what does left and right mean?

[RidonKs]

do explain it to the best of your ability

without referring to your archimedean point


the best i can do is the following

left believes in human dignity above all
right believes in human destiny above all

but i'm not sure that does much to resolve this strange fixation we have distinguishing ourselves politically

so which are you, why are you that way, and how much importance do you place on it anyway?

in some sense its a political version of religious identity, that is resultant of our fierce desire to express ourselves in SOME way. and since most of us aren't smart enough to figure out a political theory or religious framework all on their own, they grasp onto one that seems... suitable.

seems to matter a whole lot less in terms of drive than pragmatic circumstances we find ourselves in

[NumberSix]

Right = freedom
Left = totalitarianism


The horrific problem with the left is, they truly have this "no, it's not totalitarianism. It's ok if we use force to control what everyone is allowed to do because what we want to enforce are the right things" mentality.

[Akrazotile]

the best i can do is the following

left believes in human dignity above all
right believes in human destiny above all




An analogy that puts this into perspective would be that the left is of the mentality that we should hold up rush hour traffic to wait for a caterpillar to cross the road. The right would prefer to let traffic continue and leave the caterpillar to deal with this fact as he sees fit.

[L.Kizzle]

Don't Let Your Left Hand Know (What Your Right Hand is Doing) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBzMDGeMU3E)

[Smoke117]

Lift up your left hand...lift up your right. That's what it means.

[Akrazotile]

Don't Let Your Left Hand Know (What Your Right Hand is Doing) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBzMDGeMU3E)


:lebronamazed::lebronamazed::lebronamazed:

[LikeMike]

Left: Not associated to a specific religion and believe in helping people in need.
Right: Associated to a specific religion that believes in helping people in need but not actually following that part.

[Akrazotile]

Left: Not associated to a specific religion and believe in helping people in need.
Right: Associated to a specific religion that believes in helping people in need but not actually following that part.

:roll:


Leftism IS their religion.

[NumberSix]

:roll:


Leftism IS their religion.
This. They simply replace god with the state. The left are statists, and if you don't live by their dogma the almighty state will reign down its wrath upon you.

[RidonKs]

Right = freedom
Left = totalitarianism


The horrific problem with the left is, they truly have this "no, it's not totalitarianism. It's ok if we use force to control what everyone is allowed to do because what we want to enforce are the right things" mentality.
but most leftists are fervent pacifists

of what threat could these pansies possibly be if given control

we'll see when bernie is president

[NumberSix]

but most leftists are fervent pacifists

of what threat could these pansies possibly be if given control

we'll see when bernie is president
Really? I would guess that you personally are in favor of the state forcing people to adhere to who you think they should have to sell a cake to.

[CavaliersFTW]

If you look straight ahead

Left is <--- that way in relation to the direction you are looking

Right is ----> that way in relation to the direction you are looking

You're welcome OP :cheers:

[NumberSix]

If you look straight ahead

Left is <--- that way in relation to the direction you are looking

Right is ----> that way in relation to the direction you are looking

You're welcome OP :cheers:
What if you're looking straight behind?

[Akrazotile]

What if you're looking straight behind?


Then you probably have way too much privilege and need to chill the fkc out on all that cis gender oppression shit.

[TonyMontana]

The origin of these terms come from France politics WAYYYY back in the day.

Politicians would sit on the left if they wanted "change" on an issue.
Politicians would sit on the right if they wanted to "keep" the issue as it is.

However a lot of time has passed since then, and the mainstream left is really no different from the right when it comes to results by the actual politicians. The only differences are issues on "identify politics" that are prioritized in order to divide and conquer by the elites so they can continue to control the money. Race....gender.....sexual orientation. These three things are their absolute favorite to cause friction within the populace so that they eventually dominate the "political discussion". Perhaps we'll add other trivial issues like Marijuana and abortions? Meanwhile no difference in foreign policy, banking/economic policy. the elite continue to jerk eachother off, laughing at all of the stupid goyim...ahem I mean people....

I see hope in the new "alternative right" among the new generation, but your average mainstream 40+ year old "right winger" is an idiot . The people in the stands at republican debates/rallies are just as retarded as the average leftwinger that only talks about ending racism, marijuana, homosexuality, and feminism.

