Identity

submitted by Tarrock from media.communities.win

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]TooMuchClay 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (16 children)

Roman Christian heritage with the unique benefits of: Charity Rational and Reasoned Intellectual Investigation leading to: secular science metaphysics applied ethics Only significant reduction in use of slavery / involuntary labour (at least until it was reintroduced by Protestantism. Sort of).

Although the English speaking world refers to the "Byzantiums" that brought Orthodox Christian civilization to Eastern Europe as "Non Romans" that is a lie by Gibbons and other British Empirialist Apologists. They considered themselves the Eastern Roman Empire and just as Roman as any point in history.

So there is a common cultural root, slowly fading of course.

Jewish Atheist i.e. Kefir culture rejects most of the above (as well as its own rich heritage) so would have to excluded as not sharing similar culture

Also, paktun / afgani people can be "pigmented" and look more "white" facial feature wise than most European Latins yet they wouldn't be included in a shared cultural heritage, so your argument falls over a bit there

[–]Site_rly_sux 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

You're talking nonsense make-believe history

Poland-Lithuania was pagan a thousand years after Rome

Norway was a different pagan a thousand years after Rome

Germany was christianised by the sword by Charlemagne hundreds of years after Rome

It's simply not true that everyone with pale pigmentation has one single empire, religion, language group, culture, music, food

There is no such thing as whiteness, outside of a colonial nationalist setting

[–]Yin 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (12 children)

There is no such thing as whiteness, outside of a colonial nationalist setting

That's like saying there's no such thing as blackness (black people) outside of black slaves: retarded and false.

[–]Site_rly_sux 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

No it's absolutely true, that there is no single concept of blackness that unites people from Tasmania and papau new guinea and Lesotho and cote d'Ivoire. How is that retarded? Are you suggesting there is a monoculture that unites all those places?

[–]Yin 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (10 children)

There are only about 5 or so evolutionarily diverging core branches of humans.

Race is a term for what is real and measurable. This is no different from any other set of animal(s) where aspects of the animal present themselves (intelligences, violent impulses, shapes/sizes/appearances, abilities), driven by their brains and bodies, driven by millions of years of very different breeding --- e.g. especially accelerators like blacks who interbred with certain sub-species which whites and asians never bred with and vice versa --- leading to blatantly observable and measurable spectrums of commonalities and differences among the races which are noticeably different on both the general level and tail extremes (intelligence, behaviors), which is the foundation of any potential civilizations and cultures comprised of those people (what those people will/can/may form) inherently.

If you mean skin color only and strictly nothing else, then it depends. Two people each from different distant evolutionary branches may end up further apart than one is to where "whites" are, yet still both end up with similar skin colors, due to different or parallel effects dictating it so (like the sun, climate, survival of people who happen to have that pigment for tangential reasons). As it happens, someone with a little training can judge, with high accuracy based solely on a person's appearance, what core branch the person comes from at least but usually much more specific than that. You can also have albinos and extremely rare appearances but that doesn't change much else.

Skin color in isolation is typically not what most people are referring to when they say "whites" and "blacks", especially when it comes to low IQs and globalists waging hatred against whites to reap political leverage.

[–]Site_rly_sux 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

This is a hate-filled pseudoscience that basically boils down to "X is a ground-based pokemon that evolves into Y. It is weak against bug attack types"

There are only about 5 or so evolutionarily diverging core branches of humans

And let me guess....you can determine the 5 based on appearance of pigmentation

As it happens, someone with a little training can judge, with high accuracy based solely on a person's appearance

Guessed right.

So are Finno-Ugric "white" people in the same one of the five as Indo-European "white" people or are they two branches? It's pseudoscience.

accelerators like blacks who interbred with certain sub-species

You are horrible. Disgusting racial pseudoscience with zero basis in biology. Let's start with the fact that if two animals can produce a fertile baby, then they are by definition not a different species. So there is no breeding with other species. And there is no such thing as 'blacks' or 'whites', there is no definition which unites dark pigmented people from Tasmania and Lesotho and Chad. Nor any single definition which unites pale pigmented people from Estonia and Albania. What you are describing is appearance, phenotype, which is not a genotype different. And you're painting Pokémon style pseudoscience around it.

globalists waging hatred against whites

Wow what a surprise we find your victimhood at the root of all of it. Your desire to be the victim of a world built by colonial racists and foul pseudoscientists just like yourself

[–]Yin 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (8 children)

You deny science.

The only "hate" at present is your hatred of nature and of messengers who talk about nature.

And let me guess....you can determine the 5 based on appearance of pigmentation

I said most people can determine it "with high accuracy based solely on a person's appearance". Appearance by definition includes their face/body. However, given skin pigment alone (e.g. a few inch square photo of their skin), that would still be enough to guess with decent accuracy, especially if a trained machine is guessing. Core branches that are leading to races of whites, blacks, asians are also fairly highly correlated with the visual vestiges that are skin colors (it's a spectrum), and assuming the sampling doesn't include distantly mixed races.

So are Finno-Ugric "white" people in the same one of the five as Indo-European "white" people

Yes. There is a very large spectrum of breeding and migrations especially in those broad territories.

You don't understand evolution over small vs. large divergences.

You are horrible. Disgusting racial pseudoscience with zero basis in biology.

I tell the truth, measurable by people's DNA, and you call me horrible. And for your ignorance and hatred, you are horrible.

Let's start with the fact that if two animals can produce a fertile baby, then they are by definition not a different species. So there is no breeding with other species.

Read carefully. I said sub-species, not species. Hence I implied they had an ability to breed.

