than standard has effects higher than that. If brain size has any correlation to intelligence (or IQ, I should say), it is less significant than having some more beans than recommended daily.

            I was wondering if Rushton would make an appearance. I could spend hours explaining why his conclusions are erroneous (improper sampling, selective choice of studies he knew would support his research, etc): but here’s a link to the one of many journal articles that can explain it better than me:

            http://philipperushton.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/race-r-k-theory-rushton-anderson-canadian-psychology-1-1991.pdf

            Finally, can you answer me something: why do you continue to make a differentiation between African Americans and Africans?

          • OMITTED

            I’ll read that, thanks.

            why do you continue to make a differentiation between African Americans and Africans?

            First and foremost, African-Americans are not pure Africans. In addition to that, any research related to them will have a significant bias unless researchers pick most African-Americans from a ghetto, which they won’t. Most of the chosen African-Americans would be ones taught by whites, rather than the ones who grew up in a black society. Having bigger brains increases their chances to get into the sample.

          • Twilk9

            So on some level you accept that social, environmental, and generally epigenetic factors play a huge role in development and intelligence?

          • OMITTED

            I said they aren’t pure Africans “first and foremost”. Other factors play a role, but it’s certainly not big enough, seeing how the richest of blacks commit more crimes and perform worse at studies than the poorest of whites.

          • Twilk9

            Not big enough? But by most metrics, black test scores have all suddenly been rising for years. Since the 60s, black performance on the NAEP and IQ tests have been growing at a rate outpacing the growth of caucasians’ test scores and closing the achievement gap.

            What happened? It’s not like in the 60’s blacks everywhere recieved some genetic disorder that provided sudden increases in intelligence. Something big did happen for blacks in the 60s, though.

          • OMITTED
          • TRVTH

            Don’t forget “diversity” adjustments of test scores. They keep raising the lower bound of test scores awarded for the worst possible SAT results year by year, and the free points disproportionately accrue to Shitavious and the rest of the Lesser Breeds Without the Law. They also give Shitavious 200 points for showing up with the magical melanin that confers so many special rights and privileges.

            They have been doing this in California and several other states for more than twenty-five years.

            Raw scores have not changed.

            No one has successfully written an IQ test upon which the Negro, in the aggregate, can compete with Whites or East Asians, either, after more than a century of trying, with billions of dollars of taxpayer money pissed away on it, too.

          • Twilk9

            Whether or not its welfare is irrelevant; assuming that all that welfare is going to blacks, and assuming that this is causation and not just correlation (which is a huge assumption) that STILL indicates that more money/security/stability is causing a huge ongoing upturn in black IQ/test taking.

            Which is STILL not a genetic factor. Its environmental.

          • OMITTED

            Please, all the gibs don’t even elevate blacks to the level of poorest whites. Despite being 29% of the population of USA, blacks and hispanics consume 55% of welfare expenditures. They’re also a net loss on economy, $10k/year and $7.7k/year respectively, whites($2.8k net gain per year) and east asians feed them out of their own pockets. General population aside, richest blacks perform worse at studies and commit significantly more crime than poorest whites, as I’ve mentioned before. They’re in an environment they didn’t create and couldn’t possibly maintain on their own. That money, security and stability are unnatural to them. They are clearly genetically inferior and should be dumped in Africa.

          • Twilk9

            This isn’t an argument about welfare or production; that’s not one I am going to be drawn into.
            This is an argument about genetics and intelligence.

            What are these “studies,” and do they use testing that measures intelligence directly or are other variables taken into effect? What is this data about the crime rate?

          • OMITTED

            By studies I mean academic performance or whatever you want to call it. And there’s a ton of info about these two topics, do you even need me to point it out?

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/5b39eebbf58ddf673d4c25429c604a3a098776067dc862ae86da5f7b7e49c704.png
            1996 Mean SAT Scores by Race and Family Income:
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/319d25dee4369db2fed3692f3eb2d75f981b30f428a07423c3a6cd07396d548f.png

          • OMITTED
          • OMITTED
          • Twilk9

            That study is the SAT, which does not effectively control for many factors, as there exist many organizations dedicated to SAT prep and practice. These preparation organizations are in frequent use but their use is not spread uniformly, so the SAT is not a good test for examination of “default” intelligence – there are too many other factors that influence their result, as is widely known in research.

            Studying SAT results is really only good for SAT related work/research, and attempts to modify the SAT.

            Tests like the NAEP or the IQ test are better (but still not perfect) for analyzing intelligence/education status, because these tests cannot be prepared for outside of public school settings which are accessible by all.

          • OMITTED

            How does any of that explain the fact that richest blacks have worse SAT scores than poorest whites? Are those SAT prep organizations ran by evil nazis that deny black students no matter the payment and take in poor whites for free? That argument is a joke. Poor whites have restricted access to education, are unable to bribe, have worse nutrition, and still perform better.

            that STILL indicates that more money/security/stability is causing a huge ongoing upturn in black IQ/test taking””

            It’s all the stuff you mentioned before.
            And what do you think about those crime rates?
            I couldn’t find any info on IQ with breakdown by both race and income aside from this graph from “The Bell Curve” book:
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/e04b72bbc35cca4ee6b281e73816bd9e7d1d800b7ec46d66c96c504dc7803873.png

          • Twilk9

            No, it has nothing to do with nazis and everything to do with poor experiment design. If you want to test general intelligence as a result of genetics or intrinsic intelligence, the SAT is a poor way to do it because it allows for multiple methods of preparation. Any study done wouldn’t be reflective of intrinsic intelligence because it would also reflect preparation and ability to prepare, which is not an intrinsic or a homogeneous value. Thats just basic experimental design, and it’s why SAT based studies are usually only used for SAT related projects.

            The fact that black IQs have been rising faster than whites for decades is very clear, but closing the iq gap is not something that will happen all at once.

            Black wealth is a relatively new phenomenon, and therefore their iq growth and rate is more reflective of the iq growth of immigrants, second, and third gen americans than citizens that have been here for a while.

            Remember; the IQ of European white immigrants during the Great Wave was roughly 20 points below average before leveling out to average over the course of the next century. In fact, there were numerous studies done at that time to point this out and try to keep european immigration down. We are seeing similar trends with blacks today, now that blacks have been allowed to build wealth and work more easily since the 60s/70s.

            I didn’t respond to the crime stats because I hadnt seen that you had posted more than once. I was also asking more out of my own curiosity, since crime is very much a chicken and egg argument regarding culture and genetics that I’d rather not get into. As opposed to intelligence and genetics, which is far more clear cut.

          • OMITTED

            I think my reply didn’t go through, so I guess I’ll type it again:

            wouldn’t be reflective of intrinsic intelligence because it would also reflect preparation and ability to prepare

            Why wouldn’t ability to prepare reflect intelligence? Everyone can prepare, but blacks can’t? I think there might be something wrong with blacks there, hm? And if they can’t prepare, why would rich blacks perform better than blacks with medium income? Certainly there’s little to no nutrition or security difference there.

            The fact that black IQs have been rising faster than whites for decades is very clear

            I’d like some proof of that, but only about Africans. Whites sacrificing their wellbeing to gamble on black IQ is unacceptable. If you provide that, I’ll take a look at African-American IQ rise too.

            Remember; the IQ of European white immigrants during the Great Wave was roughly 20 points below average before leveling out to average over the course of the next century.

            It leveled out on literally the next generation. According to “IQ and Immigration Policy, A dissertation presented by Jason Richwine”, the next generation of European immigrants performed better at tests than the native white population. Why didn’t blacks “level out” after generation or two, or three? You’ve dealt a serious blow to your own argument there.

            regarding culture and genetics that I’d rather not get into. As opposed to intelligence and genetics, which is far more clear cut.

            IQ correlates with crime rate. If crime and single mothers are in black culture it’s only more reason to not have anything to do with them.

          • Twilk9

            No, because preparation and availability of preparation both have factors not influenced by intelligence. Cultural factors are also at play here, and arguing about certain deficits in black culture is not something I’m going to get into.

            Why would the african IQ prove anything? I could find information about it, I’m sure, but showing it without growth while african american IQ HAS growth would only show that epigenetic factors and societal factors play the greater part in IQ and intelligence. I’m not sure what your goal is here.

            If you read Jason Richwines dissertation, the only reason he shows that study at all is to provide an example of earlier, poor studies on immigration and IQ. He brings it up only to expose all its biases and failures in method, and ends discussing the study in question with “obviously, science like this should not be emulated.”

