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

[Outcast9428]

@Lucas88

I’m not the one grasping at straws… I mean you are trying to make the argument that a race that has extremely low violent crime levels in virtually every country they are apart of is just as violent as a race that seems to leave a giant trail of destruction everywhere they go. Just because the crime rates are not exactly the same in every case doesn’t mean there aren’t extremely strong correlations. Being more successful at civilizing your population is making them less violent on a biological basis. Dogs are much less violent then wolves. Certain breeds of dogs are much less violent then other breeds. Yes the way they were raised certainly matters a lot but a wolf will not be truly peaceful no matter what you do whereas dogs that are aggressive, 90% of the time were abused. The same applies to human beings. Environment certainly does shape us but the mold we begin with matters a lot.

Yes soldiers who aren’t that violent may have died too but it’s pretty much guaranteed that all of the most violent people would have joined the military at that time period. And most of the destruction caused in society is caused by an incredibly small group of people anyway. You don’t need many of them to die in order to dramatically change a country.

The United States does not have a similar racial makeup to Europe and you know that. We all know which group is responsible for making our homicide rate 6.3 despite only being 13% of the population. If it was just Whites in America our homicide rate would be the same as European countries are. American Blacks on the other hand commit homicides at a similar level to Blacks in South Africa.

Yes, given that the Philippines is the only country in Asia that doesn’t have a low rate of violent crime and happens to be the only country we have talked about that isn’t pure Asian, I do think the Spanish admixture has something to do with it. Even then though, the Philippines crime rate is not outrageously high. It’s just high for an Asian country.

Russia’s and Ukraine’s people got raped to smithereens at the beginning of the century between the Cheka, the atrocities in WW2, and later the KGB. The rest of Europe did not endure the brunt of the Soviet Union’s crimes the way Russia and Ukraine did.

Crime is 50% genetic and 50% environmental.

Ah yes the whole correlation does not equal causation line. I have never seen someone make that argument and it not be a complete bullshit way to dismiss undeniable patterns.

In my head as soon as someone makes the correlation does not equal causation argument, I know they have lost and are just trying to whip out a revival card.

I agree with @Outcast9428 that the crime rate in Russia is mostly because of environmental factors.

Russia has had a lot of terrible events since the Bolshevik (Jew) Revolution (coup d'etat). Poverty, lack of opportunity (since the end of the USSR), Jews (the most criminal and evil race anywhere), and the West always trying to undermine Russia.

People who often do crime are people who are poor or pack opportunity.

Africans do the most violent crime but Jews are the most criminal.

Also, Japan and some Asian nations are extremely harsh. It's also more collective. Most have more opportunity. Men in most nations are more able to get a girlfriend. In Japan, it's often shameful for parents if their child is homeless or poor, so they'll get them a place, or children live with parents.

Are Asian nations genuinely less criminal? I don't think so if it's on a genetic level.

North Korea is still like a typical Asian society and China to some level. Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan are American vassal states. They had the warrior spirit temporarily weakened because of American neocolonialism.

Vietnam resisted and is another good example of the warrior spirit.

Japan chose to surrender and could surrender in WW2 because everyone respected the Emperor and Japanese culture emphasized honor. America also wanted to avoid a bloody war because Japanese soldiers and American soldiers would have been slaughtered. The Japanese would fight without retreating and that made them dangerous opponents. Both sides decided to end the war and part of it was because America was willing to let the Emperor live and keep his royal title and some level of authority, but an absolute monarchy became a constitutional monarchy and America wrote that constitution, which is actually better than America's own constitution in terms of free elections and other important things. The opportunity that Japan had is why they've been able to avoid having a high crime rate.

The factors for less crime are more about having opportunity and a good environment, more than genetic factors and learned through nurture.

Genetics can decrease probability because of racial and ethnic variations, and individual variations, but environmental factors and having good opportunity is what ultimately decides whether people will commit crime or not.

Even before WW2, the Edo period in Japanese history was pretty much the most peaceful time period any nation has ever experienced in all of human history. I mean they went 200 years without a single war. Not even a small one. What other country can say that?