[DCL]

terms to describe the brainwashed on either side

[Dresta]

The belief in the universal dignity of man is a Christian one, and Christians tend to be of the Right under modern definitions (which are hardly adequate, but that's another discussion) - so are you saying Christianity is left-wing, or that left-wingers are secretly Christians without realising it?

(actually, i kind of agree with the latter - Marxism, socialism, all forms of egalitarianism, in fact, are based wholly on Christian value judgements - the great irony is that many of the people who say they are these things also profess atheism; the major difference is they substitute the nation of improving and reforming the self for trying to improve and reform society - now, which of these is more sensible? For it seems pretty obvious to me that those desperate to change society and other people haven't looked at themselves and their own weaknesses anything like enough).

[~primetime~]

Left is liberal, wants change

Right is conservative, wants things to stay the same



I have both liberal and conservative views... So I don't classify myself as either

[Dresta]

Left is liberal, wants change

Right is conservative, wants things to stay the same



I have both liberal and conservative views... So I don't classify myself as either
Yeah, i would tend to agree, but that completely contradicts the American definition of 'conservative' who are supposed to be fanatical supporters of the free-market. How exactly does that make one a conservative when unrestrained capitalism is one of the most radical and most life-changing forces the world has ever seen?

Nothing has changed the world and trampled all over conservative values like capitalism has. Capitalism and Protestantism: the twin pillars of cultural decadence - America combined the two and created a monster.

[hateraid]

Great thread OP. Making the popcorn and enjoying the discussion

[BoutPractice]

The terms have their origins in the French Revolution.

What's fascinating about this history is that the terms were incredibly fluid from the very beginning.

In the early months of the Revolution, to be on the left was to believe in the principle of one man, one vote in the Estates General.

As we were advancing towards the Terror, to be on the left was to want to kill everyone who might possibly disagree with you, just to be safe.

(As I go through the history of the French revolution and try to put myself in the situation, I tend to agree with the liberal, reformist nobles who sit on the left in 1789.. but as the story unfolds I increasingly turn into a counter-revolutionary pig fit for the guillotine.)

Don't go thinking this slippery slope is unique to the left, though: after the Restoration, terror was matched with counter-terror from the other side... And of course Napoleon, far from bringing back traditional "order", actually unleashed untold chaos and destruction all over Europe.

But the point is, left and right have always been relative, evolving concepts with very loose content (Unlike more specific ideologies like liberalism and socialism, although even those are broad churches with a number of internal divisions)

To blindly follow whoever happens to call themselves left wing or right wing is a purely tribal reflex. Human beings engaging in politics tend to separate into factions; loyalty and the need to belong do the rest...

[Dresta]

All revolutions that have the intent of tearing down pre-existing 'evils' and replacing them with some abstracted system of governance (as hoped for by dreamy Enlightenment philosophers, usually French) like 'the universal rights of man' and such are doomed before they've even begun. They all follow the same path: overthrow, chaos, and back to despotism.

It's a great irony of history that those generally termed 'Enlightenment philosophers' are the people who did most to produce the turmoil and tyrannies of the late 18th and 19th centuries. These men, for the most part, were more arrogant and presumptuous than they were enlightened. Many of them ended up being consumed by the fruits of their own labour - if only Rousseau had been one of them!

A less philosophical philosopher there has never been, though i can't fault the man's style.

[Solidape]

The origin of these terms come from France politics WAYYYY back in the day.

Politicians would sit on the left if they wanted "change" on an issue.
Politicians would sit on the right if they wanted to "keep" the issue as it is.

However a lot of time has passed since then, and the mainstream left is really no different from the right when it comes to results by the actual politicians. The only differences are issues on "identify politics" that are prioritized in order to divide and conquer by the elites so they can continue to control the money. Race....gender.....sexual orientation. These three things are their absolute favorite to cause friction within the populace so that they eventually dominate the "political discussion". Perhaps we'll add other trivial issues like Marijuana and abortions? Meanwhile no difference in foreign policy, banking/economic policy. the elite continue to jerk eachother off, laughing at all of the stupid goyim...ahem I mean people....

