Topic: Trump alienates allies then asks for help.
Anonymous A started this discussion 1 month ago #133,790
Is surprised when the answer is no, attempts Pearl Harbor joke.
We should airdrop RFK into the Strait of Hormuz in his magical jeans and see if his superpowers activate.
We should airdrop RFK into the Strait of Hormuz in his magical jeans and see if his superpowers activate.
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 1 month ago, 2 minutes later[^] [v] #1,425,354
He asked China for help.
He wants us to believe this hurts China, and he asked China for help… militarily.
Honestly, the fact that China doesn’t just invade Taiwan right now, Xi Jinping isn’t invading out of the goodness of his heart and nothing more, because if I was him, (I support self determination for Taiwan), if I was in his position, man… Taiwan? You’d never see a country disappear from the fact of the Earth so fast.
He wants us to believe this hurts China, and he asked China for help… militarily.
Honestly, the fact that China doesn’t just invade Taiwan right now, Xi Jinping isn’t invading out of the goodness of his heart and nothing more, because if I was him, (I support self determination for Taiwan), if I was in his position, man… Taiwan? You’d never see a country disappear from the fact of the Earth so fast.
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 3 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,355
I hope this continues.
Deleverage the financial markets, push up the price of oil.
The proletariate is already on the edge, if they let standards of living fall anymore there would be riots. The elites will be forced to push up the wage floor and eat the costs.
Deleverage the financial markets, push up the price of oil.
The proletariate is already on the edge, if they let standards of living fall anymore there would be riots. The elites will be forced to push up the wage floor and eat the costs.
Anonymous B replied with this 1 month ago, 12 seconds later, 3 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,356
Imagine if China started a war and Xi Jinping said, “I dunno maybe America can help us or something?"
Beijing would be a moonscape the next day. Lol
Beijing would be a moonscape the next day. Lol
Anonymous C replied with this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 4 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,357
@1,425,354 (B)
It hurts China more than the US. China gets a lot of their oil from the area.
The US produces more oil than it uses. We could put up an export ban.
It hurts China more than the US. China gets a lot of their oil from the area.
The US produces more oil than it uses. We could put up an export ban.
Anonymous B replied with this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 6 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,358
@previous (C)
Yeah but Iran lets Chinese ships through the strait because China gives Iran intelligence and they have an economic and military alliance. Not long before the war broke out, there was actually a naval exercise with Russian, Chinese, and Iranian warships in South Africa.
Yeah but Iran lets Chinese ships through the strait because China gives Iran intelligence and they have an economic and military alliance. Not long before the war broke out, there was actually a naval exercise with Russian, Chinese, and Iranian warships in South Africa.
Anonymous C replied with this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 8 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,359
@previous (B)
Iran has said they will block all ships from going through to push up global prices more.
Iran has said they will block all ships from going through to push up global prices more.
Anonymous B replied with this 1 month ago, 25 seconds later, 8 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,360
Anonymous C replied with this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 9 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,361
Anonymous B replied with this 1 month ago, 45 seconds later, 10 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,362
@1,425,359 (C)
I don’t really believe that the Iran war is secretly a strategy against China. Because sure it hurts China, it hurts Japan and South Korea more and those are us allies. They get even more of their oil from the Middle East than China does.
I don’t really believe that the Iran war is secretly a strategy against China. Because sure it hurts China, it hurts Japan and South Korea more and those are us allies. They get even more of their oil from the Middle East than China does.
Anonymous B double-posted this 1 month ago, 55 seconds later, 11 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,363
@1,425,361 (C)
> An article from January about South Africa?
The point is that there were Chinese and Iranian warships participating in naval exercises together, so Iran and China are effectively on the same side. The fact that it was in South Africa isn’t really the point. The point was that was this year.
> An article from January about South Africa?
The point is that there were Chinese and Iranian warships participating in naval exercises together, so Iran and China are effectively on the same side. The fact that it was in South Africa isn’t really the point. The point was that was this year.
Anonymous B triple-posted this 1 month ago, 24 seconds later, 11 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,364
I was just linking an article to the specific naval exercises I was referring to.
Anonymous C replied with this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 13 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,366
Anonymous B replied with this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 14 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,367
@previous (C)
Because the US is threatening to destroy Iranian power plants and take Kharg island. They need to threaten us with something to try and deter us from doing that.
Because the US is threatening to destroy Iranian power plants and take Kharg island. They need to threaten us with something to try and deter us from doing that.
Anonymous B double-posted this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 15 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,368
Either they’re bluffing or they made some cost benefit analysis that if they can’t sell their oil to China, it’s worth it to escalate the war. Because what happens in a fight is say I have a gun, and you have a knife, and we get in an argument, then the argument escalates to a fist fight, and so on, the person who wins is the person with greater ability to escalate. So once Iran stops escalating, they lose.
Anonymous C replied with this 1 month ago, 11 seconds later, 15 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,369
@1,425,367 (B)
Ok, so when they stop the Chinese ships that's going to hurt China too. More than the US who can put up an export ban if things bad.
Ok, so when they stop the Chinese ships that's going to hurt China too. More than the US who can put up an export ban if things bad.
Anonymous C double-posted this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 17 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,370
Anonymous B replied with this 1 month ago, 58 seconds later, 17 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,371
@1,425,369 (C)
China would have objections to it, but even if they don’t have oil, China is still a nuclear armed state with 1.4 billion people, an established authoritarian system, established internet censorship, and the Chinese people are unarmed. So even if they have economic pains, I kind of doubt they’ll have a change of government, and I kind of doubt that any of the Chinese leaders will feel any pain.
China would have objections to it, but even if they don’t have oil, China is still a nuclear armed state with 1.4 billion people, an established authoritarian system, established internet censorship, and the Chinese people are unarmed. So even if they have economic pains, I kind of doubt they’ll have a change of government, and I kind of doubt that any of the Chinese leaders will feel any pain.
Anonymous B double-posted this 1 month ago, 26 seconds later, 18 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,372
Anonymous B triple-posted this 1 month ago, 5 minutes later, 24 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,375
Although, one advantage China does have is they produce a lot of electric vehicles. So even without oil, life in China would suck, but they’d still have a civilization.
I guess the worst case scenario is China runs low on oil, and starts thinking the way the Japanese did in World War Two. Because Japan had a huge empire, but Japan doesn’t produce any oil. So they conquered other countries to take their oil. But they never had enough oil, so it became a vicious cycle. And that’s not really a great thing. (I don’t think China will do that).
I guess the worst case scenario is China runs low on oil, and starts thinking the way the Japanese did in World War Two. Because Japan had a huge empire, but Japan doesn’t produce any oil. So they conquered other countries to take their oil. But they never had enough oil, so it became a vicious cycle. And that’s not really a great thing. (I don’t think China will do that).
Anonymous B quadruple-posted this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 25 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,377
Because for Japan it was basically like:
- Japan doesn’t have oil
- Japan takes country to have more oil
- now Japan needs even more oil than it needed before it did that
- Japan takes country to have more oil
…and then that just went on and on until the whole thing fell apart
- Japan doesn’t have oil
- Japan takes country to have more oil
- now Japan needs even more oil than it needed before it did that
- Japan takes country to have more oil
…and then that just went on and on until the whole thing fell apart
Anonymous B quintuple-posted this 1 month ago, 5 minutes later, 30 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,378
Then I think it’s also a mistake to not factor India into this. They have more people than China, and they’re not as wealthy as China, but they have nuclear weapons, and they’re mortal enemies with Pakistan which is the only Islamic country with nuclear weapons, and India gets their weapons from Russia. So if something happens in Asia, I think India would be a bigger part of that than Japan or South Korea honestly.
Anonymous B sextuple-posted this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 32 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,380
Idk how India factors in, but that should probably be factored in.
(Edited 10 seconds later.)
Anonymous B septuple-posted this 1 month ago, 11 minutes later, 43 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,382
Or actually Pearl Harbor, they say it was unprovoked, but it happened because we sanctioned 90% of Japan’s oil supply.
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
Anonymous C replied with this 1 month ago, 13 minutes later, 56 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,385
@1,425,371 (B)
Who said anything about a change in government? China will suffer economic pain, that's it.