Various forms of "homo" groups/species roamed the earth and died out. Meanwhile, different ones interbred with different subsets of what we're now currently calling "homo sapiens", which apparently comes as a "hateful" shock to you. "Homo sapiens" under the current all-encompassing label are formed from different groups/races having different interbreeding at various levels with various now extinct homo-populations. In the case of sub-saharan blacks generally vs. whites and asians, this all happened to various exclusions of the other --- blacks with some human species ("species vs. sub-species" becomes semantically irrelevant here depending on the function of what's delineated vs. breed-ability) that others did not and vice versa.

And there is no such thing as 'blacks' or 'whites',

False. That's like saying there's no such thing as 'men' and 'women' because intersex people exist. It's dumb.

there is no definition which unites dark pigmented people from Tasmania and Lesotho and Chad.

Nonsense, and I doubt your claim. I'd have to examine their DNA. I'd wager the Lesotho and Chad people have high genetic similarities. Tasmania aborigines would probably be much further distanced from the other two.

Nor any single definition which unites pale pigmented people from Estonia and Albania.

False.

What you are describing is appearance, phenotype, which is not a genotype different. And you're painting Pokémon style pseudoscience around it.

No, I'm not. You are in denial about the existence of larger evolutionary divergences.

You must be a redditor or a troll. Your emotional denialism about this topic is embarrassing yourself.

[–]Site_rly_sux 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Ok well you're certain it exists and nobody else here can answer me so -

Nor any single definition which unites pale pigmented people from Estonia and Albania.

False.

Let's hear it then. What is this thing called "white culture" which unites Finno-Ugric and Indo-Europeans. Because all you've said so far is, it's based on their appearance - ie, the appearance of being white. That's a tautology.

What is the culture, music, food, religion, theatre, literature, language, ancient empire, ancestral origin, what is this thing that all white looking people have in common? Other than looking white?

[–]Yin 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Because all you've said so far is, it's based on their appearance - ie, the appearance of being white. That's a tautology.

Except, I never said that. Though it's fair to say. My focus is underlying genetics. I simply noted that skin color has an extremely high correlation with respective races, at least for what's considered white, black, asian, and thus it became a logical shortcut to use those terms to describe broader races. No one who's sane thinks "it's only skin deep" except the average shitlib or leftist who's fanatical about denying the existence of race/genetics, who deploys a straw man focusing only on "skin color" for the purpose of being duplicitous or because they're really that stupid.

What part of likely similarities in their genetics would be unclear to you, compared to groups much further distanced (e.g. blacks)?

You're confusing small scale genetic differences in cultures with large scale genetic differences in cultures. For one, those two groups, left to their own devices, will obviously have far more in common with each other in their primal cultural tendencies (societies/cultures their brains/bodies are capable of forming and may form, down to basic lizard-like proclivities and tastes and inventiveness and survival ingenuity) than they would to sub-saharan blacks and aboriginal cultures left to their own devices. Culture is downstream from the animal's governing genetic potentials (the spectrums thereof). Shared experiences are even further downstream. Members of the same family won't even have all of the same shared experiences, so points about "ancient empire" and such are highly tangential to these larger facts: what may seem like small genetic differences in DNA that portray races have actually lead to very different peoples generally. You can go ahead and observe the similarities and differences between groups at whatever scale you choose, micro to macro, and see for yourself.

[–]Site_rly_sux 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

What part of likely similarities in their genetics would be unclear to you, compared to groups much further distanced (e.g. blacks)?

I am asking you WHO are these people that you say have similar genetics? Your answer: the people that I've decided look alike

There is no genetic foundation for race.

There IS a genetic foundation for ethnicity, which is not what you were talking about.

I am telling you that an Indo-European, like say a French person. Is closer genetically to an Iranian Asian, than they are to a "white" Finno-Ugric. Even though they look similar.

There is not anything in the world of science that can be pointed to as "race" or the property of "whiteness" or that all "black" people have in common. That is pseudoscience, you might as well be talking about Pokémon.

Ethnicity is scientific, and has genetic evidence that you can point to. But similar looking ethnicities (similar phenotype) does not mean similar genetics. French are closer to Iranians than Finns. That's measurable. That's science. Your theory about five sub-species is fake news pseudoscience Pokémon games.

[–]TooMuchClay 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

The Roman Empire only truly died in the 15th century with the Turkish conquest of Constantinople - the then capital. I'd say it was a husk after the Venetian crusade, but that's hardly "hundreds of years" after "Rome"

Those parts of Europe converted "a thousand years later" were converted by the same Greceo-Roman Orthodox-Catholic culture. Hands down.

You are showing your ignorance of history and making the same mistakes as those disagreeing with you: you've simplified history to the point of nonsense. But you are correct there is no "white" culture, the particular cultural thread they are grasping for can be found anywhere in any skin colour or ethnicity: to deny that is to betray the core tenants of what they supposedly admire

[–]Site_rly_sux 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

What you're suggesting is that anyone who had ancestors existing contemporaneously with a fragment of Rome is...therefore white?

Its nonsense. Virtually anyone who had children 2000 years ago is the ancestor of virtually everyone alive today. There is nothing special that the Baltic Crusaders did to pagan Lithuanians that imparted whiteness on them, at the point of a sword. Whether or not Byzantium stood at the time had no difference to the Baltic Crusade. I am telling you that whiteness is not a factor of being touched by Rome, you cannot bend or falsify history to make that fit

Edit - just still trying to get my head round what is honestly one of the more retarded takes in this thread.

So you're saying that if the Turks in Asia minor were faster at capturing istenpolis/Istanbul and wiping out the ERE...that if the Turks did that quicker - say, completing their conquests earlier than the Baltic crusade or the christianisation of the Norse - then because Rome didn't exist any more, neither the Norwegians or Lithuanians would be considered "white" today?