          • OMITTED

            I don’t think you understand the point of me mentioning that dissertation. You claimed that it takes time to “close the gap”. Well, it literally doesn’t. Dissertation shows that children of (probably generally poor) European immigrants closed the gap all in one go, and Hispanics with Africans didn’t. Ever. Not even the richest ones.
            That’s the “epigenetic factors” right there, they worked for whites, but Hispanics and Africans have genetics so inferior they probably will never catch up regardless of curcumstances. Don’t look up conclusions somewhere, just look at this here fact.

            Why would the african IQ prove anything? I’m not sure what your goal is here.

            I already said what this is about. It is unacceptable for whites to gamble on black IQ at their own expense. An average black is a $10k yearly net loss on economy of USA, average white is $2.8 yearly net gain. It takes 4 whites to sustain 1 black, who just can’t seem to “catch up” with the help of all that money he didn’t make. This reminds me of how whites didn’t need gibs from anybody to reach their “softcap” on intelligence.

            Cultural factors are also at play here

            Here comes the black “culture” again. If you’re not going to “get into it”, then don’t try to use it as an excuse. Just spell out for me why the richest blacks fail to “prepare” as much as the poorest whites. Is being impervious to education in their culture, perhaps? Or maybe I’m wrong and you’re just “not going to get into it”?

          • Twilk9

            No, because the only parts of the dissertation that mention that data about european immigrants is the study that he quotes in his dissertation. The one that he uses as an early flawed example of iq studies on immigrants, examining the biases and failures of the author. The one that he ends discussing by saying “obviously science of this kind should not be emulated.” And every time he mentions the data from that study he always prefaces it with some form of “while deeply flawed, such and such shows….”

            That still doesnt explain what you’re trying to prove with african iq alone. If african iq is not rising, while african american iq is, it would just support my case that epigenetic and environmental factors influence iq more. If african iq is rising at the same time and rate as african american iq, it would just show that somehow Africans globally underwent some structural change that is making them smarter at a rate not seen before in humans. What are you trying to prove by asking for african iq?

            I sont want to get into culture because culture cant be quantitatively measured. It’s clear to anyone with eyes that there exist deep rooted societal problems in the black community. However, how much of this influences certain aspects of individual black character cannot be known and is all conjecture, which is why I’m not getting into it. Itd be a stupid circular argument with no end.

          • OMITTED

            You are insufferable. I DON’T care what that guy says in his dissertation. I only mentioned it because it had data from multiple relevant studies in it and I couldn’t post links to them because my comment was getting flagged as spam.
            The DATA right there shows that European immigrants had lower test scores than white natives, but their children fully eliminated the difference during the next generation. That’s it, stop quoting random bullshit to me, unless it’s somehow relevant to this data. Your argument about white immigrants having to catch up over a century is a lie. Meanwhile, Blacks and Hispanics never reached that level to this day.

            That still doesnt explain what you’re trying to prove with african iq alone

            I’m trying to prove that Africans are naturally stupid and aren’t evolving on their own, not anymore at least. Pumping money into them still doesn’t allow them to reach intelligence levels of whites. Crime rates, welfare, all that.
            Let me repeat: it is unacceptable for whites to gamble on black IQ at their own expense. I don’t want someone to force the government to spend wealth created by whites on “people” that don’t and won’t make money.
            I don’t want to pay for the niggers. That’s it, that’s my point.

            Let’s just sum up what we talked about so far, what a couple others in this entire Disqus comment section mentioned, only hard facts with data to support them:
            – Africans have poor ability to save money and plan for the future, especially Nigerians who practically lack that ability
            – Africans have 5% smaller relevant brain structures, 10% smaller brains in general
            – Sub-Saharan Africans carry eight genes just on chromsome 13 that are identical to those on the homologous chromosome in chimpanzees, a trait shared by no other human population
            – Africans are the most genetically distant race
            – richest African Americans have test results worse than those of poorest whites
            – richest African Americans commit more crimes than poorest whites
            – rich Africans have lower IQ than the poor whites (I didn’t see you debunk this, data is from “The Bell Curve” book)
            – African Americans are very likely to abandon their families, single mother rate is almost 100% at lower income ranges
            – despite being 29% of the population of USA, blacks and hispanics consume 55% of welfare expenditures
            – average African American is a $10k/year net loss for economy of USA
            – IQ of European immigrants caught up with IQ of white natives with the very next generation, while Blacks never caught up

            Don’t give me your “genetic difference between blacks and whites is the same as the individual difference between you and your third cousin” here, they’re still the most distant race as a whole. I can twist your own argument to say that “all the third cousins of Africans are the most genetically distant from all the third cousins of any other race”. You’re trying to compare apples to oranges. And I reckon most of the 3rd cousins of other races still don’t have the chimp genes.

          • OMITTED

            You are insufferable. I DON’T care what that guy says in his dissertation. I only mentioned it because it had data from multiple relevant studies in it and I couldn’t post links to them because my comment was getting flagged as spam.
            The DATA right there shows that European immigrants had lower test scores than white natives, but their children fully eliminated the difference during the next generation. That’s it, stop quoting random bullshit to me, unless it’s somehow relevant to this data. Your argument about white immigrants having to catch up over a century is a lie. Meanwhile, Blacks and Hispanics never reached that level to this day.

            That still doesnt explain what you’re trying to prove with african iq alone

            I’m trying to prove that Africans are naturally stupid and aren’t evolving on their own, not anymore at least. Pumping money into them still doesn’t allow them to reach intelligence levels of whites. Crime rates, welfare, all that.
            Let me repeat: it is unacceptable for whites to gamble on black IQ at their own expense. I don’t want someone to force the government to spend wealth created by whites on “people” that don’t and won’t make money.
            I don’t want to pay for the blacks. That’s it, that’s my point.

            Let’s just sum up what we talked about so far, what a couple others in this entire Disqus comment section mentioned, only hard facts with data to support them:
            – Africans have poor ability to save money and plan for the future, especially Nigerians who practically lack that ability
            – Africans have 5% smaller relevant brain structures, 10% smaller brains in general
            – Sub-Saharan Africans carry eight genes just on chromsome 13 that are identical to those on the homologous chromosome in chimpanzees, a trait shared by no other human population
            – Africans are the most genetically distant race
            – richest African Americans have test results worse than those of poorest whites
            – richest African Americans commit more crimes than poorest whites
            – rich Africans have lower IQ than the poor whites (I didn’t see you debunk this, data is from “The Bell Curve” book)
            – African Americans are very likely to abandon their families, single mother rate is almost 100% at lower income ranges
            – despite being 29% of the population of USA, blacks and hispanics consume 55% of welfare expenditures
            – average African American is a $10k/year net loss for economy of USA
            – IQ of European immigrants caught up with IQ of white natives with the very next generation, while Blacks never caught up

            Don’t give me your “genetic difference between blacks and whites is the same as the individual difference between you and your third cousin” here, they’re still the most distant race as a whole. I can twist your own argument to say that “all the third cousins of Africans are the most genetically distant from all the third cousins of any other race”. You’re trying to compare apples to oranges. And I reckon most of the 3rd cousins of other races still don’t have the chimp genes.

          • OMITTED

            You are insufferable. I DON’T care what that guy says in his dissertation. I only mentioned it because it had data from multiple relevant studies in it and I couldn’t post links to them because my comment was getting flagged as spam.
            The DATA right there shows that European immigrants had lower test scores than white natives, but their children fully eliminated the difference during the next generation. That’s it, stop quoting random bullshit to me, unless it’s somehow relevant to this data. Your argument about white immigrants having to catch up over a century is a lie, unless you have reliable data to prove that claim. Meanwhile, Blacks and Hispanics never reached that level to this day.

            That still doesnt explain what you’re trying to prove with african iq alone

            I’m trying to prove that Africans are naturally stupid and aren’t evolving on their own, not anymore at least. Pumping money into them still doesn’t allow them to reach intelligence levels of whites. Crime rates, welfare, all that.
            Let me repeat: it is unacceptable for whites to gamble on black IQ at their own expense. I don’t want someone to force the government to spend wealth created by whites on those that don’t and won’t make money.
            I don’t want to pay for the blacks. That’s it, that’s my point.

