Whites are humans too. End anti-white racism on Zig Forums. Stop posting "made for b*c"

He is 100% correct though.

no he isnt

Differences are not determined by "science", they're determined by people. Whatever people determine to be a difference, is a difference; this might or might not align with what science determines as a difference (in most, maybe even all, cases, it does not align; due to people not understanding science). (Not to mention, that science itself isn't the Truth, and is fallible; even probable, to be false, when the historical context is considered.) Anyway, races do exist, because racism (the people) assumes them.

124557811
>mutt education
Yes he is

It isn't a question of education, but the question of whether or not you're honest.

yes, they are social. I did not deny that. I'm saying they are scientifically not real.

As how cargo cult gives a special meaning where there isn't, same thing for race.
but in the way you are talking about, yes, races exist in a social manner. But it is a historical thing, as very concept of races was not permanent. Koreans for example when they saw white shipwreckers, they thought that they were aliens without conception of race. This is recognition of difference, but not races. Recognition of differences will always exist, but races are a historical thing.

truth
anyone who disagrees is in severe denial

dumbass

something doesn't have to be objectively real in order for it to have a social role. You say that racism will exist, as long as there are races, and I denied that as races do not exist, signifying that your statement is wrong. Also why would racism exist forever when it wasn't always here either? Concept of races were alien to isolated peoples for example.

> something doesn't have to be objectively real in order for it to have a social role.
like religion for example etc.

There might be "science" to "races", or there might be not. I'm not a biologist, so how would I know? However, as you realized, that isn't the question. The question is, whether or not people determine differences in "races", whether or not they're "racist". And, yes, they are. Go ask a "black" person, if he's black, or a "white" person, if he's white. They'd answer "yes". So, "races"/"racism" is not historical.

And that's why they want to mutt the entire world

You are not smart. Now go back to your general

> So, "races"/"racism" is not historical.
you dont understand. You are proving racism exists currently, but I had proved that it wasn't a thing written on a stone tablet since the beginning of man, showing "Racism will exist, as long as there's races. " is a absurd thesis. As concept of races such as white and african didn't exist for example like in my example of korea, it doesn't have to exist forever either. In fact, you proved it's historical nature by showing that racism exists right now, but I've shown you it didn't exist in the past.

Mere recognition of difference does not equal concept of race

No, it's vice versa. "Races" will exist, as long as "racism" ("racist" people) exist. And even if there weren't "racism", then there'd be another form of discrimination, as differences ARE (the grammar is INTENTIONALLY fucked up).

"Difference" can't be eradicated. It's IMPOSSIBLE. And for discrimination, the quantity of "difference" is IRRELEVANT, what's matters is its PERSISTING quality. Besides, I'm not (significantly) smarter or dumber than (You), just more honest.

> No, it's vice versa. "Races" will exist, as long as "racism" ("racist" people) exist
i agree with this, but your initial wording didn't convey this well

> And even if there weren't "racism", then there'd be another form of discrimination, as differences ARE (the grammar is INTENTIONALLY fucked up).
there would be. But society doesn't have to revolve around that.

Racism or the concept of "race" is not eternal, yeah. It's determined, by whether or not people believe in it, by whether or not they're "racist". But even if people weren't racist, then there'd be another form of discrimination. In practice, the abolishment of "racism" would introduce a new form of "discrimination", and, in the sense of honest [!] "anti-racism", nothing would've been won.

> But even if people weren't racist, then there'd be another form of discrimination.
yes, such as looks.

> In practice, the abolishment of "racism" would introduce a new form of "discrimination", and, in the sense of honest [!] "anti-racism", nothing would've been won.
this is nonsensical. Abolition of one thing doesn't automatically lead to more another thing. It's absurd to claim those things when conditions and views do objectively change as one discrimination disappears as a result. Like say for slave liberation. Would you equate post-slavery blacks and pre-slavery blacks and claim both are still equally bad?

I've got no evidence for it, but I suspect, there's a natural LAW that premises discrimination. There's no "gentleman's way" to deal with it; the truth is: To overcome discrimination, is fight it out.
>youtube.com/watch?v=GztxvlQglSc

>Any attempt to "solve" racism or discrimination respectively is misguided.
NWO throwing white western civilization into a blender with brown/black people to make sure we're all the same color of faggot will work in a few generations.

discrimination as definition is incredible broad.

your white people are result of yamna people from central asia breeding with browner farmers in europe. You are like mulatto calling for racial purity

Well, there's got to a force, that realizes itself in discrimination. When one appearance of discrimination is abolished, while the force for discrimination persists, then there'd arise a new appearance of discrimination. As I said, I'm not sure about the cause for this force; but I suspect, at the core of it, it's got to be the "will for power". To trace this force back, however, and to do an empirical (historical) analysis, is very, very difficult; I'd even assume, it's impossible. Any attempt would be prone to error.

>You are like mulatto calling for racial purity
Wow, really got me there. How insightful.
Except for the part where I never said anything like that and you jumped to conclusions and straw maned your dick off.

Attached: 1591359420599.jpg (400x427, 31.83K)

(explained it here)
No, they'll fail. They're too arrogant, to accept their imminent failure, but God won't care. He'll destroy their Tower of Babel, once again.

Yeah, it is. I'm not informed enough, to go into detail. But it's not essential for the question, we were discussing, anyway.

If you blend these two together you get the kid from "Come and See"

no
appearances don't matter, it is underlying cause which matters as how fear of immigration for example are rooted from wage-depression also. It is intrinsic to capitalist society. Emphirical and historical analysis shows where all kinds of social reactions ultimately result in. Force is to ba bolished. You are very correct in saying anti-discrimination bills are meaningless, as inside forces causing racism in human mind will persist.

true. You are actually correct on arguing underlying force is the real cause and any anti-discrimination laws are superficial at the end.

I hate racists, niggers, yellow scum, turkish scum, slavs scum, europe faggots, stupids transshiteaters, fucking gays and people all races and animals. Its cool to be a jew.

>Tower of Babel
>no
Alright. lol

Attached: 1591115201143s.jpg (248x327, 23.45K)

I think, this force (the will for power) is inherent to life; it can't be abolished. God created this world thus.

Attached: 1587327778817.jpg (1280x856, 176.51K)