Sociopath Community

You didnt provide a single source I asked for your claims while I provided everything you requested of me. I am obviously right here.

You failed to respond to any of my points and didn't even acknowledge you were wrong. Just skip over all those unpleasant points like the SJW lefitst media does. Everything inconvenient to your world-view you ignore.

StillPork said:

Gender: XY and XX chromosomes it's not just testosterone vs estrogen or penis vs vagina. There's child birth, different brains, hormones, etc. Men can't give birth, similarly to how women can't lead.

These days they'd refer to this as one's biological sex, while the role that it plays in society is referred to as gender. While the words are generally used interchangeably for the flow of conversation, this distinction is where the terms 'cisgendered' and 'transgendered' as language has evolved:



As an example of it in action, when there's clashing over who gets to go into who's bathrooms, traditionalists complain over one's sex while progressives try to coast on one's gender. One nowadays is considered a social construct, how one is to be perceived and treated, while the other is about the hard physical truth regardless of the clash in one's self-concept.

Gender is biologically defined and no amount of hormone therapy is going to make a man able to give birth to a kid, a woman able to drive a car, or a black person able to do math as efficiently as a white person.

Changing the T vs E balance could actually have impacts on said black person's proclivity to study. PubMed has a page reporting young black males to have around a 15% higher rate of Testosterone over the white ones, and increases in Estrogen, contrary to increases in Testosterone, can raise the brain's sensitivity to stimulus while decreasing one's forward drive.

With less drive to waste time with activities like playing sports, he may find himself more open to studying academics and, in turn, could become a better mathematician.

No amount of SJW inbreeding is going to change millions of years of evolution, the failed SJW shit is going to go on for maybe 20 years more before people realize its bullshit, not nearly long enough for men to start carrying children in their tummies or for black people to raise their IQ score like you suggest.

We don't need men to be able to carry babies, we just need women to be able to produce genetic material that can impregnate another's egg.

Men are the past, Women are the future. There may be an age someday where race and sex are both effectively gone in the way we understand it, where everything's blended and men's role in procreation is deemed obsolete. Once they can ensure that all babies born are female, and that any two females can procreate, what role does Man even really have anymore?

The best the different races can do is breed with the other races to average out their shitty IQ through diluting their genes. There's no reason to do this though since we can establish better results by evolving the races that are already ahead of the curve and simply reserve the low-class jobs for black people. Someone gotta do it and it would be a waste to use white people to do it.

It could be a matter of picking which races should breed. With the IQ post you put in Siege, wouldn't it make sense to blend Asians and Jews into one super-race, or perhaps try to Frankenstein some sort of perfect genetics with the help of websites like Ancestry.com?

I don't see it as a waste to blend racial material together or pushing towards race and gender quotas, I see it as a potential step backward so that it may trickle down towards future generations of children. Wouldn't it make more sense to find a way to utilize the entirety of a population instead of just hoisting up the members of it who've won the Historical Privilege Lottery?

There's a lot of wasted potential in keeping others down, and the only real hope of climbing out of there comes from going through the steps of either changing their environment or outright brainwashing them through the media into seeing a different standard of attraction. Fix the economic issues and change their priorities and they should evolve in a different direction.

We can arguably see changes already as black people get further and further away from the genetic echoes of their time in history as slaves. Their diet was fucking terrible and the traits deemed worthy of breeding were over their capacity for compliance and hard work, so go figure an increase in testosterone rates would happen and that they as a culture might take longer to find the merits of academics as quickly, especially when living in lower economic environments that can make it harder if not impossible to advance one's self by comparison to how one with a privileged background might do.

I'm curious what the black community will look like generations after this lot start squishing out babies:

Intelligence and masculinity has always been the standard that guided societys which is how we genocided every other race in close proximity that failed to measure up. 

Masculinity vs Femininity's role in history is hard to pin down when it was those in power than penned everything. Here's eight examples of women who's contributions were taken from them by men.

Masculinity as per Testosterone values is about forward momentum, about seizing the day, and peer modeling has had entire cultures stem from this. Men falling into Dunning-Kruger with Women falling into Learned Helplessness is much of what has perpetuated stereotypes and led to misfortunes that taint the passages of history that we read in the here and now.