            Let’s just sum up what we talked about so far, what a couple others in this entire Disqus comment section mentioned, only hard facts with data to support them:
            – Africans have poor ability to save money and plan for the future
            – Africans have 5% smaller relevant brain structures, 10% smaller brains in general
            – Sub-Saharan Africans carry eight genes just on chromsome 13 that are identical to those on the homologous chromosome in chimpanzees, a trait shared by no other human population
            – Africans are the most genetically distant race
            – richest African Americans have test results worse than those of poorest whites
            – richest African Americans commit more crimes than poorest whites
            – rich Africans have lower IQ than the poor whites (I didn’t see you so much as criticize this data from “The Bell Curve” book)
            – African Americans are very likely to abandon their families, single mother rate is almost 100% at lowest income range; overall more than half of black children live with only their mothers
            – despite being 29% of the population of USA, blacks and hispanics consume 55% of welfare expenditures
            – average African American is a $10k/year net loss for economy of USA
            – IQ of European immigrants caught up with IQ of white natives with the very next generation, while Blacks never caught up

            Don’t give me your “genetic difference between blacks and whites is the same as the individual difference between you and your third cousin” here, they’re still the most distant race as a whole. I can twist your own argument to say that “all the third cousins among Africans are the most genetically distant from all the third cousins from any other race”. You’re trying to compare apples to oranges. And I reckon most of the 3rd cousins don’t suddenly gain the chimp genes.

          • Twilk9

            That’s the point. The data about turn of the century immigration, as presented in the paper, comes from one study. And the author uses it sparingly and only really to pick apart its flaws. If you cared so much about the data on european immigration from turn of the century, why would you present it in a paper where the author chiefly discusses all the failures in methodology, biases, and flaws with collecting and analyzing the data you want to present? You are literally making my argument for me.

            “I’m trying to prove that Africans are naturally stupid”

            You would only be showing that africans have lower IQs, in africa. That has no pertinence to what their IQs may be in the states. That’s the point. You wouldn’t be showing a natural predilection to “stupidity.”

            “I can twist your own argument to say that “all the third cousins among Africans are the most genetically distant from all the third cousins from any other race”

            That’s not how genetics work. You are imagining genetics and variation as a line with the ‘races’ at set points on the line. Genetics are not linear. It’s very possible that the african’s third cousins is more genetically similar to a caucasian than another african. That’s how genetics works in humans. It’s not simple. Humans are too closely related, and too much variation comes from individual difference. Only about 5 % or so of genetic variation between people comes from population differences.

            “I don’t want to pay for the blacks. That’s it, that’s my point.”

            Ok, cool. Then you and I aren’t even arguing about the same thing, because I really dont care about your opinion on that. It’s yours. You dont want to pay for that? Ok. Fine. Whatever. I never argued that in the first place.

            Not touching your bullet list, because it’s either all things previously discussed or matters with large cultural influence that I said i wasnt getting into

          • OMITTED

            And the author uses it sparingly and only really to pick apart its flaws.

            Right, and you’re still wrong about the white immigrants having to catch up.

            You are imagining genetics and variation as a line with the ‘races’ at set points on the line.

            I magine them exactly as they are depicted on the image below (cut out from one of the images I posted before). It’s a good enough representation for me because it shows exactly where the races lie in relation to each other, even if the difference isn’t huge.
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/1802cfcc242c6ee6bb8bea653c918a9915207533d561f14cfffb9a3be0084c2b.png

            It’s very possible that the african’s third cousins is more genetically similar to a caucasian than another african.

            And it’s very possible, or even proven to be true, that all African third cousins are the most distant from all the other third cousins on average. Stop talking about extremes, that’s deceitful.
            “Do you have a link to the chromosome 13 study?”
            https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1801145/

            Notice that:
            – aside from chimps, Africans have the most extreme differences from the other populations in every table.
            – aside from chimps, Africans have the greatest average genetic distance from other populations in table 6, followed closely by Oceaneans, which looks really similar to the image I posted

            I can’t make sense of the data in question, though. There’s no verbal explanation of it. It is mentioned that “On the other hand, the SO (African) population shows the lowest average (60.5%) among all the human populations studied. This population has several high-frequency alleles that are not shared by other [human] populations.”. I’m inclined to believe that this implies that many of the alleles not shared with humans are shared with chimpanzees.

          • Twilk9

            “even if the difference isn’t huge.”

            There you go. That’s my whole argument. I dont know why you’ve turned it into me arguing that africans aren’t different. My argument isn’t that they arent different, just not radically so.

            I like your table! That’s a little better. Than the line I thought you had in mind. But again, you are neglecting to mention that these numbers and the dots that represent them are averages, and that individual variation within these dots is large and overlapping. And that these differences between individuals within the dots often exceed the differences between racial groups. Its complex, like I said.

            A couple things you didnt note from that study, as well:

            – the African population sampled is still far FAR closer to the other humans than to chimpanzees by genetic distance.
            -That only 10% of genetic differences found could be attributable purely to population wide differences
            – that 60.5% shows not that the African population shares only 60.5% of its Gene’s with the other human populations, just that they HAVE these alleles in lower proportion than other groups that have them in higher proportions, like 70-85. They have other alleles not shared by the other groups (but not stated to be shared with chimps) which are expressed at high levels which drive this shared number down.

            Thanks for sharing the study.

          • OMITTED

            According to http://evunix.uevora.pt/~fcs/bioh10.pdf , the genetic distance between Africans and Europeans is greater than that between Europeans and Neanderthals, unless I misunderstand something. You’re welcome to look into this, because I’d hate to posess incorrect knowledge about genetic distance from Neanderthals.

          • Twilk9

            Correct, because neanderthals were present and interbreeding with other humans north of the Sahara, particularly in southern europe. Thus, because Neanderthals were still interbreeding with europeans (after europeans had already left africa and settled in Europe) long after sub-saharan africans were still interbreeding with europeans, it stands to reason that europeans would share more genetic similarities with neanderthals.

            But this brings up another point, one that is in contention today. And that is; were neanderthals even really a separate group from homo sapiens, or just another branch of modern humans?

            When neanderthal bones were first discovered, they weren’t even identified as a separate species because they’re so nearly identical to human that everyone assumed they were human. It wasnt until 30 years later these first bones were retroactively categorized.

            We now know that neanderthals also practiced almost all of the same cultural practices that we used to separate them as being non-human, such as making fire, tending to their sick, burying/mourning their dead, creating art and tools, and practicing commerce.

            Current genetic analysis also suggests that the most recent common ancestor between humans and neanderthals may not be the million or so years previously thought, but actually as recent as 200 thousand to 100 thousand, which is less than the blink of an eye, evolutionarily.

            Because of that, theres a lot of debate over whether or not neanderthals were separate species from modern humans at all. Current trends in genetic analysis suggest (and I believe) they were not.

            In fact, that paper you’re quoting was one of the first to posit the idea that neanderthals and humans should be reclassified to the same species.

          • OMITTED

            Isn’t Neanderthal ancestry responsible for the greater brain size of Europeans and Asians then? Average Neanderthal brain size (1410㎤) is greater than the average of brain sizes of all modern human populations (1349㎤).

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/9878ce5a5b46853b8ed9038e241cc11113384c2ec0cece13ff04679834a9e8b5.jpg
            http://syslearn.oregonstate.edu/instruction/anth/smith/TimeMach1984.pdf

            If the brain size difference in modern humans stems from Neanderthal DNA, I’m more liable to reclassify the modern humans instead. Split them into Neanderthal hybrids and the rest.

          • Twilk9

            It’s entirely possible. But again, brain volume only has very weak correlation to intelligence, and has a greater correlation to climate of the area inhabited, as your quoted paper clearly says. It’s well known that increasing volume while reducing surface area (ie larger, rounder objects) increases the capacity for the object to hold heat.

            Classifying humans into separate species based on minor differences in skull shape seems rather arbitrary, no? As opposed to any other metric that varies far more between human populations, such as height or metabolic rate. And again; differences between human populations are so minute that if we didnt consider ourselves “different” from other animals somehow, not only neanderthals would be considered humans as a species but homo erectus and other early humans would be too. Theres just so little variation between human populations.

            Additionally, you are again arguing that brain size has a strong and direct correlation to intelligence and cognition among humans. Based on the very data presented in the article you just quoted, that would mean that Mexicans are smarter than nordic and Germanic peoples. I dont think that’s an argument youd be eager to make, I’m assuming.

          • TRVTH

            “There’s no difference in brain size between racial groups!”

            “Well, actually these studies prove that there are significant differences in cranial volume–”

            “REEEEEE! I admit there’s a difference, but now I deny that it’s important!”