Genetic factors tend to play more of a role then environmental factors do. Look at White Americans who have every reason imaginable to start stringing up the Democrats by their necks yet still won’t do it. If the Republicans had done half the shit to the Blacks that was done to us by the Democrats they would have started a war.

Blacks in America have all the opportunity in the world because we bend over backwards to try and make them successful even when they don’t deserve it but they still commit outrageous amounts of crime. You saw that chart showing that the poorest Whites and Asians commit not just less, but significantly less crime then the richest Blacks do.

[Tsar]

@Lucas88

I’m not the one grasping at straws… I mean you are trying to make the argument that a race that has extremely low violent crime levels in virtually every country they are apart of is just as violent as a race that seems to leave a giant trail of destruction everywhere they go. Just because the crime rates are not exactly the same in every case doesn’t mean there aren’t extremely strong correlations. Being more successful at civilizing your population is making them less violent on a biological basis. Dogs are much less violent then wolves. Certain breeds of dogs are much less violent then other breeds. Yes the way they were raised certainly matters a lot but a wolf will not be truly peaceful no matter what you do whereas dogs that are aggressive, 90% of the time were abused. The same applies to human beings. Environment certainly does shape us but the mold we begin with matters a lot.

Yes soldiers who aren’t that violent may have died too but it’s pretty much guaranteed that all of the most violent people would have joined the military at that time period. And most of the destruction caused in society is caused by an incredibly small group of people anyway. You don’t need many of them to die in order to dramatically change a country.

The United States does not have a similar racial makeup to Europe and you know that. We all know which group is responsible for making our homicide rate 6.3 despite only being 13% of the population. If it was just Whites in America our homicide rate would be the same as European countries are. American Blacks on the other hand commit homicides at a similar level to Blacks in South Africa.

Yes, given that the Philippines is the only country in Asia that doesn’t have a low rate of violent crime and happens to be the only country we have talked about that isn’t pure Asian, I do think the Spanish admixture has something to do with it. Even then though, the Philippines crime rate is not outrageously high. It’s just high for an Asian country.

Russia’s and Ukraine’s people got raped to smithereens at the beginning of the century between the Cheka, the atrocities in WW2, and later the KGB. The rest of Europe did not endure the brunt of the Soviet Union’s crimes the way Russia and Ukraine did.

Crime is 50% genetic and 50% environmental.

Ah yes the whole correlation does not equal causation line. I have never seen someone make that argument and it not be a complete bullshit way to dismiss undeniable patterns.

In my head as soon as someone makes the correlation does not equal causation argument, I know they have lost and are just trying to whip out a revival card.

I agree with @Outcast9428 that the crime rate in Russia is mostly because of environmental factors.

Russia has had a lot of terrible events since the Bolshevik (Jew) Revolution (coup d'etat). Poverty, lack of opportunity (since the end of the USSR), Jews (the most criminal and evil race anywhere), and the West always trying to undermine Russia.

People who often do crime are people who are poor or pack opportunity.

Africans do the most violent crime but Jews are the most criminal.

Also, Japan and some Asian nations are extremely harsh. It's also more collective. Most have more opportunity. Men in most nations are more able to get a girlfriend. In Japan, it's often shameful for parents if their child is homeless or poor, so they'll get them a place, or children live with parents.

Are Asian nations genuinely less criminal? I don't think so if it's on a genetic level.

North Korea is still like a typical Asian society and China to some level. Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan are American vassal states. They had the warrior spirit temporarily weakened because of American neocolonialism.

Vietnam resisted and is another good example of the warrior spirit.

Japan chose to surrender and could surrender in WW2 because everyone respected the Emperor and Japanese culture emphasized honor. America also wanted to avoid a bloody war because Japanese soldiers and American soldiers would have been slaughtered. The Japanese would fight without retreating and that made them dangerous opponents. Both sides decided to end the war and part of it was because America was willing to let the Emperor live and keep his royal title and some level of authority, but an absolute monarchy became a constitutional monarchy and America wrote that constitution, which is actually better than America's own constitution in terms of free elections and other important things. The opportunity that Japan had is why they've been able to avoid having a high crime rate.