Femininity as per Estrogen values is more prone to listening to others, to doormat behavior, to sensitivity to stimulus, which has likely made it that much harder in Patriarchal structures to put one's self forward without themselves having been a deviation from the usual genetic patterns. With males with higher E-counts, their environment could still help push them towards success and have their doormat-like patterns worked around, while women with high T-counts are liable to be seen for a combination of their believed gender handicaps socio-culturally and their displays of Masculine weakness in tandem instead of for their individual merits and talents that came from such a combination.

My main problem with SJW brainwashing is really that they proclaim that submissive men and dominant women is the norm when it really races against everything we know to be true.

Do they? I've seen it more as a Pro-Choice sort of movement that happens to more loudly embrace that which goes against tradition.

I do not care about women being "given permission" to be dominant or vice versa but that the leftist propaganda machine embraces those values and lauds them as the norm or as desirable traits, when in fact all our biology tells us to disdain those values and find them unattractive. The problem comes in when otherwise normal men and women realize that they've been duped too late as they struggle to fit in to a society that finds them unattractive and incompetent for following the very same values that society lauds as a cover-front while secretly hating every part of it thanks to their biological make-up which is not going to change anytime soon. 

These are matters of one's gender as opposed to one's sex. Change the model society follows and with it you'll see the norms of gender shift with them. While the norms themselves have a more than clear basis on the averaged tendencies of one's sex, the use of them, their function in society, is more of an echo of society itself.

Too much "novelty" in this case is taking things way too far and selling a made up lie that doesn't puts 99% of the population at a disadvantage and labeling everyone who doesn't follow the narrative an idiot racist, nothing pretty about that.

I'd say the only ones it's putting at a perceivable disadvantage are those who can't help but spout hateful rhetoric as a Right Winged person. As an expression of Censorship, people are largely fine if they feel okay with not being allowed to say their opinions as openly.

While I do not agree with Censorship over how the ones not allowed to talk are made out to be underdogs and martyrs, I wouldn't go as far as to say that it puts 99% of people at a disadvantage.

Your view on "old currency" and "priviledge" falls flat because I am for equality of outcome.

Is that related? What are you meaning by 'Equality of Outcome' when you're the one stating it? 

The points made on behalf of those two terms are simply over how those with money are more likely to give that money to their next of kin, and that their next of kin is liable to reflect both peer and parental modeling. There'd need to be a way to make the rich less rich if we'd hope to diversify the spread of wealth, but they've amassed so much that they're arguably too big to affect. 

I suppose if racial blending were to happen with those of higher economic standing that we might see it spread more, but for that to happen we'll need the progressive agenda to be pushed further than where it already is. Thanks to websites like PornHub we're already well on our way, but we aren't there yet. 

If our society requires high IQ individuals with the ability to innovate, as it always does, then white people will thrive. Asians and Jews do pretty good too, how did they become wealthy even though they were not afforded any priviledges? Explain that. 

They were, and I explained how in our discussion in Siege. 

If it requires sun-resistant people with better athletic ability but no intellect, then blacks will thrive.

If you'd been around before the 1950s you'd be instead talking about how they have no place in 'civilized' sports. Prior to such a time, Jews dominated sports like Basketball despite how the modern model of them wouldn't lead you to guess something like that immediately. 

Forcing blacks to thrive through quotas does nothing to help the problem, it's a sub-optimal solution.

What long term damages does it really do to have one person who's slightly less qualified be picked over another who's more qualified as a matter of racial quota? 

The idea of all races being able to get all jobs is what will allow for younger generations to even feel like they have a reason to build themselves in that direction. It's why something like Obama becoming president, despite being an obvious gimmick, is still a game changer when it comes to the potential for future black presidents despite the fact that Obama himself was actually of mixed heritage no differently than Tiger Woods (here's his mother). 

Show that the potential for it is there in society and people will be motivated by it. There were for example more women trying to get into the formal workplace around the time shows like Murphy Brown were on, and that's arguably led to positive changes that still echo in the here and now. 