            Spare us.

          • Twilk9

            My points are (and the reason I used that study) that actual brain size, measuring the ACTUAL thinking parts of the brain like the grey matter, white matter etc (and not the water and structural material) is the same.

            I maybe should have clarified, but I wasn’t expecting that people would zoom in on the water content of the brain and ignore the data that showed that actual brain matter is not significantly different.

            And correct. Comparing normal brain variation between individuals (and not averages between races) and their intelligence, these differences are so small that people would be not able to tell the difference. So the whole argument is rested on a moot point anyway. So spare me

          • chrysostomos

            Maybe we should have clarified, the size of the brain matters less than the amount of surface area.

            “The largest race-related differences in cortical thickness were found in lateral parietal cortex.”

            “Using SVR, cortical thickness in the regions that differed in race and Aβ level served as inputs to form biological aging estimates (akin to a “brain age”). When these models were implemented in the matched samples, the biological estimates of age did not differ between either racial groups or Aβ groups. In contrast, when these models were implemented in the unmatched samples, African Americans were deemed biologically older than Non-Hispanic Whites by about 4 years.”

            “While controlling for both verbal IQ and MMSE score numerically reduced the effects of race on the biological age predictions, they remained significant. Therefore, differences in verbal IQ and MMSE cannot entirely explain the race differences in biological age.”

            https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5984571/

            “Furthermore, maternal ethnicity was not an important predictor of global brain volumes in this sample of neonates (Knickmeyer et al. 2016). Associations between maternal ethnicity and CT (cortical thickness) may reflect genetic differences and/or the influences of environmental factors associated with the sociocultural construct of race/ethnicity on the cellular processes described above. Additional studies are needed to determine whether these associations are robust and if they are temporary or represent persistent alterations with functional consequences.”

            https://academic.oup.com/cercor/article/29/3/1139/4840631

            Higher IQ is linked to more democracy, what do you think will happen when whites are completely reduced to a despised minority in the country of their ancestors, that democracy and egalitarianism will flourish?

            http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=8492613&fileId=S1832427400010045

            Also don’t be under any delusion that we’re trying to convince you to change your mind, we know you’re a lost cause. These studies are provided for the open minded that may be reading this.

          • Twilk9

            Your neglected to mention that the blacks sampled with older brain age in your first study also had higher levels of stress hormone like cortisol, which has been shown to increase brain age in all races. All that study shows is that blacks are, as a population, under more stress than whites. Which the study says, clearly. But why would you mention that when it doesn’t fit your agenda?

            As for your second study, I’m not even sure why you brought it up….seeing as their results regarding caucasian and black mothers are quoted as such:

            “Compared to offspring of Caucasian mothers, offspring of African American mothers had thicker cortices in bilateral postcentral gyri, superior parietal lobules, precuneus, and the supramarginal gyri, as well as the right precentral gyrus, insula, inferior parietal lobule, supplementary motor area, and rolandic operculum.”

            In other words, all differences observed where maternal ethnicity was a predictive element showed blacks had LARGER cortices, which is associated positively with intelligence, slightly.

            Higher IQ leads to more democracy, you say? Well, you should be ecstatic to hear that black IQs have been growing faster than white IQs for decades now, closing the iq gap.

            It’s a good thing your goal wasnt to convince me of anything, because you would have done a very bad job of it.

          • chrysostomos

            Irrelevant, you’re desperately grasping trying to find SOME way your biases are still confirmed despite all the evidence suggesting the contrary.

          • Twilk9

            Read my post again, there was no dishonesty. I clearly said that my quote referred to models that found maternal ethnicity was predictive. That’s not all models.

            But tell me, why did you bother bringing up a study that at best, supports my argument that there are no significant genetic racial differences in brain makeup, and at worst, suggests that black children are born smarter than whites?

            And while we’re on the topic of academic dishonesty, you’ve failed to explain why you neglected to mention that the brain age of blacks was different due to stress hormones. In your first study. Remember?

          • Twilk9

            I clearly said in my post that my quote referred to models where maternal ethnicity WAS predictive. That’s not all models, just the ones where race was predictive. And that’s not dishonesty – that’s just your failure to read my post.

            I do wonder why you chose to bring up that study at all. At best, it supports my argument that race has no intrinsic effect on brain makeup. At worst, it suggests that black children are born smarter than whites. Why bring it up?

            But while we’re on the topic of intellectual dishonesty, you’ve still failed to explain why you didnt mention that the increased brain age in your first study was due to stress and stress hormones, rather than genetics. Do you have an explanation?

          • Painting Guardian

            you know, maybe if you actually posted some sources to back up your own claims, like the person you’ve been arguing with for the the entire disquis thread, maybe people here would actually take you seriously, but you still have yet to post a single piece of evidence highlighting that brain size correlates to cognitive ability, or that africans have a demonstrably equal brain capacity to asians, whites, jews etc when literally every single piece of replicable evidence says otherwise.

            If I didn’t know any better, I’d say you were just trying to muddy the waters with bad science based on utopian drivel about everyone being ‘exackly da saym’ when that statement doesn’t even ring true within homogenous racial groups (See ‘The Bell Curve’ for more info on this subject).

          • Twilk9

            “single piece of evidence highlighting that brain size correlates to cognitive ability”

            I wouldn’t post that because I’m making the opposite argument, that brain size only very weakly correlates to cognitive ability. And I didnt have to post THAT evidence because the other guy did, go back and find it and my response if you want. If I didnt know better, I’d say you weren’t even reading the posts and are just trying to muddy the waters.

            “that africans have a demonstrably equal brain capacity to asians, whites, jews etc when literally every single piece of replicable evidence says otherwise.”

            I can show you that black IQs are growing at a rate faster than white IQs, and have been since the 60s (the civil rights movement). As I’ve said, that puts to bed many arguments about population genetics influencing IQ, because the alternative explanation is that blacks have suddenly en masse developed a genetic mutation making them learn and grow iq faster than whites. For more info on this phenomenon, see “The Bell Curve.”

            Oh, you didnt read that part? Just the parts that supported your beliefs? Then you must have also missed the part where the authors clearly state that the question of how much race genetically influenced race is “unresolved.”

          • TRVTH

            You know, there are a number of possible explanations for several phenomena whose existence are universally acknowledged, like the Negro’s joyful proclivity to mayhem and crime, sloth, and wretched performance on any and all tests of intelligence yet devised. Those who point to biological explanations have physical evidence on their side–cranial capacity as much as 15-20% smaller depending on populations being measured, the MAO-A gene for violent psychopathy being the norm in Negroid populations, and so on. None of this contradicts facts that were common knowledge long known in 1850.

            People like the person with whom you are trying to reason invoke magic, coincidence, and conspiracy theories instead. It’s “institutional racism,” which has never been anything but a conspiracy theory. It’s “a moot point.” It’s “but but but but there was this one black guy who was smart so neener neener that changes everything and you have to go back to the drawing board.” It’s “but that study was flawed because it didn’t control for cultural differences,” never mind that culture is downstream of biology. It’s “but the Negro’s genes are over 90% identical to a White man’s,” never mind that White men share over 95% of their genetic material with chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans–red herrings, in other words.

            Occam’s Razor strongly implies that one of you is standing on a much firmer foundation, epistemologically speaking, than the other. On the one hand, we have facts already known and nearly universally accepted. On the other, conspiracy theories, pilpul and casuistry. But that too is to be expected, I suppose.

          • Twilk9

            Cant help but wonder why you love to post arguments against me to other people. Are you scared?

            Go on then. If you’ve got something to say, say it.

            Maybe you can actually answer me directly instead of deflecting for once. Got something to say about MAO-A? Or cranial capacity? Then by all means, since you’ve abandoned all other arguments.

          • TRVTH

            He’s not pretending.

          • Twilk9

            Nothing challenges scientific evidence better than video game references

          • AWACS SkyEye

            Patrolling Stonetoss comment sections after leftists have another collective tantrum almost makes you wish for a nuclear winter.

          • Twilk9

            It’s a good thing I’m not a leftist, then.

          • AWACS SkyEye

            If it bitches like a leftist, pilpuls like a leftist, and gets emotional like a leftist, it’s a leftist.

          • Twilk9

            Really. The one going around only making insults and hoping for a nuclear winter without any actual argument is the being of reason and logic…

            ….while the one making actual arguments founded on evidence is the emotional whiny one.

            Got it.

