Americans who hate America

[Stagger Lee]

Not exactly. Europeans had to live in harsher environments than most other races. So they developed a culture that allowed them to thrive, progress, and manipulate the environment around them. This took thousands of years btw. Much longer than black slaves in America have been free.

Human cultures coming from warmer climates are often more primitive simply because life is easier in such environments. When life is easy, there is no incentive to think hard or work hard.

When I said whites have succeed under horrible circumstances I didn't mean just climate but wars, slavery and invasions in Europe. You weren't intending to, but what you just said is basically making my argument for me. You're really saying Caucasians genetically evolved over 10,000s of years (some say 100,000s years) mostly far north of the tropics. Meanwhile, the groups who remained in the tropics evolved differently. So how on earth do you expect any society is going to be able to replicate or "catch up" what maybe a 100k years of natural selection did??

If behavior and culture were just a skill that's learned then it could be taught to anyone by early adulthood. It doesn't take decades and hundreds of years to teach skills, knowledge and abilities to those that have ability or tendency to accomplish them in the first place. And learned things are not inherited, only genetic traits.

My point is if you put whites anywhere at any time they are going to behave a certain way and accomplish xyz and if you put another race in the same place and time they are going behave a certain way and accomplish abc. It's genetic mostly.

The genetic argument doesn't hold up because there is often more genetic diversity between two people of the same race than two people of a different race. RACE is mostly a divisional social construct to divide people. Similar to religion.

This is a common argument made by progressive/liberals. It's not really true. It's the Lewontin's Fallacyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Genetic_Diversity:_Lewontin's_Fallacy. The races are separated by 10,000s of years of isolated breeding and are different subspecies, different admixtures ie, non-blacks have Neanderthal admixture, etc. Races are 100% genetically identifiable and have unique haplogroups. Despite the claims of "race is a social construct" and American is some mishmash of races, white Americans are surprisingly European and their ancestry can be traced back to their ancestral lands http://newobserveronline.com/white-americans-remained-shockingly-european-despite-decades-pro-racial-mixing-propaganda-new-dna-study-reveals/ .

 

[Poon King]

Same thing was done to the Jews for centuries and they, too, developed their own culture as a result (a culture that allowed them to become the wealthiest and most politically powerful group of people in America). What explains the drastically different ways in which Jews and blacks have responded to adverse conditions, if not race?

What explains the differences in cultures within the SAME race?

Why is Texas different from Germany? Why is Japan different from South Korea? Same race of people.. different culture.

 

[Poon King]

When I said whites have succeed under horrible circumstances I didn't mean just climate but wars, slavery and invasions in Europe. You weren't intending to, but what you just said is basically making my argument for me. You're really saying Caucasians genetically evolved over 10,000s of years (some say 100,000s years) mostly far north of the tropics. Meanwhile, the groups who remained in the tropics evolved differently. So how on earth do you expect any society is going to be able to replicate or "catch up" what maybe a 100k years of natural selection did??

If behavior and culture were just a skill that's learned then it could be taught to anyone by early adulthood. It doesn't take decades and hundreds of years to teach skills, knowledge and abilities to those that have ability or tendency to accomplish them in the first place. And learned things are not inherited, only genetic traits.

My point is if you put whites anywhere at any time they are going to behave a certain way and accomplish xyz and if you put another race in the same place and time they are going behave a certain way and accomplish abc. It's genetic mostly.





This is a common argument made by progressive/liberals. It's not really true. It's the Lewontin's Fallacyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Genetic_Diversity:_Lewontin's_Fallacy. The races are separated by 10,000s of years of isolated breeding and are different subspecies, different admixtures ie, non-blacks have Neanderthal admixture, etc. Races are 100% genetically identifiable and have unique haplogroups. Despite the claims of "race is a social construct" and American is some mishmash of races, white Americans are surprisingly European and their ancestry can be traced back to their ancestral lands http://newobserveronline.com/white-americans-remained-shockingly-european-despite-decades-pro-racial-mixing-propaganda-new-dna-study-reveals/ .

So how do you explain whiggers and oreos? :crackup:

There is no behavior pattern in one race that is never found in another. If its genetic.. this would not be possible. You would have complete consistency in behavior in each race.

 

[Embers84]

Embers gets owned again.

