On 6/1/23 2:13 AM, *skriptis wrote:> The Iceberg <iceberg.rules@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r>> Is this racist? LOLhttps://twitter.com/JebraFaushay/status/1664068111060934657>> I share the sentiment.>> People have a right to a closed ethnic communitiesof their own.>> If you don't have that, you have nothing.>>> And those who wish to drown themselves in multicultural cesspits should have that ability too, large metropolis should be "for all".>> It should all be legal.>>>> E.g. North American natives,
Let's imagine Hitler wasn't a loser and had actually won WW2 and had succeeded in subjugating eastern Europe and Slavs and Russians and did to them what Anglos did to natives?>> Total victory over their territory and displacement.>> And forward, 100 orI'm not saying it's bad that the natives have this, but literally absurd.>> They are total losers and they have more power and ethnic sovereignty over their own communities than the victorious Europeans (of mostly Anglo-Saxon origin + others).>>>>>
On 6/8/23 2:25 AM, *skriptis wrote:of their own.>> If you don't have that, you have nothing.>>> And those who wish to drown themselves in multicultural cesspits should have that ability too, large metropolis should be "for all".>> It should all be legal.>>>> E.g. North American natives,
Sawfish <sawfi...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r
On 6/1/23 2:13 AM, *skriptis wrote:> The Iceberg <iceber...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r>> Is this racist? LOLhttps://twitter.com/JebraFaushay/status/1664068111060934657>> I share the sentiment.>> People have a right to a closed ethnic communities
Let's imagine Hitler wasn't a loser and had actually won WW2 and had succeeded in subjugating eastern Europe and Slavs and Russians and did to them what Anglos did to natives?>> Total victory over their territory and displacement.>> And forward, 100 orI'm not saying it's bad that the natives have this, but literally absurd.>> They are total losers and they have more power and ethnic sovereignty over their own communities than the victorious Europeans (of mostly Anglo-Saxon origin + others).>>>>>
I guess you described it near perfectly, explaining the evolutionary mechanism.
But what now?
It is what it is, e.g. you said 90% of folks want to stay around their own kind, yet even my modest proposals, that we split it as if the groups are even, 50-50, is met with disapproval. Weird, ha?
Yes, weird.
I tend to see it as a phenomenon of the changing evolutionary
environment. That said, it looks like my genes are likely to die out as unfit for the present extreme cosmopolitan environment; I can't tell yet if/how this is carried by my daughter. This means either I've got to
change my own *INSTINCTUAL* response (you can fake it, but the stress remains back there, sublimated), or else there'd have to be an extremely forceful realignment of the evolutionary environment, something like a
race war, with enforced separation.
As an interesting aside, so far as finding a suitable reproductive mate, this natural aversion does not apply broadly. If it applies (and I think
it does) it's kinda narrow. So finding a sexually attractive female of another race trumps the pervasive instinct to stick to one's on phenotype.
In a way, it works like finding a female of your own type who is *not* suitable, so far as you are concerned: you will routinely see
reproductive females of your own group who inspire little to no desire
to mate. This sexual thing seems to work along a different axis from
general desire to associate with one's own group.
Does this even make any sense? :^)
But what I'm after is out of any given discreet grouping, *what
percentage is x*, where "x" is a behavior, a talent, a preference? I'm looking at trends, because trends indicate the general direction of the evolution of the group, socially, physically, whatever.
