Wuzzums

We need to define our terms here because I think we're talking about 2 different things. An insult is something that is meant to cause a negative reaction in you because they dislike you. A playful insult is something meant to poke fun at the negative reaction you might have. Sometimes insults can be endearment terms which to a third party might look like a confrontation. I let friends insult me because they let me insult them back. This is just a tiny part of the relationship. A friend is not someone that does not insult you, the local store owner is not my friend. A friend is someone you can be completely honest with, without having the fear of the relationship ending if you insult them or get insulted by them. I have stopped being friends with people that didn't insult me to my face though they did so with a 3rd party.

Well of course they're directed at your weak spots. Here's an allegory: you open up your heart to people, a stranger might stabs it, a friend pokes it, and a lover caresses it. It's the verbal equivalent of tickling. You let someone insult you and shrug it off it's a clear indication to the other that the relationship is solid. It's like a bridge, once you say to someone to stop insulting someone it's like putting up a wall. Again, you need to look at what is not being said. Most communication is non-verbal. We are talking about playful insults. A playful insult directed at someone's insecurities are in my view indicative of the person's respect for you as a whole. For instance let's say some friend of mine has weight problems and I constantly poke fun at him. Our relationship does not revolve around that and his insecurities are a barrier in developing a deeper connection therefore it needs to be constantly addressed until it is not anymore. Having dislike of some personality trait does not imply dislike of the person.

In the movie Gran Torino there's a scene where Clint Eastwood takes his ward to a barber shop for a haircut and to show him how to talk like a man. It showcases both instances of verbal insults, the playfulness and the abusiveness. It's pretty hard to describe the difference but once you see men interact, you can easily spot which is which. Playful insults and meaningful conversations aren't mutually exclusive. I can have meaningful conversations with strangers, however I cannot do playful insults with them. It's about boundaries, you insult someone and they allow you to because they know you and know you don't mean it. It shows your relationship runs deeper than words.

We need to make the distinction between phenotype and genotype. Genotype dictates phenotype but the habitat has a considerable say in what the genotype can express. So were I to put 2 different species, miles apart in genotype, into the same habitat (not together, of course) you will get an almost exactly identical phenotype. 2 different species, 2 different genomes, almost identical in appearance. We know this for a fact, several species of mice or other animals have been identified that did not belong to the rodent family in isolated habitats. These species just filled the mice gap in the environment. Thus genotype doesn't really matter because the phenotype is what makes an animal more or less apt to survive. Another example I can give is within the human species. There is a condition called Morris Syndrome in which the body is insensitive to testosterone, the end result being that genetic males (XY) have an 100% female phenotype. So these individuals will fall within the female spectrum on any type of population study (like IQ), however were we to look at the genetics alone we would categorize them as males which is inaccurate. You must understand that the gene code is a smorgasbord of traits which are only expressed in strict relation with the environment. Once expressed, there is no turning back, the genes that might be beneficial in one environment won't be dominant in another environment. Let's assume we have the Blue-race and the Green-race. The blue-race is strong and tall, the green-race is short and weak. Their genetic code is 99.99999999999% similar. Looking at genes we would see virtually no difference in these species and you can argue that we can take the green-race and put them aside the blue-race and they will do just as fine. That is not the case. A lot of generations must pass in order for the green-race to adapt to the new environment, and the harsher the environment the faster it will adapt. This is why things like affirmative actions are highly detrimental, it's selective for stupid. This is why jews are so smart, persecution selects for intelligence. You're complaining that blacks are categorized as a whole, which is a fair criticism because Africa is the most genetically diverse continent. However, whites (for example) get the same treatment. So what is the point you're trying to make? We could easily replace the term whites with westerners or blacks with africans. Now suddenly it's not a biological issue but a geographical issue. But we know from every paragraph of every biology book ever written ever that you cannot treat the two apart. Genes don't select themselves randomly, the environment has the say.

How am I virtue signaling? From your explanation I didn't quite get where you came with the fraction of IQ > 120/130/etc but that doesn't matter. I understood what you had to say. You never provided actual information on how many jews there are compared to other races in elite schools. I will assume the data backs up the theory. So what are you proposing here? If it's some grand jew-ploy to keep the goys out through affirmative actions I don't see how it's something to worry about. There's no initiation of force, therefore of no concern for you and me. If it's not some jew-ploy and their overrepresentation is the result of strong in-group preference then again, it's not immoral and of no concern. I still don't understand what your point for bringing this up is. To my ears this is all just pro-jewish points. They're a group of people who managed to rule the western world not through violence but through cunning. I'll ask one more time if I wasn't clear the first 5 times I asked you this question: SO WHAT? Why does this bother you so much and what is your proposed solution to the "problem"?