I did not get "owned". You and he got owned. The Gov census data, Dept. Of Agriculture data, The Gallup Poll, and the right wing Wall Street Journal refutes the "Maxwell Poll' showing the South to take in the most Federal money from the Government. That cannot be argued as it is a fact.

The South is not "overwhelmingly" Republication. In states like Georgia, Louisiana, North and South Carolina, Mississippi, Missouri, and even Texas, Obummer got over 40-48% of the vote. This means that close to half the people who live in the South actually vote Democrat. Those are your welfare southerners.

:crackup: LOL. Now you're trying to make the South seem like it's Liberal. You right wingers will try anything.

Romney got over 40% in both Oregon and Washington. He got 37% in California. Does that mean they are Conservative States? LOL.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_Oregon,_2012
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_Washington_(state),_2012
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_California,_2012

Not everybody voted in the 2012 Election. The South is overwhelmingly Republican. There is no contest at all. The majority of Congressional districts are Republican. The Senators are Republican. They are right wing. Look at the election maps. Looks pretty damn red all over to me.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_Oklahoma,_2012
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_Texas,_2012
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_Louisiana,_2012
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_Alabama,_2012
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_Tennessee,_2012
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_Kentucky,_2012
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_Arkansas,_2012
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_Georgia,_2012
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_Mississippi,_2012
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_South_Carolina,_2012

The poorest rural counties are deep red Republican. Whites live in those counties, not blacks. The whites are getting assistance from the Government too. Red States are on the dole getting Federal welfare from the Government. You can't deny that no matter how much you guys try.

Embers,

No single side owns disinformation. And certainly no single side has the right to use executive orders which break the law.

No law was broken with Executive Orders.

According to Barry, we are a nation of laws. He seems to conveniently forget that those laws also apply to him.

The Republicans stonewalled as usual telling him "No" on everything he tried to get done. Executive Orders was the last resort as every President has done. The right refused to pass anything in regards to immigration, so the President being a real leader took the appropriate action to get it done.

As far as the invaders already being here a long time. That does not make them any less an invader. Most importantly the cost OF NOT removing them is far higher than the cost to remove them.

We need to export them back, and build a border which greatly increases the odds of death for would-be invaders. Anything less will not work to stop the hordes from coming in.

Wrong. It will take billions of dollars to remove them including swelling the size of government to make that possible. Something the right refuses to do. See, they like to talk a big game, but when it comes down to getting it done, they refuse to do anything about it.

A whole new department would have to be implemented. Officers would have to be trained to locate and remove them. Transportation would have to be used to drive them down to Mexico. What about invaders from other countries? How do you remove them? How do you find all of them? What do you do with their kids who are born U.S. citizens? Are you going to pay higher taxes to remove illegals?

Having them become citizens paying taxes has a far greater benefit than spending billions to remove them increasing the size of government that won't solve the problem.

 

[( . )( . )]

So how do you explain whiggers

Atomized lower IQ whites who's own heritage/culture was demonized and destroyed decades before he/she was even born then fed nothing but a steady diet of MTV and "thug lyfe" culture from birth. Plus the talmudvision shows all those cool black men scoring with lots of swooning prized white puzzy and look at that clueless doofus white guy he can't even tie his own shoelaces let alone dance. Who want's to be like that square? You know the formula, we've had it crammed down our throats for long enough.

LOL. Now you're trying to make the South seem like it's Liberal.

What are you not understanding here? You were just shown proof the overwhelming majority of welfare parasites within those red states are sh!tlibs. Are you now trying to pretend actual net producers who don't push for more wealth redistribution from more successful people are libtards? Who the hell is going to buy that? That's pretty much the entire ideology and enticement used by the democrats. "Need mo money for dem programs"

 

[Embers84]

What are you not understanding here? You were just shown proof the overwhelming majority of welfare parasites within those red states are sh!tlibs. Are you trying to pretend actual net producers who don't push for more wealth redistribution from more successful people are libtards? Who the hell is going to buy that?

What are you not understanding here?

Your "Maxwell Poll" was refuted by The Gallup Poll. A poll that is the standard in polling data for decades. It was also refuted by The Dept. Of Agriculture Data, U.S. Government Census Data, the right wing Wall Street Journal, and WalletHub an independent financial company.

