Topic: This trans mother goes out on the town with her daughter.
Anonymous A started this discussion 2 weeks ago #133,256
She says no one can tell them apart and confuse them for sisters. AmazingAnonymous B joined in and replied with this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later[^] [v] #1,420,481
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 2 weeks ago, 6 minutes later, 7 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,420,482
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 2 weeks ago, 50 minutes later, 57 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,420,487
Matt thinks she’s stunning and brave.
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 2 weeks ago, 1 hour later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,420,490
Fucking disgusting
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 2 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,420,491
@previous (E)
> Fucking disgusting
On the plus side, it’s not South Beach material. Nothing like being $100 into drinks with a Cuban babe before the bartender warns you …
> Fucking disgusting
On the plus side, it’s not South Beach material. Nothing like being $100 into drinks with a Cuban babe before the bartender warns you …
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 2 weeks ago, 1 hour later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,420,500
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 2 weeks ago, 3 hours later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,420,523
I saw a biological woman who was uglier than that when I did a DoorDash order one time.
boof joined in and replied with this 2 weeks ago, 13 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,420,526
yeah it has got to be a tough time for chicks born as chicks who happen to have a mannish face
people assume trans, but the chick is not trans, just really unpleasant to look at
people assume trans, but the chick is not trans, just really unpleasant to look at
Anonymous J joined in and replied with this 2 weeks ago, 12 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,420,527
@previous (boof)
I think it’s more than just that. Some men have a bone structure that makes them look like a Neanderthal. Personally, I’m glad I don’t have a brow ridge.
I think it’s more than just that. Some men have a bone structure that makes them look like a Neanderthal. Personally, I’m glad I don’t have a brow ridge.
Anonymous J double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,420,528
That said, strong cheek bones, strong chin, that’s attractive, that’s many. Brow ridge? Nope. I don’t wanna go around looking like I just walked out the cave yesterday.
Anonymous J triple-posted this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,420,529
It is kinda funny though, that middle eastern and European men have stronger brow ridges than Africans and Asians since Europe is coincidentally where Neanderthals lived.
Anonymous K joined in and replied with this 2 weeks ago, 10 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,420,531
@previous (J)
i mean, caucasians have a relatively vertical face, whereass nigguhs have more of a sloped face. Its less a browridge and more a nigguhs jaws stick out further than theys foreheads.
i mean, caucasians have a relatively vertical face, whereass nigguhs have more of a sloped face. Its less a browridge and more a nigguhs jaws stick out further than theys foreheads.
Anonymous J replied with this 2 weeks ago, 3 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,420,532
@previous (K)
That doesn’t have anything to do with the size of your brain, that’s related to diet. Transitional hominins evolved from megadont hominins which evolved from archaic hominins, but megadont hominin skulls look more ape like due to having larger teeth (hence the name) and sagittal crests. However, despite looking more primitive than archaic hominins, megadont hominins actually had larger brains and ape-like features on their skulls such as post orbital construction and a prominent sagittal crest were primary to allow for stronger jaw muscles since they were eating a rougher diet. Prognathism is unrelated to brain size or how evolved somebody is.
That doesn’t have anything to do with the size of your brain, that’s related to diet. Transitional hominins evolved from megadont hominins which evolved from archaic hominins, but megadont hominin skulls look more ape like due to having larger teeth (hence the name) and sagittal crests. However, despite looking more primitive than archaic hominins, megadont hominins actually had larger brains and ape-like features on their skulls such as post orbital construction and a prominent sagittal crest were primary to allow for stronger jaw muscles since they were eating a rougher diet. Prognathism is unrelated to brain size or how evolved somebody is.
Anonymous J replied with this 2 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,420,534
Anyways, im just coping and malding because my lack of a frontal cortex means my face has a 30° angle.
Anonymous J replied with this 2 weeks ago, 7 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,420,535
@previous (Anonymous J)
That’s literally not the reason why some animals have more prognathic faces than others. It’s because of the size of the mandible and maxilla not the size of your frontal bone. Larger teeth is an adaptation for a tougher diet. The reason why megadont hominins had skulls that looked more similar to orangutans than archaic hominins is because they needed to have larger teeth, and larger masseter muscles to support a stronger bite, which in turn meant they had to have stronger muscle attachments on their skulls. More post orbital constriction is associated with being able fit larger masseter muscles through the temporal fenestra and a sagittal crest is associated with having stronger connections for temporal muscles.