          • AWACS SkyEye

            God you sound like a stereotypical MAGApede redditor, but a leftist instead.

          • Twilk9

            Then by all means, show me where I’m wrong. If I’m such an illogical emotional guy. Nothing’s stopping you.

          • TRVTH

            He’s talking about the Berbers, a Caucasian people living in North Africa, very closely related, culturally, linguistically, and genetically to Bedouins, but wording it to make it sound like a claim that there is scientific documentation that Bantu and Masai are genetically indistinguishable from Norwegians and Irishmen.

            In other words, this is just more of the usual pilpul and casuistry.

            Oh. Was someone curious about the actual science?

            Sub-Saharan Africans carry eight genes just on chromsome 13 that are identical to the homologous genes carried by chimpanzees, a trait shared by no other human population. Documented and printed in a peer-reviewed publication: Deka et al., Am. J. Human Genetics 56, pgs. 461-474, 1995.

          • Twilk9

            No, I meant sub saharan africans. I can speak for myself, thanks.

            Oh, were you interested in actually reading the article you’re quoting and not just making up what it said?

            Because that Deka et al article clearly states/shows that the african population sampled was MUCH closer to the other humans than to chimpanzees, and that only 10% of the genetic differences found among all sampled humans could be attributable to racial differences.

          • TRVTH

            Remember, class–“race is a social construct” is the Official Truth Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays. Tuesdays, Thursdays, and weekends it’s “White men are a special kind of evil and deserve to be exterminated, replaced, and erased from history by stunted little brown IQ-55 goblins demonstrably incapable of civilization.” We have always been at war with Eastasia.

          • Twilk9

            lol cute. So I guess you’re abandoning an argument altogether, then. I guess you weren’t curious about the actual science after all!

            Well, when you decide you want to discuss what your paper ACTUALLY said instead of laughing at your own jokes and putting words in my mouth, let me know

          • TRVTH

            Put words in your mouth? Nonsense. No one can get anything into your mouth until your pimp removes his cock.

          • Twilk9

            I take it that’s a no then. We’re sticking to deflection and insults, and not talking about your paper.

            Ok

          • OMITTED

            and in fact many europeans and blacks have sequences closer to each other than those within their own race

            It’s too bad statistics don’t work like that. Africans as a whole are distant from the general human population.
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/a3d59ac575bf4a930ae89d2f50d6e39863d6a37825b183e483f315dfc452bb75.png https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/90c65ce3c61a30cedfd1e224daf38b9a015ec96006fb7aca6b03d8e1c1b717e1.png
            And everyone knows they’re savage, smelly, dumb criminals.

          • Twilk9

            Well, at least you’re getting closer to facts than the other guy.

            Unfortunately the paper you’re quoting examined ONLY SNPs, which are the individual allele differences between individuals. In other words; that table is charting only a random sample of the genetic differences between humans, and ignoring (for the purposes of the study) the 99+% of the genome between races that is exactly the same.

            If you look at data that compares WHOLE genomes, you’ll find that all humans are within a fraction of a percent of each other, while chimps are more than a whole percent away.

            And correct, statistically blacks and caucasians are more similar to their own race. But genetics is so complicated that frequently you find Africans whose genetic code is more similar to europeans than other Africans, and vice versa.

          • OMITTED

            Fraction of a percent difference is huge. Enough to create a permanent development rift between Africa and Europe. Or to make a sertain fraction of a population commit most of the crimes in that country.

          • Twilk9

            Dont tell that to your parents, who also are a fraction of a percent different from you.

          • OMITTED

            They’re less different from me than niggers.

          • free_peach

            We got ourselves a wild pokemon here. Don’t humans share approximately 99.5% of its DNA with everything else and the differences that make us what we are are concentrated in a very particular place in this chain? I mean, saying we share 99% of DNA between races isn’t that important is it? The devil is in the details.

          • Twilk9

            No, actually. I have no idea where you got that we share 99.5% of our genome with everything else.

          • free_peach

            Humans share genes with many organisms, for instance, we share about 98 percent of our human genes with chimpanzees, 92 percent with furry mice, and 44 percent with fruit flies(look it up I’m not your personal PDA). What I’m saying is that the evidence you used to support your argument, that the amount of shared DNA between races is insignificant¹, instead does quite the contrary, invalidates it. Because we share a lot of DNA with almost everything on Earth, I think plants share 15% of our DNA. The amount of shared DNA between the races doesn’t really mean that there isn’t significant differences.

            Of the great apes, humans share 98.8 percent of their DNA with bonobos and chimpanzees, but this is everything, why? Because 97% of DNA is junk and its purpose is unknown. 0.1% can mean everything, because the amount of information not yet decoded into this tiny fraction holds an insurmountable amount of information. I think it is around 20.000 genes!? So, when you say there is only 0.1% difference in DNA between the races as something that can be brushed off, no it can’t. Again 97% of DNA are just evolutionary dead ends, switched off genes.

            1: you’ll find that all humans are within a fraction of a percent of each other, while chimps are more than a whole percent away.

            Some of my considerations can be found here:
            http://thehumangenome.co.uk/THE_HUMAN_GENOME/Primer.html

          • Twilk9

            Lol. So the guy who 12 hours ago didn’t know that humans had major genetic differences from other living things is now the expert who’s telling me not to come to him for details on genetics?

            I’ll tell ya what, bud. I am 100% sure I will never come to you if I wanted to know more about genetics.

            And yes, I would say that the fraction of a percent that marks average differences in races can be brushed off, considering that that percent difference is roughly the same as the difference between you and your third or fourth cousin.

            Plus, the fact that caucasians can produce fertile offspring with blacks is pretty significant evidence that the difference is not significant. By definition, genetically different species are not able to produce fertile offspring.

            But go look it up. I’m not your personal pda lol

          • free_peach

            Woah! Stop right there miss(I’m assuming your gender and I could care less). Just because you are able to insult doesn’t mean you did refute. Enjoy being butthurt, it doesn’t affect me as far as I know.

            Again, I cited the source, you just need to click on it. BTW, we do share some DNA, but not to the extent you alleged. I’m not seeing any sources on your comment regarding my considerations. I will take yourself as source “And yes, I would say that…” Sorry it just doesn’t work that way. Just an attempt to insult on all the rest, but I refuse to be offended.

            LOL, you just made my day as I was reading your comment. I’m holding the urge to not insult you after this one. I want to remind you that female horses and male donkeys can produce mules and they even have different numbers of chromosomes, which means much more DNA information on the side. Just because it can produce offspring, doesn’t mean they produce ideal genetic improvement, unless you mean a race of literal donkeys is an improvement. I Can’t believe I had to actually cite this one. LMAO!

            I’m not even racist, I’m a rather racialist as far as I’m concerned. I’m not against mixed race couples, as long as there is consent by both parties. But please, stop making half-assed assertions just to look cool.

          • Twilk9

            Read my post again, professor. I said produce FERTILE offspring. Mules are sterile.

            And since apparently I am going to HAVE to be your PDA and explain genetics to you – You can slap a lot of two random species together and get offspring (zebras and horses, tigers and lions) but only individuals that are of the same genetic species with low genetic variation can produce FERTILE offspring, which is a world of difference, because it indicates that their chromosomes are SO homologous that they can safely and consistently complete gene transfer during meiosis.

            Lol really resisting the urge to insult you after that one

            And I never disputed anything you said about conserved and junk DNA, because that’s fact and I know it. But here’s an easy to read source on genetic differences between family members. This one found that third cousins can be different by about 0.8%.
            https://owston.wordpress.com/2015/08/10/an-analysis-of-fourth-cousins-and-other-near-distant

            Of course, theres dozens of other papers that all find roughly the same thing if you dont like that one. But Google them yourself cause I’m trying hard not to be your pda again here.

            Really, all you’re doing is convincing me even more not to ever come to you if I want to learn more about genetics. If that was your goal, kudos. You succeeded wildly.

          • free_peach

            Regarding the percentage, I thought it was a settled matter, because even when it is 0.1% it would mean the whole world because we don’t know nothing about those 20 thousand genes and how they act in our genome as a whole, zero knowledge.

            Again, interbreeding species are possible and indeed happens, I know. Producing or not fertile offspring should be held as a standard? It is a clear case of I can, but should I? I should, but can I? What is the purpose of it? Even if mules were fertile, would you want to replace horses by mules and erase horses because they “excel at carrying weight”? We still are in the open regarding this because the human genome is a big question mark. Anyway, I appreciate you pointing out, I still think that holding fertile offspring as parameter for interbreeding species is ludicrous. Assuming we are really doing it when we are talking about humans, because we still don’t know what the quack we are doing. Also have in mind race preferences when they are selecting mates. I’m sure you are well aware of how that selection goes.