All of their data shows that the poorest rural counties are the sh!tcons who live there. Are you that stupid that you can't see the dark red colors on the state congressional district map? Are you that ignorant not to know whites live in the rural counties who are the most poor people in the state who are hungry getting Gov assistance? Are you that blind to see that Red States are still on the dole taking money from the Gov when they claim to be fiscally responsible? It is a joke, and it's the big lie the gullible fools on the right like you fall for, listening to your sh!tcon media that distorts the truth and that you repeat like a robot. That is called brainwashing propaganda.

Don't forget all the white chicks who get knocked up that go on welfare in the red states. Red States have the highest percentage of teenage pregnacy and single mothers.

When you look at the facts, you right wingers are proven to be liars. Now you try to worm your way out, trying to spin it but you can't. The data and all the facts are there looking at the Gov data charts. Red States take from the Gov. That's all that matters.

If you don't think whites are taking from Gov too, then you are an idiot. Poor whites get just as hungry as blacks do. They aren't going to starve for weeks without food when their state has Gov assistance programs to help them. That's what it's there for.

:crazy: You are literally one of those posters who keeps fvcking up and digging themselves deeper every time they post.

That is you with your right wing tirade ramblings of "sh!tlib this" and "sh!tlib that". You have no idea what you're talking about. You just repeat the same false information you hear like a robot.

The white population in America has reached the birth versus death tipping point a full decade earlier than predicted, according to the US Census Bureau.

That means nothing since the South still has the highest percentage of teenage pregnancy. Keep trying to use meaningless examples to argue your failed points.

Funny how you post information from US Census Bureau on birth rate, but you don't believe the US Census Bureau information I posted about Red States and the sh!tcons living there taking Federal Money from the Government as welfare queens. You just dug yourself even deeper than before. :crackup:

Check out the data chart here that shows the South to have the highest percentage of teenage pregnancies. It doesn't matter if the birth rate dropped nationally dummy. The rate in the South is still high comapred to the other States and regions. That's all that matters. Going to deny that too?

http://www.livescience.com/45355-teen-pregnancy-rates-by-state.html

You 'left-wingers' attempt to invert cause and effect.

You think that if you spout liberal gibberish, others will think that you are intelligent. Well, maybe they do in the dorm room or inside the Beltway.

You don't get to determine 'all that matters' assh*le. You get to discuss.

In a nation that is still over 60% 'white' of course whites will be significant receivers of 'welfare'.

Idiots like you deliberately confuse temporary assistance with multi-generational welfare.

Your red state - blue state narrative is as silly as it is pathetic. But it suits your needs.

You think you set the terms of discussion and thus control the narrative. You don't and you can't .

So go back to your echo chamber. Like-mindless await you.

I'm posting facts, you are posting angry rants.

The fact is grandpa, you will be taking money from the Government in 3 years with no problem.

Red States are taking the most Gov. money when all the right wingers attack Liberals for not being fiscally responsible. The right wingers are hypocrites and liars because the actual data shows them to be.

So, the whites are on welfare too and you admit to that. But it's the media that reports it only as "blacks are all on welfare taking from the Gov". It's temporary for the blacks too to get food stamps just as whites and for what each state allows for assistance programs. The right are liars and hypocrites.

It doesn't matter "who" is taking the money in the Red States. If the Red States were actually fiscally responsible like they claim, they wouldn't lead the nation as the welfare queens taking Federal Money from the Government when Blue States are not taking it as much like they are. The Red States wouldn't take "hand outs" from the Government if they were "fiscally responsible" like they attack Liberals for. They are liars and hypocrites. You repeat the lies they tell you like a mindless robot falling in line wiith the bogus rhetoric.

Welfare is welfare grandpa, no matter how long a person is on it. White Republicans are on it too when they are starving for food, and it doesn't matter how long they are on it. It's still the welfare you righties hate so much and are trying to eliminate.

Yes, that's "all that matters" when the Ruby Red Republicans are passing out the welfare and taking the Federal Government Money hand over fist that they claim to despise and attack the President and Liberals for. They are the real "food stamp states" and "welfare queens". But they attack the President and Liberals in the right wing media each day with their lies and hypocrisy. And fools like you believe it as they repeat it over and over to you.