The factors for less crime are more about having opportunity and a good environment, more than genetic factors and learned through nurture.

Genetics can decrease probability because of racial and ethnic variations, and individual variations, but environmental factors and having good opportunity is what ultimately decides whether people will commit crime or not.

Even before WW2, the Edo period in Japanese history was pretty much the most peaceful time period any nation has ever experienced in all of human history. I mean they went 200 years without a single war. Not even a small one. What other country can say that?

Genetic factors tend to play more of a role then environmental factors do. Look at White Americans who have every reason imaginable to start stringing up the Democrats by their necks yet still won’t do it. If the Republicans had done half the shit to the Blacks that was done to us by the Democrats they would have started a war.

Blacks in America have all the opportunity in the world because we bend over backwards to try and make them successful even when they don’t deserve it but they still commit outrageous amounts of crime. You saw that chart showing that the poorest Whites and Asians commit not just less, but significantly less crime then the richest Blacks do.

I agree that genetics definitely has a significant role in violent crime, violence, and aggression.

[Cornfed]

When I was in Korea I often had a beard to distinguish myself from American soldiers. Apparently this wasn't seen as good by older females because it was seen as associated with dishevelled bums and such. The students seemed to like it though.

[Cornfed]

When I was in Korea I often had a beard to distinguish myself from American soldiers. Apparently this wasn't seen as good by older females because it was seen as associated with dishevelled bums and such. The students seemed to like it though.

I don't know how old those students were but assuming they were 18 or up, that would be a much better age to try and attract than old hags anyway.

Too young to do anything with, regrettably. It was a purely notional liking.

[Lucas88]

I’m not the one grasping at straws…

Oh yes you are, son!

My whole argument was that if Asian societies have a lower incidence of violence then it is due to cultural developments that curb violent instincts as opposed to Asians being BIOLOGICALLY non-violent. This nuance seems to be completely lost on you.

I'm not disputing the statistics about low rates of homicide in most Asian countries; I'm simply arguing that the reason for those differences may be different to what you assume it to be.

To argue that Asians don't have violent tendencies like every other race does is just absurd. First, Asian nations have been involved in some pretty damn brutal wars even until recent times, but at first you just wanted to ignore this and then you just wanted to sweep it under the rug with your straw-grasping explanation (pulled straight out of your ass) that all of the violent Japanese men must have died off so that you can continue to imagine that the Japanese are some kind of special, biologically peaceful race. Second, the fact that there is a minority of Asian nations with high rates of homicide suggests that Asians do indeed carry violent tendencies but that they are simply curbed by cultural developments which have emerged in most Asian societies.

As for Blacks, I would still argue that their high rate of homicide in America has a lot to do with the deprived ghetto culture that so many of them are raised in or at least share an affinity to. Same with many impoverished and unstable African societies. The environment that people are raised in during our formative years shapes our psychological constitution a lot. In my previous post I gave examples of Black African countries with rates of homicide as low or almost as low as those of Western Europe and North America. In light of this I would argue that Blacks aren't inherently more biologically murderous than other races and that they can behave in a civilized manner when they are raised in a stable environment. It's culture that causes the high rates of homicide. Certain countries and regions are plagued by their own localized problems that go uncontained and result in a lot of killings. I'm talking about things like US Black ghetto culture, the drug cartels running amok in certain parts of Latin America, semi-lawless states in Africa, crime and violence in the Philippines, etc.

The ethnic constitution of the typical Filipino is overwhelmingly Southeast and East Asian. Southern European admixture is rarely any higher than 5%. Now you're really just grasping at straws trying to prove that Asians are somehow biologically non-violent. Lol. Especially given the fact that Asians in the last century and throughout much of their history have fought so many bloody wars.