The optimal solution is equality of outcome which your example perfectly illustrates but leftist SJW propaganda promotes a sub-optimal solution based on positive discrimination, allowing stupid people to thrive just because "diversity".

Is being 5% worse than another candidate accepting a "stupid person", or is it simply taking a small hit as lip service towards The Left that's liable to make for smaller changes overtime culturally? 

Would it make sense for a white person to hire another white person instead of someone of another race if their capabilities were lower than other candidates of other races? That's otherwise been going on, and this idea is the attempt at pushing through that problem as best they can through Harm Reduction over finding an outright cure. 

Let evolution and the necessities of life sort themselves out, we do not need someone to rig the machine to work at a sub-optimal pace and no it doesn't mean that the society is better apt to deal with future issues when other qualities become relatively more important unless we kill off all black people which I am not supporting.

Technically, what you're seeing going on right now is evolution, and what you're requesting is stagnation. You're complaining about how things are changing and ought to remain as they are, but people had to evolve to this point for these issues to even be issues. 

Give me one source that provides evidence of a time when intelligence and innovation didn't act as one of the main driving forces in a society.

Pol Pot and the whole "Killing Fields" debacle. 

It was a dumb question, so I'm giving you a dumb answer. 

I lol'ed at your leadership example. Give me one source of a society in history where women dominated the leadership positions. You might find one or at most two, wonder why.

Would you agree that many women in history likely needed a man to speak for them if they otherwise founded anything? 

Men are attracted to submissive women, women are attracted to dominant men.

Estrogen is attracted to dominance while Testosterone is attracted to compliance, and as those balances shift you can see that behavior occur in contradiction towards their sex parts. 

Men are leaders, women are nurturers. That's how society has always worked and will always work because it yields the optimal solutions as demonstrated by our long history. 

As the role of the individual trivializes, so too does our roles in society. We're far past population needs and most of us aren't in immediate danger as an aspect of our daily lives, so we as a result have no need to follow Biological Imperatives. 

I'm surprised you haven't referenced the mouse utopia as a comparison, as it's a model I've seen compared to our current Clown World lifestyle: 

Left hand vs right hand path said:

In Western esotericism the Left-Hand Path and Right-Hand Path are the dichotomy between two opposing approaches to magic. This terminology is used in various groups involved in the occult and ceremonial magic.

How is this even in the ball-park of addressing perceived gender identities?

In simpler terms... have you ever played Jade Empire or watched Star Wars? 

StillPork said: 

You failed to respond to any of my points and didn't even acknowledge you were wrong. Just skip over all those unpleasant points like the SJW lefitst media does. Everything inconvenient to your world-view you ignore.

You'd caught me just before a nap and I otherwise wanted to tackle your points with a fresher set of eyes, chill. 

Great now you can read my mind too, of course I would have argued that blacks don't have a place in civilized sports even though that races precisely against what I have advocated for: Equality of opportunity.  I mean opportunity of course and not outcome.

What do I mean by equality of opportunity? Allow everyone the same opportunities. Simple.

You argue like a woman, just shouting your opinions left and right and without contesting with the real issues at all, I don't think you addressed a single one of my points in any depth besides parroting the same old SJW narratives. Of course you can come up with a compelling narrative to explain why everyone is equal, everything from wealth to gender is a social construct or a result of patriarchical privilidges and a history of abuse lol. That same tactic works for illuminati theories you should watch zeitgeist, the way they cherry pick information makes for a good lesson in critical thinking, a skill that belongs to white men only.

Nobody is contesting that it's possible that blacks are always under-performing because white privilidges. The issue is that it just is is exceedingly unlikely to the point of ridiculousness, it shouldn't even be considered an explanation when all the evidence points to the contrary. In your proposed solution to allowing blacks to thrive through quotas you've smuggled in a false premise upon which you build your whole argument: That blacks are not thriving because they are under-privilidged. I offered that blacks are not thriving because they are not intelligent, which is proven without a shadow of a doubt by IQ tests, among a few other reasons related mostly to genetics. This point is supported by wealth distribution of other races. If only there was an example of another race which thrives despite having been under-privilidged and discriminated against that could test your sugestion. Here come asians and the jews: They're doing pretty well despite being under-privilidged for centuries, clearly demonstrating that the reason blacks are not thriving is not due to white privilidges.

