the lie that 'asian women don't like beards''they like fem guys'

[Outcast9428]

@Lucas88

I apologize, some information I have known for so long that I forget not everybody has researched these topics as in-depth as I have, and I assume it is just obvious to everyone. To me, trying to argue that Asians are just as biologically violent as Blacks are and that its all just environment is the same level of ridiculousness as trying to argue that grass is purple.

correlation doesn't always equal causation is a real thing that is acknowledged by any legitimate social scientist or researcher.

So you believe what colleges tell you now? Given how I've seen this argument applied in every case its been used, I'm completely convinced the correlation does not equal causation crap was invented, precisely for moments like this, because "social scientists" from universities don't want to acknowledge a lot of truths about the human species. Which is that, we aren't really one species. The homo sapien species is like the canine species, but there are several different breeds of humans. What we call "race" is basically the same as another dog breed. There are dramatic physical and mental differences between each race of humans, and culture is an outgrowth of those physical and mental differences.

When it comes to race, in particular, social sciences from university have been dead set on denying all biological differences between the races because they believe, quite accurately to be honest, that believing in biological differences can create racism. This page documents a lot of "lost information" so to speak about the biological differences between the races as well as how strongly genetics affects our entire personality...

https://arkaimcity.tumblr.com/

Drawing attention specifically to this image... This shows just how heritable each of these personality traits are based off of twin studies.



The percentage you see listed under A is what percentage is genetically heritable, the percentage under E is environmentally based.

The human race evolves extremely fast in comparison to what people believe it to. The human skull, for example, is different now, compared to what it was 700 years ago... https://arkaimcity.tumblr.com/post/81516384975

"Researchers discovered genetic evidence that human evolution is speeding up - and has not halted or proceeded at a constant rate, as had been thought - indicating that humans on different continents are becoming increasingly different. “We used a new genomic technology to show that humans are evolving rapidly, and that the pace of change has accelerated a lot in the last 40,000 years, especially since the end of the Ice Age roughly 10,000 years ago,” says research team leader Henry Harpending, a distinguished professor of anthropology at the University of Utah. “We aren’t the same as people even 1,000 or 2,000 years ago,” he says, which may explain, for example, part of the difference between Viking invaders and their peaceful Swedish descendants.“The dogma has been these are cultural fluctuations, but almost any Temperament trait you look at is under strong genetic influence.” “Human races are evolving away from each other,” Harpending says. “Genes are evolving fast in Europe, Asia and Africa, but almost all of these are unique to their continent of origin. We are getting less alike, not merging into a single, mixed humanity.” The increase in human population from millions to billions in the last 10,000 years accelerated the rate of evolution because “we were in new environments to which we needed to adapt,” Harpending adds. “And with a larger population, more mutations occurred.”

https://arkaimcity.tumblr.com/post/78885358673

This portion specifically talks about the genetic heritability of criminal behavior...

https://arkaimcity.tumblr.com/post/85547984040

This one deals specifically with race and criminal behavior.

https://arkaimcity.tumblr.com/post/90262030195

The genes which influence criminal behavior, such as the MAOA gene with the 2R variant are ten times as common among Black males as they are among White males. In addition, the fewer number of CAG repeats the androgen receptor, the more likely people were to be serious criminals. Asians had the highest number of CAG repeats, even higher then Whites do, while Blacks had the lowest number.

Another study showing the prevalence of anti-social personalities (the scientific word for sociopaths essentially) and how its really just a small group of people causing all the problems...

"Lifetime prevalence estimates for adult antisocial behavior range as high as 12.3%, with each antisocial individual costing society up to ten times more than their healthy counterparts in aggregate healthcare and social service expenditures. Thus, antisociality represents a costly large-scale social problem and a major potential target for policy-based government intervention. A major component of antisocial behavior is aggression. One striking feature of aggression is its familial concentration; it is estimated that in any given community, 10% of the families in that community are responsible for greater than 50% of its crime. Such high familiality suggests heritable factors in the intergenerational transmission of risk for antisocial aggression. Indeed, the heritability of antisocial behavior and associated traits has been confirmed by twin and adoption studies, with current estimates indicating that genetic factors account for between 40% and 50% of population variance in risk. Like most psychiatric phenotypes, however, antisocial behavior is genetically complex, meaning that multiple genetic variants are likely to contribute to the associated traits in interaction with one another (epistasis) and the environment."