@1,425,372 (B)
The Republicans will be fine, because millions of democratic voters have been deported and the democratic party is still wildly unpopular in the country.
The GOP doesn't need to be very popular, they just need to be more popular than the democraps.
@1,425,377 (B)
Insane oversimplification.
@1,425,378 (B)
You've said a whole lot of nothing. What does India have to do with any of this?
@1,425,380 (B)
Right, so even you realized how off-topic that was.
@previous (B)
Oh, so being cut off from oil actually does matter. Let's see how China handles it then.
Who said anything about a change in government? China will suffer economic pain, that's it.
@1,425,372 (B)
The Republicans will be fine, because millions of democratic voters have been deported and the democratic party is still wildly unpopular in the country.
The GOP doesn't need to be very popular, they just need to be more popular than the democraps.
@1,425,377 (B)
Insane oversimplification.
@1,425,378 (B)
You've said a whole lot of nothing. What does India have to do with any of this?
@1,425,380 (B)
Right, so even you realized how off-topic that was.
@previous (B)
Oh, so being cut off from oil actually does matter. Let's see how China handles it then.
(Edited 31 seconds later.)
Anonymous B replied with this 1 month ago, 11 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,395
@previous (C)
India gets about the same percentage of their oil from the strait as China does, India has a bigger population than China, and they have nuclear weapons.
India gets about the same percentage of their oil from the strait as China does, India has a bigger population than China, and they have nuclear weapons.
Anonymous B double-posted this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,396
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 1 month ago, 4 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,397
@previous (B)
man. If even a fifth of the shit that trannies screamed about actually happened that country would become a superpower within a decade.
man. If even a fifth of the shit that trannies screamed about actually happened that country would become a superpower within a decade.
Anonymous B replied with this 1 month ago, 31 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,398
Anonymous C replied with this 1 month ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,399
@1,425,396 (B)
Oh, really?
Then explain why democrats have been pushing so hard to stop voter ID.
There's really no explanation for it besides voter fraud.
No one is too poor for it, just the opposite, thousands of dollars for government assistance per year are contingent on having one. Getting a job requires it. Driving a car reqiures it. Buying alcohol requires it. Opening a bank account requires it.
Are people really giving up thousands in government assistance for the poor because they wont spend $40? Obviously not.
Everyone knows what's going on, and the democrats can't even make up a good excuse for transparently trying to cheat.
Oh, really?
Then explain why democrats have been pushing so hard to stop voter ID.
There's really no explanation for it besides voter fraud.
No one is too poor for it, just the opposite, thousands of dollars for government assistance per year are contingent on having one. Getting a job requires it. Driving a car reqiures it. Buying alcohol requires it. Opening a bank account requires it.
Are people really giving up thousands in government assistance for the poor because they wont spend $40? Obviously not.
Everyone knows what's going on, and the democrats can't even make up a good excuse for transparently trying to cheat.
Anonymous D replied with this 1 month ago, 9 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,400
Anonymous B replied with this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,401
@1,425,399 (C)
> Then explain why democrats have been pushing so hard to stop voter ID
The United States doesn’t have a national ID. It would make more sense to require ID if it was required for all Americans to have IDs, but surprisingly, it’s actually not.
> Then explain why democrats have been pushing so hard to stop voter ID
The United States doesn’t have a national ID. It would make more sense to require ID if it was required for all Americans to have IDs, but surprisingly, it’s actually not.
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 1 month ago, 2 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,402
Good jeans. The best jeans.
Anonymous B replied with this 1 month ago, 23 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,403
Anonymous B double-posted this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,405
Anonymous B triple-posted this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,406
@1,425,401 (B)
Now why America doesn’t have a national ID, something something "freedom" something I don’t fuckin know.
Now why America doesn’t have a national ID, something something "freedom" something I don’t fuckin know.
Anonymous C replied with this 1 month ago, 5 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,408
@1,425,401 (B)
> The United States doesn’t have a national ID.
All 50 states issue ID, so what's your point?
> It would make more sense to require ID if it was required for all Americans to have IDs, but surprisingly, it’s actually not.
That's not true, there are already *national* laws that require ID to get a job, open a bank account, and file for benefits.
All Americans need an ID to just live a regular life.
So again, who would be obstructed from voting? No one at all, unless they were illegal. Who do you think you are fooling?
> The United States doesn’t have a national ID.
All 50 states issue ID, so what's your point?
> It would make more sense to require ID if it was required for all Americans to have IDs, but surprisingly, it’s actually not.
That's not true, there are already *national* laws that require ID to get a job, open a bank account, and file for benefits.
All Americans need an ID to just live a regular life.
So again, who would be obstructed from voting? No one at all, unless they were illegal. Who do you think you are fooling?
Anonymous B replied with this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,409
Anonymous B double-posted this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,410
And what about US citizens who live in other countries who legally have the right to vote in American elections from abroad?
Anonymous B triple-posted this 1 month ago, 21 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,411
You at the very least have to allow mail-in ballots from expats.
Anonymous B quadruple-posted this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,412
Or what about disabled people who can’t physically show up at the polls?
Anonymous B quintuple-posted this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,413
And is there even widespread voter fraud in the first place?
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 1 month ago, 9 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,415
@1,425,408 (C)
> > The United States doesn’t have a national ID.
>
> All 50 states issue ID, so what's your point?
>
> > It would make more sense to require ID if it was required for all Americans to have IDs, but surprisingly, it’s actually not.
>
> That's not true, there are already *national* laws that require ID to get a job, open a bank account, and file for benefits.
>
> All Americans need an ID to just live a regular life.
>
> So again, who would be obstructed from voting? No one at all, unless they were illegal. Who do you think you are fooling?
Voter ID laws would be fine. They should address access, and ensure an acceptable state ID card. A “Real ID” equivalent for $5-$10. I don’t understand how the 2.6 million people without ID interact with society.
Confining an ID requirement to drivers license would be bullshit because 30 million people don’t have one.
> > The United States doesn’t have a national ID.
>
> All 50 states issue ID, so what's your point?
>
> > It would make more sense to require ID if it was required for all Americans to have IDs, but surprisingly, it’s actually not.
>
> That's not true, there are already *national* laws that require ID to get a job, open a bank account, and file for benefits.
>
> All Americans need an ID to just live a regular life.
>
> So again, who would be obstructed from voting? No one at all, unless they were illegal. Who do you think you are fooling?
Voter ID laws would be fine. They should address access, and ensure an acceptable state ID card. A “Real ID” equivalent for $5-$10. I don’t understand how the 2.6 million people without ID interact with society.
Confining an ID requirement to drivers license would be bullshit because 30 million people don’t have one.
Anonymous B replied with this 1 month ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,416
@previous (F)
I guess my opinion on it is voter fraud doesn’t really exist at a level that would change the result of an election, and voter ID would make it harder for some marginalized groups to vote like disabled people, but either way, I don’t think it will have the effect that republicans think it will.
I guess my opinion on it is voter fraud doesn’t really exist at a level that would change the result of an election, and voter ID would make it harder for some marginalized groups to vote like disabled people, but either way, I don’t think it will have the effect that republicans think it will.
Anonymous B double-posted this 1 month ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,418
Because the thing is, illegal immigrants, removing them from the country would only help republicans if 1. illegal immigrants vote and 2. they vote democrat. Except, a lot of Hispanics voted for Trump (not all of them), but a lot of them did, and there isn’t really evidence that illegal immigrants were voting in high enough numbers that it would have changed the outcome of any election. So even if you deport all the illegal immigrants and you enforce voter ID, I don’t think that will change the outcome.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous B triple-posted this 1 month ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,419
Then something that also matters is republican states like Texas have been using algorithms to draw voting districts that benefit republicans over democrats. But certain states like California have started doing the same and have been gerrymandering to overrepresent democratic voters over republican voters to offset republican states.
Anonymous B quadruple-posted this 1 month ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,420
Anonymous B quintuple-posted this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,421
There are some mathematical arguments one can make against the concept of democracy…
Anonymous C replied with this 1 month ago, 29 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,423
@1,425,409 (B)
> What about married women who’s last name doesn’t match their birth certificate?