          • Twilk9

            Lol theres no question of “can i, should i” because the mere fact that it’s POSSIBLE indicates that the races are almost genetically identical. As you so astutely said, horses and donkeys differ enough that their chromosomes cannot consistently and successfully exchange alleles during meiosis. Humans of all races can. All this talk about “replacement” is just distraction from that fact.

            And again, fortunately, we DO know what these differences in the genomic sequence between races and family members are. In fact, we’ve named them; they’re called SNPs, and analyzing them is how research sites like Ancestry can tell you what your risk for cancer is based on your genetics, what height you’ll grow to, etc.

            So yes, we do know about these variations and what they cause. We’ve actually marketed and put a price tag on telling you what YOUR specific SNP differences say about you. Just visit 23andMe or Ancestry or any other site like that. But do it yourself – after all, I’m not your pda. Hahaha

          • free_peach

            I know, just by the way you talk, you might feel so superior by “taking all the men” by yourself and pretending governments and big corporations who fund everything we know is wrong in this world, have the best intents in their hearts and just want us to enjoy its benefits. Bringing slaves to America was great and mixing everything up is so good. There is no ethnic cleansing, whites can’t suffer from racism, migrant crisis is just cry wolf, there is no agenda behind it. We will all benefit from having lower ages, no social cohesion and spiking rates of crime. There is a lot of women in Sweden like you, we all know what happens in the end. Let’s hope they all had enough time before they meet their destiny.

          • Twilk9

            Hahaha now you’re just completely abandoning all pretenses and putting words in my mouth and attacking me based on the things you made me say. As a matter of fact I’m very opposed to government, mega-corporations, and the media. But I really dont have to justify myself to you.

            What’s particularly funny is that YOU are the one who started making this personal. And everything I’ve said that can be construed as insulting or offensive are words YOU said that I’ve just turned around and used against you.

            Guess you can dish out, but not take it, huh? For someone who tried very hard to say he wasnt offended many times, you sure are acting like it.

            Anyway, have fun with genetics lol

          • free_peach

            Attacking, how is clicking reply and typing words with a keyboard attacking you. I didn’t even used offenses at you. I really don’t know what you’re talking about. It is your whole smug attitude that is all over the place and practically replying to every single comment in this cartoon panel. Thanks anyway.

          • Twilk9

            Smug? Lol smug, says the guy who started this whole convo by calling me a wild pokemon, whatever the hel l that means. And then acted like the expert who couldnt be bothered to explain things to me, called my CORRECT comparison the dumbass one, assumes I’m a woman because he thinks somehow that will insult me, signs off with dumb catchphrases that he thinks are football spikes, etc….

            …And then completely falls apart and starts the strawmans and insults in force when his entire argument is proven wrong and someone dares to fling a little of his own medicine back at him. It’s hilarious, really. Cute, even.

            Thanks for the laugh, bud. Again, glad you got some intro to genetics

          • free_peach

            I’m not even reading your comments. Reply away.

          • Twilk9

            Hahahahaha of course you aren’t. What a ride

          • chrysostomos

            I don’t think anyone is seriously reading your subsequent comments, you’re deranged. We can’t blame you really, your entire worldview is built on fallacy upon fallacy.

          • Twilk9

            Setting aside that YOU quite obviously are reading my comments…

            Falllacy? Rich, coming from the guy who posted two studies earlier: one that supported my case without him realizing, and another whose results he blatantly lied about to suit his agenda. Remember that?

            Now, if theres any fallacies in this argument, please point them out with evidence instead of just sitting there and crying “fallacy” and whining

          • chrysostomos

            Shut the fü ck up you low IQ piece of sh ït retarded nï gg er. Read the study again, it doesn’t back you up. Obviously if you have the reading comprehension of a worthless criminal everything backs up your position.

          • Twilk9

            The part of the study YOU YOURSELF quoted said:

            “Furthermore, maternal ethnicity was not an important predictor of global brain volumes in this sample of neonates.”

            In other words, race and ethnicity of the mother had no significant impact on what the brain size of the child. That is clear cut. And YOU posted it, for some reason.

            And then when I brought up that certain controlled models in that study showed that africans had slight increases in brain size, you again repeated that there was no significant racial predictor in the full models.

            So if you CLEARLY making the case that race has no effect on brain size is somehow not supporting me, please. Explain why. You have my attention.

          • TRVTH

            Snowflake needs her SAFE SPACE because words are exactly the same as literal physical violence. They can’t argue the facts so when they are told that they’re wrong, they complain about their feelz and try to censor you. This is straight out of the SJW playbook.

            She’s entitled to her own opinion. She’s not entitled to her own facts. Words mean things. She’s retarded.

          • Twilk9

            Semantics, the favorite argument of people who dont want to talk facts.

            If you’ve got a problem with my evidence, then please disprove and argue that instead of picking apart my word choice.

          • TRVTH

            You don’t have evidence. You have opinions that are not borne out by reality and an unwillingness to change them. You’re just another NPC, in other words.

          • Twilk9

            Well, since you apparently haven’t been actually paying attention to the sources and papers mentioned in this thread:

            https://owston.wordpress.com/2015/08/10/an-analysis-of-fourth-cousins-and-other-near-distant-relatives/

            This one’s a study showing that the average difference in genome between third cousins is about 0.8%, roughly the same as the average difference between races. Because individual genetic variation is far more drastic than racial variation.

            https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1801145/?page=2

            This one’s yours! The one you said showed that Africans had 8 genes alone on Chromosome 13 that they shared with chimps. Just so you know, the study doesn’t say that at all and I’m not sure where you got that from. What it DOES say is that Africans are far far closer genetically to other humans than chimps, and that only 10% of genetic variation sampled was due to racial differences.

            https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7668280

            This one, like yours, shows that there is more genetic variation WITHIN a population group than between groups.

            And then of course there’s the fact that humans of all races can consistently produce fertile offspring, which indicates near identical genomes. I won’t source this one because it’s pretty much common knowledge, but I could if you wanted.

            There’s more sources than this in the thread, but here’s the essentials on facts and evidence. Now that you’ve got it, will you continue to argue semantics?

          • TRVTH

            Dogs, dingoes, wolves, coyotes, and certain populations of jackals can all interbreed, yet are all currently held to be taxonomically different species due to differences in morphology, behavior, and geographical origin. They are all genetically far more similar than humans and Negroes–especially when you discount legacy “junk DNA” and count only the functional portions of the chromosomes that carry actual genes.

            Were it not for the lucrative political dividends that come from anthropomorphizing them and pouring out unceasing trillions of dollars of tax money extorted at the point of a bayonet from working-class White taxpayers, there is little doubt that the Negro would be classified as a different species, perhaps even sharing the Pan genus with chimpanzees.

            Also,

            >claims sub-Saharan Africans are human because of her programming
            >denounces scientific evidence to the contrary because of her programming
            >calls others “NPC”

            It must be a new feature, I suppose.

          • Twilk9

            (Nobody tell him that dingoes, dogs, and wolves are all the same species. It’ll be a suprise)

            Also, once again, I must tell you that they must produce CONSISTENTLY FERTILE offspring. Coydogs are far more sterile and reproductively unviable than plain dogs, by a LONG measure, and the lines that can cant reproduce at all past a couple generations.

            “>denounces scientific evidence to the contrary because of her programming”

            Lol what evidence? You’ve brought forth ONE piece of evidence, and that was your paper about chromosome 13 who’s results you made up. Remember, the one that actually showed that africans are much much closer to other humans than chimps? The one that showed only 10% of genetic variation they saw was due to race?

            So come on, show us your other evidence. Otherwise you just “have opinions that are not borne out by reality.”

          • TRVTH

            Wikipedia lists those canids as separate species, so I don’t know what your point is.

            Also, how’d all those ‘groids get all those monkey genes? Why are they genetically so similar to apes?

            >hurr durr deflection and name-calling

            Projection much?

          • Twilk9

            Setting aside that you’re trusting Wikipedia with your info, Wikipedia DOES list them as the same species. They are all designated as Canis lupus. Canis is the genus, lupus is the species. The trinomial designators that you see (ie Canis lupus familiaris, Canis lupus lupus, Canis lupus dingo) are just the way people taxonomically identify different populations within the same species.