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 3608000398

A study on 50 US states found that 55% of criminal behavior could be attributed to genetic factors whereas only 17% could be attributed to poverty...

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 9611000900

@Lucas88

I don't consider your ideology to be nuanced... I consider it highly inconsistent, unrefined, and in many cases even contradictory.

[Outcast9428]

Criminal behavior is the result of being more biologically violent. How you don't understand this is unfathomable to me. It reeks of leftist PC bullshit you claim to be above and the whole "correlation does not equal causation" argument is literally leftists' favorite "gotcha" card.

I'm not as big on statistics as you are, Outcast, but I've often heard that some of the most criminal whites in the world are Irish travelers and other "gypsy" groups in the United Kingdom who aren't actually related to Eastern European Roma and Sinti people but are, in fact, caucasians. Apparantly they are all horrible criminals, thiefs, violent thugs... but they're also lily white. Poverty likely plays a big role, as does culture. But genetically these are white folks and I'm sure if we look at statistics (again, not my forte) they're probably every bit as violent and criminal as your average American negro. Likewise, when it comes to blacks, I have often heard that African blacks tend to be far more polite than African American blacks. Whereas African-American blacks have a high percentage of admixture with whites and sometimes Native Americans; most of them are only about 80% "pure black". If it all strictly based on genetics and white genes are less criminal, African Americans should be less criminal on average than black Africans, and should be more polite, seeing as though many of them have white ancestry.

It could be that the "ghetto culture" American blacks have adopted made them as criminal as they are today, as opposed to strictly genetics. There are a lot of variables to take into account. And of course not all criminals are created equally; some old school gangs used to have codes of conduct and a sense of honor you wouldn't soon find in some Mexican drug cartel run by literal animals. I'm far from a politically correct person, especially not by mainstream society standards, but the correlation between race and violent behavior doesn't seem all that clear-cut to me.

I do know that, scientifically speaking, some people have higher and lower levels of inhibition. A rapist for instance would be a man with a low level of inhibition; where a normal male might think about having sex with a random girl he finds attractive, it is only the rapist whose mind goes: "So, why don't I just take what I want?" Some people are made that way. A lot of times circumstances help in making a person criminal. For instance, if you already are predisposed to sexual assault, but you live in a nice, clean-cut area with a lot of social control, you're kind of shit out of luck. But if you're in some ghetto and there are a lot of single moms out there whose kids are running wild and whose daughters have no one to watch over them, a predator can just have his way with them. Same thing goes for things like theft. Some environments all but encourage criminal behavior, others actively discourage it. I'm pretty sure if you look at places like the Philippines, the most criminal Filipinos are those whose fathers died or who have parents who work abroad or ditched them.

The Irish did have that reputation during the early to mid 20th century... However, if you look at a map of modern Irish DNA by US state, you find that there isn't much of a correlation between Irish ancestry and high levels of criminal behavior...



In-fact, the states with the largest Irish ancestry have the lowest violent crime rates. Irish Americans are about 10% of the US population but are not known for committing a substantial amount of crime anymore like they were at the turn of the 20th century. Blacks are 13% of the population though, and commit half of the crime. So they commit crimes at 4x their population levels would indicate they should be committing them. While White people are only committing 30% of the crime despite being 65% of the country. So Blacks are committing 8x-9x the amount of violent crime that Whites are committing. You can pretty much perfectly correlate how dangerous an area will be by simply looking at what percentage of the place is Black.

Also, European Whites, as well as New England American Whites, will simply never understand how unbelievably difficult Black people are to work with. They don't do their jobs, they constantly whine and make excuses, hardly any of them seem motivated to do their job right, most of them simply try to milk the company for as much money as possible while being as unproductive as they can be, they have incredibly entitled attitudes and make outrageous demands, basically expecting the company to bend over backwards to accommodate their every request. They show up late or in many cases don't show up to work at all. They leave in the middle of their shifts, and leave their work for somebody else to do, they do a half assed job even when they do show up... And in the worst cases. They are outright dangerous to work with. I had one Black co-worker threaten to kill me recently, and I've heard numerous stories of them starting fights and beating up their co-workers. One co-worker of mine a year and a half ago got sent to the hospital by his Black co-worker.