That’s literally not the reason why some animals have more prognathic faces than others. It’s because of the size of the mandible and maxilla not the size of your frontal bone. Larger teeth is an adaptation for a tougher diet. The reason why megadont hominins had skulls that looked more similar to orangutans than archaic hominins is because they needed to have larger teeth, and larger masseter muscles to support a stronger bite, which in turn meant they had to have stronger muscle attachments on their skulls. More post orbital constriction is associated with being able fit larger masseter muscles through the temporal fenestra and a sagittal crest is associated with having stronger connections for temporal muscles.
Anonymous J double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 3 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,420,538
However, megadont hominins despite having skulls that looked more similar to orangutans than modern humans are actually closer evolutionarily to modern humans than archaic hominins and had larger brains. The reason why modern humans don’t have prognathic faces is because we have a softer diet. One of the reasons why people in western societies have to get their wisdom teeth removed is because humans evolved to eat a slightly tougher diet than what most people eat today, so their mandible would grow a little bit larger. I actually don’t have impacted wisdom teeth myself because my jaw was large enough even though I have a western diet, so it’s partially genetic as well.
Anonymous J triple-posted this 2 weeks ago, 7 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,420,539
For example, just off of google images…
This is a archaic hominin skull (oldest)
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTphwLor9O4FkDynaTtdnu5LL2I5GqsaTro7NsMqodByQ&s=10
This is a megadont hominin skull (more modern than the archaic skull)
https://boneclones.com/images/store-product/product-1377-main-original-1420072149.jpg
This is an orangutan
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTa2MKFz8TFgFKfRmMCnUOr0WjJmq6qjauJy5cYu1_Otbk1t9H1qET9opSU61mRevy461ChhXKgc8BegggtMXOu7StCNmMDC-DVO8NQjqo&s=10
This is a modern human
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQzYJjEdMaDpB27eSVIVaFiXqDPcTPpjbmbxzF1i8dOdN43EFa4JSYXdzuH&s=10
Notice how the megadont hominin skull looks more like an orangutan than a modern human, while the archaic hominin skull looks more like a modern human, yet the megadont hominin has a much larger brain case than the archaic hominin
This is a archaic hominin skull (oldest)
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTphwLor9O4FkDynaTtdnu5LL2I5GqsaTro7NsMqodByQ&s=10
This is a megadont hominin skull (more modern than the archaic skull)
https://boneclones.com/images/store-product/product-1377-main-original-1420072149.jpg
This is an orangutan
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTa2MKFz8TFgFKfRmMCnUOr0WjJmq6qjauJy5cYu1_Otbk1t9H1qET9opSU61mRevy461ChhXKgc8BegggtMXOu7StCNmMDC-DVO8NQjqo&s=10
This is a modern human
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQzYJjEdMaDpB27eSVIVaFiXqDPcTPpjbmbxzF1i8dOdN43EFa4JSYXdzuH&s=10
Notice how the megadont hominin skull looks more like an orangutan than a modern human, while the archaic hominin skull looks more like a modern human, yet the megadont hominin has a much larger brain case than the archaic hominin
boof replied with this 2 weeks ago, 27 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,420,541
Anonymous J replied with this 2 weeks ago, 27 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,420,542
Although, maybe I’m wrong and jaw size is inversely correlated with intelligence and the white guy giggling about racial slurs is smarter than I am because I’m African, but it really doesn’t seem like that’s the case. It really seems more like you would have to be pretty unintelligent to think that the size of an animals teeth have more to do with thinking than chewing.
Anonymous L joined in and replied with this 2 weeks ago, 10 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,420,543
Anonymous K replied with this 2 weeks ago, 19 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,420,544
@1,420,535 (J)
It is however, quite relevant for humans.
> Larger teeth is an adaptation for a tougher diet.
tougher diet = less efficient digestion = less nutrients absorbed = dumber ass mofucker
It is however, quite relevant for humans.
> Larger teeth is an adaptation for a tougher diet.
tougher diet = less efficient digestion = less nutrients absorbed = dumber ass mofucker
Anonymous M joined in and replied with this 2 weeks ago, 2 hours later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,420,550
@previous (K)
No it doesn’t. Megadont hominids had a tougher diet than archaic hominids but megadont hominids had larger brains.
No it doesn’t. Megadont hominids had a tougher diet than archaic hominids but megadont hominids had larger brains.
