If diversity is a strength then why is race mixing allowed? This will lead to a homogeneous society

Its a false flag to debunk retarded beliefs that a mixing two populations creates a homogenous population, rather than the opposite

Mixing two populations creates a homogenous population unless the two mixed populations enthusiastically self-segregate and punish anyone who mixes harshly.
Are you fucking thick?

Read a textbook sometime.

Attached: 2612c4a900000578-2974869-family_line_the_twins_mother_donna_is_half_jamaican_and_their_fa-a-12_1425253983608.jpg (634x521, 65.31K)

Creating a populations out of many exclusionary parts (individual genes) of which they can only have two versions means they dont become homogenous.
Mixing two poplations, one with blonde hair and one with black hair, doesnt create a populations with homogenous genes for brown hair, it creates a population that has genes for both blonde and black hair and in some individuals they will be both blonde, some both black, some hetrogenous. Genes dont mutate, the analogue of "mixing paint" is a completely false one. Destructing of a certain set of genes in a population requires high selective preassure, and genetic drift within a population without such immense preasure will outpace the homogenising effect of natural selection.

Wow is it really this easy to stump a leftist?

Every single (angry) reply is a non-answer and you all know it. Haha this is hilarious!

looks to me like being exclusively brown or white is recessive. your point?

see

Well they do mutate but two genes dont magically turn into a new one, dna crosses over on the edge of codings, not within codings.

Oh is it you again? Last time you also made a fool out of yourself.

Photo does the opposite of what you claim. I do not want to be apart of the hybrid blite or whack race

The notion that people whose skin colour is more than 4 shades away from eachother being able to have kids like any two consenting adults will somehow mean everyone fall in love and decide to have kids with people of the skin colour most contrasting to their own until there is only one shade of skin under the sun is nonsense and wouldn't feasibly happen in a thousand years. It wouldn't even happen if you decided to take all the people in the world and evenly spread them out with proportional numbers of skin shades in every locality.
The simple fact of the matter is that socialism would bring an end to migration as a major phenomenon and people would live out their lives in close proximity to their families where they were born and couples would naturally tend to form in these colour-homogenous localities with the only exception being long distance online dating.
If Zig Forumsyps had any sense of history they would understand that the malaise of homogeneity that will plague us in reality rather than their colour palette based fantasies is the death of languages and associated cultural homogenisation.

I never understood where you people get your complaints about being "surrounded by brown people" from. like, what is the difference if you're in a bedroom on your computer all day without sunlight?

Well then next time you can make a post saying "I hate mutts" instead of trying to make a weak, retarded "gotcha" mixed paint argument about diversity that we hear every other day.

Shut up nigger, see

Attached: 132300FE-8AD7-464C-8F8B-A4363EA59671.png (616x596, 52.53K)

polyps are americans and as such have neither ancestral culture nor language.

Imagine being this alpha.

If population A nearly always has black hair, light brown skin, and broad flat noses, and population B has ginger hair, black skin, and narrow, long noses, mixing these populations will result in homogeneity in the sense that a person from the mixed population will have any combination of these traits. Usually a mix of both populations. everyone will look sort of similar to each other because they're drawing from the same pool, as opposed to having two very distinct, separate groups with consistent appearances.

A bowl of every color marble mixed together looks homogeneous and boring compared to seperate boxes with every color of marble, or distinct combinations of blue and green, etc etc. Even though theres more unique types within that one group.

wow, got me there reddit.

How about we drop this stupid shit and just agree that the important reason that the "Preserve diversity by preventing racemixing" argument is wrong is that preserving diversity of that sort doesnt matter.

capitalism homogenizes cultures and it's happening worldwide. racemixing is inconsequential

You stated homogeneity, which does not occur in the way you think it does. Certain facial traits may be picked up and mixed, but the idea that in the future everyone will be the same color and have the same features is simply false. Even in places where people share the same skin color, genotypes and expressed phenotypes vary.

polyp logic, everyone

I bet you seperate your skittles before eating them

Im not Zig Forums you fuckwit.

How about you read the whole post, you illiterate faggot?
Or, you know, just refer back to the first post I made. Rather than take lines out of context and attack a strawman Zig Forumsack for what you imagine that he would mean when he said them.

with hostilities out of the way, lets actually say something:
Two separate populations which are homogenous in different ways is more diverse than one single population with a combination of both of their traits.

In a racemixed society, any given persons handful of traits will be broadly similar to anyone elses. Any two handfuls of skittles you take out of the bag will look mostly similar, only a little bit different. Wheras a bag of standard skittles looks different to a bag of some special holiday skittles they gave different colors.

But like I said, even if you're going to be an insufferable, litigating nerd about what we mean by "diversity", the key point is that even from Zig Forumss perspective, whether its basic idea about how things work is right or not(it actually is), it shouldn't matter in the fucking slightest.

Suppose there's a trait that comes in two variants, which has zero effect on the probability of creating offspring and members of the species in question show no preference for same or other with respect to that. The trait is encoded by two alleles, one from the father and one from the mother. One variant comes from having at least one dominant allele, the other from two recessive ones.

You acquired two groups of the same size, each having a perfect 50:50 ratio of males and females. One group is pure in that each member has both dominant alleles and the other is pure in that each member has both recessive alleles. Nobody is pregnant at the moment. You mix both groups together thoroughly and they create offspring.

First offspring round: What is the expected ratio in outside appearance of the two variants? What is the expected ratio in inherited alleleles?
Second offspring round: What is the expected ratio in outside appearance of the two variants? What is the expected ratio in inherited alleleles?
50th offspring round: What is the expected ratio in outside appearance of the two variants? What is the expected ratio in inherited alleleles?

The frequency of any one particular trait doesn't matter. Historically and still somewhat now, different populations of people display particular combinations of multiple traits which make them look distinct.

I understood what you were saying about genetics perfectly well, it just does not matter. More diversity of traits within a group still means less diversity of highly distinct looks.
Again:
if you have two bags of skittles, each bag with different colors, and take a handfull of each, those two handfulls will look different from each other. But if you mix the bags together, any given handful will look the same as any other, even though there are more distinct colors that any given skittle can be, its all generally the same distribution of random noise.

A human appearance is a collection of different traits in different variants, like a handfull of skittles that can be some range of colors. Seperate groups with seperate sets of characteristic is more diverse and generally prettier. This is just pedantry over what precisely we mean by diversity. It doesnt fucking matter which definition we use, because it doesnt matter one way or another in either case.

We don't care about that here. This is a communist board, not a liberal one.

mixed kids can be ugly or cute its like 50/50