This is a fake issue. Bringing a state ID is more than enough, you don't need your birth certificate.
If you did, for some reason, you could also bring the court ordered name change. Or you could just keep your paperwork up to date.
@1,425,410 (B)
@1,425,412 (B)
If these were the only exceptions, then it really wouldn't be a big issue.
@1,425,413 (B)
The democrats are acting like they are doing it. Checking people for the ID they already have is really not a big requirement.
Voting is much more important than buying a beer, but we require people to have one for a beer.
@1,425,415 (F)
No state confines it to people who drive. All states have a non-driver ID.
@1,425,416 (B)
Republicans have never said disabled people need to show up in person. They only took issue with mail-in ballots for everyone.
@1,425,418 (B)
Legal hispanics voted for Trump, illegals would vote for the party that enables them to break the law.
> What about married women who’s last name doesn’t match their birth certificate?
This is a fake issue. Bringing a state ID is more than enough, you don't need your birth certificate.
If you did, for some reason, you could also bring the court ordered name change. Or you could just keep your paperwork up to date.
@1,425,410 (B)
@1,425,412 (B)
If these were the only exceptions, then it really wouldn't be a big issue.
@1,425,413 (B)
The democrats are acting like they are doing it. Checking people for the ID they already have is really not a big requirement.
Voting is much more important than buying a beer, but we require people to have one for a beer.
@1,425,415 (F)
No state confines it to people who drive. All states have a non-driver ID.
@1,425,416 (B)
Republicans have never said disabled people need to show up in person. They only took issue with mail-in ballots for everyone.
@1,425,418 (B)
Legal hispanics voted for Trump, illegals would vote for the party that enables them to break the law.
Anonymous B replied with this 1 month ago, 4 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,424
@previous (C)
> illegals would vote for the party that enables them to break the law.
There’s no evidence that illegal immigrants voted in large numbers.
I’ll also point out that some illegal immigrants are Trump supporters. For example the guy that was running the Trump Burger chain actually got deported.
https://youtu.be/F68A9ihE7hA
> illegals would vote for the party that enables them to break the law.
There’s no evidence that illegal immigrants voted in large numbers.
I’ll also point out that some illegal immigrants are Trump supporters. For example the guy that was running the Trump Burger chain actually got deported.
https://youtu.be/F68A9ihE7hA
Anonymous B double-posted this 1 month ago, 8 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,425
I also don’t really agree that the democrats were allowing illegal immigrants to break the law if you actually look up how many deportations there were under Obama.
Anonymous B triple-posted this 1 month ago, 54 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,426
Of course the whole narrative about illegal immigration is mostly propaganda more than a real issue that actually exists in real life.
Anonymous C replied with this 1 month ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,427
@1,425,424 (B)
> > illegals would vote for the party that enables them to break the law.
>
> There’s no evidence that illegal immigrants voted in large numbers.
Democrats fighting to get rid of voter ID laws at polls is evidence.
Disabled people had trouble getting to polling stations long before this was a political issue, and this really changes nothing about that.
> I’ll also point out that some illegal immigrants are Trump supporters. For example the guy that was running the Trump Burger chain actually got deported.
Then these voter ID laws might stop people voting republican too, good. All fraud should be stopped.
> > illegals would vote for the party that enables them to break the law.
>
> There’s no evidence that illegal immigrants voted in large numbers.
Democrats fighting to get rid of voter ID laws at polls is evidence.
Disabled people had trouble getting to polling stations long before this was a political issue, and this really changes nothing about that.
> I’ll also point out that some illegal immigrants are Trump supporters. For example the guy that was running the Trump Burger chain actually got deported.
Then these voter ID laws might stop people voting republican too, good. All fraud should be stopped.
Anonymous B replied with this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,428
@previous (C)
> Democrats fighting to get rid of voter ID laws at polls is evidence.
No it’s not, we live in a two party system. The democrats oppose almost every idea republicans have.
> Democrats fighting to get rid of voter ID laws at polls is evidence.
No it’s not, we live in a two party system. The democrats oppose almost every idea republicans have.
Anonymous B double-posted this 1 month ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,429
You have said before that you’re a racist. So you probably think that illegal immigrants are mostly Hispanic and that Hispanic people aren’t white, but Hispanic people are just people from countries that speak Spanish and were colonized by Spain, which is a white European country. So this whole thing is sort of dumb even from a racist perspective.
Anonymous B triple-posted this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,430
Like Hispanic isn’t really a race. That would be sort of like saying the English language and its speakers are a race.
Anonymous B quadruple-posted this 1 month ago, 58 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,431
…although racism itself isn’t exactly high IQ.
Anonymous B quintuple-posted this 1 month ago, 5 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,433
When they say the white population is shrinking in the US, they’ll always say "white non-Hispanic” in the graph… because there are also white hispanics.
Anonymous C replied with this 1 month ago, 5 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,434
@1,425,428 (B)
Then the democrats got played, and made it look like they support fraud without a good reason.
It's a question of "Are the cheating, or are they stupid?". I don't have an answer to that.
Then the democrats got played, and made it look like they support fraud without a good reason.
It's a question of "Are the cheating, or are they stupid?". I don't have an answer to that.
Anonymous B replied with this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,435
@previous (C)
> Then the democrats got played, and made it look like they support fraud without a good reason.
You’re a republican, democratic voters have the opposite view on this. It appeals to the base, which you’re not a part of.
> Then the democrats got played, and made it look like they support fraud without a good reason.
You’re a republican, democratic voters have the opposite view on this. It appeals to the base, which you’re not a part of.
Anonymous B double-posted this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,436
If you want to know what democrats think about voter ID:
https://youtu.be/_zBrlVHhItw
https://youtu.be/PW5sijmU3WM
https://youtu.be/_zBrlVHhItw
https://youtu.be/PW5sijmU3WM
Anonymous C replied with this 1 month ago, 36 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,442
@1,425,429 (B)
What? It's the democrats who use the word racist when condemning immigration enforcement
@1,425,430 (B)
I never said it was a race. It's democrats who call it racism to have immigration enforcement.
@1,425,431 (B)
Is it high IQ to think the brain is the one organ not affected by genetics?
@1,425,433 (B)
> When they say the white population is shrinking in the US, they’ll always say "white non-Hispanic” in the graph… because there are also white hispanics.
Then maybe racism isn't the right critique.
What? It's the democrats who use the word racist when condemning immigration enforcement
@1,425,430 (B)
I never said it was a race. It's democrats who call it racism to have immigration enforcement.
@1,425,431 (B)
Is it high IQ to think the brain is the one organ not affected by genetics?
@1,425,433 (B)
> When they say the white population is shrinking in the US, they’ll always say "white non-Hispanic” in the graph… because there are also white hispanics.
Then maybe racism isn't the right critique.
Anonymous C double-posted this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,444
@1,425,435 (B)
1/3 of the country is independent, and all the polling shows Trump won by making immigration his wedge issue.
When democrats act like they are cheating, they hurt their chances with that demo.
1/3 of the country is independent, and all the polling shows Trump won by making immigration his wedge issue.
When democrats act like they are cheating, they hurt their chances with that demo.
Nut Box 📦🥜 joined in and replied with this 1 month ago, 4 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,447
@1,425,442 (C)
> Is it high IQ to think the brain is the one organ not affected by genetics?
Are you Japanese? The Japanese are the smartest people because they have the best genetics. Unlike inbred westerners, Japan had the highest level of genetic diversity of any country in the world because the human race started in Japan and humans have been living in Japan for millions of years.
> Is it high IQ to think the brain is the one organ not affected by genetics?
Are you Japanese? The Japanese are the smartest people because they have the best genetics. Unlike inbred westerners, Japan had the highest level of genetic diversity of any country in the world because the human race started in Japan and humans have been living in Japan for millions of years.
Nut Box 📦🥜 double-posted this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,448
Just take Japanese art and culture. Japanese music is far more advanced and refined than anything a western could imagine. Just take this for example:
https://youtu.be/o8RejjkLHS8
No westerner could ever conceive of such beauty. That is the genius of the Japanese mind.
https://youtu.be/o8RejjkLHS8
No westerner could ever conceive of such beauty. That is the genius of the Japanese mind.