The "correlation does not equal causation" line is not simply a bullshit way to dismiss patterns and arguments. It is a real thing that an investigator must bear in mind when trying to discover the truth about something. You seem to have this simplistic and naïve idea that you can just cite some statistics to prove a point and then that's the end of it, when in reality statistics only identify general patterns but don't provide any further insight into deeper causes or relations. That seems to be the shallow level of intellectual thinking that you operate at. However, I personally don't think that you even care about real investigation of phenomena. You are obviously an ideologue and are more interested in seeking ways to justify what you want to believe, hence your contrived arguments, your tendency to ignore or dismiss anything that doesn't fit your own fantasy worldview, etc.

But what would one expect from a guy who bases his views about how women should behave on anime!

[Outcast9428]

I’m not the one grasping at straws…

Oh yes you are, son!

My whole argument was that if Asian societies have a lower incidence of violence then it is due to cultural developments that curb violent instincts as opposed to Asians being BIOLOGICALLY non-violent. This nuance seems to be completely lost on you.

I'm not disputing the statistics about low rates of homicide in most Asian countries; I'm simply arguing that the reason for those differences may be different to what you assume it to be.

To argue that Asians don't have violent tendencies like every other race does is just absurd. First, Asian nations have been involved in some pretty damn brutal wars even until recent times, but at first you just wanted to ignore this and then you just wanted to sweep it under the rug with your straw-grasping explanation (pulled straight out of your ass) that all of the violent Japanese men must have died off so that you can continue to imagine that the Japanese are some kind of special, biologically peaceful race. Second, the fact that there is a minority of Asian nations with high rates of homicide suggests that Asians do indeed carry violent tendencies but that they are simply curbed by cultural developments which have emerged in most Asian societies.

As for Blacks, I would still argue that their high rate of homicide in America has a lot to do with the deprived ghetto culture that so many of them are raised in or at least share an affinity to. Same with many impoverished and unstable African societies. The environment that people are raised in during our formative years shapes our psychological constitution a lot. In my previous post I gave examples of Black African countries with rates of homicide as low or almost as low as those of Western Europe and North America. In light of this I would argue that Blacks aren't inherently more biologically murderous than other races and that they can behave in a civilized manner when they are raised in a stable environment. It's culture that causes the high rates of homicide. Certain countries and regions are plagued by their own localized problems that go uncontained and result in a lot of killings. I'm talking about things like US Black ghetto culture, the drug cartels running amok in certain parts of Latin America, semi-lawless states in Africa, crime and violence in the Philippines, etc.

The ethnic constitution of the typical Filipino is overwhelmingly Southeast and East Asian. Southern European admixture is rarely any higher than 5%. Now you're really just grasping at straws trying to prove that Asians are somehow biologically non-violent. Lol. Especially given the fact that Asians in the last century and throughout much of their history have fought so many bloody wars.

The "correlation does not equal causation" line is not simply a bullshit way to dismiss patterns and arguments. It is a real thing that an investigator must bear in mind when trying to discover the truth about something. You seem to have this simplistic and naïve idea that you can just cite some statistics to prove a point and then that's the end of it, when in reality statistics only identify general patterns but don't provide any further insight into deeper causes or relations. That seems to be the shallow level of intellectual thinking that you operate at. However, I personally don't think that you even care about real investigation of phenomena. You are obviously an ideologue and are more interested in seeking ways to justify what you want to believe, hence your contrived arguments, your tendency to ignore or dismiss anything that doesn't fit your own fantasy worldview, etc.

But what would one expect from a guy who bases his views about how women should behave on anime!

Yes, the Philippines is overwhelmingly Asian in genetic makeup, which is probably why the crime rate there is not outrageously higher then normal. By the standards of the rest of the world, their homicide rate is not high... It is only high by Asian or European standards. A 4.4 homicide rate is not really a debate clincher. 5% of them is Southern European but another 5% is Native American. They are about 90% Asian. So yes, they are overwhelmingly Asian, but the admixture probably does have some effect.

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.