You right wingers can't deny that no matter how you try to spin it. It's funny to see you guys try to deny with nothing meaningful to say. :crackup:

 

[( . )( . )]

Don't forget all the white chicks who get knocked up that go on welfare in the red states. Red States have the highest percentage of teenage pregnacy and single mothers.

:crazy: You are literally one of those posters who keeps fvcking up and digging themselves deeper every time they post. Then again for an anti-white leftoid shill I guess one white baby is too many.

Black and Hispanic women have the highest teen pregnancy rates (117 and 107 per 1,000 women aged 15–19, respectively). Studies show that whites (43 per 1,000)[1] and Asians (23 per 1,000)[5] have the lowest rate of pregnancy before the age of 20. The pregnancy rate among black teens decreased 48% between 1990 and 2008, more than the overall U.S. teen pregnancy rate declined during the same period (42%).[1] Slightly more than half of Hispanic and black women will become pregnant before the age of 20.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teenage_pregnancy_in_the_United_States

The white population in America has reached the birth versus death tipping point a full decade earlier than predicted, according to the US Census Bureau.

According to their latest figures, this means that more white people died in the United States last year than were born. This is ten years earlier than previous Census Bureau predictions which said that the numbers of white Americans would drop with every passing year.

Population estimates for 2012 indicate that the calculation of births minus deaths meant that the white population declined in real numbers by about 12,400.

http://newobserveronline.com/if-whi...having-babies-now-the-us-will-vanish-by-2100/

 

[Tictac]

You 'left-wingers' attempt to invert cause and effect.

You think that if you spout liberal gibberish, others will think that you are intelligent. Well, maybe they do in the dorm room or inside the Beltway.

You don't get to determine 'all that matters' assh*le. You get to discuss.

In a nation that is still over 60% 'white' of course whites will be significant receivers of 'welfare'.

Idiots like you deliberately confuse temporary assistance with multi-generational welfare.

Your red state - blue state narrative is as silly as it is pathetic. But it suits your needs.

You think you set the terms of discussion and thus control the narrative. You don't and you can't .

So go back to your echo chamber. Like-mindless await you.

 

[Stagger Lee]

So how do you explain whiggers and oreos? :crackup:

There is no behavior pattern in one race that is never found in another. If its genetic.. this would not be possible. You would have complete consistency in behavior in each race.

We're talking about the races' average tendencies as a whole, not the small number extremes within a race. And also not just having a few trivial taste like fashions and trends. There are some wiggers for reasons (.)(.) explained, but how many oreos are there? I never knew of one, not even ones that are half white.

It' analogous to me saying sex is genetically based and males are taller and stronger than females , and you'll say 'Sex is a social construct. What about tall, transgender amazons?'.

 

[Poon King]

Atomized lower IQ whites who's own heritage/culture was demonized and destroyed decades before he/she was even born then fed nothing but a steady diet of MTV and "thug lyfe" culture from birth. Plus the talmudvision shows all those cool black men scoring with lots of swooning prized white puzzy and look at that clueless doofus white guy he can't even tie his own shoelaces let alone dance. Who want's to be like that square? You know the formula, we've had it crammed down our throats for long enough.

This is true. But this also supports environment and culture over genetics.

We're talking about the races' average tendencies as a whole, not the small number extremes within a race. And also not just having a few trivial taste like fashions and trends. There are some wiggers for reasons (.)(.) explained, but how many oreos are there? I never knew of one, not even ones that are half white.

It' analogous to me saying sex is genetically based and males are taller and stronger than females , and you'll say 'Sex is a social construct. What about tall, transgender amazons?'.

Gender is based on hormones (estrogen and testosterone) not on genetics. So this is a terrible example and does nothing to support your argument.

A good example of a REAL subspecies is Lions and Tigers. They can reproduce with each other, but they're not the same species. So if you change their environments.. a lion will still act like a lion and a tiger will still act like a tiger. This is not the case with humans.

If the different races were really subspecies then they would behave the same regardless of environmental factors. This means no black doctors, no white rappers, no Asian cab drivers, no Mexican engineers, etc. I've know several oreos and several whiggers. So maybe its where you live. Still.. you can't use your own limited personal experience to make a scientific argument.