I see hope in the new "alternative right" among the new generation, but your average mainstream 40+ year old "right winger" is an idiot . The people in the stands at republican debates/rallies are just as retarded as the average leftwinger that only talks about ending racism, marijuana, homosexuality, and feminism.

+1 this is what left or right means.

Good job breaking this down for the partisan dummies.

:applause:

[BoutPractice]

All revolutions that have the intent of tearing down pre-existing 'evils' and replacing them with some abstracted system of governance (as hoped for by dreamy Enlightenment philosophers, usually French) like 'the universal rights of man' and such are doomed before they've even begun. They all follow the same path: overthrow, chaos, and back to despotism.

It's a great irony of history that those generally termed 'Enlightenment philosophers' are the people who did most to produce the turmoil and tyrannies of the late 18th and 19th centuries. These men, for the most part, were more arrogant and presumptuous than they were enlightened. Many of them ended up being consumed by the fruits of their own labour - if only Rousseau had been one of them!

A less philosophical philosopher there has never been, though i can't fault the man's style.

I have immense intellectual respect for the conservative tradition.

But where pure conservatism breaks down for me is that

1) progress has happened in the past (and I call it progress because I would never want to go back to the way things were previously if I had the opportunity to hop on a time machine)

2) it didn't always happen "organically", whatever that means (I'm a bit skeptical of naturalism in all its forms. Everything that happens... happens. Idealism and grand impractical schemes are a part of human nature too)... The utopian dreams and visions of philosophers and statesmen have, in fact, played a huge role in shaping reality. Of course reality didn't follow their master plan (thank God for that)... but they've set directions for people to dedicate their imperfect efforts.

Ultimately, I'm glad I live in a country where power rests on consent of the people... I'm glad I can speak my mind without getting arrested... I'm glad that I had access to quality free education when I was a child, effective health care when I was sick, etc. And unlike the thugs who are trying to destroy civilization, I have no interest in going back to 7th century.

[Akrazotile]

I have immense intellectual respect for the conservative tradition.

But where pure conservatism breaks down for me is that

1) progress has happened in the past (and I call it progress because I would never want to go back to the way things were previously if I had the opportunity to hop on a time machine)

2) it didn't always happen "organically", whatever that means (I'm a bit skeptical of naturalism in all its forms. Everything that happens... happens. Idealism and grand impractical schemes are a part of human nature too)... The utopian dreams and visions of philosophers and statesmen have, in fact, played a huge role in shaping reality. Of course reality didn't follow their master plan (thank God for that)... but they've set directions for people to dedicate their imperfect efforts.

Ultimately, I'm glad I live in a country where power rests on consent of the people... I'm glad I can speak my mind without getting arrested... I'm glad that I had access to quality free education when I was a child, effective health care when I was sick, etc. And unlike the thugs who are trying to destroy civilization, I have no interest in going back to 7th century.


The thing is, it's hard to say whether all of this advancement has really improved the overall 'happiness' of society.

Women all now have equal rights and often even enjoy extra privileges and protections that men don't, and yet... They continue to invent obstacles and new battlefields as a means to basically add fulfillment to their lives as "oppression fighters." They're inventing struggles and huffing and puffing over them. Instead of using all the access and resources they HAVE gained in any meaningful way.

Regardless of where you perceive black 'privilege' in relation to whites, blacks do have IMMENSELY more freedom and opportunity than they did 80 year ago. Back then life was extremely hard for a poor southern black, but their social lives were often centered around their church, where they could worship, play music, socialize, and be uplifted. http://www-tc.pbs.org/riverofsong/music/pic/jugband.jpg http://www-tc.pbs.org/riverofsong/music/pic/choir.jpg

Are things better for blacks today? You wouldn't think so judging by all the protests and the victim carding, not to mention the poverty, incarceration, and homicide stats. Religion has been replaced by an accelerated consumerism that the average person, particularly the average black person, just has no chance to keep up with. Is this 'better'? Life is physically less demanding, but is it psychologically any more palatable?

All these democratic ideals (and I'm not anti-democracy, just honest about the pros and cons of all systems) rely on the presumption that most people understand how to navigate their own life and responsibly exercise their freedoms, which requires an interest in being educated and participating. But in reality most people have an aversion to complexity and taking initiative. They want simple battlegrounds. "I'm a woman, and we're held back. Let's protest!" or "This other group doesn't want gays married in their towns, let's go make em do it!!!"

