>>688883>Not really, most metropolitan areas have even more ethnic diversity, with even more groups, not just whites and sikhs.
Yes, and? That's not the same as what you stated the situation where you lived was. >Well for starters you're a communist so
And?>and where would that be
Does is matter fbi man? >Hey wait, I just realized this, why are we applying all of this shit to a clinical setting? This is political, not fucking medical.
Because we're discussing genetics. If you're instead trying to state race is purely a political thing as some kind of counter, you're practically just making my argument for me. >The fact that people have created race, and then proceeded to propagate it for how fuckin long now without eventually phasing it out as it lost true genuine meaning in society, brings into question if we can argue if it's not "realllly valid". If people continue to use it, and refuse to distance themselves from it, it will continue to be valid in social-political terms.
"Race" is a relatively modern thing, and the use of it and the "validity" of it can absolutely be questioned. Its not "valid" scientifically regardless if some people use it as a categorization, and it not being valid scientifically should lead us to question the social-political use of it. It is precisely it's use in such that permits us to argue if it's not "realllly valid", unless you're going to try and make the absurd argument that social contructs are immutable and unchangeable. >Again, we keep using it. We clearly struck some sort of chord with a vague, easy understanding of ethnicity.
The use of it has been something that historically shifted in every direction you can imagine, and it's arbitrary nature should be a sign that we can do better. Its not some kind of eternal concept, and it isn't an argument to state "well, people use it, so it's fine!". Then you're just arguing that society should base itself fully on "feels>reals" and that belief is enough to make a thing "valid". It makes your own argument go from "Race is scientifically valid, and we should utilize it to dictate policy" to "Race is only valid as long people believe it's valid, and when they don't believe it is, then it's no longer valid", which is some "I'm 13 and this is deep" garbage. >Well I've already posted le proofs, but in the end I guess you want it to not be scientific. So let's go with that. Now, ask yourself, can we really make a science out of politics? Fuck no. There's too many variables, any science from it shitthrowing at a wall and seeing what sticks.
I never wanted the discussion to not be scientific, that was you when you immediately deviated from such after I referenced the sources you posted that you didn't even read, and then provided sources which countered the few that allegedly supported your argument. And while politics may not itself be a science, you can have politics which tries to have a foundation in science and utilizes it to argue if a certain policy matches up to held principles. >You do understand I chimp out everytime when I even see pornography full stop on an imageboard? I'm a sperg, not a fuckin coomer.
How do you even survive on any imageboard without being the equivalent of a hysterical twitterite? >Either way, casually posting cropped fuckin drawn child porn is still something that gives evidence to the idea that your obsession with pedophiles in england being reported in tabloid sensationalist journalism is nothing but le projection
I didn't even post it, and how is that even equivalent in any respect? You're literally arguing that a cropped image of a drawn japanese picture, which could have been sourced from literally anywhere, is equivalent to actual documented cases of pedophilia. And it's not even simple tabloid sensationalist journalism, these are actual cases you can find the records for. >Well shit, I don't lurk here, obviously. But have any of you guys shown complete opposition to the - what now seems like a trimonthly event - constant addition of more and more fuckin obscene shit in schools' Sex Ed curricula?
It's not a constant topic we obsess about like some kind of culture war addicted reddit fag. There's always some clickbait nonsense, and we're not going to bother to sift the garbage from the tiniest half truth regarding somewhere inconsiquential. >At least /pol/ says they hate it, as far as I'm aware you're busy focusing on… fuckin whatever the hell you third worlders do.
Again, I have no idea how you assumed that based on me not being considered white. Also, we're too busy focusing on other that isn't a sensationalist culture war clickbait wormhole. >See above. Every single one is english, a country with a rather high rate of child sexual abuse, reported in tabloid journalism, where members are in all-too thuggish and open groups
All three of the major ones mentioned weren't, unless suddenly there exist branches of the American Nazi party and the KKK in the UK. Also, as stated before, how does the others being in the UK change anything? High rate or low rate, that doesn't change how the overwhelming amount of politically affiliated pedophiles are right wing. >Get back to me when there's a fuckin NBC documentary on how the KKK would molest eachothers daughters
How would the non existence of an NBC documentary regarding pedophiles in the KKK somehow invalidate the existence of such? That's not how it works. There exists an actual high profile case that was referred to in this thread, court case and all, so the MSM failure to make a documentary doesn't suddenly nullify it's existence.