Anonymous M double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 6 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,420,551
Tribes that still practice a hunter gatherer lifestyle tend to actually be healthier than the average person living in a wealthy industrialized society. For instance, hunter gatherers don’t have high blood pressure or diabetes or clogged arteries.
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
Anonymous M triple-posted this 2 weeks ago, 12 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,420,552
The problem with IQ as a metric is IQ tests a certain kind of thinking that’s useful if you live in an industrialized western society. If you’re a hunter gatherer, that way of thinking is useless so a hunter gatherer won’t do well on an IQ test, but they’re very intelligent. It requires more intelligence to survive every day than it does to live in a modern industrial society. In fact, there are environmental factors that probably lower our intelligence. For example, for years, in the United States we had leaded gasoline to reduce engine knocking. Statistics on violent crime in the United States correlate perfectly with the use of leaded gasoline. Lead also lowers IQ. Lead pipes were only federally banned in the US in 1986, and a lot of the country was built before 1986. They actually underreport the level of lead in our drinking water.
Anonymous M quadruple-posted this 2 weeks ago, 6 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,420,553
Of course, there are loads of synthetic chemicals in our environment that are detrimental to our health in various ways.
One of the things that’s messed up about lead exposure is that in the United States, on average, African American children have higher levels of lead in their blood because even though segregation doesn’t exist, neighborhood's closer to industrial areas were designated for blacks. So some of the differences in IQ and criminality between black and white Americans are actually probably due to differences in lead exposure due to government policies from decades ago. But of course racists will say everything is genetics since IQ is inheritable, except so is lead exposure.
One of the things that’s messed up about lead exposure is that in the United States, on average, African American children have higher levels of lead in their blood because even though segregation doesn’t exist, neighborhood's closer to industrial areas were designated for blacks. So some of the differences in IQ and criminality between black and white Americans are actually probably due to differences in lead exposure due to government policies from decades ago. But of course racists will say everything is genetics since IQ is inheritable, except so is lead exposure.
Anonymous M quintuple-posted this 2 weeks ago, 3 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,420,554
Although, interestingly, Africa is less industrialized than the United States, most black Americans are ethnically Nigerian, and Nigerians perform as well or better than East Asian students in American universities. So I think the actual truth is that if there is any genetic component to intelligence at all, West Africans and East Asians are actually about equal. Everything else is environment.
Anonymous M sextuple-posted this 2 weeks ago, 3 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,420,555
But then you also have to consider East Asian countries are much wealthier than west African nations, yet when west Africans come to the United States, if you look at what percentage of them hold graduate degrees, Chinese and Nigerian immigrants are about the same. Which is really impressive when you consider Nigerians aren’t coming from the same background as Chinese people, they’re coming from a much worse scenario but somehow do equally as well.
Anonymous M septuple-posted this 2 weeks ago, 4 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,420,556
A lot of racists will argue that Africans are failures because of culture or genetics but the answer is neither, the answer really is European influence destroyed Africa. But Europeans don’t want to hear that.
Anonymous N joined in and replied with this 2 weeks ago, 25 minutes later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,420,559
@previous (M)
> A lot of racists will argue that Africans are failures because of culture or genetics but the answer is neither, the answer really is European influence destroyed Africa. But Europeans don’t want to hear that.
African tribes warred and sold vanquished enemies to the Europeans and Arabs. Don’t neglect the ravages of the trans-Saharan slave trade. Currently, the African elites continue petrostate and similar resource export, ensuring they won’t progress financially. Throw in Poverty Inc. aid the elites use to pay their allies and the mess deepens. African economies need to embrace higher value chain activities like Kenya and Ghana have. Anyone previously under French rule remains a client state. None of this diminishes the trans-Atlantic slave trade, Safari Group, etc., but there are multiple layers that feed dysfunction.
> A lot of racists will argue that Africans are failures because of culture or genetics but the answer is neither, the answer really is European influence destroyed Africa. But Europeans don’t want to hear that.
African tribes warred and sold vanquished enemies to the Europeans and Arabs. Don’t neglect the ravages of the trans-Saharan slave trade. Currently, the African elites continue petrostate and similar resource export, ensuring they won’t progress financially. Throw in Poverty Inc. aid the elites use to pay their allies and the mess deepens. African economies need to embrace higher value chain activities like Kenya and Ghana have. Anyone previously under French rule remains a client state. None of this diminishes the trans-Atlantic slave trade, Safari Group, etc., but there are multiple layers that feed dysfunction.