On Thursday, June 8, 2023 at 9:41:28 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:> On 6/8/23 2:25 AM, *skriptis wrote: > > Sawfish <sawfi...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r > >> On 6/1/23 2:13 AM, *skriptis wrote:> The Iceberg <iceber...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r>> Isthis racist? LOLhttps://twitter.com/JebraFaushay/status/1664068111060934657>> I share the sentiment.>> People have a right to a closed ethnic communities of their own.>> If you don't have that, you have nothing.>>> And those who wish to drown themselves
On 6/8/23 10:22 AM, bmoore wrote:communities of their own.>> If you don't have that, you have nothing.>>> And those who wish to drown themselves in multicultural cesspits should have that ability too, large metropolis should be "for all".>> It should all be legal.>>>> E.g. North
On Thursday, June 8, 2023 at 9:41:28 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:
On 6/8/23 2:25 AM, *skriptis wrote:
Sawfish <sawfi...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r
On 6/1/23 2:13 AM, *skriptis wrote:> The Iceberg <iceber...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r>> Is this racist? LOLhttps://twitter.com/JebraFaushay/status/1664068111060934657>> I share the sentiment.>> People have a right to a closed ethnic
That's fine, b; I understand your point and it's valid *per individual*.Sure, but what's the big deal? Some like their mates to share skin color/ethnicity/hair color/music tastes, whatever. Each to his/her own.I guess you described it near perfectly, explaining the evolutionary mechanism.Yes, weird.
But what now?
It is what it is, e.g. you said 90% of folks want to stay around their own kind, yet even my modest proposals, that we split it as if the groups are even, 50-50, is met with disapproval. Weird, ha?
I tend to see it as a phenomenon of the changing evolutionary
environment. That said, it looks like my genes are likely to die out as >> unfit for the present extreme cosmopolitan environment; I can't tell yet >> if/how this is carried by my daughter. This means either I've got to
change my own *INSTINCTUAL* response (you can fake it, but the stress
remains back there, sublimated), or else there'd have to be an extremely >> forceful realignment of the evolutionary environment, something like a
race war, with enforced separation.
As an interesting aside, so far as finding a suitable reproductive mate, >> this natural aversion does not apply broadly. If it applies (and I think >> it does) it's kinda narrow. So finding a sexually attractive female of
another race trumps the pervasive instinct to stick to one's on phenotype.
In a way, it works like finding a female of your own type who is *not*
suitable, so far as you are concerned: you will routinely see
reproductive females of your own group who inspire little to no desire
to mate. This sexual thing seems to work along a different axis from
general desire to associate with one's own group.
Does this even make any sense? :^)
But what I'm after is out of any given discreet grouping, *what
percentage is x*, where "x" is a behavior, a talent, a preference? I'm looking at trends, because trends indicate the general direction of the evolution of the group, socially, physically, whatever.
This interests me a lot. It answers questions that I have that beg answers--if plausible and convincing.
You'll recall, too, that I'm in a interracial marriage with a bi-racial
kid. I'm not looking for "is this good/bad?", but more why is it that
many whom I've encountered do not seem to be attracted to any potential
mate of another phenotype. It's more than "well, it's their upbringing". That might account for some of it.
But my best friend from college and beyond, until he died a while back, was--how can I put it?--a hardened LA womanizer from college to age 46,
when he finally married for the first time. He was extremely eclectic in
his tastes, but for reasons not apparent, he was quite ambivalent about Asian females who, to me, looked very desirable.
...and looking inside myself, I see a similar response to sub-Saharan
women. I can *see* a certain beauty in some, but I have no real
interest. And yet I've seen very dark Indian women who were extremely attractive to me. Skin color is not the principal criterion.
I have some ideas about why this is so, in my case, and I suspect that something similar operates in many others of various phenotypes *as a general trend*. There are individual exceptions and these exceptions can
be characterized as of varying strengths among such individuals.
I think that it's best characterized as what do you find *repellent*
traits in those of a different phenotype, rather than "what do you find attractive". I think that's the principal determinant.