You say you are talking about the GENERAL behavior of a race. Well GENERAL behavior comes from the GENERAL culture of that race and the GENERAL environment those people grow up in and the GENERAL way those people are raised. So your argument fails.

Science isn't about "general".. its about absolutes.

 

[Stagger Lee]

Gender is based on hormones (estrogen and testosterone) not on genetics. So this is a terrible example and does nothing to support your argument.

I said sex is genetic. Haven't you heard of the XX vs Xy chromosomes? And hormones are based on genetics.

A good example of a REAL subspecies is Lions and Tigers. They can reproduce with each other, but they're not the same species. So if you change their environments.. a lion will still act like a lion and a tiger will still act like a tiger. This is not the case with humans.

Lions and Tigers are different species not just subspecies even though they can reproduce. You are comparing wild animals to homo sapiens. You could've at least used apes as an example. I would put forward the example different species and subspecies (breeds) of canines have different temperaments, behavior and intelligence.

If the different races were really subspecies then they would behave the same regardless of environmental factors. This means no black doctors, no white rappers, no Asian cab drivers, no Mexican engineers, etc. I've know several oreos and several whiggers. So maybe its where you live. Still.. you can't use your own limited personal experience to make a scientific argument.

You say you are talking about the GENERAL behavior of a race. Well GENERAL behavior comes from the GENERAL culture of that race and the GENERAL environment those people grow up in and the GENERAL way those people are raised. So your argument fails.

Science isn't about "general".. its about absolutes.

I don't agree that an animal of a given species behave the same regardless of environment to begin with. And I don't think you can compare animal and human behavior. See, I said from the beginning that you are arguing behavior has to be either absolutely 100% genetic based or 100% environmental based. I said that it was combination of both just as much research has shown. Human behavior and culture isn't an exact science, but science deals with averages all the time. It's called statistics. The point is human behavior is determined by genetics and environment. And social environment is influenced by the genetics of the society. One can't do much to change genetics. Different races are different genetically. You can disagree with that if you want to.

Even scientific reports in mainstream media don't support your position favored by social scientist,
http://time.com/91081/what-science-says-about-race-and-genetics/

A longstanding orthodoxy among social scientists holds that human races are a social construct and have no biological basis. A related assumption is that human evolution halted in the distant past, so long ago that evolutionary explanations need never be considered by historians or economists.

New analyses of the human genome have established that human evolution has been recent, copious, and regional.In the decade since the decoding of the human genome, a growing wealth of data has made clear that these two positions, never at all likely to begin with, are simply incorrect. There is indeed a biological basis for race. And it is now beyond doubt that human evolution is a continuous process that has proceeded vigorously within the last 30,000 years and almost certainly — though very recent evolution is hard to measure — throughout the historical period and up until the present day...

 

[Poon King]

I said sex is genetic. Haven't you heard of the XX vs Xy chromosomes? And hormones are based on genetics.


Lions and Tigers are different species not just subspecies even though they can reproduce. You are comparing wild animals to homo sapiens. You could've at least used apes as an example. I would put forward the example different species and subspecies (breeds) of canines have different temperaments, behavior and intelligence.

I don't agree that an animal of a given species behave the same regardless of environment to begin with. And I don't think you can compare animal and human behavior. See, I said from the beginning that you are arguing behavior has to be either absolutely 100% genetic based or 100% environmental based. I said that it was combination of both just as much research has shown. Human behavior and culture isn't an exact science, but science deals with averages all the time. It's called statistics. The point is human behavior is determined by genetics and environment. And social environment is influenced by the genetics of the society. One can't do much to change genetics. Different races are different genetically. You can disagree with that if you want to.

Even scientific reports in mainstream media don't support your position favored by social scientist,
http://time.com/91081/what-science-says-about-race-and-genetics/

With dogs the same rules apply as with tigers. You can't make a Golden Retriever behave like a blood hound.

And of course race is genetic and different races have genetic differences. However, there are also genetic differences within the same race. So what makes one set of genetic differences more significant than the other?

For instance.. what makes the genetic difference between an Asian man and a Mexican more significant than the genetic difference between a German and an Italian?

Gender is not based on genetics as the same two parents can have either a male or female child while two Asian parents cannot have a black kid.

 

[Stagger Lee]

With dogs the same rules apply as with tigers. You can't make a Golden Retriever behave like a blood hound.