Stuff like international trade, foreign policy, legislation dynamics... this stuff is always gonna fall into the hands of the few, because they're the only ones who are gonna pay attention. Democracy gives the public freedom in theory, not necessarily in practice. Humans aren't evolved that way, to have everyone sharing leadership equally.

So while the left's ideals of progressivism solve the problems of DIRECT oppression, they actually don't address the issues of indirect subjugation, because people are still prone to the same sociological phenomena that we've ALWAYS been prone to. We've just changed the shudders and painted the door on the system under which it operates to make it look a little more welcoming.

[NumberSix]

Left is liberal, wants change

Right is conservative, wants things to stay the same



I have both liberal and conservative views... So I don't classify myself as either
The left is certainly not liberal.

And where did idea come from that "change" is automatically liberal? A free market is the definition of liberal. If you are for "changing" that system, you're not a liberal. You're literally advocating for less liberty.

If you're anti-gun rights, you're anti-liberal
If you want to restrict or punish speech, you're anti-liberal
If you want to erode the concept of "innocent until proven guilty", you're anti-liberal
If you don't respect property rights, you're anti-liberal
If you're anti-free market, you're anti-liberal.
If you are for laws applying differently to people, you're anti-liberal


Not only is the left not liberal, they are in many cases, specifically anti-liberal.

And you say you have some liberal and some conservative views as if liberal and conservative are inherently different things. Newsflash, most conservative values in America are in fact liberal. Conservative values in the Muslim world, not so much.

In America, liberal positions like free speech rights and religious freedom rights are conservative values. Wanting "change" is the radical position and anti-liberal.

In the Muslim world, liberal positions like free speech rights and religious freedom rights are radical values. Wanting change is still radical, but pro-liberal.

Being conservative simply means adhering to traditional values. Conserving them. If the traditional values are liberal, conserving them is liberal. Whether change is liberal or not depends on whether the traditional values at hand are liberal or not. Change in itself isn't liberal like some of you seem to think it is.

The opposite of conservative is radical. Not liberal. Liberalism can be either conservative or radical depending on the circumstances.

[Akrazotile]

This perpetual battleground of "equality" is obviously some kind of substitute, some purpose or goal that can be continually strived for. A carrot to eternally chase after.

Every group DOES now have equal rights in America. But social just warrioring is still as popular as ever. And even if somehow we did satisfy them in terms of demographic equality and 'fairness' (we've already done what we can with laws, the point is that sjw's by nature will never be satisfied) but let's say they are satisfied with how all groups are treated.

Then the issue will just turn to money. Why doesn't everyone make the exact same? Why does one person make more than the other?? Not fair! Not fairrr!!!

So let's say we solve THAT problem (just for laughs).

People will still not be equal. Some guys will be 6'2 with chiseled jaws and thick, lustrous hair and six pack abs, some guys will be 5'3 with a face full of acne and moles. And even though all the rights are equal, and all the pay is equal, the first guy will get more attention from women, will have more leadership deferred to him, will enjoy higher confidence... And that won't be "fair."

So then we're all gonna have to undergo some biological alteration shit at birth to make us all physically equal I guess. Anything to keep chasing after equality, as if that's what will finally make us happy.

This is the American left-winger ideal. Just keep chasing after universal equality as a substitute for the reality of our own problems. It's like a distraction. It's like, what did Marx say... somethin about the opiate of the masses?

Hmm.

[Dresta]

I have immense intellectual respect for the conservative tradition.

But where pure conservatism breaks down for me is that

1) progress has happened in the past (and I call it progress because I would never want to go back to the way things were previously if I had the opportunity to hop on a time machine)

2) it didn't always happen "organically", whatever that means (I'm a bit skeptical of naturalism in all its forms. Everything that happens... happens. Idealism and grand impractical schemes are a part of human nature too)... The utopian dreams and visions of philosophers and statesmen have, in fact, played a huge role in shaping reality. Of course reality didn't follow their master plan (thank God for that)... but they've set directions for people to dedicate their imperfect efforts.