Men and women's brains are different, it has much less to do with estrogen and testosterone than you think: https://www.learning-mind.com/male-brain-vs-female-brain-20-differences/

Pol pot and the killing fields aren't examples of thriving societys or societys that move/drive forward by any measures. Read carefully what I say. Give me one example of a society whose driving force is anything but innovation and intelligence.

Lmfao you can say I am for stagnation all you want when I am in fact for the exact opposite, I am all for optimizing what is required of a society to move forward in the optimal way possible.That optimal way is through allowing the system to optimize it in the best way it can based on the requirement of resources. Explain how the next 50 years of forcing women and men to adopt roles that race against their biology, resulting in sub-optimal output, and placing incompetent people in high-end jobs, allows for evolution to take place in such a way that as a society we move forward. Noticeable evolution or reversion of the biological gender doesn't take place over the course of less than a few thousand years, so changing biology or some other utopian shit is really a not an asnwer here.

Your point on favoritism is not demonstrated nor am I for white people hiring white people because they're white. I am against the absurd stupid leftist idea that we should hire black people because of innate discrimination which ironically is demonstrated only through the lack of black people in certain positions. It's all a circular argument without a basis: Black people need to get high-end jobs because they have been discriminated against and the proof that they have been discriminated against is that they don't have high-end jobs. Lol. Then supplement with one or two random articles of a black person not being accepted for a job because there was that one racist american white man who preferred his nephew over a person who speaks native Ugandan, blow those news out of proportion and SJWs start jerking off.

Wealth moves all around, you're making it sound like it doesn't. Everyone has the same opportunity to that wealth but I am against allowing rich fucks to give all their wealth to their fuck-up children. That is the only idea of the left I agree with.

Gender discussion:

Like I said before, I have no problem with "gender identity" besides the name itself. It should be called "personality" or masculine and feminine traits. A man can be feminine, altough it races against their biology, as women can be masculine. They are stsill men and women, and using the words as if both were the same thing confuses people for the same reason identifying as a person of different age confuses people, because it's not about age but about feeling old or young or likewise about feeling feminine or masculine. Promoting the reversed gender roles is another leftist lie that makes the masses confused insexure and exploitable.

My point of diluting genes was just a snarky comment, I am not for making a master race, although concentrated white genes ought to do it with their innovation genes, though I think asians and jews are also necessary. We also need people to do the shit jobs, and that's for the black people. The right proportion of blacks (orcs), asians (elves) and whites (humans) is necessary to maintain balance or the resulting society fails similarly to thea citadel of Ricks.

Your point about stereotypes and learned helplessness is just a bold assertion because all evidence shows that women can not lead, there are barely any cultures where women lead which attests to that. Could one come up with a contrived theory of how women make for better leaders? Yes, in a fantasy world everything is possible. I'm a realist, and I look at the real world. The data says no culture ever evolved with female leaders, how's that for proof that they're not up for it. You live in a leftist fantasy disconnected from reality, it all comes down to not possibilities but likelihoods.

Back up your bold-ass assertion that women can become daywalkers with the power of vampires (men) with none of the weaknesses and all the positive traits of humans (women). It's a fantasy you made up with no backing in reality, like the rest of your little SJW parrot narrative.

Lmfao no how can you be so stupid to think that if you change the way society perceives a gender that the biological function governing the male and female sex is going to change. No matter how much you convince a man they can give birth to kids, they won't. No matter how much you convince a woman to be attracted to submissive doormat men, they won't. Your whole argument rests on the premise that the sex is disconnected from behavior which is demonstrably wrong on so many levels.

StillPork said:

Great now you can read my mind too, of course I would have argued that blacks don't have a place in civilized sports even though that races precisely against what I have advocated for: Equality of opportunity.  I mean opportunity of course and not outcome. I don't think you addressed a single one of my points in any depth besides parroting the same old SJW narratives.

Where do you figure these opportunities come from, and what, you want an answer that comes from something that's never occurred in known history to fix it? 

