Sorry little Toshio, this white supremacist idiot here says you cannot come to Paris because apparently even Japanese people in Europe are problematic

40  2018-07-29 by ReichSmasher2018

66 comments

I'm not even sure what your point is. Yeah I'd rather sleep with a dakimakura of my waifu Renge-chan than with some random 3D slut but that doesn't mean I'm desperate, it's the opposite, it implies that I have standards.

Snapshots:

  1. This Post - archive.org, megalodon.jp*, removeddit.com, archive.is

I am a bot. (Info / Contact)

Yes. If you are not European you will always be a problem in Europe. It doesn't matter how long you've lived here.

I honestly can't tell whether this is supposed to be sarcasm.

Imagine being so fucking stupid you think there were never any non-white people in Europe at all, when in fact there have been scattered communities of Africans, Middle Easterners, Indian Asians, and East Asians present since ancient times due to a little thing called the silk road.

I wonder if he would scream obscenities at the adorable toddler down the street whose mom owns the fish and chips shop?

I was more referring to the fact that he thinks that Europeans are a objectively distinct genetic group that is unique enough from every other group of people that it's impossible for any non-European to assimilate into European society.

That too.

Only a dumbass Yankee could think people cannot assimilate into European culture.

It's especially ironic that the average mayo American is a mix of several different ethnicities that successfully mixed to form a distinct culture but can't understand that the same could happen with other ethnicities.

They call then Amerimutts for a reason.

The "Amerimutt" meme is one of the most asinine memes I've ever scene, even compared to other alt-right memes. It is entirely dependent on the false premise that ethnicities are not only naturally distinct, inviolable groups that should never be mixed but that culture is entirely dependent on them, with any mixtures between them automatically being worse than the "pure" version. The obvious problems with them should be apparent to anyone with a basic amount of common sense, as humans have been mixing both genes and cultures without represent to these groups for hundreds of thousand of years, and cultures would not be entirely static even if they hadn't. Calling Americans "Amerimutts" is as asinine as calling Europeans "Euromutts" because of interbreeding with Neanderthals.

Amerimutt isn't an alt right meme lol, it's used to mock American alt-righters.

No, it's used by European alt-righters to mock American ones. American alt-righters tend to think that all Europeans are somehow the same ethnicity.

Memes are defined by how they are used, and on /r/drama the Amerimutt meme is used by non alt-righters.

Don't European alt fighters know about European interethnic rivalries? Like the medieval English literally thought of the French as subhuman, and vice versa.

Europeans racists are globalists these days. In the good old times the French racists ranted about Spanish, Italian and Polish immigrants. Today, they don't care so much about Europeans immigrants. Where have racists traditions gone? It was a core central tenet of our culture ffs 😭😭😭😭😭

Don't European alt righters know about European interethnic rivalries? Like the medieval English literally thought of the French as subhuman, and vice versa.

Somehow both were right.

[removed]

If you're going to seriouspost, then I will too:

19 out of 20 White Americans are 100% White

Hi, I'm a bot for linking direct images of albums with only 1 image

https://i.imgur.com/A35WwRe.png

Source | Why? | Creator | ignoreme | deletthis

Yes, but they're a mix of different white ethnicities that are arbitrarily grouped together because of a similar skin color and their origin from the same general area even though they developed under otherwise somewhat different conditions.

Labels are useful for both spectra and exclusive categories.

You're making the tired argument that since a Ute) could be categorised as either a car or an SUV, the labels car and SUV are arbitrary. That the act of grouping similar vehicles isn't informative simply because there is room for debate at the margin.

To the contrary, someone who wants to buy an SUV derives utility from this grouping, someone who wants to be around whites derives utility from that grouping.

The term mayo isn't meaningless, but it doesn't have the genetic significance that people like to pretend it does.

The labels SUV and the labels White are exceedingly valuable filters when it comes to choosing what car I want to drive in and what people I want to live around (which was the point of this thread).

Can you show that mayo and various non-mayo terms are useful to the same degree for the same purposes?

The labels will be more important to people who have use for them in their decision making process.

For example, personal safety is a frequent criteria when choosing a vehicle. In that case, I would want to use Car, SUV, and Truck as filters, with a preference in that order (most cars are safer than SUVs, while pickup trucks are much less safe than all other vehicles).

On the other hand, if one cared less about personal safety, and cared more about the availability of the automobile in factory green paint, the labels Car, SUV, and Truck would be less useful or useless.

For places to live in the US, if one cared about personal safety, one would benefit from filtering local demographics by Asian, White (non-hispanic), Hispanic, and Black, in that order.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_crime_in_the_United_States#Crime_trends

I would choose these race labels as filters first because they are better predictors for homicide rates than other filters like median family income (Table 6).

Wow, you must be a JP fan

I am a bot. Contact

LITERALLY PICKLE RICK

It turns out that genetic variation in human populations is mostly a matter of differences in the relative proportions of the same sets of alleles. In fact, the distribution of particular phenotypes shifts gradually from place to place across populations as the frequencies of some alleles increase, whereas those of others decrease or stay the same. Moreover, the distributions of some traits (like skin color) do not match the distributions of other traits (like hair type). Such a pattern of gradually shifting frequency of a phenotypic trait from population to population across geographic space is called a cline. Clines can be represented on maps such as those that show the gradually shifting distribution of differences in human skin color from the equator to the poles.