Ultimately, I'm glad I live in a country where power rests on consent of the people... I'm glad I can speak my mind without getting arrested... I'm glad that I had access to quality free education when I was a child, effective health care when I was sick, etc. And unlike the thugs who are trying to destroy civilization, I have no interest in going back to 7th century.
Human beings live in the practical world, not an abstracted one - that is why grand designs born in the mind of some philosopher can never be directly applied to a nation or community. The mores must be suited to the order - it's the same reason why you can't plant American Republicanism in Iraq and expect it to flourish. The Declaration of Independence is the real problem: it makes it seem that America was built on a theoretical and idealistic basis, when it was in fact heavily grounded in established tradition and practical realities, by a class of men that could only be called 'gentlemen' of a sort that does not exist in the modern world, not even in England.

I don't know what you mean by naturalism here - that concept has nothing to do with the organic development of civil order through the trial and error of centuries, the 'democracy of the dead' and the wisdom of the past that helps us to avoid the mistakes made of the past. In the same way we often have customs and mores whose efficacy is not clear, but that doesn't mean they don't have a value or a use - things that survive a long time almost always do.

If the American founders had disregarded all that had come before, and simply built the nation on the basis of the abstractions of a philosopher (the only founder who really even leaned this way was Jefferson). An example i can provide you with is Bentham, and how he differs from James Madison: the former wrote to the latter saying he could draw up the perfect legal system for the United States, Madison, knowing better, ignored this vain and pretentious man, who would likely have destroyed the Republic.

[GIF REACTION]

This perpetual battleground of "equality" is obviously some kind of substitute, some purpose or goal that can be continually strived for. A carrot to eternally chase after.

Every group DOES now have equal rights in America. But social just warrioring is still as popular as ever. And even if somehow we did satisfy them in terms of demographic equality and 'fairness' (we've already done what we can with laws, the point is that sjw's by nature will never be satisfied) but let's say they are satisfied with how all groups are treated.

Then the issue will just turn to money. Why doesn't everyone make the exact same? Why does one person make more than the other?? Not fair! Not fairrr!!!

So let's say we solve THAT problem (just for laughs).

People will still not be equal. Some guys will be 6'2 with chiseled jaws and thick, lustrous hair and six pack abs, some guys will be 5'3 with a face full of acne and moles. And even though all the rights are equal, and all the pay is equal, the first guy will get more attention from women, will have more leadership deferred to him, will enjoy higher confidence... And that won't be "fair."

So then we're all gonna have to undergo some biological alteration shit at birth to make us all physically equal I guess. Anything to keep chasing after equality, as if that's what will finally make us happy.

The liberal ideal. Chasing after it forever and ever.
Egalitarian ideals

The reality is not all races are equal... Some commits crimes more than others... Some achieve higher levels of education... The balancing act should stop at a point... And liberals drove passed it about 10 years ago

[BurningHammer]

Right

https://media.giphy.com/media/wHwa6FJ8UGgwg/giphy.gif

Left

https://media.giphy.com/media/i3RA5wLyWjCRa/giphy.gif

I'm here to ruin the thread

[TripleA]

Egalitarian ideals

The reality is not all races are equal... Some commits crimes more than others... Some achieve higher levels of education... The balancing act should stop at a point... And liberals drove passed it about 10 years ago

Race itself is a social construct. A black man from Nigeria is different from a black man from Ethiopia. A lot of black people in the U.S. wouldn't be considered black in Brazil. Neymar isn't considered black in Brazil and he is darker than Steph Curry.

[Akrazotile]

Egalitarian ideals

The reality is not all races are equal... Some commits crimes more than others... Some achieve higher levels of education... The balancing act should stop at a point... And liberals drove passed it about 10 years ago


They must always chase after equality. It is their default 'purpose.' Even without understanding WHY they're chasing after it, or what the logistical disconnect to real life is, without understanding anything about what motivates them or what it would actually look like if we somehow achieved this end... It's just what they're gonna do. They just see others on this bandwagon, chasing the equality carrot, so they jump on it too. Monkey see, monkey do. And that's their purpose, their motivation, their way to pass time until they die. Logical? Hardly. But logic is grounded in reality, and to the average awkward, effeminate, pansy lefty... Reality is none too appealing. So idealism it is!

