OP is absolutely delusional tbh he is one of the biggest mayo copers on this forum.
"The research focused on facial skin color among Caucasians, finding a light, yellowish complexion looks the healthiest. The skin color could indicate a healthy diet of fruits and vegetables, whose pigments are known to change the skin's hue, researchers suggest."
The research here addresses the variable Caucasians and excludes other groups from what I've read so far. However, I do agree that women by instinct find white males more attractive. With biological subversion and psychological subversion, we are seeing this nature being turned in on itself.
R
They had the same findings with blacks. And nonhuman animals.
Bright = attractive
Rosy = attractive
Golden = attractive
That's biological not cultural.
If they find the same findings among African populations, then that would tell us that skin tone attractiveness is measured based on the phenotype respectively. A lighter skinned African is more desirable due to the facial glow. However, white skin is not desirable without the harmonious glow.
R
Whiter skin is always more desirable. Look at India. The caste system was entirely based on skin lightness and no one there has "rosy" skin since we're all shitskins.
http://www.itechpost.com/articles/56410/20161120/indian-caste-system-skin-color-go-hand-study.htm
The only ways to be "too white" are to be ginger or albino.
It's more desirable in certain cultural circumstances, yes. I believe we're coming from two different angles. I'm a westerner who is embroiled with the conflict of being in a predominately white nation. Here most men possess diverse Caucasoid features that aren't unique. I may add that the female brain is subverted by seeing rare and exotic looking things. I agree with your post here.
R
Well yeah even if you're a god, if you live among other gods, then compared to the other gods, you'll just be "normal".
Superman would have just been another bum on Krypton. But on Earth? He can lift mountains, fly, and laser through anything with just his eyes.
This tbh.
Whites having a high suicide rate(on par with south korea) doesn't have anything to do with their appearance. It's two very separate issues. The guy who said this is trying to cope by bringing up separate problems facing whites as if that somehow makes his own situation better.
Mayocels on suicide watch
Part and parcel of the exact same relationship. People here are eager to play up how male suicides vastly outpace female suicides are evidence of a clear advantage in life standards enjoyed by foids vs. men. Makes sense, because it's a good way to deflate any claim of male "privilege".
Same thing with White suicides, which is symptomatic of a vast, large-scale dispossession of White men and would help corroborate the position that myriad looks-extrinsic factors (income, social prestige, mental health) are poised so as to sink the White male SMV below where it would otherwise be "all else being equal". It is a good way to deflate claims of "White privilege" whether or not Whites look better on average.
On the topic of on average. I suppose it will be necessary to go over this again. I will use some analogies this time.
Imagine one person, a resident of the city WoCosmopolis and another, a resident of Readsiegebyjamesmasonville. People in WoCosmopolis earn an average of $29,000 dollars a year versus people in Readsiegebyjamesmasonville who earn $35,000 per year. Now imagine the people in WoCosmopolis inventing a concept like "Read Siege privilege" and then imagine them dogpiling on a homeless man from "Readsiegebyjamesmasonville" for having an "unfair advantage". This retarded fixation on population average as original sin obscures very meaningful differences.
Another: the average IQ in India is 82. You are Indian. Maybe I suppose you have an IQ of 82. "But my IQ is above 82!", you protest. Doesn't matter, you're at least more stupid (privileged) than I am because you belong to a group of people whose IQ (SMV) is 82 (5/10), versus me, who belongs to a group whose IQ (SMV) is 100 (4/10).
Now, you can make a reasonable inference about the condition of India versus Norway using this information, because the state and society of India and Norway are collective phenomena contingent upon the attributes of everyone in the country, or at least a big group of them. But again, you are trying to use these kind of statistics to imply a definite, population-wide essence of "advantage". "White men do better on OkCupid" could very well mean "Chad does way better on OkCupid" and not "women desire all White men more than 'ethnics', irrespective of their conformity to a physical ideal."
Statistical quantitation is useful in determining differences between populations and how things will happen in aggregate. It can sometimes be predictive of individual cases. You can't assume it's going to tell you something about where one datum is relative to another with any certainty. It can't tell that there is some essential quality present in both populations ("White privilege" and "ethneesell disadvantage") that is common to each of its members and which is responsible for the differences you see.
Your hard-on for studies is totally tendentious and not grounded in any kind of pure curiosity; in its blind credulity, it betrays a lack of familiarity with the method and purpose of this kind of research. The famed "White privilege = $200,000" study you like to trot out seems like it was tailor-made for popular science sensationalism and coverage in the Daily Mail. It was designed to grab people's attention, it was carried out in a setting perfectly germane to the influence ideology, it fits all the precepts demanded by the "anti-racism" industry and yet you present it without any caveats, as though you read it without a critical eye and latched on to what the authors intended you and a horde of journalists to see.