The White people have the exact same incomes as the Black people do, but behave incredibly differently. I almost never have problems with them. Its pretty much always the Black people.

There are large swaths of Africa where there is just as much criminal violence, or militia/war related violence, as there is among American Blacks. Africa has burned more witches in the past 50 years then Europe did during the entire middle ages. Slavery is completely ignored by the authorities in some African countries such as Mauritania, and African countries have horrific levels of rape. Jamaica and other Caribbean nations with Black majorities have really really high crime rates.

[Lucas88]

correlation doesn't always equal causation is a real thing that is acknowledged by any legitimate social scientist or researcher.

So you believe what colleges tell you now? Given how I've seen this argument applied in every case its been used, I'm completely convinced the correlation does not equal causation crap was invented, precisely for moments like this, because "social scientists" from universities don't want to acknowledge a lot of truths about the human species. Which is that, we aren't really one species. The homo sapien species is like the canine species, but there are several different breeds of humans. What we call "race" is basically the same as another dog breed. There are dramatic physical and mental differences between each race of humans, and culture is an outgrowth of those physical and mental differences.

The correlation does not equal causation thing was not invented to deny uncomfortable truths. It is something that anybody who is intimated with the scientific method and statistical analysis understands. I already gave a valid explanation as to why statistics don't explain underlying causes and relations and hence why correlation does not always equal causation but you just completely ignored my point simply because it is of no benefit to your position and then just made up some dishonesty charge against my argument. Sure, certain professional social scientists are dishonest and ideologically motivated despite claiming to adhere to the scientific method, but so are internet armchair intellectuals with an ax to grind like you. The fact that you don't even understand the limitations of certain research methods just shows how little understanding you have of social research. Even legitimate researchers apply skepticism to their own interpretations of data because they strive for objectivity. But it is obvious that you don't care about objectivity. You only care about proving your own ideological notions. And then you arrogantly assume that you simply must know more about these topics than others do.

It could be that the "ghetto culture" American blacks have adopted made them as criminal as they are today, as opposed to strictly genetics. There are a lot of variables to take into account. And of course not all criminals are created equally; some old school gangs used to have codes of conduct and a sense of honor you wouldn't soon find in some Mexican drug cartel run by literal animals. I'm far from a politically correct person, especially not by mainstream society standards, but the correlation between race and violent behavior doesn't seem all that clear-cut to me.

That is basically the argument of Black conservative thinker Thomas Sowell who wrote a book called Black Rednecks and White Liberals. Sowell argued that the relatively lower IQ and social adaptability of certain populations such as American Blacks wasn't biologically determined but was rather the result of the Black ghetto culture which held them back. He noted that certain populations of Whites displayed the same characteristics of low IQ and inadaptability until they left their own respective negative culture behind and integrated into mainstream American society. Then their average IQ increased substantially and they became much more successful. Sowell also mentioned how American Blacks tend to succeed once they escape Black ghetto culture and fully adopt mainstream American values and even talked about the results of the Eyferth study which found little difference between the IQ scores of White and mixed-race Black children (with an Afro-American father) raised in Germany (as opposed to the US). He attributed this difference to the absence of toxic Black American culture for the German-born kids.

Sowell also talks about the error of eternalizing the results of statistics. He explains that statistics only give us information on current trends but that those trends are the result of temporary circumstances and are therefore not set in stone. As soon as circumstances change in a positive direction Blacks and other populations shake off many of the negative behaviors that plague their communities and begin to do much better. Sowell demonstrates a much more nuanced understanding of the situation.

Here is a video of Sowell discussing race, intelligence and Black American culture:



Of course, Outcast with his simplistic thinking probably won't be too fond of Sowell and will probably accuse him of some sort of bias too, even though he is obviously the one who has an ax to grind trying to prove that the Asians who he dickrides so much are superior to everyone else while barely concealing his contempt for niggas. I mean, this phony fake-ass nice guy once criticized mine and @WilliamSmith's taste in women as "too black" as though that were a bad thing!

I don't consider your ideology to be nuanced... I consider it highly inconsistent, unrefined, and in many cases even contradictory.

What is my "ideology" supposed to be exactly?

I don't profess to any fixed ideology and believe that it is not a good thing to be too ideological because fixed ideologies can easily make their believers blind to reality. Ideologues make the worst researchers and leaders. I think that that is obvious in your case.