Dude, hate to pull this card but you have to work on your spelling and grammar. I checked your account info and saw you were from London. English is my second language, I shouldn't be the one telling you this but when I see such negligent writing I'm very inclined to stop reading and dismiss any point you might have made. Clarity of text is clarity of mind. 1) Again, so what? I haven't been consuming mainstream media for over 13 years straight. I'm doing my fare share of starving the beast. People who complain about the mainstream media are the same people who complain McDonald's made them fat. Is McDonald's owned by jews? 2) See previous point. I'm not concerned with who is fucking who as long as it's consensual. Nor am I concerned with who is making what movies on whatever subject. Nobody is strapping you to a chair and forcing you to watch it. And the desensitizing point you made is not an argument at all. Violent movies and video games are on the rise and what we're actually witnessing is a decrease in violence. The advent of easily accessible pornography is also correlated with a decrease in sexual crimes. FURTHERMORE, this high increase of libertine sexuality propaganda movies are now correlated with an INCREASE in teenage abstinence. Wrap your mind around that. 4) Where are all these jews that are saying a fall is fascist? 5) Are they, though? Run the math real quick by me. 6) Did you know that the president of the United States is... black?????? Did you also know that one of the foremost economists in the US is also... black????? Did you know that one of the most powerful voices, if not the most powerful voice in the mainstream media is... black?????? Did you know that the highest paid Hollywood actor is... black?????? OMFG, it's a international black-ry... or a blackspiracy if you will. If you still dont get it: I'm making fun of you for assuming those people got where they are for being jews and not for being able. 7) Were I jewish I would definitely want to keep guns as far away from anti-semites as possible in the same way I, as a white man, want to keep guns away from muslims as possible. Or as a white cis male, I want to keep guns away from gender studies graduate students as far as possible. Get my point? 8) At the moment it's quite trendy to persecute the white man, are you saying they're persecuted for a reason? 9) You've been blaming jews for all your woes, taking the moral highground at the last second doesn't hide that fact. If you want to take control over your life simply assume everything wrong with it is your fault. You can go one step beyond and assume everything wrong with the world is also your fault. Blaming the other for everything is renouncing your free will and you will never ever change anything whether you're able in the first place or not.

Points of the video: 1) The media is controlled by jews. 2) Homosexuality is immoral and promoted by the jews. 3) Pedophilia is immoral and promoted by the jews. 4) The media spews pro-rapefugee propaganda. 5) Education is run by jews and jews outperform the rest. 6) Lots of jews own famous sites. 7) Jews want gun control. 8) Jews have been persecuted for millennia. 9) Jews are parasites. 1) So what? I don't consume the media so I don't care. 2) Homosexuality is not immoral therefore who cares who promotes it. 3) Molestation is immoral, deviant sexual urges are not. 4) To what end? They're promoting a vile religion onto our shores that hates jews above all others, why? 5) Yes, because jews are the smartest race. 6) Yes, because jews are the smartest race. 7) Again, why do they want gun control? What's their end goal? 8) Who cares? So far they're the only group that haven't played the victim card, an admirable trait. 9) No they're not. They work and pay taxes like the rest of us. Every race wants to cry foul when they're not on top. Black people do it to whites, white people do it to jews. So far what I learned from this video is that it's pretty cool to be a jew.

Like the above said, you're not initiating force therefore it's not immoral. The way I see it you're using your assets in the same way a rich guy spends money on his friends. At some point the rich guy will be surrounded by people who are only there for the money because they will push the other people out with the numbers alone. So don't sell yourself short, think about who will be left in his life if the rich guy runs out of money. I would also caution you not fooling yourself into thinking you're somehow helping other people, you're just there for the money as they are just there for your looks. Just a basic transaction.

I'll take Jewish rule over Sharia Law any day of the week, thank you very much. #proudgoy

I was once like you. I always said I preferred the natural look... until someone pointed out to me that there's such a thing as a no-make-up make-up. Life shattering.

I think it's amiss for us not to also point the finger at the LGBT movement. They should be the ones cleaning this whole mess up... if they're not too busy attacking christian bakeries of course.

What if the rapist was a homeless black woman? What sentence should she have been given?

I don't trust the anus of Satan known to us as the mainstream media in the slightest. There are far more important things going on in the world right now than 2 drunk people having sex.