I'd argue that I've been mostly borrowing from Sociology + Darwinism for race theory and Biology + Operant Conditioning for gender norms. SJW usually argues in the name of pitying someone for being less fortunate and being angry at the ones who are doing well, while I'm arguing in favor of changing the environments both literally and through our media using means we already have at our disposal, ones that'll produce an overall larger pool of intelligent individuals in ways that'll start to show change half a century from now. 

Beyond the sheer number of layers that constitutes human responses to stimuli, it's really not that different from the cultivation of plants and livestock (you should really see how much insane shit humans did to it). Adjust the conditions that they live in and you'll see them adapt as a matter of generations.

Of course you can come up with a compelling narrative to explain why everyone is equal, everything from wealth to gender is a social construct or a result of patriarchical privilidges and a history of abuse lol.

That's the problem, everyone isn't equal, and the solution when it comes to fixing it takes, at minimum, half of a lifetime to truly see the impacts of. The steps we take now won't bear fruit in immediately gratifying ways, but rather in ways that we may not even live long enough to see.

When it comes to building the future, having more races more likely and capable of producing geniuses is how to innovate overall. Increasing overall intelligence across all races means increasing our odds of overtime founding more and more things. We're actively limiting ourselves as a species if we don't aim to diversify a higher quality of life.

Nobody is contesting that it's possible that blacks are always under-performing because white privilidges. The issue is that it just is is exceedingly unlikely to the point of ridiculousness, it shouldn't even be considered an explanation when all the evidence points to the contrary.

I would argue that there are elements of 'black privilege' as well. Privilege is simply the doors that open for you by the means of what demographic you've found yourself a part of.

It's more of an economic issue than a racial one, the reason some are doing better than others right now is over how well those generations back had done.

Here come asians and the jews: They're doing pretty well despite being under-privilidged for centuries, clearly demonstrating that the reason blacks are not thriving is not due to white privilidges.

'For centuries' is a much longer time frame, and what conditions they were put through put different demands on them compared to former slaves. Within the US at least, it's only been a century and a half since black slavery was abolished, and even in 150 years time we've seen massive changes as they close the gap between themselves and others racially.

They're becoming more similar to the rest of the world as race becomes more of a trivial matter. If a few more things could be adjusted in their favor, such as finding solutions that help their situation economically and academically, the gap will lessen even further.

Men and women's brains are different, it has much less to do with estrogen and testosterone than you think

The differences we see from adjusting people's T and E levels alone is enough to further trivialize the differences between the genders. Obviously they're not the same, but as a factor it shows that the scale of differences between them can be manipulated instead of being seen as 'set in stone'.

Pol pot and the killing fields aren't examples of thriving societys or societys that move/drive forward by any measures. Read carefully what I say. Give me one example of a society whose driving force is anything but innovation and intelligence.

Their society's driving force was a cleansing of corruption, not innovation or intelligence. They actually desired taking a step backwards, going back to how things were before they became more intelligent. I'd otherwise argue that the Khmer Rouge's presence did well enough to still have echoes that last to this day.

I am against the absurd stupid leftist idea that we should hire black people because of innate discrimination which ironically is demonstrated only through the lack of black people in certain positions. It's all a circular argument without a basis

It's not the best solution, but it's Harm Reduction that stands to improve their situation Sociologically down the line.

Like plants, if one of them has better soil and is watered more than another, guess which one will grow stronger? It's effectively aiming to water the plants after realizing how long they've been left parched, and while the damages on the plant will still show, it stands to do more for it than further parching it and may even revitalize it enough to drop healthier seeds for the next yield of plants.

To be against that idea is to, by proxy, accept and allow the perpetuation of white people's tendency to racially play favorites when it comes to hiring people. While you could argue that they're simply hired for "being smarter" than their black peers, that doesn't explain why many would pick them over Asians who'd otherwise be stereotyped as outperforming them. White people being the "TV Personality Race" helps too, but come on it can't just be that.

Black people need to get high-end jobs because they have been discriminated against and the proof that they have been discriminated against is that they don't have high-end jobs. Lol.

My point is moreover how they ought to be conditioned and further allowed the means towards academic achievements being a reality for them. If you're in a home that rids you of proper nutrition and sleep while building up hardened stress, your potential is stunted significantly. Feasibly, with enough of this it should start to snowball in their favor once academics and comfort become more of an accepted norm instead of a privilege more for some than others.