Nut Box 📦🥜 triple-posted this 1 month ago, 2 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,449
As a westerner, you cannot appreciate the sheer refined nature of Japanese culture, and you cannot conceive of music, you cannot understand music. White people have never created art to the level of the Japanese.
Just look at this, look at this here. Has Europe ever made anything this advanced? Could Europe ever make anything this advanced?
No.
https://youtu.be/nEIPedZCEFE
Just look at this, look at this here. Has Europe ever made anything this advanced? Could Europe ever make anything this advanced?
No.
https://youtu.be/nEIPedZCEFE
Nut Box 📦🥜 quadruple-posted this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,450
Even in the English language, they are simply superior. You can just hear the intelligence from their asiatic genetics.
https://youtu.be/APNy2EKkOxE
https://youtu.be/APNy2EKkOxE
Anonymous C replied with this 1 month ago, 1 hour later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,457
@1,425,447 (Nut Box 📦🥜)
Inbreeding doesn't make people stupid, that's based on the unsubstantiated idea that recessive genes are inherently negative.
Inbreeding doesn't make people stupid, that's based on the unsubstantiated idea that recessive genes are inherently negative.
Anonymous D replied with this 1 month ago, 31 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,461
Anonymous C replied with this 1 month ago, 8 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,463
@previous (D)
Do you understand what "inherently" means?
The habsburg chin was a negative feature, yes. That doesn't disprove what I said.
Recessive genes can be good or bad.
Do you understand what "inherently" means?
The habsburg chin was a negative feature, yes. That doesn't disprove what I said.
Recessive genes can be good or bad.
Anonymous C double-posted this 1 month ago, 3 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,464
@1,425,461 (D)
@previous (C)
To add on to this, the fact that everyone uses this example should make you wonder why it's always the same person.
Many ethnic groups practice inbreeding, but the go-to example is a specific person from the 1600s.
Don't you think there would be many more examples, especially widespread examples from cultures where marrying your cousin is standard practice?
@previous (C)
To add on to this, the fact that everyone uses this example should make you wonder why it's always the same person.
Many ethnic groups practice inbreeding, but the go-to example is a specific person from the 1600s.
Don't you think there would be many more examples, especially widespread examples from cultures where marrying your cousin is standard practice?
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 1 month ago, 2 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,465
Anonymous C replied with this 1 month ago, 3 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,468
@previous (H)
Racism, yes, I stand by that.
No, not pedophilia. Saying "1 pedophile is less worse than 1 million pedophiles" is not pro-pedophilia.
Inbreeding is not inherently good or bad. If you could make the argument it was bad, you would. Unfortunately you have bought into propaganda that originated with the Catholic church, used to break apart powerful clans. There's no scientific evidence that inbreeding is inherently bad.
Racism, yes, I stand by that.
No, not pedophilia. Saying "1 pedophile is less worse than 1 million pedophiles" is not pro-pedophilia.
Inbreeding is not inherently good or bad. If you could make the argument it was bad, you would. Unfortunately you have bought into propaganda that originated with the Catholic church, used to break apart powerful clans. There's no scientific evidence that inbreeding is inherently bad.
Anonymous H replied with this 1 month ago, 2 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,469
Anonymous C replied with this 1 month ago, 39 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,470
@previous (H)
"I'm not a pedophile but less pedophiles is better".
Yeah, please explain the problem with that.
"I'm not a pedophile but less pedophiles is better".
Yeah, please explain the problem with that.
Anonymous H replied with this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,471
@1,425,468 (C)
> Inbreeding is not inherently good or bad. If you could make the argument it was bad, you would. Unfortunately you have bought into propaganda that originated with the Catholic church, used to break apart powerful clans. There's no scientific evidence that inbreeding is inherently bad.
I was wondering why you’re so anti Catholic. I assumed you were a Protestant, but this is way worse!
> Inbreeding is not inherently good or bad. If you could make the argument it was bad, you would. Unfortunately you have bought into propaganda that originated with the Catholic church, used to break apart powerful clans. There's no scientific evidence that inbreeding is inherently bad.
I was wondering why you’re so anti Catholic. I assumed you were a Protestant, but this is way worse!
Anonymous H double-posted this 1 month ago, 2 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,473
For a guy that’s always yapping about how he’s a race realist because "genetics" "there’s no evidence inbreeding is bad" is… like oh my god, just google anything about genetics, read a book, watch a freaking video, go talk to a homeless guy. Anybody anywhere even the worst sources will tell you inbreeding is bad and why. It’s not complicated.
Anonymous C replied with this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,474
@1,425,471 (H)
The Catholic church rapes kids, has a history of telling parents their kids are dead to sell the babies to rich families, and is the main religious influence in the most pedophilic nations on earth.
If you could pose any argument against inbreeding, you would. There's zero scientific evidence its inherently bad, that's just a myth from when the Unholy See wanted to break apart powerful families.
Obviously some recessive traits are bad, and inbreeding is bad in those specific situations. In other families they have recessive traits that cause positive phenotypes to express.
Your opposition is based on faith, not science.
The Catholic church rapes kids, has a history of telling parents their kids are dead to sell the babies to rich families, and is the main religious influence in the most pedophilic nations on earth.
If you could pose any argument against inbreeding, you would. There's zero scientific evidence its inherently bad, that's just a myth from when the Unholy See wanted to break apart powerful families.
Obviously some recessive traits are bad, and inbreeding is bad in those specific situations. In other families they have recessive traits that cause positive phenotypes to express.
Your opposition is based on faith, not science.
Anonymous H replied with this 1 month ago, 58 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,475
Just on like a… normal person level… having sex with your family… I don’t like bugs. I’m not a fan of spiders and roaches. If you gave me two options: eat some bugs, or have sex with my family, I’m eating those bugs. You best believe.
Anonymous C replied with this 1 month ago, 48 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,476
@1,425,473 (H)
Oh, so I should do your research for you.
It's not that you don't have it, no, you just can't cite any evidence because you don't feel like it!
Did you see that study that proved niggers can't learn math or stay quiet in public because of their crossed neurons? I'd link to it, but I'm just going to tell you to Google it yourself.
Oh, so I should do your research for you.
It's not that you don't have it, no, you just can't cite any evidence because you don't feel like it!
Did you see that study that proved niggers can't learn math or stay quiet in public because of their crossed neurons? I'd link to it, but I'm just going to tell you to Google it yourself.
Anonymous C double-posted this 1 month ago, 49 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,477
@1,425,475 (H)
I don't blame you, who'd want to fuck niggers?
There's a reason it's popular in Alabama but not Atlanta.
I don't blame you, who'd want to fuck niggers?
There's a reason it's popular in Alabama but not Atlanta.
Anonymous H replied with this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,478
@1,425,476 (C)
Uh… you know what? You’re the first person I’ve talked to where being a "nigger" doesn’t really sound like an insult anymore. Like what? My ancestors were slaves. You’re arguing incest isn’t bad unironically, that’s way worse! lol
Uh… you know what? You’re the first person I’ve talked to where being a "nigger" doesn’t really sound like an insult anymore. Like what? My ancestors were slaves. You’re arguing incest isn’t bad unironically, that’s way worse! lol
Anonymous H double-posted this 1 month ago, 38 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,479
@1,425,477 (C)
> I don't blame you, who'd want to fuck niggers?
>
> There's a reason it's popular in Alabama but not Atlanta.
What kinda psychopath are you? lol
> I don't blame you, who'd want to fuck niggers?
>
> There's a reason it's popular in Alabama but not Atlanta.
What kinda psychopath are you? lol
Anonymous C replied with this 1 month ago, 43 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,480
Anonymous C double-posted this 1 month ago, 26 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,481
Anonymous H replied with this 1 month ago, 38 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,482
@1,425,480 (C)
I can, I’m just not because this is too funny to me. I don’t even feel like arguing against something this obviously dumb when I can just laugh at it.
I can, I’m just not because this is too funny to me. I don’t even feel like arguing against something this obviously dumb when I can just laugh at it.