            And blacks are not genetically so similar to apes; only barely more so than every other human. As the study you brought up so clearly says, blacks are much more similar (almost identical) to the other human populations than they are to chimps. Did you read that part? You still haven’t answered.

            Besides, if your point is that people who are furthest from Chimps are somehow more “advanced,” then based on the data you supplied, Europeans would be the middle of the pack. After all, the South American population, Native American population, and Pacific Islander population were all further away from Chimps than the German population was. Are you admitting that they are more advanced than Germanic peoples, since Germans are closer to chimps? I look forward to your non-reply.

            >hurr durr projection much

            lol it’s not projection. I told you what your paper actually said and you reply with two straight posts of nothing but hilarious jokes and insults. Still waiting for your response to the contents of that paper, by the way. I give you a summary of sourced articles and evidence, you ignore almost all of it and zero in on the bit about breeding while ignoring everything else.

            If you’re not deflecting, tell me what you thought of the other sourced evidence i brought up. Instead of ignoring it. And then submit evidence other than your one article.

          • TRVTH

            >argues that Negroes are human
            Have you ever left your mom’s basement?

            Maybe your parents are sweating blood so that you can live in an all-White neighborhood. Maybe you’re from a sheltered background.

            The rest of us see and deal with TNB all day every day.

            We all know the truth. You know it too. But you keep spouting pilpul as a form of virtue-signaling. Or maybe you just have Stockholm Syndrome.
            NPC, indeed.

          • Twilk9

            THERE’S the non-reply I was expecting. Another perfect blend of funny witty insults and jokes that really hurt my poor little feelings.

            Man, you REALLY dont want to talk about the science and evidence in this argument, do you? Not even the evidence and science you yourself brought up.
            This whole argument started, and continued to be about, the genetic status of african people and their relationship to broader human genomics

            Remember. All the evidence I’ve presented is right there for you to click on and read. Even your own article. But you’re REALLY trying hard to not talk about that and instead about what you feel is right with youtube videos, even though it has nothing to do with genetic structure.

            As a wise man once said: “You have opinions that are not borne out by reality and an unwillingness to change them.” -TRVTH, 2020

          • TRVTH

            IQ tests showing that Negroids are of demonstrably and measurably inferior intelligence aren’t science or evidence to you. Anatomical testing showing that Negroids have measurably significantly smaller brains aren’t science or evidence to you. Genetic tests showing that Negroids are closely related to chimpanzees aren’t science or evidence to you. Statistics on violent crime aren’t science or evidence to you. Rampant TNB right outside your window isn’t real or truthful to you.

            Right.

            How much is George Soros paying the NPCs to post here, anyway? I’m just curious.

          • Twilk9

            If you would actually read the posts, click the links, and pay attention, I wouldn’t have to do this:

            – IQ tests that show lower on-average IQs for blacks ALSO show that their IQs have been growing at a rate faster than whites for several decades now, closing the iq gap. If you accept that black iq is due to genetics, do you accept that somehow they have all en masse become genetically more intellectually capable and able to learn than whites?

            -Tests measuring the actual thinking parts of the brain (and not water content/structural portions) show no significant difference between blacks and whites. And depsite that, if you claim that gross cranial capacity is a metric of intelligence, as the other guy did, then you must also accept that Mexicans are more intelligent than nordic and Germanic people. Do you?

            – I cant believe I have to say this yet again, but blacks are STILL much much closer to other humans than they are to chimps. Nothing has changed since the last time you posted. They are only barely closer to chimps than other human populations. And if you claim that genetic closeness to chimps is indicative of primitiveness, than you must also accept that germans are more primitive than Latinos, based on your data. Do you?

            That’s how an argument and discussion works. You present evidence, then I present evidence and refute it, then you again. It’s not I present evidence, then you ignore it and make great jokes and claim i never presented it in the first place.

            Until you answer the three questions i asked, all you’re doing is ignoring my counter points and deflecting. Keep on making your jokes.

          • TRVTH

            You’re just sealioning now, NPC.

          • Twilk9

            Lol if that makes you feel more secure about your ungrounded beliefs about genetics

            Wouldn’t wouldn’t to keep pressing for an answer if youd just stop deflecting and address my points.

            When you feel like responding to my actual argument and counterpoints to your points, feel free to actually respond

          • TRVTH

            Why do Negroes have such low IQs, if it isn’t genetic? Why are they so violent and lazy, if it isn’t genetic? Why has this not changed in centuries? Why could anyone who’d had contact with them been able to tell you the exact same things two hundred years ago? It’s in the blood. They’re not really human.

            They never invented the wheel, never created a written language, never wove cloth or domesticated an animal until the Arabs showed them how, they never put one stone on top of another stone without an Arab or a white man holding a whip to force them to do it. How do you explain this, without vast genetic differences? Remember all those chimp genes they have been proven to carry?

            Of course, you’re just another NPC, here to spread the pilpul, and when people here don’t eat it up with a spoon, you fall back on your scripted responses.

          • Twilk9

            And you’re just another person trying to claim his opinions and feelings are fact, even though all empirical scientific evidence says you are wrong, and that they are human.

            Again, if you assert that being a human with more Gene’s homologous to chimps means you are more primitive, then you are ALSO asserting that Germans are more primitive than Mexicans.

            Cant wait for you to reach that part of your argument.

          • TRVTH

            I don’t believe you. Nothing in sociology, anthropology, or psychology post-WWII is anything but pseudoscience that (((they))) created for their own political ends.

          • Twilk9

            Lol so including your own article you presented, that you were so excited about?

            You didnt think it was pseudoscience then. You were so excited to show off that article, dated to WELL after ww2.

            You only started saying it was fake when you realized the science didnt back up your opinions and feelings. The science YOU presented.

            It CANT be that your opinions and feelings are wrong – no, it must be that all the science is wrong and you are right, right?

            “You have opinions that are not borne out by reality and an unwillingness to change them.” – TRVTH, 2020

          • TRVTH

            Why do you want savage Negroes allowed to run free to murder White children?

          • Twilk9

            So is that a yes or a no about your article being pseudoscience? Hahaha

            What do my beliefs about race, sociologically, have to do with anything? I’ve never mentioned what they are. They’re irrelevant.

            What’s being debated here is objective scientific data, and you people trying to twist it to say what you want it to say.

            And then claiming it’s fake when you find out it says things you DONT want it to say.

            I’m only arguing against your twisted perceptions of what science says. I dont care what your feelings and opinions are.

          • TRVTH

            The article on genetics, NPC? Reading is fundamental.

          • Twilk9

            Couldnt have said it better myself. Reading IS fundamental.

            Because see, if you’d READ the article you presented, you would have seen that:

            – Africans are genetically grouped with the other humans
            – they found only 10% of all genetic variation between humans was due to racial differences
            – germans are closer to chimps than latinos, native americans, and pacific islanders
            – what you said about 8 genes on chromosome 13 was never mentioned.

            So, either you didnt read the article, you DID read it but didnt understand it, or you were openly blatantly lying about what the article said.

            Which is it?

          • TRVTH

            Not an anthropology article. Article on genetics. Real science, not pseudoscience. But keep blurting out pilpul, NPC.

          • Twilk9

            Lol. I’ll just put this here, from my last post:

            “(Looking forward to you trying to claim it’s not anthropology, while ignoring the rest of this post and the question)”

            The most predictable of the predictable. Focus only on the semantics because you cant argue anything else.

            You cant even argue the semantics, too. What do you think anthropology is?

            It’s the study of man. Go to any university, and “human genetics” will be part of the anthropology curriculum. Read any published anthropology journal and you’ll find scads of genetics paper.

            Your Deka guy, the author of the paper you completely didnt understand? Guess the name of the other journal he published his genetic work under? “Anthropology.”

            But what do they all know, right? After all if TRVTH, internet commentator, feels it’s not anthropology, then it must not be.

            Now, maybe we can quit semantics and you can answer my question from my last post?

          • TRVTH

            Anthropology isn’t genetics. Genetics isn’t anthropology. The American Journal of Human Genetics is a scholarly journal pertaining to genetics, not anthropology. You don’t get to have your own list of definitions that apply only to you, tard. Words mean things.

            Keep on backpedaling, though. Keep bleating. Keep trying to show up those wascally wacists. Keep telling yourself what kind of an epic story you’ll have to tell to all the other tards on Tumblr.