Anonymous O joined in and replied with this 2 weeks ago, 45 minutes later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,420,568
@previous (N)
Okay, so what? Europeans enslaved Europeans and had wars with Europeans. Africans aren’t more violent than Europeans if you look at history objectively. Before 1945 was Europe really civilized what with the largest war in the history of our species and the Holocaust? Then what happened next? Soviet famines? Is that really civilized?
Okay, so what? Europeans enslaved Europeans and had wars with Europeans. Africans aren’t more violent than Europeans if you look at history objectively. Before 1945 was Europe really civilized what with the largest war in the history of our species and the Holocaust? Then what happened next? Soviet famines? Is that really civilized?
Anonymous O double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 3 minutes later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,420,569
Then the other accusations: petrol states and foreign dependence. It’s obvious what the European equivalent is: Russia. Europeans kept buying oil from the Russian petrol state even while Russia was sending tanks into Ukraine. Eastern European nations were colonized by a petrol state and remained dependent on their former colonizer. Ukraine actually has a lower GDP per capita than South Africa.
Anonymous O triple-posted this 2 weeks ago, 8 minutes later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,420,570
I also don’t think the future for Africa is hopeless. They have much higher birth rates than Europeans. For example, Nigeria is about 6 times poorer in terms of GDP per capita than Ukraine, but their economy is larger than Ukraine because their population is so much higher. It isn’t impossible for African nations to eventually surpass European nations. I think it’s actually likely. If you look back historically, when Africa was under the control of Europeans, Europe had a population 2 or 3 times higher depending on the exact year. Now Africa has twice as many people as Europe, their population is still growing, and Europe’s birth rates are below replacement.
Anonymous O quadruple-posted this 2 weeks ago, 4 minutes later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,420,571
Think of it this way: Europeans have less than two children per woman on average, Africans have between 4 and 6. In 1800, Africa had 100 million people and Europe had 200 million. By 2100, Nigeria is projected to have a population of at least 500 million and Europe is projected to decline to have about 420 million people. To me at least, that seems like a fundamentally different situation. In the past there were twice as many Europeans as Africans, in the future there will probably be one African country with more people than the entire continent of Europe will.
Anonymous O quintuple-posted this 2 weeks ago, 10 minutes later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,420,572
Then if you think about the whole continent, Africa will have about 4 billion people. So they’re going to be ten times bigger than Europe, so it would actually be really hard for them not to end up more powerful given that they’ll only have to be at least 1/10th as productive per person in the 22nd century, which is a very low bar.
Anonymous O sextuple-posted this 2 weeks ago, 13 minutes later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,420,574
Of course there were western attempts to lower Africa’s birth rates through foreign aid in the form of giving Africans access to contraception and abortion an all that. But if the right wing populist movement doesn’t die down on the west and remains persistent, Africa’s birth rates will decline more slowly so it makes the scenario more likely. The money thing matters a little bit, but Africans aren’t stupid. If Europeans have all the money one day, and there are 10 times as many Africans, that problem won’t last very long.
Anonymous K replied with this 2 weeks ago, 10 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,420,626
Anonymous P joined in and replied with this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,420,627
Anonymous Q joined in and replied with this 2 weeks ago, 4 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,420,657
@1,420,568 (O)
> Okay, so what? Europeans enslaved Europeans and had wars with Europeans. Africans aren’t more violent than Europeans if you look at history objectively. Before 1945 was Europe really civilized what with the largest war in the history of our species and the Holocaust? Then what happened next? Soviet famines? Is that really civilized?
I was commenting on various factors. “Africans” are no more violent than Europeans. Violence ties to social conditions. Medieval Europe through the religious wars was a blood bath, got smarter after the Napoleonic wars then proceeded to commit 2x suicides in WWI-II.
> Okay, so what? Europeans enslaved Europeans and had wars with Europeans. Africans aren’t more violent than Europeans if you look at history objectively. Before 1945 was Europe really civilized what with the largest war in the history of our species and the Holocaust? Then what happened next? Soviet famines? Is that really civilized?
I was commenting on various factors. “Africans” are no more violent than Europeans. Violence ties to social conditions. Medieval Europe through the religious wars was a blood bath, got smarter after the Napoleonic wars then proceeded to commit 2x suicides in WWI-II.