Anonymous H double-posted this 1 month ago, 2 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,483
Like yeah okay, say you’re right about me, and black people really are a bunch of low IQ monkeys that commit crime and I’m just a blackity black nigger doing blackity black nigger things.
Okay. At least my family tree isn’t a damn circle lol
Okay. At least my family tree isn’t a damn circle lol
Anonymous C replied with this 1 month ago, 2 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,484
@1,425,482 (H)
https://youtube.com/watch?v=mA89DWVcSB0
I'll share the peer reviewed paper showing how twisted up nigger brains are when you show me the paper that shows inbreeding is inherently harmful.
The truth is inbreeding simply increases recessive gene expression. That could be good or bad, depending on what those genes are.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=mA89DWVcSB0
I'll share the peer reviewed paper showing how twisted up nigger brains are when you show me the paper that shows inbreeding is inherently harmful.
The truth is inbreeding simply increases recessive gene expression. That could be good or bad, depending on what those genes are.
(Edited 31 seconds later.)
Anonymous H replied with this 1 month ago, 48 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,485
Ze whyte man:
"And that’s when I used my high IQ genetics, putting together centuries worth of facts and logic to conclude that having sex with my sister is in fact a good idea."
https://youtu.be/au4a5rSyaoQ
"And that’s when I used my high IQ genetics, putting together centuries worth of facts and logic to conclude that having sex with my sister is in fact a good idea."
https://youtu.be/au4a5rSyaoQ
Anonymous C replied with this 1 month ago, 3 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,487
Anonymous H replied with this 1 month ago, 3 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,488
@previous (C)
I’m not trying to be cruel or anything, but the effects of inbreeding don’t seem… great…
https://youtu.be/nkGiFpJC9LM
I’m not trying to be cruel or anything, but the effects of inbreeding don’t seem… great…
https://youtu.be/nkGiFpJC9LM
Anonymous C replied with this 1 month ago, 45 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,489
Anonymous H replied with this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,490
Anonymous C replied with this 1 month ago, 2 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,491
@previous (H)
Shooting yourself in the head inherently harms you with a very, very high risk of death.
Inbreeding is not inherently harmful. It does not have a high chance of harm, unless your family specifically has harmful recessive genes.
There are plenty of people who marry outside their family and have genetically deformed offspring. Do you think it would prove that extrafamilial breeding is harmful to give an example of that?
This isn't complicated.
Shooting yourself in the head inherently harms you with a very, very high risk of death.
Inbreeding is not inherently harmful. It does not have a high chance of harm, unless your family specifically has harmful recessive genes.
There are plenty of people who marry outside their family and have genetically deformed offspring. Do you think it would prove that extrafamilial breeding is harmful to give an example of that?
This isn't complicated.
Anonymous H replied with this 1 month ago, 53 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,492
Anonymous C replied with this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,493
@previous (H)
I get the point, you implied an analogy that suggest inbreeding increased the risk of harmful effects.
And it doesn't. That's not true, and there's no evidence suggesting it does.
I get the point, you implied an analogy that suggest inbreeding increased the risk of harmful effects.
And it doesn't. That's not true, and there's no evidence suggesting it does.
Anonymous H replied with this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,494
Some people who get shot in the head don’t die. You could get shot in the mandible and that wouldn’t necessarily kill you if they stop you from bleeding out.
Why do you think I used that example? "Inherently."
Why do you think I used that example? "Inherently."
Anonymous H double-posted this 1 month ago, 43 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,495
@1,425,493 (C)
> And it doesn't. That's not true, and there's no evidence suggesting it does.
https://youtu.be/nkGiFpJC9LM
Huh.
> And it doesn't. That's not true, and there's no evidence suggesting it does.
https://youtu.be/nkGiFpJC9LM
Huh.
Anonymous C replied with this 1 month ago, 46 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,496
@1,425,494 (H)
Yeah, that was how I interpeted what you wrote, and I responded to that point.
And your comparison is wrong, as I already pointed out, because shooting yourself in the head is inherently harmful and inbreeding is not
Yeah, that was how I interpeted what you wrote, and I responded to that point.
And your comparison is wrong, as I already pointed out, because shooting yourself in the head is inherently harmful and inbreeding is not
Anonymous C double-posted this 1 month ago, 36 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,497
@1,425,495 (H)
By this logic I could prove interracial relationships were inherently harmful by showing a family with genetically deformed kids.
By this logic I could prove interracial relationships were inherently harmful by showing a family with genetically deformed kids.
Anonymous H replied with this 1 month ago, 43 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,498
If you’re inbred and that’s why you went down the whole Nazi route, I don’t care if you’re inbred. I don’t really see any other reason why somebody would have this obsession with genetics and superiority while simultaneously rejecting the most obvious parts of genetics at the same time. Nobody can help how they’re born. It’s whatever.
Anonymous H double-posted this 1 month ago, 59 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,499
@1,425,497 (C)
> By this logic I could prove interracial relationships were inherently harmful by showing a family with genetically deformed kids.
The only issue with that is that parents of two different races will be more genetically different from each other so it will be much less likely their children will have genetically deformed kids.
> By this logic I could prove interracial relationships were inherently harmful by showing a family with genetically deformed kids.
The only issue with that is that parents of two different races will be more genetically different from each other so it will be much less likely their children will have genetically deformed kids.
Anonymous H triple-posted this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,500
If you google "inbred people" the first thing that’s going to come up are genetically deformed people. If you google "mixed race people" you’re just going to find endless pictures and videos of perfectly normal looking people with no genetic defects.
Anonymous C replied with this 1 month ago, 54 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,501
@1,425,498 (H)
If you are correct, and it's so obvious, then why can't you either find any scientific evidence or make a deductive argument?
You are taking it on faith, and cherrypicking cases to defend it.
I never denied that an inbred family could have genetic diseases, so you are arguing against a point no one made. Which is technically a strawman.
If you are correct, and it's so obvious, then why can't you either find any scientific evidence or make a deductive argument?
You are taking it on faith, and cherrypicking cases to defend it.
I never denied that an inbred family could have genetic diseases, so you are arguing against a point no one made. Which is technically a strawman.
Anonymous C double-posted this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,502
@1,425,500 (H)
How scientific! Why even bother with genetic or statistic analyses?
Obviously people will share things that confirm their preconceieved ideas about inbreeding. And Google is like the other tech companies, they are very sensitive about being PC around race. If anything negative showed up they'd face a scandal, and would scrub those results immediately.
How scientific! Why even bother with genetic or statistic analyses?
Obviously people will share things that confirm their preconceieved ideas about inbreeding. And Google is like the other tech companies, they are very sensitive about being PC around race. If anything negative showed up they'd face a scandal, and would scrub those results immediately.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous H replied with this 1 month ago, 8 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,503
The reason why sexual reproduction evolved in the first place is because genetic diversity is inherently beneficial to the survival of a species. In a species that reproduces asexually, it way a particular gene is associated with resistance to disease, the only way for the entire species to become resistant is if every member that doesn’t have that gene dies. But in sexually reproducing species, we can exchange beneficial genes with each other through sexual reproduction. If all humans had the same genetics, it would be much more likely we would die off.
Anonymous H double-posted this 1 month ago, 2 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,504
The reason why almost every animal species reproduces sexually instead of asexually isn’t because there are no animals that ever evolved the ability to reproduce asexually, some can. The reason is because sexually reproducing animals tend to go extinct less often than asexually reproducing animals because beneficial genes can spread throughout the population and that can only happen when there is genetic diversity within that species. Inbreeding degreases the quality of genes within a population, it’s bad.
Anonymous H triple-posted this 1 month ago, 27 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,505
And I shouldn’t have to explain that because it’s basic knowledge everybody should already know.
Anonymous H quadruple-posted this 1 month ago, 3 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,506
And I know there’s the whole stupid white supremacist fantasy of "what if we were all exactly the same and had the perfect genes and no diversity whatsoever and made perfect clones of ourselves." It is possible for animals to do that to exist. Bacteria do it. Have you ever wondered why almost nothing more complex than bacteria do that? There’s a really really good reason why that’s the case.
Anonymous C replied with this 1 month ago, 30 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,507
@1,425,503 (H)
Sexual reproduction takes risks, mixing up genes usually doesn't work out.