[NumberSix]

Every group DOES now have equal rights in America. But social just warrioring is still as popular as ever. And even if somehow we did satisfy them in terms of demographic equality and 'fairness' (we've already done what we can with laws, the point is that sjw's by nature will never be satisfied) but let's say they are satisfied with how all groups are treated.
See, this is actually not true.

In America, Muslims are a "protected class" whereas golfers aren't. Men who have a sexual preference for men are a "protected class", whereas men who have a sexual preference for blondes aren't.

[Dresta]

The left is certainly not liberal.

And where did idea come from that "change" is automatically liberal? A free market is the definition of liberal. If you are for "changing" that system, you're not a liberal. You're literally advocating for less liberty.

If you're anti-gun rights, you're anti-liberal
If you want to restrict or punish speech, you're anti-liberal
If you want to erode the concept of "innocent until proven guilty", you're anti-liberal
If you don't respect property rights, you're anti-liberal
If you're anti-free market, you're anti-liberal.
If you are for laws applying differently to people, you're anti-liberal


Not only is the left not liberal, they are in many cases, specifically anti-liberal.

And you say you have some liberal and some conservative views as if liberal and conservative are inherently different things. Newsflash, most conservative values in America are in fact liberal. Conservative values in the Muslim world, not so much.

In America, liberal positions like free speech rights and religious freedom rights are conservative values. Wanting "change" is the radical position and anti-liberal.

In the Muslim world, liberal positions like free speech rights and religious freedom rights are radical values. Wanting change is still radical, but pro-liberal.

Being conservative simply means adhering to traditional values. Conserving them. If the traditional values are liberal, conserving them is liberal. Whether change is liberal or not depends on whether the traditional values at hand are liberal or not. Change in itself isn't liberal like some of you seem to think it is.

The opposite of conservative is radical. Not liberal. Liberalism can be either conservative or radical depending on the circumstances.This couldn't be more true: America was largely founded on Liberal values, and so defending those values came to be seen as conservatism (no one really even used the word in America until the 1950s).

It is difficult with the word liberal, because the term has become so degraded that i think perhaps it's best to leave it dead; the same happened with the word 'libertine' centuries ago, when it used mean what liberal meant a hundred years ago. The word is dead in the meaning you give it, so really, a new word is needed. Let the modern liberal flip the word on its head all they like. I also think Classical Liberalism and modern liberals have much the same values: they both tend to care more about the acquisition of wealth than anything else (one for the individual, the other for re-distribution) - and here is where they contrast with the conservative, who would never make such a concession. America has very few actual conservatives - rather, it's two sets of liberals duking it out and hating each other.

Tis much like how sophist used to be the term for wise man, until they so debased the term that it had to be replaced with 'philosopher.'

[GIF REACTION]

Race itself is a social construct. A black man from Nigeria is different from a black man from Ethiopia. A lot of black people in the U.S. wouldn't be considered black in Brazil. Neymar isn't considered black in Brazil and he is darker than Steph Curry.
The social construction argument has been destroyed so many times... Even way back in the 80's... Just as athleticism is genetics, IQ to an extent is genetic. Race does matter. It is just a really dangerous topic to talk about publicly.

[Dresta]

Race itself is a social construct. A black man from Nigeria is different from a black man from Ethiopia. A lot of black people in the U.S. wouldn't be considered black in Brazil. Neymar isn't considered black in Brazil and he is darker than Steph Curry.
But why is Steph Curry considered black? I don't get this one drop rule in America - seems racist to me.

[Akrazotile]

Race itself is a social construct. A black man from Nigeria is different from a black man from Ethiopia. A lot of black people in the U.S. wouldn't be considered black in Brazil. Neymar isn't considered black in Brazil and he is darker than Steph Curry.

And yet an Ethiopian or a Kenyan will fare better on average than a Nigerian in a marathon.

In the 1900s many different European nationalities migrated to NYC en masse, and jews were appreciably more successful than any other.

Western blacks descended from slaves do better in athletic competition than randomly selected members of the rest of the population.

