Blackpill Pupillary Dilations As A Predictor of Foids Sexual Interests

[AtrociousCitizen]

Great post, man. This is honestly brutal and confirms what we have been saying even further

 

[AsiaCel]

High IQ. The foid pedo part was especially interesting to me

 

[Caesercel]

Money -in a way- can be changed, but gravity cannot.

So can race, considering how arbitrary it is when juxtaposed against scientific facts.

So should we apply the same to taxonomy for animals, plants, and bacteria?

We already do? That's entirely the point of taxonomy. To put biological beings into neat little boxes as good as we can even though it's not perfect. And it's the same methods which had scientists conclude that not enough variation exists among human populations to justify biologically usefull classification. That doesn't mean it hasn't been attempted.

What you are thinking of would be ethnicity,

No. That's not what I'm talking about since that's just another purely social construct. I am talking about using pure science as a methodology to come up with meaningful human classification based on genetic variation.

Your pre-concieved notions of race and ethnicity are so deeply engrained that you cannot escape them. You simply cannot fathom that applying pure science might come up with something you don't already believe in.

Anyway, the main point was that race realists are not using science to come up with their classifications but instead confirming those pre-conceived classifications using loose correlations. And hence it's a dishonest study based on an agenda.

, the concept of race has always existed even before modern science

Of course it has. It's an unscientific (or rather pseudo-scientific) social construct whose purpose was to justify colonial exploitation and white supremacy. No prizes for guessing that it predates modern science and is unscientific

In other words, they have biological looks/variations which were selected for in favor of the climate- so maybe this is something which is observable within nature & thus has a basis for it?

Nobody denies this. Scientists know this. Your statement here does not vindicate modern racial classification from being unscientific and arbitrary since

1: We can come up with a different classification based on actual scientific study (as useless an endeavour that may be from a scientific perspective) and reject the current one as outdated (but then you might not be able to hate black people because then you'd have to decide if you gotta hate X people of Africa or Y people of Africa. Since hate is the entire point of race realism)

2. Reasearch that actually correlates variations with modern racial classification uses that same classification as a presumption and hence cannot be used to prove its existence as a valid form of classification.

There is NO research that starts off completely blind and then comes to the conclusion that, yes, humanity has a meaningful sub-group called "white people" and another meaningful sub-group called "black people".

Now yes ofc, there are various shades of blue. However, should all of these "shades" be classified as their own unique color, or that of

How are YOU so sure that YOU are not the one putting black, blue, green and pink under a single color with a single name with your racial classification? Why? Because your pre-conceived ideas are so deeply embedded in your head that you must see Asian people or Black people as a single globular mass. That to YOU the variation between these populations are just "shades of green"

Well that's like your shitty uninformed opinion. Actually no one is stopping from classifying "shades of blue" as different colors entirely. There's a video on how the very act of giving different names to different shades of color in a language will make you percieve them as completely different color.





So an alternate world is possible where the northern Germanic Europeans and southern Italians are treated as completely different races. Since it has always been an arbitrary social construct derived entirely from ever shifting socio-economic realities

So your whole claim is that since we have a "pre conceived" idea based upon established scientific research that it is "unfair?"

My claim is that race realists do not understand how honest science works. Something I've consistently proven in my responses but you keep on missing the point.

It's not a conclusion, it's rather just observing that various differences do exist & thus can be further proven

No. It IS a conclusion.

Here's how you (errenously) think science works

Step 1: phenotypal differences are observed
Step 2: notions of race are build on those differences (and socio-economic realities but you'll probably ignore that like you always do) and treated as reality without evidence.
Step 3: biological evidence is gathered to confirm those notions of race through correlations of variations (that'll exist within any species) , while ignoring or dismissing evidence that might suggest a different and nuanced reality.
Step 4: those notions are solidified.

Here's how REAL science works

Step 1: We start off with no pre-concieved notions
Step 2: phenotypical and biological differences are observed
Step 3: A question is asked, "can humans be meaningfully biologically classified"?
Step 4: Biological research is conducted to come up with a meaningful system of classification based on actual biological study of criterias of variation.

The issue is that biologists, anthropologists and genecists have already done the latter kind of study and always come to the consistent conclusion that even though variation exists, as it will within any population, it's not enough to justify a biologically useful classification. And when any attempt is made at classification, it's far more detailed and nuanced than your arbitrary socially charged "white people" "black people" crack pottery. You cannot dismiss this as "counting shades of blue". That's again anti-evidence anti-intellectual.... dishonesty. Race-realists are NOT the authority on where blue ends and where green starts when it comes to human biological classification.

YOU scrambling to CHERRY PICK evidence to confirm your own pre-conceived social biases regarding humans is NOT science.

I mean I get it, you have some sense of misguided solidarity towards Italians, Irish or Chechzs that you don't have towards Somalis or Tutsis. But refrain from peddling this personal social dogma as science by missappropriating the results of actual medical research with fallacious arguments and wrong conclusions.

 

[strange_to_be]

Am I reading the study right. We're talking about 2-8% pupil dilation. WHO THE FUCK CARES. You'd never detect that level

 

[SickWeakCoward]

When someone says "Race is a social construct", they get a free ticket to Auswitz-Land!

 

[DarkStar]

Am I reading the study right. We're talking about 2-8% pupil dilation. WHO THE FUCK CARES. You'd never detect that level

Those minor dilations can still provide an insight into how foids brains work