Sexual reproduction won out because after enough random mixes you will get a more advantageous mix while asexual reproduction stagnates.
That doesn't mean inbreeding (which still mixes up genes, but with less variance) causes disease. It inherently slows genetic mixing, but that can be fine for two reasons:
1. Genetic mixing is still happening, but slower.
2. Some offspring will leave and mix with those outside family. These groups don't inbreed forever. Plus others will sometimes join the family and add some diversity.
For a genetically healthy group, with beneficial recessive genes, this allows them to exponentially increase a good set of genes without the drag of good (but unexpressed) recessive genes in offspring that mix with a group without those positive recessive genes.
For hot whites, and noble families, it makes sense.
Sexual reproduction takes risks, mixing up genes usually doesn't work out.
Sexual reproduction won out because after enough random mixes you will get a more advantageous mix while asexual reproduction stagnates.
That doesn't mean inbreeding (which still mixes up genes, but with less variance) causes disease. It inherently slows genetic mixing, but that can be fine for two reasons:
1. Genetic mixing is still happening, but slower.
2. Some offspring will leave and mix with those outside family. These groups don't inbreed forever. Plus others will sometimes join the family and add some diversity.
For a genetically healthy group, with beneficial recessive genes, this allows them to exponentially increase a good set of genes without the drag of good (but unexpressed) recessive genes in offspring that mix with a group without those positive recessive genes.
For hot whites, and noble families, it makes sense.
Anonymous H replied with this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,508
Anonymous H double-posted this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,509
Anonymous C replied with this 1 month ago, 24 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,510
@1,425,504 (H)
No, it doesn't decrease good genes, inbreeding increases the expression of recessive genes whether they are good or bad.
If the recessive genes make a creature faster, smarter, or more attractive then inbreeding protects that expression. Exogamy (not inbreeding) suppresses that recessive expression, wasting the benefits until someone in that line has offspring with the recessive gene.
No, it doesn't decrease good genes, inbreeding increases the expression of recessive genes whether they are good or bad.
If the recessive genes make a creature faster, smarter, or more attractive then inbreeding protects that expression. Exogamy (not inbreeding) suppresses that recessive expression, wasting the benefits until someone in that line has offspring with the recessive gene.
Anonymous H replied with this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,511
@previous (C)
Inbreeding decreases genetic diversity. That inherently means that it will remove beneficial genes from the population.
Inbreeding decreases genetic diversity. That inherently means that it will remove beneficial genes from the population.
Anonymous H double-posted this 1 month ago, 50 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,512
Are you inbred? There’s no way you’re not inbred and you’re making this stupid argument unless you have a weird fetish or something.
Anonymous C replied with this 1 month ago, 2 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,513
@1,425,509 (H)
No, not if the recessive genes are positive. It would mean those recessive genes are not being expressed.
Increasing the quantity of extant good genes is preferable to having offspring that can't take advantage of them.
What good is a gene that makes one stronger and smarter when its not expressed? That offspring can have fewer offspring themselves, or has less resources to provide for them, or just dies out. The good gene disappears from that specific line, and becomes less common.
In the long run someone from that family should marry outside the family, and mix with a family that has good genes they don't have. There's no reason that needs to happen right away.
In fact, the best chance the good recessive gene has is if it is multiplied a lot first, so there are more copies that have a chance to combine with the other good genes out there.
No use in stopping the expression, slowing multiplication, and then never making it into a creature that has that gene plus other good genes.
No, not if the recessive genes are positive. It would mean those recessive genes are not being expressed.
Increasing the quantity of extant good genes is preferable to having offspring that can't take advantage of them.
What good is a gene that makes one stronger and smarter when its not expressed? That offspring can have fewer offspring themselves, or has less resources to provide for them, or just dies out. The good gene disappears from that specific line, and becomes less common.
In the long run someone from that family should marry outside the family, and mix with a family that has good genes they don't have. There's no reason that needs to happen right away.
In fact, the best chance the good recessive gene has is if it is multiplied a lot first, so there are more copies that have a chance to combine with the other good genes out there.
No use in stopping the expression, slowing multiplication, and then never making it into a creature that has that gene plus other good genes.
(Edited 10 seconds later.)
Anonymous H replied with this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,514
Like… okay, humans evolved in Africa. The farther you get from Africa the lower genetic diversity is in indigenous populations due to migration bottlenecks. Eurasia was populated by a relatively small group of people who passed through Egypt, and the Americas were populated by people who passed over the land bridge over the Bering Strait during the last ice age.
That example on disease resistance: how come when the Europeans got to Africa, all the Africans, black people like me, we all survived, but when Europeans got to the Americas, 90% of the native Americans died of disease?
That example on disease resistance: how come when the Europeans got to Africa, all the Africans, black people like me, we all survived, but when Europeans got to the Americas, 90% of the native Americans died of disease?
Anonymous C replied with this 1 month ago, 10 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,515
@1,425,511 (H)
No, it temporarily decreases recombination so the good genes have a chance to be expressed and taken advantage of.
In the long run those families will eventually mix with others anyway. No family is going to be walled off from the rest of the gene pool forever.
No, it temporarily decreases recombination so the good genes have a chance to be expressed and taken advantage of.
In the long run those families will eventually mix with others anyway. No family is going to be walled off from the rest of the gene pool forever.
Anonymous C double-posted this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,516
@1,425,512 (H)
The Vatican's obsession with power have unfortunately quelled clans from doing this much.
I would creampie my cousin if it was more acceptable.
The Vatican's obsession with power have unfortunately quelled clans from doing this much.
I would creampie my cousin if it was more acceptable.
Anonymous C triple-posted this 1 month ago, 46 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,517
Anonymous H replied with this 1 month ago, 4 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,518
Anonymous C replied with this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,519
Anonymous H replied with this 1 month ago, 13 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,520
@1,425,517 (C)
> Which time period are you referring to?
Hominins left Africa twice. About a million years ago various hominin species populated Eurasia, but 300,000 years ago, our species Homo sapiens emerged out of Africa and killed off all the other species of hominin.
Christopher Columbus discovered the Americas in 1492.
> Which time period are you referring to?
Hominins left Africa twice. About a million years ago various hominin species populated Eurasia, but 300,000 years ago, our species Homo sapiens emerged out of Africa and killed off all the other species of hominin.
Christopher Columbus discovered the Americas in 1492.
Anonymous C replied with this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,521
@previous (H)
Are you trying to make the case that this was the result of inbreeding from those outside Africa?
Are you trying to make the case that this was the result of inbreeding from those outside Africa?
Anonymous H replied with this 1 month ago, 47 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,522
Africans actually have more genetic variation than everyone else outside of Africa. And Sub Saharan Africans tend to have more pure Homo sapiens DNA than Asians or Europeans. Europeans are part Neanderthal and Asians are part Neanderthal and Denisovans, but Sub Saharan Africans are less than 1% Neanderthal and are almost completely pure Homo sapiens.
Anonymous H double-posted this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,523
@1,425,521 (C)
> Are you trying to make the case that this was the result of inbreeding from those outside Africa?
No, it was because Homo sapiens were more intelligent than other hominin species so we outcompeted them for resources and they all went extinct. I was saying that most Native Americans died from old world diseases partially because they had less genetic diversity than Africans and Europeans. Which is why when Sub Saharan Africans were exposed to Europeans, we didn’t die out from European diseases, we were fine.
> Are you trying to make the case that this was the result of inbreeding from those outside Africa?
No, it was because Homo sapiens were more intelligent than other hominin species so we outcompeted them for resources and they all went extinct. I was saying that most Native Americans died from old world diseases partially because they had less genetic diversity than Africans and Europeans. Which is why when Sub Saharan Africans were exposed to Europeans, we didn’t die out from European diseases, we were fine.
Anonymous H triple-posted this 1 month ago, 35 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,524
More genetic diversity is highly beneficial and Africans have the most which goes against your racial view that we’re inferior, because we are actually the original most pure people with the strongest genetics.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous C replied with this 1 month ago, 3 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,525
@1,425,522 (H)
So the losers of the earth have the most generic diversity.