That's kind of my point, just as a golden retriever and a blood hound will still have some different behaviorial tendencies even in the same environment, so will different races.

And of course race is genetic and different races have genetic differences. However, there are also genetic differences within the same race. So what makes one set of genetic differences more significant than the other?

Good, now you're acknowledging race is genetic. Being separated by thousands of years of breeding in separate environments and cultures is what makes genetic differences more significant.

For instance.. what makes the genetic difference between an Asian man and a Mexican more significant than the genetic difference between a German and an Italian?

Europeans and Asians diverged -55k years ago, Germans and Italians are much closer in geography and in ancestry. I wouldn't say genetic difference between a Mexican and an Asian, as most Mexican are mixed race with mongoloid, is more significant than between an Asian an a European in general.

Gender is not based on genetics as the same two genetics as the same two parents can have either a male or female child while two Asian parents cannot have a black kid.

Race is not the only thing genes determine. Sex is still genetic as anything else that is determined by genetics, complexion, height, temperament, intelligence etc.

 

[Bokanovsky]

What explains the differences in cultures within the SAME race?

Why is Texas different from Germany? Why is Japan different from South Korea? Same race of people.. different culture.

Actually, the differences between Texas and Germany aren't that huge, aside from the superficial stuff, at least if you are comparing white Texans to white Germans. Both have similar social values, work ethic, etc. and as a result enjoy a high standard of living. I think you will find that an average white Texan has a lot more in common with a white German than a black Texan. Same thing with Korea and Japan. The Japanese have actually descended from Koreans and despite being separated for over 1,500 years, have retained a very similar culture (again, aside from the superficial, post-modern stuff).

 

[Bokanovsky]

So how do you explain whiggers and oreos? :crackup:

Whiggers are socially confused, often self-hating (think Eminem) and usually low IQ (think Vanilla Ice) whites. There is a reason why they are ridiculed so much (by other white people first and foremost). Whiggers are no more capable of "becoming black" than male feminists are capable of having a period. As for "oreos", they tend to be mulattoes who happen to identify more with their white side. I can't say I've ever met a full-blooded black "oreo".

 

[Bokanovsky]

Romney got over 40% in both Oregon and Washington. He got 37% in California. Does that mean they are Conservative States? LOL.

No, what that means is that California and Oregon have millions of republican voters living there, just like the South has millions of democrat-voting welfare leeches. Imbecile.

 

[dasein]

No, what that means is that California and Oregon have millions of republican voters living there, just like the South has millions of democrat-voting welfare leeches. Imbecile.

It really is amazing how tenaciously they cling to their fallacious overgeneralizations where whole US states are concerned. I'm sure there are leftists out there who think the ground in certain states is painted red and in others painted blue. I wish I could find more leftists to play poker with, they are the easiest of marks.

 

[Tictac]

You believe black people to be inherently inferior and ignore any argument or evidence to the contrary.

_______

What do "Oreos" and racial 'inferiority' have to do with each other?

You are self-defining your belief superiority typing sh*t like this.

Go imagine there is a racist boogeyman behind every tree. Makes you feel all special.

Social Leper = Mouthbreather

 

[speed dawg]

Why don't you and the rest of stomfront light just come out and say it already.

You believe black people to be inherently inferior and ignore any argument or evidence to the contrary.

STOP with this bullsh*t shaming. You are a better poster than that.

Us "stormfront" guys don't just up and 'believe' anything. There are FACTS out there that prove the disparities between the races. No one believe anyone is "inherently" inferior or better or any of that. We believe FACTS.

I think we can all agree that black people are better athletes on the whole. I say again, AS A WHOLE. You have to deal in the macro when discussing groups of people in a country for instance. The percentages of black people in professional sports would attest to that. See? Doesn't this mean that I think whites are inferior in sports? It's not an insult or a belief or racism, it's FACT.

 

[Bokanovsky]

Your confirmation bias is getting the better of you.

There are several on this site.

Why don't you and the rest of stomfront light just come out and say it already.

You believe black people to be inherently inferior and ignore any argument or evidence to the contrary.

Actually, you are the one arguing that black people are inferior by implying that being an "oreo" is a good thing. Went right over your head, hasn't it?