African countries, even the ones with low homicide rates, still often have militias engaged in armed conflicts and the governments there cannot stay in power without using force against their own people. Niger has a low homicide rate but has been involved in three wars over the past 30 years. Angola has a low homicide rate but just 20 years ago they got out of a major civil war that killed hundreds of thousands of people. Not a single country in Africa is stable and developed... No country with any Black majority has ever been stable or developed.

I don't see how you don't understand that a war which sent millions of men overseas, most of whom ended up dying, would not change the biological makeup of the country. This is basic common sense that you simply refuse to accept. Consider that street gangs in America have killed hundreds of thousands of other street gang members since the 1970s? You really think that hasn't lowered the total population of street gang members in America? Yes there's still a lot of them but there definitely would be more if they hadn't killed one another so much.

Why shouldn't girls behave like anime girls? Anime girls are wonderful.

[Tsar]

I don't see how you don't understand that a war which sent millions of men overseas, most of whom ended up dying, would not change the biological makeup of the country. This is basic common sense that you simply refuse to accept. Consider that street gangs in America have killed hundreds of thousands of other street gang members since the 1970s? You really think that hasn't lowered the total population of street gang members in America? Yes there's still a lot of them but there definitely would be more if they hadn't killed one another so much.

This is because genetics is complicated. Daughters can pass on violent genes much like @Lucas88 said. Children not yet fighting age, deserters, and often times even the Yakuza (Japanese mafia) were exempt. Violence could also skip a generation. Genes are a complicated subject.

It does change the genetic makeup. But many men fighting were drafted or wouldn't like to be there fighting. If they signed up then it's more for duty or for income.

More aggressive men and some violent men would be more likely to voluntarily sign up but many men don't have a choice.

Also, crime is relative. There's violent crime, non-violent crime, and things that have been wrongfully criminalized by arbitrary laws. The law isn't the judge of what's criminal or not criminal. Universal morals are the guide.

If I wanted to visit Cuba, buy a ruby from Myanmar's military government, or get a girlfriend that I want even if the US Law doesn't allow it, then I will break the United States law. I would be a proud criminal.

Same goes for if I wear a pin or a shirt with the Letter Z in Germany. I'll be a proud criminal.

Almost all laws are illegitimate laws with no legitimacy under any objective system of evaluation.

The law is a system meant to allow the Elites to maintain power and all the common people must obey it. Elites are free to break it.

Violent crimes like murder, rapes, and stealing from commoners are terrible by any measure.

However, stealing from the mega millionaires or billionaires, or the murder of George Soros and his entire family for example, would be completely acceptable because it's not wrong by any objective system of evaluation.

[Lucas88]

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.

Now you're turning this into a silly leftwing vs. rightwing argument as a deflective tactic now that your arguments have been shown to be fragile and the shallowness of your reasoning has been revealed. You really are in damage control mode, aren't you? It doesn't surprise me at all given how fond you are of ideology and how little interest you have in the consideration of anything that doesn't conform squarely to your own beliefs and assumptions.

As I already explained, the fact that correlation doesn't always equal causation is a real thing that is acknowledged by any legitimate social scientist or researcher. Statistics only show observable patterns but they don't say anything about the underlying causes. To gain an understanding of those one has to delve deeper. You don't seem to understand how sociological or anthropological research works at all. You don't just gather statistics and then force your own prejudices and desired conclusions onto them. A researcher worth his salt studies the data and then explores the causes behind those patterns as well as all of the possible factors that contribute to them. But I see that you have no interest in doing that and certainly no commitment to objectivity and only seem to want to prove your own ideological assumptions right even if that means ignoring contradictory facts and coming up with the most contrived arguments. I also notice how you are quick to dismiss arguments that you don't like via ad hominem (e.g., leftist PC bullshit). I even think that you get "triggered"!

It's unfathomable to you because you tend towards a simplistic interpretation of reality. I myself, on the other hand, am capable of understanding nuances and the overlapping of different factors as well as things such as extraneous variables. I think like a social scientist and seek to explore deeper and get to the bottom of things whereas you think like an ideologue or a political partisan and care more about your own dogmas rather than truth or objective reality. That's why it's unfathomable to you.