And the European nobles that controlled the planet were inbred, and were eventually replaced by mass produced whites from America as the most powerful on earth.
Similar to business. Better to have one design that works well, and is mass produced.
Creating 100 unique products and saying "but it's new, it's not like the others!" usually means it's not that great. And if it is, that design is usually kept consistent and mass produced.
So the losers of the earth have the most generic diversity.
And the European nobles that controlled the planet were inbred, and were eventually replaced by mass produced whites from America as the most powerful on earth.
Similar to business. Better to have one design that works well, and is mass produced.
Creating 100 unique products and saying "but it's new, it's not like the others!" usually means it's not that great. And if it is, that design is usually kept consistent and mass produced.
Anonymous C double-posted this 1 month ago, 46 seconds later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,526
Anonymous C triple-posted this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,527
This is what sororities in the south look like BTW. not much genetic diversity.Anonymous I joined in and replied with this 1 month ago, 32 seconds later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,528
@1,425,525 (C)
> So the losers of the earth have the most generic diversity.
Africans aren’t losers, I already told you that the entire planet was populated by Sub Saharan Africans 300,000 years ago. There used to be other species, but we were more intelligent. You’re part Neanderthal, but you’re mostly Homo sapiens.
> So the losers of the earth have the most generic diversity.
Africans aren’t losers, I already told you that the entire planet was populated by Sub Saharan Africans 300,000 years ago. There used to be other species, but we were more intelligent. You’re part Neanderthal, but you’re mostly Homo sapiens.
Anonymous I double-posted this 1 month ago, 55 seconds later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,529
The entire world war colonized by Sub Saharan Africans and we killed off 100% of the population of every continent.
Anonymous I triple-posted this 1 month ago, 2 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,530
Europeans have 1% to 2% Neanderthal DNA while Africans only have 0.3%. Europeans are mostly Homo sapiens and Homo sapiens originated in Sub Saharan Africa. So it doesn’t make any sense to call us the losers when everything Europeans ever did was an African accomplishment, because Europeans are almost entirely African.
Anonymous C replied with this 1 month ago, 16 seconds later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,531
@1,425,524 (H)
Seriously think about what you are saying.
Why has there never, at any time in human history, been a single black country that became the #1 power?
If that diversity meant anything, there would be at least one example.
Meanwhile the successful nations had hypergamy and harems that reduced genetic diversity, but selected for the best genes.
There's no contest. Pruning the bad genes, and multiplying the good ones wins. Having a lot of diversity, because of all the random shit genes, has never worked.
Seriously think about what you are saying.
Why has there never, at any time in human history, been a single black country that became the #1 power?
If that diversity meant anything, there would be at least one example.
Meanwhile the successful nations had hypergamy and harems that reduced genetic diversity, but selected for the best genes.
There's no contest. Pruning the bad genes, and multiplying the good ones wins. Having a lot of diversity, because of all the random shit genes, has never worked.
Anonymous C double-posted this 1 month ago, 2 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,532
@1,425,528 (I)
Are you playing dumb now?
At one point Homo Sapiens took over, and they came from Africa yes.
Once Homo Sapiens populated the planet and we had whites and asians and blacks, blacks never made it to the #1 nation.
Are you playing dumb now?
At one point Homo Sapiens took over, and they came from Africa yes.
Once Homo Sapiens populated the planet and we had whites and asians and blacks, blacks never made it to the #1 nation.
Anonymous I replied with this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,533
@1,425,531 (C)
Countries haven’t existed for very long. Out of the 300,000 years Homo sapiens have existed, the oldest civilizations began only about 10,000 years ago. So for 290,000 years there were no countries. Human civilization hasn’t existed for very long, so you actually don’t know whether or not Africans will dominate or whether they won’t dominate.
Countries haven’t existed for very long. Out of the 300,000 years Homo sapiens have existed, the oldest civilizations began only about 10,000 years ago. So for 290,000 years there were no countries. Human civilization hasn’t existed for very long, so you actually don’t know whether or not Africans will dominate or whether they won’t dominate.
(Edited 36 seconds later.)
Anonymous C replied with this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,534
@1,425,529 (I)
The ancestors of all the races today came from Africa.
Blacks have never been in the lead over whites or asians lol, you're basically saying all these people came from Africa originally.
No shit, that's where the species came from. Are you trying to say blacks are equal to whites and asians because of where the species originated? lmao
The ancestors of all the races today came from Africa.
Blacks have never been in the lead over whites or asians lol, you're basically saying all these people came from Africa originally.
No shit, that's where the species came from. Are you trying to say blacks are equal to whites and asians because of where the species originated? lmao
Anonymous I replied with this 1 month ago, 18 seconds later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,535
Technically it would be more accurate to say within the past 10,000 years. The point is the order of magnitude not the exact number.
Anonymous I double-posted this 1 month ago, 50 seconds later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,536
@1,425,534 (C)
Neanderthals went extinct when Homo sapiens entered Europe, and Africans have more Homo sapiens DNA than Europeans do.
Neanderthals went extinct when Homo sapiens entered Europe, and Africans have more Homo sapiens DNA than Europeans do.
Anonymous C replied with this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,537
@1,425,533 (I)
Ok lol, let me phrase this correctly:
For all of human history, whites and asians have dominated over blacks.
Technically we don't know what the future holds lol.
If I recall correctly you think the genetic engineering and robotics of the US and China will be outdone by hyperpoor blacks in Africa having a large quantity of children as we go into an age where humans are increasingly obsolete. I'm sure having more mouths to feed when their labor is more useless than ever will work out 🤣
Ok lol, let me phrase this correctly:
For all of human history, whites and asians have dominated over blacks.
Technically we don't know what the future holds lol.
If I recall correctly you think the genetic engineering and robotics of the US and China will be outdone by hyperpoor blacks in Africa having a large quantity of children as we go into an age where humans are increasingly obsolete. I'm sure having more mouths to feed when their labor is more useless than ever will work out 🤣
Anonymous C double-posted this 1 month ago, 30 seconds later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,538
Anonymous I replied with this 1 month ago, 21 seconds later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,539
If you think about it, Europeans actually haven’t outcompeted Africans on a biological level. In terms of population, Europe had a higher population when Africa was colonized, but Africa has twice as many people as Europe does now and Africa has a much higher birth rate than Europe, so the gap will get larger over time. It’s not conclusive that Europe has won at history because it’s an infinite game. There is no moment where you’ve won.
Anonymous I double-posted this 1 month ago, 37 seconds later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,540
Anonymous I triple-posted this 1 month ago, 45 seconds later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,541
Neanderthals were less intelligent than modern humans. They weren’t superior to us.
Anonymous C replied with this 1 month ago, 49 seconds later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,542
@1,425,540 (I)
You get confused by very simple concepts.
The people that had the DNA that got wiped out aren't here, you can't rub it in their face because they are gone.
The people that have DNA that stuck around only have the DNA that stuck around, so you can't use the "it got wiped out" line to argue against that DNA.
You get confused by very simple concepts.
The people that had the DNA that got wiped out aren't here, you can't rub it in their face because they are gone.
The people that have DNA that stuck around only have the DNA that stuck around, so you can't use the "it got wiped out" line to argue against that DNA.
Anonymous I replied with this 1 month ago, 58 seconds later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,543
Anonymous C replied with this 1 month ago, 1 second later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,544
@1,425,541 (I)
If I have Neanderthal DNA, I only have the DNA that didn't get wiped out.
How can you use "it got wiped out" as evidence this DNA that didn't get wiped out is nevative?
If I have Neanderthal DNA, I only have the DNA that didn't get wiped out.
How can you use "it got wiped out" as evidence this DNA that didn't get wiped out is nevative?
Anonymous I replied with this 1 month ago, 29 seconds later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,545
Anonymous C replied with this 1 month ago, 54 seconds later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,546
@1,425,543 (I)
Right, so who is saying Neanderthals were superior to Sapiens?
The only Neanderthal DNA left didn't get wiped out. So what's your evidence that DNA is bad?
Right, so who is saying Neanderthals were superior to Sapiens?
The only Neanderthal DNA left didn't get wiped out. So what's your evidence that DNA is bad?