Traits vary by region and evolutionary circumstance. Taxonomy and the official 'classifications' may be a human construct to a degree, but nature isn't. Traits demonstrably vary by region and evolutionary circumstance.

It's science. It's evolution. Isn't that what lefties are all about filling society with?

[NumberSix]

Race itself is a social construct. A black man from Nigeria is different from a black man from Ethiopia. A lot of black people in the U.S. wouldn't be considered black in Brazil. Neymar isn't considered black in Brazil and he is darker than Steph Curry.
How about age? Is age a social construct?

[Akrazotile]

See, this is actually not true.

In America, Muslims are a "protected class" whereas golfers aren't. Men who have a sexual preference for men are a "protected class", whereas men who have a sexual preference for blondes aren't.


True indeed.

[Akrazotile]

Rational minds owning the shit out of this thread. What a backfire for OP :oldlol:

[GIF REACTION]

Rational minds owning the shit out of this thread. What a backfire for OP :oldlol:
Dream TEAM son. All the guys.

Chewing where you at son!

Destroying team pencil neck day after day after day

[TripleA]

The social construction argument has been destroyed so many times... Even way back in the 80's... Just as athleticism is genetics, IQ to an extent is genetic. Race does matter. It is just a really dangerous topic to talk about publicly.
The way it's used in society it's mostly a social construct.
A Somali is much different than a west African but both would be considered black in the U.S.

[GIF REACTION]

The way it's used in society it's mostly a social construct.
A Somali is much different than a west African but both would be considered black in the U.S.
What are we arguing here?

It is the same for a white or Asian person

I understand the variance for genetic traits based on regional/nationality locale

But the base plain of African heritage and European heritage still plays a part

Both base races have different cranium shapes, both unique to themselves

And here's where the research gets interesting

It's thought that Europeans mixed with Neanderthals whereas the Africans did not nearly as much

The base races does have impact on genetics, clearly

[Akrazotile]

What are we arguing here?

It is the same for a white or Asian person

I understand the variance for genetic traits based on regional/nationality locale

But the base plain of African heritage and European heritage still plays a part

Both base races have different cranium shapes, both unique to themselves

And here's where the research gets interesting

It's thought that Europeans mixed with Neanderthals whereas the Africans did not nearly as much

The base races does have impact on genetics, clearly

Yep, in fact if we classified people the same way we classify the rest of the animal kingdom, then caucasian, negro, and asian would basically be separate species, and the different categories among each group (chinese, japanese, filipino, or kenya, nigerian, congolese etc) would actually be the race.

[TripleA]

What are we arguing here?

It is the same for a white or Asian person

I understand the variance for genetic traits based on regional/nationality locale

But the base plain of African heritage and European heritage still plays a part

Both base races have different cranium shapes, both unique to themselves

And here's where the research gets interesting

It's thought that Europeans mixed with Neanderthals whereas the Africans did not nearly as much

The base races does have impact on genetics, clearly

A Somali has more genetic similarities to a Arab than a West African.

[NumberSix]

A Somali has more genetic similarities to a Arab than a West African.
Where did you hear this?

[TripleA]

Where did you hear this?

According to Y chromosome studies by Sanchez et al. (2005), Cruciani et al. (2004, 2007), the Somalis are paternally closely related to other Afro-Asiatic-speaking groups in Northeast Africa.[73][74][75] Besides comprising the majority of the Y-DNA in Somalis, the E1b1b1a (formerly E3b1a) haplogroup also makes up a significant proportion of the paternal DNA of Ethiopians, Sudanese, Egyptians, Berbers, North African Arabs, as well as many Mediterranean populations.[74][76] Sanchez et al. (2005) observed the M78 subclade of E1b1b in about 77% of their Somali male samples.[73] According to Cruciani et al. (2007), the presence of this subhaplogroup in the Horn region may represent the traces of an ancient migration from Egypt/Libya.

Studies

[NumberSix]

Studies
Do Somalis have mothers?

[GIF REACTION]

Nobody is saying that it is all genetics

I have already said that geographical location which alludes to climate/food source/predators/etc still has an effect on biological traits

The problem however is that... Calling Race a social construct is essentially saying it has NO impact whatsoever to biology, which is a flat out lie.