Yes, the Philippines is overwhelmingly Asian in genetic makeup, which is probably why the crime rate there is not outrageously higher then normal. By the standards of the rest of the world, their homicide rate is not high... It is only high by Asian or European standards. A 4.4 homicide rate is not really a debate clincher. 5% of them is Southern European but another 5% is Native American. They are about 90% Asian. So yes, they are overwhelmingly Asian, but the admixture probably does have some effect.

Well, just a few years ago it was higher than that at 10.7. That's higher than the US, Russia and some African countries.

But now your go-to response is that it must be the Southern European if not the Native American admixture (you need to preserve your delusional assumption that the Asians who you fawn over so much are somehow special and not biologically prone to violence, after all) when everybody who has gone to the Philippines knows just how politically corrupt, backward and neglectful the country is. Don't you even consider political, historical and social factors for why the Philippines is the way it is?

African countries, even the ones with low homicide rates, still often have militias engaged in armed conflicts and the governments there cannot stay in power without using force against their own people. Niger has a low homicide rate but has been involved in three wars over the past 30 years. Angola has a low homicide rate but just 20 years ago they got out of a major civil war that killed hundreds of thousands of people. Not a single country in Africa is stable and developed... No country with any Black majority has ever been stable or developed.

But is this simply because niggas are biologically violent as you seem to think, or might it be because African nations have not had stable leadership and have been full of political corruption at the top of society since colonialism? I'm not trying to sound like a Marxist leftwing pinko libtard here but the historical legacy of a nation's leadership and government certainly does play a big role in a society's development. Instability will obviously increase deprivation. Deprivation will cause a large part of the populace to lack in terms of human development and not reach its potential.

There are actually over a dozen sub-Saharan African countries with medium human development. Those include countries like Angola and Kenya. They aren't all failed states like Somalia. African countries can advance with the right kind of government and economic development.

I don't see how you don't understand that a war which sent millions of men overseas, most of whom ended up dying, would not change the biological makeup of the country. This is basic common sense that you simply refuse to accept. Consider that street gangs in America have killed hundreds of thousands of other street gang members since the 1970s? You really think that hasn't lowered the total population of street gang members in America? Yes there's still a lot of them but there definitely would be more if they hadn't killed one another so much.

We've already gone over this and now you're just being silly. I explained the point about war in my previous post.

Why shouldn't girls behave like anime girls? Anime girls are wonderful.

Anime is not real life and even the creator Miyazaki has commented on how the current state of anime is bad because most anime works portray people and reality in a totally unrealistic manner. My comment about anime was supposed to be a reference to how unrealistic you are and how detached from objectivity you seem to be.

[CaptainSkelebob]

It can definitely disappear, not entirely but become significantly less common in a matter of centuries. The homicide rate in Europe in 1,000 AD for example was 100 per 100,000 people. Homicide rates of this scale were pretty normal in the Ancient world.

Violent tendencies don't ever disappear. They are part of our nature and exist for the benefit of our survival. Violent tendencies can be constrained through the effects of civilization but they cannot disappear completely. They simply take a back seat in times of peace until the next war or conflict breaks out.

The warrior disposition exists in people of all races. Asians aren't exempt from this.

WW2 was definitely the last hurrah so to speak for Japan’s militarism. It is very possible that all the violent people in Japan essentially got exterminated by WW2.

I think that at this point you're just grasping at straws in order to defend your thesis that Asians are somehow biologically less prone to violence (even though there have undeniably been plenty of wars throughout Asia until relatively recently). In wars the violent people don't all die. Plenty of them survive and then impregnate women upon their return. In Japan today there will be millions of men with the warrior disposition walking the streets and going about everyday life. They simply don't act upon their violent instincts because in their present environment there is rarely any need to do so. But like anywhere else, Japan is one apocalyptic societal breakdown away from becoming a land of violence. Should the country ever fall into anarchy for whatever reason, people's violent instincts would immediately return (even among those gay-looking Japanese men) and the movie Battle Royale would become a reality!