On 6/8/23 4:02 PM, bmoore wrote:communities of their own.>> If you don't have that, you have nothing.>>> And those who wish to drown themselves in multicultural cesspits should have that ability too, large metropolis should be "for all".>> It should all be legal.>>>> E.g. North
On Thursday, June 8, 2023 at 11:17:24 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:
On 6/8/23 10:22 AM, bmoore wrote:
On Thursday, June 8, 2023 at 9:41:28 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:
On 6/8/23 2:25 AM, *skriptis wrote:
Sawfish <sawfi...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r
On 6/1/23 2:13 AM, *skriptis wrote:> The Iceberg <iceber...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r>> Is this racist? LOLhttps://twitter.com/JebraFaushay/status/1664068111060934657>> I share the sentiment.>> People have a right to a closed ethnic
Oh, for shit's sake yes!I like intellect. Conversely, I am repelled by stupidity.That's fine, b; I understand your point and it's valid *per individual*. >>Sure, but what's the big deal? Some like their mates to share skin color/ethnicity/hair color/music tastes, whatever. Each to his/her own.I guess you described it near perfectly, explaining the evolutionary mechanism.Yes, weird.
But what now?
It is what it is, e.g. you said 90% of folks want to stay around their own kind, yet even my modest proposals, that we split it as if the groups are even, 50-50, is met with disapproval. Weird, ha?
I tend to see it as a phenomenon of the changing evolutionary
environment. That said, it looks like my genes are likely to die out as >>>> unfit for the present extreme cosmopolitan environment; I can't tell yet
if/how this is carried by my daughter. This means either I've got to >>>> change my own *INSTINCTUAL* response (you can fake it, but the stress >>>> remains back there, sublimated), or else there'd have to be an extremely
forceful realignment of the evolutionary environment, something like a >>>> race war, with enforced separation.
As an interesting aside, so far as finding a suitable reproductive mate,
this natural aversion does not apply broadly. If it applies (and I think
it does) it's kinda narrow. So finding a sexually attractive female of >>>> another race trumps the pervasive instinct to stick to one's on phenotype.
In a way, it works like finding a female of your own type who is *not* >>>> suitable, so far as you are concerned: you will routinely see
reproductive females of your own group who inspire little to no desire >>>> to mate. This sexual thing seems to work along a different axis from >>>> general desire to associate with one's own group.
Does this even make any sense? :^)
But what I'm after is out of any given discreet grouping, *what
percentage is x*, where "x" is a behavior, a talent, a preference? I'm
looking at trends, because trends indicate the general direction of the >> evolution of the group, socially, physically, whatever.
This interests me a lot. It answers questions that I have that beg
answers--if plausible and convincing.
You'll recall, too, that I'm in a interracial marriage with a bi-racial >> kid. I'm not looking for "is this good/bad?", but more why is it that
many whom I've encountered do not seem to be attracted to any potential >> mate of another phenotype. It's more than "well, it's their upbringing". >> That might account for some of it.
But my best friend from college and beyond, until he died a while back, >> was--how can I put it?--a hardened LA womanizer from college to age 46, >> when he finally married for the first time. He was extremely eclectic in >> his tastes, but for reasons not apparent, he was quite ambivalent about >> Asian females who, to me, looked very desirable.
...and looking inside myself, I see a similar response to sub-Saharan
women. I can *see* a certain beauty in some, but I have no real
interest. And yet I've seen very dark Indian women who were extremely
attractive to me. Skin color is not the principal criterion.
I have some ideas about why this is so, in my case, and I suspect that
something similar operates in many others of various phenotypes *as a
general trend*. There are individual exceptions and these exceptions can >> be characterized as of varying strengths among such individuals.
I think that it's best characterized as what do you find *repellent*
traits in those of a different phenotype, rather than "what do you find >> attractive". I think that's the principal determinant.
I can recall some wit writing:
"Intelligence is the greatest aphrodisiac."
Now combine that, and a booty that just don't quit...ummm, ummm, ummm!
:^)
Hey, b, do you remember the old joke (might have been a cheech marin monologue) about the pope having to have sex with a woman to save the
world? ;^)
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 297 |
Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
Uptime: | 119:22:40 |
Calls: | 6,662 |
Files: | 12,210 |
Messages: | 5,334,369 |