          • TRVTH

            Anthropology isn’t genetics. Genetics isn’t anthropology. The American Journal of Human Genetics is a scholarly journal pertaining to genetics, not anthropology. It’s right there in the title. You don’t get to have your own list of definitions that apply only to you, tard. Words mean things, tard.

            Keep on backpedaling, though. Keep bleating out that pilpul that was ladled into the top of your head from the televitz. Keep trying to show up those wascally wacists. Keep telling yourself what kind of an epic story you’ll have to tell to all the other tards on Tumblr.

          • Twilk9

            I didnt say they were the same. But human genetics is a function of anthropology. Studying human Genetics is still anthropology, same as studying a dogs Genes is still zoology. And like I said; if that were the case, Anthropology would not have published Deka’s research, or any other of their human genetics redearch.

            So i take it this means you’re not going to answer my question? Lol

            We’re just gonna keep arguing semantics? All i did was give you a yes or no question about your very own paper, and two posts later, you STILL wont just give a response.

            More deflection, i guess. And accusations of backpedaling. Tell me. Where have i backpedaled?

          • chrysostomos

            Normal people subconsciously view miscegenation with the same disgust as bestiality:

            https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022103116300555

            There’s a new definition of speciation that doesn’t involve “ability to produce fertile offspring”, this one simply uses genes to determine where one species ends and another begins:

            http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1644/06-MAMM-F-038R2.1

            Once again you’re on the losing side of reality.

          • Twilk9

            Lol, and straight women are subconsciously aroused by lesbian porn and homophobic men are subconsciously aroused by gay porn. All been shown in studies.

            If we started making a world where subconscious attitudes about sex were the law, the world would be ridiculous. Theres a reason it’s the SUBconscious.

            And buddy, if I had a nickel for every time “they” changed the definition of speciation, I’d be a millionaire in a week. Which is why I left it out of my argument; I was speaking only to the genetic similarity of two groups, rather than their species status.

            Like i said; the average genetic difference between blacks and whites is the same as the individual difference between you and your third cousin. Do you consider your third cousin to be subhuman?

          • chrysostomos

            the average genetic difference between blacks and whites is the same as the individual difference between you and your third cousin. Do you consider your third cousin to be subhuman?

            No it isn’t. That’s completely and utterly wrong. Only a fü çking nïg gër would be so desperate for something so patently false to be true.

          • Twilk9

            Lol its not wrong, anyone can look it up if they wanted. In this thread I posted a study showing that the difference between third cousins is roughly 0.8%, about the average difference between races. Click the link yourself if you dont believe me.

            But here’s another study:
            https://science.sciencemag.org/content/298/5602/2381
            This one shows that about 95% of all genetic variation in humans is due to differences between individuals, ie, differences due to being born to different parents. Only a measly 5% (about 1/20th that of the individual differences) is due to race and population difference.

            Now, I’m still waiting for you to provide some evidence and arguments against all these “fallacies” you keep apparently finding

          • You are Not a Victim

            The fact that you didn’t delete all of these comments in embarrassment and humiliation is enough to convince me that you’re trolling and merely pretending to be retarded.

          • Twilk9

            The fact that that’s all you can say is enough to convince me that you don’t have anything to actually contribute, and have no evidence to refute what I’ve said.

            Do you? Or is it just “not worth the time”

          • AWACS SkyEye

            Nothing challenges scientific evidence better than epic twitch meemees.

          • Twilk9

            I’m assuming you’re talking about the “rest in peace pepperoni,” since I’ve never heard the phrase before and over never been on twitch.

            That was something he said at the end of an earlier post of his. I was just repeating it back to him because it’s ridiculous.

            Although I’m touched by the implication that youre only reading my posts

          • AWACS SkyEye

            Don’t break an arm jacking yourself off, there.

          • Twilk9

            Then don’t strain your neck trying to watch.

          • AWACS SkyEye

            I’m trying, but goddamn if you don’t keep popping up with your r/atheism-tier facade of smugness.

          • Twilk9

            And yet here you are. Reading every post, faithfully. No ones making you.

            Where I come from, that might give a boy ideas

          • TRVTH

            It’s obvious and undeniable to anybody who’s ever had to deal in person with real live specimens of H. Africansis.

            Of course, if you’re eleven years old and your parents are sweating blood to send you to a private school to protect you from “cultural enrichment,” and you have too much free time to follow Internet trends, it’s understandable–not to be condoned, but understandable–that you might spend too much time on Tumblr and decide that “raycisms” is the worst thing EVAR and gird your loins to do battle with people who are LITERALLY HITLAR, so that you can pat yourself on the back and virtue-signal about what a good person you are.

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/562cc5d93215cbfe3b98852a4b5c88c37b768741fd8da748b9f1acb819fe7447.jpg

            VERITAS MAGNVS EST ET PREVALAEBIT

            The truth is mighty and it shall prevail. The universe doesn’t care about his insistence that two and two make five.

          • Riverreed Ward

            We have an expression in South Africa. “Give a white man a pile of bricks, and he will make a city. Give a black man a city, he will make a pile of bricks”

          • epicskoobi

            yeah idk about that broski i’ve hung out with a few “h africansis” before and they seemed pretty coolio to me

            i dunno dude i dunno something tells me this isn’t quite right

          • TRVTH

            Quiet, NPC. Grown-ups are talking.

          • epicskoobi

            lmao aight then

          • Paul Genovese

            Wow, never tough I would see a full blown KKK member here

            huh…..oh well, the left has its feminists, as the right has….you

          • Logshaman

            There is more to it than that.

            Remember, the African American minority devolved from fighting for their right to sit on the bus to what the situation is now because the left has succeeded in controlling them with Planned Parenthood and the loan processes, they have literally created the culture of a Black man leaving his wife when she breaks the news that she is pregnant.

      • That whole paragraph should be highlighted.

      • Riverreed Ward

        I’m South African. Can confirm, they see gift giving as weakness.

    • Albionic American

      Blacks seem to have crossed a cognitive threshold where they can understand and use money, but they still fall below another cognitive threshold they need to understand frugality, saving and other aspects of good personal finance.

  • iuyyyyui

    Well … there is a thing called “reverse discrimination“. But to notice there is also a thing called “reverse Santa“, and that he’s very (umm) diverse … well! Looks like someone is soon going to get arrested for noticing!

  • bitch

    impeach trump gay and trans rights

  • gay rights

    black lives matter

  • iamgay

    Cops are pigs, pride month is every month

    • “The faggot is in the closet or in your face.”

  • cops are pigs

    Bash the fash

    • A G

      Don’t have anything better to do?

    • slither16

      Antifa are more cops.

  • blm

    spread love not hate

  • Oi Polloi

    pebble head and his gang of eggs are the biggest waste of carbon

  • soop time

    eat ass

  • ooga booga

    suck my shlong

  • moss

    bet yall sniffed glue if these the take you think are hot

    • TRVTH

      I’m sorry, could you please repeat that in English?

    • ssgtnelson

      What?

  • Albionic American

    I encounter blacks all the time who travel with maxed out debit cards or credit cards. These cards decline for a mere $50 hold for incidentals when they try to check in at the hotel.

    So from hindsight President Roosevelt probably did America’s blacks a favor when he instituted redlining to keep blacks from borrowing money to buy real estate that they lack the cognitive ability to repay.

  • Albionic American

    An empirical study of time preference a few years ago found that Nigerians, the source population for the ancestors of much of America’s black population, just have no ability to save money and plan for the future:

    Quantifying Future Time Orientation

    https://akarlin.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/future-time-orientation-by-country.png

    • MrChaosAdam

      I’m sorry, could you tell me what this means?

      • Dudey Mopster

        Percentage of people who planned the future and were patient for an outcome during a study.

    • This supports my argument that we Italians shouldn’t be lumped as white and should get our affirmative action and reparations.
      Kappa

  • Bruno

    Ri pra caralho dessa, muito bom, gringo.

  • Blackbeard

    Haha good one! Merry Christmas everybody!

  • CEO of Autism

    B A S E D

  • Ghadius

    Nigga stole my bike

  • Major Matt Mason

    Old Saint Nicked!

  • epicskoobi

    it’s so genuinely bizarre, everyone here in the comments is just so far removed from reality it’s actually kind of funny

    • ssgtnelson

      Are you saying Santa isn’t real?

  • Un Capullo

    This is a very sweet comic when readed in Japan.

  • barnyard

    SHEEEIIITTT

Primary Sidebar