Then supplement with one or two random articles of a black person not being accepted for a job because there was that one racist american white man who preferred his nephew over a person who speaks native Ugandan, blow those news out of proportion and SJWs start jerking off.

Both sides have a tendency to only read stories once they've been filtered through skew and enough abstraction to confirm what they're already looking for and be easy to process. Unfortunately, abstraction can also have details become lost, as we saw with the Rayshard Brooks story. An example of it in action as shown from Contra's 'Canceling' video (around 7 minutes in):



With the Rayshard case, it did indeed become an 'SJW Circlejerk', but unlike other cases it lacked longevity as people (likely) looked more into it. Sadly through sensationalism though, the Rayshard case was given a blatantly slanted platform at all, one that didn't really work in leftist news networks' favor. We see examples of this kind of shit all the time, it goes beyond Bipartisan politics. Those definitely don't help though, as is demonstrated from CGP Grey's video on Hate Germs.

Wealth moves all around, you're making it sound like it doesn't. 

Everyone has the same opportunity to that wealth but I am against allowing rich fucks to give all their wealth to their fuck-up children. That is the only idea of the left I agree with.

It moves, but it doesn't diversify. 

Where do you figure that wealth ought to go? 

StillPork said: 

You argue like a woman

Gender discussion:

Like I said before, I have no problem with "gender identity" besides the name itself. It should be called "personality" or masculine and feminine traits.

Why doesn't it make sense to refer to it as their identity? The word seems to mostly fit where they're trying to take it. 

As a matter of preference though I agree, but it likely reads to them too closely as sounding of phrases like "personality disorder". Identity has a certain sort of artful flair to it, which lends to their needs more than it's practical application. 

A man can be feminine, altough it races against their biology, as women can be masculine. They are stsill men and women, and using the words as if both were the same thing confuses people for the same reason identifying as a person of different age confuses people, because it's not about age but about feeling old or young or likewise about feeling feminine or masculine.

So you're cool with trannies who can actually pass, but not the ones who are bad at it? 

It's only confusing for people who observe the uncanny valley's presence as jarring, and as a matter of sensitivity the observees hate that being looked at 'like that' is a reminder of their former senses of oppression. The sensitive sort would rather be surrounded by liked minded enablers in safe spaces than made out as a side show attraction at worst and a token at best. 

Promoting the reversed gender roles is another leftist lie that makes the masses confused insexure and exploitable.

Why? 

I personally find myself among those who wish that "gender norms" weren't so cookie cutter growing up. Even just telling people that my mother went to work for the years that my father raised me as a baby confused people, and had the views on gender roles been more generalized when I was growing up I'd likely have faced less social difficulties. 

Why not present both? What's wrong with people having options instead of being shown the world as if there's costumes and molds to form into? 

My point of diluting genes was just a snarky comment, I am not for making a master race, although concentrated white genes ought to do it with their innovation genes, though I think asians and jews are also necessary. We also need people to do the shit jobs, and that's for the black people. The right proportion of blacks (orcs), asians (elves) and whites (humans) is necessary to maintain balance or the resulting society fails similarly to thea citadel of Ricks.

As time goes on, either machines will take those jobs or they'll be given to retarded people like the ones who bag your groceries or sort glass. 



We don't need black people specifically to be doing the shit jobs, we can just sort it out by capability while otherwise aiming to diversify the IQ average more. For those who are under functioning, we've always had Career Centers in lieu of colleges to teach a craft or basic profession. 

Your point about stereotypes and learned helplessness is just a bold assertion because all evidence shows that women can not lead, there are barely any cultures where women lead which attests to that. Could one come up with a contrived theory of how women make for better leaders? Yes, in a fantasy world everything is possible. I'm a realist, and I look at the real world. The data says no culture ever evolved with female leaders, how's that for proof that they're not up for it. You live in a leftist fantasy disconnected from reality, it all comes down to not possibilities but likelihoods.

Back up your bold-ass assertion that women can become daywalkers with the power of vampires (men) with none of the weaknesses and all the positive traits of humans (women). It's a fantasy you made up with no backing in reality, like the rest of your little SJW parrot narrative. 