Anonymous C double-posted this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,547
Anonymous I replied with this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,548
@1,425,546 (C)
It’s not even clear what you’re trying to argue for anymore. White people aren’t superior. European colonialism began 500 years ago. You can’t make biological arguments over timescales that short because significant changes in human evolution happen over hundreds of thousands of years not hundreds of years. Bringing up nations as an argument just shows how dim witted you are.
It’s not even clear what you’re trying to argue for anymore. White people aren’t superior. European colonialism began 500 years ago. You can’t make biological arguments over timescales that short because significant changes in human evolution happen over hundreds of thousands of years not hundreds of years. Bringing up nations as an argument just shows how dim witted you are.
Anonymous C replied with this 1 month ago, 3 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,549
@previous (I)
> It’s not even clear what you’re trying to argue for anymore. White people aren’t superior.
It must be a coincidence whites took over the world.
> European colonialism began 500 years ago. You can’t make biological arguments over timescales that short because significant changes in human evolution happen over hundreds of thousands of years not hundreds of years. Bringing up nations as an argument just shows how dim witted you are.
You can form conclusions once an ethnic group takes over the world, builds nukes, visits the moon, and establishes an economic order that solidifies them going forward.
After a point it doesn't matter how good Africans do, the west can just take what they want.
> It’s not even clear what you’re trying to argue for anymore. White people aren’t superior.
It must be a coincidence whites took over the world.
> European colonialism began 500 years ago. You can’t make biological arguments over timescales that short because significant changes in human evolution happen over hundreds of thousands of years not hundreds of years. Bringing up nations as an argument just shows how dim witted you are.
You can form conclusions once an ethnic group takes over the world, builds nukes, visits the moon, and establishes an economic order that solidifies them going forward.
After a point it doesn't matter how good Africans do, the west can just take what they want.
Anonymous I replied with this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,550
@previous (C)
> It must be a coincidence whites took over the world.
How come you sorts are obsessed with the fact that European empires conquered territory but ignore the fact that those empires don’t exist anymore? How come we need a biological explanation for why the British Empire rose but for some reason you’re completely disinterested in a biological explanation for why it fell?
> It must be a coincidence whites took over the world.
How come you sorts are obsessed with the fact that European empires conquered territory but ignore the fact that those empires don’t exist anymore? How come we need a biological explanation for why the British Empire rose but for some reason you’re completely disinterested in a biological explanation for why it fell?
Anonymous I double-posted this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,551
@1,425,549 (C)
> After a point it doesn't matter how good Africans do, the west can just take what they want.
No they can’t. Africa has a higher population than Europe and Africans have more advanced weapons today than they did 200 years ago.
> After a point it doesn't matter how good Africans do, the west can just take what they want.
No they can’t. Africa has a higher population than Europe and Africans have more advanced weapons today than they did 200 years ago.
Anonymous I triple-posted this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,552
When Europe colonized Africa it was because Europeans had more people and they had gunpowder which the Africans didn’t have, so they were just shooting at people who didn’t have guns. Since Africans have had guns, Europeans have never even tried to conquer Africa again.
Anonymous C replied with this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,553
@1,425,550 (I)
The British empire was replaced by one of their colonies, and the English language and common law system lived on.
Even the Romans changed languages when the capitol moved.
And besides, we are talking about racial groups. One white empire was replaced by another. Whites stayed in control...
How does it support your argument when the new empire wasn't black?
The British empire was replaced by one of their colonies, and the English language and common law system lived on.
Even the Romans changed languages when the capitol moved.
And besides, we are talking about racial groups. One white empire was replaced by another. Whites stayed in control...
How does it support your argument when the new empire wasn't black?
Anonymous I replied with this 1 month ago, 15 seconds later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,554
The other problem with colonizing Africa is that there are countries in Africa that possess highly enriched uranium. Africans signed treaties not to create nuclear weapons because they didn’t see a threat from Europe and were non-aligned during the Cold War. However, a country like South Africa for instance could easily assembly a nuclear weapon if they wanted to.
Anonymous C replied with this 1 month ago, 9 seconds later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,555
@1,425,551 (I)
Again, population numbers mean nothing.
India has a billion people, and are dirt poor.
Again, population numbers mean nothing.
India has a billion people, and are dirt poor.
Anonymous I replied with this 1 month ago, 30 seconds later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,556
Anonymous I double-posted this 1 month ago, 21 seconds later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,557
Anonymous I triple-posted this 1 month ago, 2 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,558
@1,425,554 (I)
There’s also a difference between South Africa and Iran. America bombs Iran because Iran is trying to enrich uranium. South Africa has no enrichment capability, because they don’t need one anymore, and the US won’t bomb South Africa because of that.
There’s also a difference between South Africa and Iran. America bombs Iran because Iran is trying to enrich uranium. South Africa has no enrichment capability, because they don’t need one anymore, and the US won’t bomb South Africa because of that.
Anonymous C replied with this 1 month ago, 54 seconds later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,559
@1,425,554 (I)
> Africans signed treaties not to create nuclear weapons because they didn’t see a threat from Europe
L. M. A. O. 😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣
Let's end this one here, because you've outdone yourself.
Oh sure they could have! They just didn't see any point! Fuck, even if that were true, and not just ludicrous cope, it would mean they were too stupid to realize how important nuclear detterance is.
> Africans signed treaties not to create nuclear weapons because they didn’t see a threat from Europe
L. M. A. O. 😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣
Let's end this one here, because you've outdone yourself.
Oh sure they could have! They just didn't see any point! Fuck, even if that were true, and not just ludicrous cope, it would mean they were too stupid to realize how important nuclear detterance is.
Anonymous I replied with this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,560
@previous (C)
The reason they’re called third world countries is because the US and its allies was the first world, the Soviet Union and their allies was the second world, and the non aligned countries were the third world. Yes, this is literally the reason why African countries didn’t peruse nuclear weapons, because they were not threatened by the US or Soviet Union because they were mostly allied with neither.
The reason they’re called third world countries is because the US and its allies was the first world, the Soviet Union and their allies was the second world, and the non aligned countries were the third world. Yes, this is literally the reason why African countries didn’t peruse nuclear weapons, because they were not threatened by the US or Soviet Union because they were mostly allied with neither.
Anonymous I double-posted this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,561
If African countries started testing nuclear weapons, that would have made the US and USSR more interested in Africa which isn’t what they wanted. They didn’t want to be the next Vietnam.
Anonymous I triple-posted this 1 month ago, 26 seconds later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,562
How do you not know this?
Anonymous I quadruple-posted this 1 month ago, 2 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,563
The fact that "third world" is now associated with Africa is just a coincidence because most of the countries that happened to not be aligned with America or the USSR were African countries.
Anonymous I quintuple-posted this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,564
Now if Africa was threatened by outsiders, they probably would start testing nuclear weapons. But they’re not so they don’t.
Anonymous J joined in and replied with this 1 month ago, 5 hours later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,585
someone please just kill this guy
Anonymous C replied with this 1 month ago, 2 minutes later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,586
@previous (J)
I'm frustrated too, but that won't solve anything, you'll just incite looters.
I sent one of his posts to the FBI, you need to trust the system.
I'm frustrated too, but that won't solve anything, you'll just incite looters.
I sent one of his posts to the FBI, you need to trust the system.
Anonymous D replied with this 1 month ago, 7 hours later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,611
@1,425,464 (C) @1,425,463 (C)Because its severe and well written about by people who had every motivation to try to fix him. Lesser cases of inbreeding, or those from commoners can be hidden by any number of confounding variables. This is why nobody thinks highly of brownoids intelligence, because any human over the age of ten can figure it out.
(Edited 39 seconds later.)
Anonymous K joined in and replied with this 1 month ago, 2 hours later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,624
@previous (D)
> This is why nobody thinks highly of brownoids intelligence,
Europeans are significantly more inbred than Africans.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1462113/
> This is why nobody thinks highly of brownoids intelligence,
Europeans are significantly more inbred than Africans.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1462113/
Anonymous K double-posted this 1 month ago, 36 seconds later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,625
Eurasians aren’t really a separate race from Africans, they’re just inbred sub Saharan Africans that look weird.