Phenotypic contrasts are greatest when people from very different places are brought together and compared, while ignoring the populations that connect them (Marks 1995, 161). This is what happened when Europeans arrived in the New World, conquered the indigenous peoples, and imported slaves from Africa to work on their plantations. But if you were to walk from Stockholm, Sweden, to Cape Town, South Africa (or from Singapore to Beijing, China), you would gradual changes in average skin color as you moved from north to south (or vice versa). Evolutionary biologists argue that skin pigmentation is distributed in this way as a consequence of natural selection: individuals in tropical populations with darker skin pigmentation had a selective advantage in equatorial habitats over individuals with light pigmentation. By contrast, populations farther away from the equator faced less intense selection pressure for darkly pigmented skin and perhaps even selective pressures in favor of lighter skins. But different selection pressures would have been at work on other traits, such as stature or hair type, within the same population, which is why the geographical distributions of these traits do not match up neatly with the distribution of skin pigmentation. To make things even more complex, different genes may be involved in the production of similar phenotypic traits in different populations: for example, although different ancestral populations of humans living near the equator have dark skin, the identity and the number of alleles involved in the production of this phenotypic trait may be different in different populations.

Evidence for this gradual geographical intergradation of human phenotypes led biological anthropologist Frank Livingstone (1964) to declare more than 40 years ago that "There are no races, there are only clines" (279). Clinal variation explains why people searching for "races" have never been able to agree on how many there are or how they can be identified. Clines are not groups. The only group involved in clinal mapping is the entire human species. Each cline is a map of the distribution of a single trait. Biologists might compare the clinal maps of trait A and trait B to see if they overlap and, if so, by how much. But the more clines they superimpose, the more obvious it becomes that the trait distributions they map do not coincide in ways that neatly subdivide into distinct human subpopulations; that is, clinal distributions are not concordant. Since the biological concept of "race" predicts exactly such overlap, or concordance, it cannot be correct. In other words, clinal analysis tests the biological concept of "race" and finds nothing in nature 10 match it. And if biological races cannot be found, then the so-called races identified over the years can only be symbolic constructs, based on cultural elaboration of a few superficial phenotypic differences—skin color, hair type and quantity, skin folds, lip shape, and the like. In short, early race theorists "weren't extracting races from their set of data, they were imposing races upon it" (Marks 1995, 132).

Reductivist strawmanning to "skin color" is pretty lame.

Especially since the real differences run the gamut from skin to bones to my personal favourite.

The last part is why it matters in politics. Labelling and grouping by race provides a valuable predictor for behaviors such as productivity, criminality, and net contribution (or burden) on the tax system.

In biology tomatoes are fruits. When it comes to making something that actually tastes good to eat, the categories culinary-fruits and culinary-vegetables exist because they are far more valuable for decision making.

They're an arbitrary grouping of arbitrary groups.

I know right? European culture is basically the default of the world in some capacity or another, don't know what this piss-wrangler is on about.

when in fact there have been scattered communities of Africans, Middle Easterners, Indian Asians, and East Asians present since ancient times due to a little thing called the silk road.

Let’s not be silly now. There were individuals of different races in Europe since ancient times, but until the 19th century there were no communities of non-whites besides Jews, Roma, Arabs/Berbers in Iberia, Turkic people in Eastern Europe, and Armenians (and many of these would be considered white by today’s standards). Ancient Rome and China were hardly aware of each other’s existence.

Lol imbibe thinking the Arabs in Spain weren't significant.

besides

besides all these prominent examples, there haven't historically been groups of non-Europeans in Europe.

There weren’t random black and Asian people wandering the streets of 13th-century London like a lot of media insist there were.

As I said, the Moors and Turks were confined to the edges of Europe. Jews were only numerous in the cities, and are basically white. Black people were almost completely unheard of, there were no East Asians. There was a little bit of diversity in major cities, but it was a different kind of diversity than you would find in major European cities today. There were no black Vikings wandering around.

If you arbitrarily define Europe as basically just northern Europe, there were no non-white people in Europe...

except the Jews....

but they get to be white for the purposes of my ahistorical argument

I like how every time he's forced to move the goalposts he makes sure to also try and frame it as if the replies are making some absurd claim like black vikings.

The vikings example is particularly interesting, since the Vikings were the group of northern Europeans who probably had the closest relationship with non-white people after they conquered Sicily :/

There were no "black Vikings" but they got around in the early Middle Ages.

Taking that in to account along with the Vikings' preferred foreign policy strategies, perhaps there were a few mixed race viking rape babies by the full extent of their conquest.

almost certainly

I don't think that the people I'm arguing with believe things like that. I think the difference of opinion is about whether it's okay to let those kinds of historical inaccuracies slide when they come up.

How am I being arbitrary? Were there black Africans or East Asians or South Asians in southern Europe that I'm not aware of?

