Racist comments directed to me

Phillip Bosley wrote:

vonlettowvorbeck wrote:

Phillip Bosley wrote:

Bandersnatch wrote:

How many races are there? Do other animal species (birds, cats, lizards) count as races?

Mammals like humans for instance like this:

Kingdom: Animalia (an animal, thus not a plant)

Phylum: Chordata (I think that refers to having a vertebrae)

Class: Mammalia (giving birth, as in not laying an egg)

Order: Primates (monkey type; not Macedonians!)

Family: Hominidae (more ape like; still not Macedonians)

Genus: Homo (almost getting there; no, still far from Macedonians)

Species: Homo sapiens (getting very close; but no, not Macedonians)

Subspecies: Homo sapiens sapiens (humans as we know them, including Macedonians)

This is done like that for every living creature, starting with the Kingdom

WilhelmSchultz wrote:

vonlettowvorbeck wrote:

General Sherman wrote:

There's also someone talking shit about Romanians.

Ignore it.First of all he has no clue what he is talking about and probably never even visited the country.Secondly, most Romanians are not gipsies.

Thirdly, there are only a few gipsies in Romania, bc they are all in Paris now, posing as Syrian refugees.

Fourth, he is just jealous, bc he never had a sizzling hot Romanian girlfriend; not even one he had to pay for

Bunch of crock.

Romania GDP is lowest in EU, by far! Even less than Croatia, if you can believe that! The entire Romanian economy is centered on agriculture and stealing; they have no industrial value whatsoever.

If NATO would stop sucking up to Romania and selling them weapons, they would be fighting WW3 with sticks and stones.

I notice that romanians have a weird smell to them, like sulfur or something. I guess it fits from them being out in the sun all day, but man! I would never want to be in a room with one of those... creatures.

Bandersnatch wrote:

HenrikSchreiber wrote:

Fucking faggоts want to turn the whole world into an lgbtq fairyland!

Hello my partner!

At this point can we report @HenrikSchreiber for homophobia?

CrnaGora2006 wrote:

General Sherman wrote:

Komrade Khrushchev wrote:

vonlettowvorbeck wrote:

Komrade Khrushchev wrote:

CrnaGora2006 wrote:

But where is the connection to biological race?

What? When did we mention biological race?

@Anonymegg brought it up.But you are right; let's not forget the other races, like Formula 1 or the 24hrs of Le Mans!

Biological race is different from culture. It's an example of "nature vs. nurture"For example, hypothetically 25% of the world's female population becomes trans. They would identify with the male community despite being a biological female. Thus, s*xual identification is different from biological s*x.

This is what chatgpt says about biological race:Biological race refers to the concept of categorizing human populations based on distinct physical characteristics and genetic traits. This classification often hinges on observable features such as skin color, hair texture, and facial structure, which have historically been used to delineate groups of people. The notion of biological race has been a subject of extensive debate within the fields of anthropology, genetics, and sociology, as it raises questions about the validity and implications of such classifications in understanding human diversity.

The scientific community increasingly recognizes that the concept of biological race lacks a solid foundation in genetics. Research has shown that the genetic variation within so-called racial groups is often greater than the variation between them. This finding challenges the traditional view of race as a biological determinant and suggests that the differences among human populations are more accurately attributed to environmental factors, cultural practices, and social constructs rather than inherent biological distinctions. Consequently, the emphasis on biological race can perpetuate stereotypes and social inequalities.

In contemporary discourse, the focus has shifted towards understanding human diversity through the lens of population genetics and evolutionary biology. This approach emphasizes the interconnectedness of all human beings and the shared ancestry that underlies our species. By moving away from the outdated concept of biological race, researchers and scholars advocate for a more nuanced understanding of human variation that acknowledges the complex interplay of genetics, environment, and culture, ultimately fostering a more inclusive perspective on human identity.

So is institutionalized race different from biological race?

vonlettowvorbeck wrote:

Komrade Khrushchev wrote:

vonlettowvorbeck wrote:

HenrikSchreiber wrote:

vonlettowvorbeck wrote:

General Sherman wrote:

vonlettowvorbeck wrote:

AnonymeggABC1234 wrote:

vonlettowvorbeck wrote:

Taffyta Muttonfudge wrote:

Can you explain that in better words please? I don’t really understand what you’re saying here.

Should I Tiktok it maybe ?

Using Tiktok shows your support for the Chinese Communist government.

Is someone having a hard time understanding sarcasm?Btw, for educational purposes only: Homo sapiens sapiens, which all currently alive humans belong to, is a subspecies of the species Homo sapiens.That fact - yes, yet another undisputable, scientifical fact - should really end the discussion about different human races.

There is only one human race. Period.

"There is only one human race. Period."I already proved that wrong here.

No, you did not, as despite whatever you have said, there still is only one human race.All differences you might notice pertain to adaptations to local circumstances, but do not seperate the different populations as a race.

The one and only human race is Homo sapiens sapiens.

If there is another according to you, please provide us here with the correct scientific name.

I've explained multiple times now how these are all different races/species of humans.

MarioLazzaratti wrote:

WilhelmSchultz wrote:

vonlettowvorbeck wrote:

General Sherman wrote:

There's also someone talking shit about Romanians.

Ignore it.First of all he has no clue what he is talking about and probably never even visited the country.Secondly, most Romanians are not gipsies.Thirdly, there are only a few gipsies in Romania, bc they are all in Paris now, posing as Syrian refugees.