At this point you're effectively admitting to not being open to opinions outside of your preconceived ones. If areas that are diametrically opposed to your own can only be taken as fantasy, then you're not really going to look at what's going on for more than the Black & White. 

Lmfao no how can you be so stupid to think that if you change the way society perceives a gender that the biological function governing the male and female sex is going to change.

I didn't, I instead noted how The Biological Imperative has lost it's importance beyond as a Sociological means of steering attributes through cultural cues and environmental expectations. 

No matter how much you convince a man they can give birth to kids, they won't.

We don't need men to carry babies, we just need women to find ways around needing semen for fertilization. 

No matter how much you convince a woman to be attracted to submissive doormat men, they won't.

So... what's a Femdom in your narrative? 

Your whole argument rests on the premise that the sex is disconnected from behavior which is demonstrably wrong on so many levels.

There's... a lot of different kinds of 'sex' now. We're soooo far beyond the Christian ideal of "missionary only". 

I'll reply to your first post first.

Ok you're not contesting that blacks are stupid like I thought but instead your main point is what can become of them given that we selectively breed for smart and successful black people. I see you few original thoughts even if they are completely ridiculous I'll give you some credit for not just parroting the leftist media.

Ok I agree that selective breeding of farm animals can produce desirable traits over long enough a strand of generations.

So is your suggestion that we round up all black people, kill off the dumb ones, and make the smart ones inseminate all the women until a in-bred black inhumane retard race with powerful math skills rises from the ashes? How are quotas and hiring retards in any way going to help in doing that, and why not just focus on the people who are already on their way to success, like white people? Human societies are not like animal farms, quotas aren't breeding grounds and nothing and nobody selects for successful black people.

Surely companies would not the one with the best qualifications, instead of "racism." If companies could hire another just as qualified a person for less money they would do that, literally the companies that do that would be selected for because the ones that didn't do it went bankrupt. If that theory was correct then the companies today that survived should be the ones that hired black people but they're not.

SJWs can scream racism all day long, but the high-end jobs have a strict hiring policy and I've never seen people discriminate in choosing candidates except if it's ruling out white men because they're white men because priviledge. Sometimes it's Asian sometimes it's white, and in some very rare cases it's a black person. The reason blacks are not in high-end jobs because they are dumb and too busy stabbing other black people on the streets.

I support education for black people because those savages could maybe learn not to stab each other all the time, but given their low IQ and racial pre-disposition to violence I'm not holding my breath. The easiest solution to the IQ gap is to kill off low IQ blacks over millenia.

I loled at your black people are dumb because slaves. Look at those savages in Africa with 65 retard IQ who never experienced slavery. If anything the slavery helped raise the overall IQ because the ones who were dumb enough not to understand "move this barrel" got genocided.

As time goes on, either machines will take those jobs or they'll be given to retarded people like the ones who bag your groceries or sort glass. 



We don't need black people specifically to be doing the shit jobs, we can just sort it out by capability while otherwise aiming to diversify the IQ average more. For those who are under functioning, we've always had Career Centers in lieu of colleges to teach a craft or basic profession. 

 

 Humans are not going to evolve over the next 50 years so yes we do need the blacks to do the shit jobs, and retards like that lmfao "dont throw us away" man was that sad, yes we will throw you away you fucking retard if you don't work harder to make some money for us. Thats exploitation if Ive ever seen it. I bet they fired that retard as soon as they realized the ad flip-flopped as investors fled that company exploiting retard labor. Guess which product I'm going to buy, one made by a white genius, or one made by this guy.

The problem is that the IQ gap is not going away anytime soon unless the US decides to dictate who blacks can breed with. China can do that maybe but not US. I bet that's why they're investing in Africa so much, those fuckers they don't know what's coming to them.

The IQ is fixed. Quotas do not create any selection effect. The SJW effort is never going to stick because those that follow their principles are going to lose money and therefore cease the be important while those that defy the SJW principles thrive. It won't be long before the whole leftist SJW retardation flip-flops and people wake up. Trust me once the money does its talking we won't have none of this shit any longer.