And I'm not shifting the goalposts either. I was completely honest in making my argument from the beginning, by acknowledging that there were some non-European people in Europe before the modern age.

What bothers me is when what little diversity that there was at a given time is shown in an inaccurate way to promote an agenda. If a silly movie that makes no pretensions to historical accuracy has Samuel L. Jackson in medieval England, I don't care. When the media deliberately distorts the truth a historical setting for the sake of a modern political agenda, that's when it gets annoying.

It's annoying when the left does it:

https://www.standard.co.uk/stayingin/tvfilm/doctor-whos-steven-moffat-to-tackle-whitewashing-in-new-episode-a3526046.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpDnTYYXXAY

And when the right does it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braveheart

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Patriot_(2000_film)

And kids and stupid adults are easily influenced by this kind of propaganda, and the perceptions of the public can be easily altered.

Since you seem to actually be interested in the topic, of course you realize that modern conceptions of race are pretty dodgy to talk about in the context of the ancient or medieval world anyway, so this is all academic.

So what if Augustine of hippo would look like an Arab or some kind of halfsie to modern eyes? Medieval people didnt think in those terms, so applying our ideas about race to the Middle Ages is purely academic and at worst inaccurate.

Fuck I deleted my first response but it was basically : race didn't matter to medieval subjects so it is not even really a conversation worth having through the lens of "white people" or "non white people", which is a trap even I fell into in this conversation

Different kind of diversity.

Yeah, back then European unity of a concept of Europeans didn't really exist; cultures were much more diverse in medieval Europe than nowadays.

Imagine being this triggered over a white supremacist comment.

Yes. If you are not European you will always be a problem in Europe. It doesn't matter how long you've lived here.

Early Neolithic Farmers OUT OUT OUT!

No drama here folks, just dumb racism.

Sounds exactly like something a broken bell would say TBH.

"if you don't open your borders and get colonized by foreigners you're a raaaaycis"

cohensteinberggoldmann

Lmao I love that you started with Cohen. Daddy's Judas must've triggered the hell out of you.

The elimination of the "white" race is inevitable. In fact, race is, for the most part, a nonsense construct, but the "white" race even moreso. It is clear that there is no explicit, accurate definition for being "white", the phantasm of "race purity" is far from reality and is grounded in nothing but the fantasies of people who think that those that they do not consider "white" are "taking muh womenz" (read: insecurity, as well as misogyny).

In present-day society, the identity of Western countries and their inhabitants are not pegged down by race, but by nationality—additionally, you can now see people mixing their origins with their current nationality, an example being so called "hyphenated Americans". These people range from someone holding some aspects of their culture dear to them, to someone who calls themselves so because "my [insert near ancestor] was from [insert foreign country]". Contrary to the European failure at integrating immigrants, the United States has done well with the integration of immigrants, and miscegenation of races will thus be unavoidable, and the delusion of "white purity" will become extinct.

Even in Europe, although they may not have succeeded in integrating their immigrants well (leading to the formation of ghettos such as the ones in Tower Hamlets, London), there will always be a few immigrants who manage to escape from the grasps of these ghettos and integrate within larger society. This leads to race-mixing as well, albeit to a lesser extent, but every bit counts, and every bit helps. Why? When two people of color have children, you can usually see distinct features from both parents present in the child. When a person of color and a white person have a child, the most commonly (and usually only) feature passed down from the white parent is lighter skin (cumskin). This is due to the fact that the genes that lead to the expression of so-called "white" phenotypes, are for the most part, recessive. This facilitates the elimination of "white" features in society.

Furthermore, children who have blood from both a person of color and a white person are forsaken by those who fantasize about the white race being preserved, even though they carry recessive genes from their white parent, genes that could eventually be expressed again. This will also contribute to the demise of the so-called "white race".

Eventually, no person who considers themselves "white" will have so-called "pure" genes. Hence, the white race will have been eliminated by the standards set by the race purists themselves, having led themselves to their own demise.

This but unironically

Why do you believe this unironically?

oy vey how can you not want to open your borders? don't you know that's literally fascism?!

oy vey how can you not want to open your borders? don't you know that's literally fascism?!

Oy vey how can you want me to explain my reasoning because I used a tired meme to say I agreed with something that seems ridiculous without elaborating on my reasoning whatsoever?

Don't you know that's literally cultural Marxism?

This but unironically

Epic memage, my friend.

Epic estrogen levels, my fellow soyim.

soyim

You're really bad at this.

:Yawn-emojii:

oy vey how can you not want to open your borders?! that's literally fascism.

Lol u double posted.

it deletes my second post every time i try to delete just one 😩

Maybe it's simply trying to prevent you from making such shitty comments

Okay then, I better tell that goofy little boy who plays with his dinosaurs to pack up and return to a "homeland" neither he or his parents have ever been to.

What's the matter, kiddo? Of course there are yummy croissants in Kore- errr, Japan.

What even is the point of CA now? They're not even cringing at shit, it's all agendaposts that have dropped even the pretense of being content at which to cringe. It's become the new r/imgoingtoshellforthis but somehow worse.

[removed]

Imagine being this racist.