I don’t think being athletic is the same thing as being primally masculine.

Athleticism is not the same as primal masculinity but some athletic activities such as MMA and other combat sports do require primal masculinity since the act of fighting is inherently primal and they certainly serve to cultivate it.

As a martial arts instructor I recommend basic combat training to all men for the cultivation and proper channeling of our violent instincts and primal masculinity as well as the acquirement of practical combat skills for self-defense and survival. This requires that men be exposed to violence in a controlled environment. In fact, I taught my own fight classes a few years ago (@Pixel--Dude and I called it "fight club"). I gathered a handful of guys who wanted to learn how to fight and, after teaching them a few basics, I got them to fight each other and rough each other up a little, but not to a degree where people would get seriously hurt. After a few months of the training, all of the guys felt much less scared of violence and more confident in their ability to defend themselves. That's because through my training program I reactivated their primal instincts and primal masculinity. Actual combat under controlled conditions is the best thing for that.

Yes, as a martial arts instructor, my job is to take little pussies - pussies who have been pussified by the major-league pussyholery of the modern world - and turn them into warriors through the reawakening of their warrior spirit.

I would assume the Chavs in the UK are basically your frat boys.

No, chavs are not analogous to frat boys. Chavs are a delinquent subculture from deprived neighborhoods and almost none of them go to university. They typically drink cheap alcohol, take drugs, wear fake designer clothes, listen to stuff like Uprising, and act "tough" (although that is mostly just posturing and most of them soon back down whenever anybody stands up to them).

The party people at university who I consider similar to America's frat boys are usually middle class.

The people who claim to have good social skills don’t really have valuable skills because the skills they claim to have don’t translate into deep, long term, loyal relationships and friendships. Normies have terrible relationships with one another and one only has to spend a little time on Reddit, looking at the batshit insane kind of drama that normies seem to find themselves involved in to realize that what normies call “social skills” is a bunch of horseshit.

What you are describing is not the same as what psychology regards as social skills. Real social skills are extremely useful for success in various areas of life and to have them well developed is enormously advantageous.

Normies are good at playing these weird, complex games of social manipulation with one another. That’s all it is really. Nerd friendships on the other hand are far more open, far more honest, have significantly less drama and conflict, and tend to last much longer.

I don't know if there is really a normie vs. nerd distinction when it comes to this. I've met plenty of regular mainstream people whose friendships and relationships didn't consist of social games or manipulation. It probably has more to do with underlying social dysfunctions and personality disorders in a subset of the population.

That was awesome. I remember the fight club we had when we are feeling up for it we should go back to the gym and do some more training. See who else wanted to go. I need to get back into some martial arts.

I saw I was tagged by @MarcosZeitola in this thread, but I forgot to respond and haven't really been following this discussion. I will weigh in a little bit though based on what you've said in your reply to @Outcast9428.

I've been to parties with some nerds who had been to uni and I alluded to this kind of in my Evil of Capitalism thread that I didn't really find any of them particularly interesting or even intelligent. In fact, the impression I got from nerds is that they are just as bad as frat boys but in a different sense. They still have that self entitled sense of superiority, like they think everyone else is dumb and they are smarter than everyone else just because they got a degree at university.

Frat boys might be obsessed with all that macho alpha male superiority bullshit like our simple-minded friend @CaptainSkelebob But nerds are different in the sense that they believe they are intellectually superior to everyone else.

Plus, @Outcast9428 these university nerds weren't much different to frat boys in terms of morals and what not. Half of them were little worms who tried getting on each other's girlfriends and all that shit.

That's what English nerds are like anyway. Just a different subset of solipsistic assholes who don't value friendship or anything like that. My life is much better having them not be a part of it.

Simple minded???
Here!!!
Im not ur friend fella!!!
Alpha masculinity is something natural
Some men are just naturally more better than others
Ive done boxing fella
Years of it
Wont be afraid to give you some fisticuffs if you call me that again...

[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.