Why do race 'realists' hate reality?

...

Other urls found in this thread:

journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0047765
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

There's no such a thing as "race". Your sexist and racist "man" brain wouldn't get this.

What are you trying to prove here?

Race isn't real, there is man and beast.

that racialism only makes sense if you know literally nothing about human race

are you trying to tell me i'm not a beast

Wtf is this image supposed to even show?

Niggers are a beast of the field. I don't know about the chinaman yet

And how exactly do you want to prove that?

race is an arbitrary categorization

look at the pic and use some critical thinking, I'm sure your superior aryan brain is capable of that.

>what is the sahara?
>what is the steppe?

race is arbitrary, but that definetely does not mean that there aren't average difference between ethnic groups.

If you say that a subsaharan african is, on average, the same as an european (same features, iq, height, strength, weaknesses on average), you've been brainwashed.

Wow, it's almost like people move around all over the place and emigrate, or go on conquests and take the conquered women as their prize, or import tons of foreigners from different areas to use as slaves, rather than just sitting in a five mile radius of where they were born and wallow in their own filth and ignorance!

...

>huuuur duur u see? colors don't reel *drools all over welfare check* dum conservatibes

Maybe you should have payed attention beyond learning colours at school and maybe you wouldn't be so fucking stupid.

Also italians aren't the same colour as norwegians so they must be a different race, right?

You showed us 4 pictures of 4 individuals who were born in different geographical locations.

You're an idiot if you think this proves anything.

I highly doubt that Asian guy in the top right actually lives in that portion of Kazakhstan and not in the east closer to China.

So what is it specifically that racial realists believe that you disagree with?

How is it arbitrary if statistically significant biological differences can be correlated between those categorical lines? There's nothing arbitrary about it.

>Also italians aren't the same colour as norwegians so they must be a different race, right?
Are you stupid or something?

>not understanding the simply analogy
get off the internet akmed, go drool all over the qur'an

Because reality is rayciss and raycism is wrong.

italians are mediterranean/alpinic and norwegians are nordic

>statistically significant biological differences can be correlated between those categorical lines

but there isn't

Picrelated

Seems like youre showing me places where a majority of people from different background lives. You're really dumb.

...

...

So why isn't it called human breeds instead of races?

Why are you talking about dogs? How is that even remotely relevant? Dogs have been selectively bread to exhibit specific characteristics for hundreds of years, selective breading is totally different ro darwinian evolutions

So people are different shades of tan and some dogs look different, therefore racism?

environment breeds specific characteristics just like humans do with dogs you dumb ape

have you read any of those studies? because I had a quick glance at a few and none of them are arguing anything like what its claimed in that nice little info-graphic

Why do race anti-realists deny biological evolution?

There is no functional biological difference between artificial and natural selection.

You shouldn't be looking at what a study is arguing, you should be looking at what the data/results say and then forming your own opinions.

...

btw, the dates aren't even good, nigs and Eurasians separated definitely before 40k years ago(Ust Ishim, the oldest modern human genome sequenced from 45k years ago was fully Eurasian already), more like 60k to 100k
and dogs seemingly descend from some type of asian Wolf from only 15k years ago

...

Post more.

Kill yourself you fucking cuck

>There is no functional biological difference between artificial and natural selection.

except there are domesticated species which could not survive without human intervention and there are, and could not be, undomesticated species that require human intervention for survival.

That there is not inherent link between selective breading and survival.

>You shouldn't be looking at what a study is arguing, you should be looking at what the data/results say and then forming your own opinions.

I have never studied anthropology at any level so it would be totally retarded and absurdly arrogant for me to assume that I could gauge the implications of this data. However 93% of american anthropologits believe 'Biological variability exists but this variability does not conform to the discrete packages labeled races.' So if the guys who compile this data and have spent years studying anthropology think it shows that race doesn't exist then I believe them.

I don't get your point, you want to show us how different races exist so the whole "we're all one, the human race" is crap? We already know that.

>I had a quick glance
You do not have the first idea about this, do you.
Go and do your homework, Sup Forums is not your personal educator.

White skin looks more beautiful to me.

>Sup Forums is not your personal educator.

yet it has been yours, right? Or did you watch a few Jared Taylor talks on youtube as well.

Thats basically a anthropology degree

If you think that science, and especially anthropology, is not driven by political agendas you have been heavily brainwashed.

if you think everyone who disagrees with you has been brainwashed then you almost certainly have been brainwashed. Until now I just thought you were stupid.

Since when are race deniers also flat earthers?

This doesn't mean anything, north africans have more crossed genome with the Naenderthal than sub-saharan africans and even Europeans.
journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0047765