I'm racist. Tell me why I'm wrong

essential grounds?
What do you mean by that?

How certain are you that race ends with skin color and facial features?

>makes it much harder for you to recognize value in blacks
Do you think one race can be fundamentally better that another?

Attached: spicy nigger.gif (220x208, 338.52K)

Unbelievably based.

What do you mean by social construct?
Are races a "social construct"?

Can you give an example of something else that is for sure and also that isn't for sure a social construct?

So I can get a sense for your thinking?

Attached: suicide funny.jpg (1244x700, 44.51K)

fake and gay

Waiting for your replies.

Attached: blue-eyed-egyptian5.jpg (403x403, 59.69K)

Nice word salad faggot. I don't judge Blacks based on the colour of their skin, I judge them on their inferior IQ and subsequent detriment to society.

Attached: a trans.gif (320x240, 703.96K)

What he said was intelligent and thoughtful. What you said was white supremacist dog vomit.

>I'm racist. Tell me why I'm wrong.
You're not wrong that there are difference between races. This is the thing liberals stupidly rage against... and everyone, even them deep down, knows it's true. Some percentage of it is cultural, some is also probably genetic.

Here's where you're wrong... it shouldn't matter. They're beings who are capable of suffering, and so if you're a moral person, they deserve your consideration.

Take care of people of other races. Take care of everyone. If you nationalized production of food, shelter, medicine, education, such that you and your black neighbor shared the same stakes, had the same political, economic, and social powers, then you and your families could hang out having a backyard picnic together laughing at racist jokes without a care in the world. They wouldn't be criminals, and you wouldn't be a repressive asshole. Pretty sweet deal.

Based on essential grounds means based on what they were born as, what they had no control over at any point in their existence, and independent from education or environment. So their race, color, sex, facial hair, whatever.
>How certain are you that race ends with skin color and facial features?
I am reasonably certain it doesn't. Enough evidence exists in medical research of anatomical and physiological differences.
>Do you think one race can be fundamentally better that another?
No - the key word here being "fundamentally". "worse" implies judgement through a subjective moral scale. You can certainly perceive a race as worse than another, either because of intrinsic differences or cultural tendencies that you perceive to be less desirable than another ; that is more or less the definition of racism. But the words "fundamentally better" imply an objective scale of good vs. bad, and there is no such thing.

Attached: martinedit.jpg (800x450, 81.6K)

Blacks (and other races) can't even make the same facial expressions as whites. The movements are different. The postures are different. Different nervous systems, bones, skulls, skin tones facial features. A downgrade.

Black people can barely speak english after a few hundred years - I don't think that's an accident.

Attached: criminal.jpg (960x960, 136.12K)

>3 mins between posts
>pls erspond

you mean if it's bad or not?

Well op, scientifically speaking, your aversion to different people's is actually the result of lack of variation in genetic composition. Those with more diverse and complex DNA signatures are much more likely to develop socially beneficial traits such as empathy, compassion, and charisma. People with less diverse genetics, ie people who come from more isolated gene pools, are far less likely to develop these positive traits.

TLDR: your shallow gene pool kids why you're racist

I don't know why it might take that long.
I'm here to hear what people have to say, buddy.

Attached: gender fraud.png (1299x1032, 271.48K)

If you subjected Northern European people to subjugation and economic despair for several generations, they'd turn into trash humans too. I mean, look at Appalachia.

You need to at least back your argument up to stating that Northern Europeans wouldn't let that happen to themselves... but I think they did, peasants under the boot of kings for a long ass time. Those guys couldn't speak and farmed mud in shit thatched roof cottages for centuries while Asia was grind mindset.

I think the only consistent believe you can hold on race is that any of them are completely susceptible to going to shit.

This means, of course, that races should all help each other out instead of fighting amongst themselves.

>Based on essential grounds means based on what they were born as

Yeah, some people are born worse.

>implies judgement through a subjective moral scale

Dumber, you'll agree is worse? Weaker is worse?

We can probably agree that smarter is better, stronger is better, a sophistication in expression or ideas might be better (sophistication meaning appropriate complexity).

If a group, a team let's say in sports, has slower, less capable players that is a worse team? Not all teams are equal in that case? ...Even if some teams are only temporarily constructed from worse players.

My argument here, I think, might be outside of culture and wealth. A more intelligent, stronger person might be overpowered at some point by an "inferior" person.

A car can be of lower quality, more failure prone parts, can't reach the same speeds, less space.

So, what I'm trying to say is maybe you also believe that groups of things can be worse or better than one another - even if it's groups of people.

Attached: reserve head egypt.jpg (1160x704, 134.35K)

>your aversion to different people's is actually the result of lack of variation in genetic composition
wow, doesn't even make sense

>your shallow gene pool kids why you're racist
Do you have proof for this idea? For the superiority of mixed race people?

Attached: 100% face.png (665x732, 14.22K)