Points 2) and 8) resonate with me very well.and it seems I'm in the same boat as you (late 20s as well). Even though I want to have a family I hold no interest in pursuing any relationships at the moment. I have never had any relationships in the past either. Looking at couples around me, their lives do not appeal to me and trading my free-time with spending it with another person seems like a bad deal. I know there's more to hope for out of life but at the moment I'm wondering if I'm equipped for it. I don't know if I'm even capable of sharing my life with another person and it's not something I mind. I'm perfectly content, if not happy, with my own company. It sometimes feel I'm living in purgatory. It's not at all bad but having something to strive for, to fight for, seems to be the ingredient for a better life. The bit about emotionally processing, how does one know they've done it? How can I tell the difference between emotional insight and intellectual insight and why is there even a difference?

I didn't waste any time reading any of them. This thread immediately made me think of Fallon Fox. I then saw one article was about her with the word "debunking" in the title. I googled the author's name and saw how she had nothing to do with the world of MMA. It's her word against that of actual professionals. The case is clear. However I went back to the article to humor you and saw this paragraph proving my point: "Try this thought experiment, if you were looking at two different skeletons would you be able to tell what gender, race, or age they were? Even trained forensic scientists can only tell this information correctly 9 out of 10 times."

Skeletal structure remains the same which offers them an advantage over women in most sports regardless of muscle mass. There's a reason why there's no such thing as an unsegregated sport. Men are simply built for physical labor and hormone therapy cannot fully erase 3 billion years of evolution.

I doubt you can find enough people with enough self-knowledge to answer those questions correctly in order to make a valid study.

What's wrong with being racist towards racists?

I too am planning on getting steroid treatment after getting old, however 31 seems way too young to start. And regarding all the taboo around steroid use, I'm almost 100% it's all bullshit. Why? Because female hormone pills have been an over the counter medicine since its invention and nobody cares. In fact so was testosterone. Why that all changed exactly I cannot say.

Let's take a case study. Let's say that a migrant with an IQ of 160 has 10 offspring. Let's assume 80% of IQ is heritable. This means there's a pretty good chance that 8 out of 10 of his kids have a very high IQ and the remaining 2 will not. We also know that the smarter the person is, the fewer children they have. So let's assume that the smart offspring have 1 kid each and the dumb ones 2 kids each. So in 2 generations, from 1 smart person we ended up with 8 smart people and 4 dumb people. We move one generation further and we'll end up with 8 new smart people (16 in total now) and 8 new dumb people (12 in total now). What we now see is that if we add in the "dumb people breed more" factor we easily see how they can easily outbreed intelligence only in a matter of a few generations. However, if the 160 IQ migrant comes from a place where the median IQ is 100 then it's more unlikely his offspring will have a lower IQ than 100 thus categorizing them all in the smart 1 offspring category. Thus the lower the median IQ of the native population, the higher the chance of having dumb offspring. This is the algorithm I used to demonstrate why high IQ migrants from a low IQ zone could lower the mean IQ of the new country. Keep in mind I didn't take several factors into consideration like what does it mean exactly to say IQ is 80% heritable? Do the offspring inherent the IQ full stop like eye color? Or do they inherent 80% of the IQ of their parents? What about the 20% non heritable aspect? Doesn't that imply that the offspring which did not inherent any of the smarts be able to get a IQ boost from the environment? There is a lot we don't know about IQ and at this point all we have is data and correlation with no underlying clear mechanism.

I didn't used to think much about the racial jabs that were thrown at whites by other races. Now with all that's going on, perhaps what I dismissed as harmless banter was and is in fact an indication of true (unwarranted) hatred towards whites. Perhaps I should universalize the principle of hating people for their skin color. Perhaps I should call a black guy a nigger every time they call me a cracker. Perhaps I should dismiss everything Muhammad Ali has ever done in is life and credit everything he achieved to the white man.

The US presidential race has been amazing so far. It's the most entertaining thing on television right now and I can't help but wonder what future campaigns will look like after Trump. What will the next guy have to bring to the table in order to top this one?

I have a strong adoration for Al Swearengen from the TV show Deadwood. He's probably my favorite character in all of fiction. Another character in the show sums him up perfectly: "When he's not lying, Al's the most noble person you'll ever meet."

There is no share of profit from the "something else" either. You can't "do nothing" with the land and still have the land into your possession. Doing nothing with the land is the same as relinquishing ownership because your fortune stays the same whether you have the land or not.