It is a perfect example of a ludicrous model flouting the very reality in front of your face, while you opt to take the simulation over the real, the symbol over the symbolized because of "fucking SCIENCE." No scientist of any mettle would swallow something like that. Is it supposed to mean that an Asian man making $150,000 dollars is actually $50,000 dollars in debt in the eyes of whores? That he has no prospects while an ugly White man making minimum wage has them all? It's ridiculous and flawed beyond compare. Obviously things don't work like that. It's not "blackpilled" to pretend that you don't see normie Asians and Indians with holes. Clinging to shit like this is going to make you a laughing stock anywhere outside of this forum.
"It's a compliment!"
It's not. Your idolatry doesn't get me any more whores. I'd much prefer it if everyone just shut the fuck up about this kind of thing.
I
All of this. Ethnicel JBW copers are fucking hopeless. They make flat earthers look sane.
I believe in Eurocentric beauty standards
R
So your basic point is:
- Bell curves have extremes, overlap, and outliers therefore the curves should not be compared at all.
That's not how it works.
Some women are taller than some men. But we can still clearly say men have a height advantage on women.
Or you would say "I really wish everyone would just shut up about it. Those studies are meaningless because I can still be short as a man."
No shit and you can still be incel as a white. It doesn't change the fact that white men on average have higher SMV, just like men on average are taller than women. If you don't think that's worth discussing because it doesn't personally apply to you, no one is forcing you to talk about it.
Please elaborate on why it is a straw man, it seems pretty accurate to me. Besides Chad is, not "white people."
So your basic point is:
- Bell curves have extremes, overlap, and outliers therefore the curves should not be compared at all.
That's not how it works.
Some women are taller than some men. But we can still clearly say men have a height advantage on women.
Or you would say "I really wish everyone would just shut up about it. Those studies are meaningless because I can still be short as a man."
No shit and you can still be incel as a white. It doesn't change the fact that white men on average have higher SMV, just like men on average are taller than women. If you don't think that's worth discussing because it doesn't personally apply to you, no one is forcing you to talk about it.
Come on. You know very well that
Continuous physical traits (height, weight) follow a bell curve, yes. The allocation of wealth (females/female attraction might as well be a resource) does not. You must have heard of "the 1%", yeah?
Your height analogy is actually quite instructive though. It doesn't bear too close scrutiny (height is normal and measurable, nowhere near as nebulous or as lopsided as SMV), but it'll work here. To extend the analogy:
Imagine you post on a forum for mxnlets, discussing mxnlet problems. Maybe r/short. Imagine you're 5'5". One of the moderators is a hole who is also 5'5". You argue with it often about "the male advantage",
It: Ughhhhhhhh, I hate how you men are so much taller than us. If I was a man, I would be tall. People would respect me more for being tall.
You: Well, it might not end up that way. I'm a man and you're already as tall as me.
It: That's not what "Just Be a Man" meansssssssssss >.<. "Just Be a Man" means that you have an unearned advantage over us women.
You: Well, I don't.
It: I'm not talking about youuuuuuuuuu. The average man is 5'10", so that's what I'd get to be. I'm going to manmax btw and get a sex change. Being a man pretty much means being tall.
And whether or not I don't talk about this doesn't matter. I never breach these topics. People spew racepilk falsehoods relentlessly and spend all of their time edging their retarded delusions to the center and wheedling at White incels, a good 90% of whom are too whipped to contest obvious fictions. As if @tehgymcel420 posting cuckold fanfic, the world-weary 15y/o @cucktearslol spitting some truth about racism, and @rabitter chimping out all the time wasn't enough, you're a moderator trying to LARP as blackpill science man who propounds selfish fantasies with names like "Just Be White", showing total disregard for 60% of the forum.
whats OP on about this time? i have him on ignore
R
Well yes, it would be like women being forced to compete in the same basketball league as men and then being told not to complain that men are taller and stronger because "not all men are" and "some women are taller and stronger than some men". Basketball also operates on outliers but it would still be a valid complaint. The women might see how well the men can dunk and say JBM. Trends have validity for discussion whether you benefit from them personally or not.
You mentioned before that curries are low IQ. I think that is absolutely valid for discussion whether I personally am low IQ or not.
Last edited:
as fuckkkkk
Racepill=Not being approached by white stacies
Damn bro there is some truth to this
R
Fixed. Everything else is 100% true.
Similar threads
Users who are viewing this thread