Fourth, he is just jealous, bc he never had a sizzling hot Romanian girlfriend; not even one he had to pay for

Bunch of crock.Romania GDP is lowest in EU, by far! Even less than Croatia, if you can believe that! The entire Romanian economy is centered on agriculture and stealing; they have no industrial value whatsoever.

If NATO would stop sucking up to Romania and selling them weapons, they would be fighting WW3 with sticks and stones.

I live in Italy, and I can confirm that the Romanian element has brought down the country as a whole.

If Romanians are the worst group in the world, Russians are the second worst.

Romanians are like flies or vermin, doing nothing productive, just looking for scraps of food (money) for their own benefit.

Russians are like subhuman orcs, they don’t have enough braincells to understand that they have the actual control over their country, but they’re told by Putin to fight Ukraine, and instead of even second-thinking it they are programmed with “FUCK UKRAINE! DESTROY UKRAINE!” in their heads and can’t even realize what they’re doing is totally wrong and fucked up.

All countries of the Western world should impose sanctions and immigration quotas on Romania and Russia, to prevent these groups from infiltrating their societies and overthrowing their governments.

HenrikSchreiber wrote:

vonlettowvorbeck wrote:

General Sherman wrote:

There's also someone talking shit about Romanians.

Ignore it.First of all he has no clue what he is talking about and probably never even visited the country.Secondly, most Romanians are not gipsies.

Thirdly, there are only a few gipsies in Romania, bc they are all in Paris now, posing as Syrian refugees.

Fourth, he is just jealous, bc he never had a sizzling hot Romanian girlfriend; not even one he had to pay for

Romania is a CRAP country! Half the people are fairy faggоts and the other half are Russia commie sympathizers!

(Does that make the whole country useless?)

And, yes, it is corrupt on anything that is government level, and yes, it has gipsies, but it also has many plusses, among which very nice and pleasant, warm hearted people, good food and very good beer.

Romania is without any doubt an outright gorgious country.

It has everything from beautiful beaches on the Black Sea Coast to ski resorts, endless forests, the Danube etc.

It has wonderful wildlife.

Also fantastic castles and medieval sites, since the country has a rich history.

If you ever get to Kronstadt/Brasov, you will rethink your remarks. It can easily match any German or Austrian old town and outmatches any British easily.

Komrade Khrushchev wrote:

vonlettowvorbeck wrote:

Komrade Khrushchev wrote:

vonlettowvorbeck wrote:

HenrikSchreiber wrote:

vonlettowvorbeck wrote:

General Sherman wrote:

vonlettowvorbeck wrote:

AnonymeggABC1234 wrote:

vonlettowvorbeck wrote:

Taffyta Muttonfudge wrote:

Can you explain that in better words please? I don’t really understand what you’re saying here.

Should I Tiktok it maybe ?

Using Tiktok shows your support for the Chinese Communist government.

Is someone having a hard time understanding sarcasm?Btw, for educational purposes only: Homo sapiens sapiens, which all currently alive humans belong to, is a subspecies of the species Homo sapiens.That fact - yes, yet another undisputable, scientifical fact - should really end the discussion about different human races.There is only one human race. Period.

"There is only one human race. Period."I already proved that wrong here.

No, you did not, as despite whatever you have said, there still is only one human race.All differences you might notice pertain to adaptations to local circumstances, but do not seperate the different populations as a race.The one and only human race is Homo sapiens sapiens.

If there is another according to you, please provide us here with the correct scientific name.

The scientific names for the peoples of the world are pretty obvious: Russians, Germans, Japanese, French, Chinese, Bengal, etc.

I've explained multiple times now how these are all different races/species of humans.

Komrade Khrushchev wrote:

My point was that, if someone from, say the Philipines moves to Germany they may choose to identify as German for cultural purpose. This would be different from their biological race (Philipines), so yes, it IS nature vs. nurture. Cultural identification is different from biological race.

Komrade Khrushchev wrote:

The scientific names for the peoples of the world are pretty obvious: Russians, Germans, Japanese, French, Chinese, Bengal, etc.

I've explained multiple times now how these are all different races/species of humans.

How can you persist in denying science?

vonlettowvorbeck wrote:

Komrade Khrushchev wrote:

CrnaGora2006 wrote:

General Sherman wrote:

Komrade Khrushchev wrote:

vonlettowvorbeck wrote:

Komrade Khrushchev wrote:

CrnaGora2006 wrote:

But where is the connection to biological race?

What? When did we mention biological race?

@Anonymegg brought it up.But you are right; let's not forget the other races, like Formula 1 or the 24hrs of Le Mans!

Biological race is different from culture. It's an example of "nature vs. nurture"For example, hypothetically 25% of the world's female population becomes trans. They would identify with the male community despite being a biological female. Thus, s*xual identification is different from biological s*x.

This is what chatgpt says about biological race:Biological race refers to the concept of categorizing human populations based on distinct physical characteristics and genetic traits. This classification often hinges on observable features such as skin color, hair texture, and facial structure, which have historically been used to delineate groups of people. The notion of biological race has been a subject of extensive debate within the fields of anthropology, genetics, and sociology, as it raises questions about the validity and implications of such classifications in understanding human diversity.The scientific community increasingly recognizes that the concept of biological race lacks a solid foundation in genetics. Research has shown that the genetic variation within so-called racial groups is often greater than the variation between them. This finding challenges the traditional view of race as a biological determinant and suggests that the differences among human populations are more accurately attributed to environmental factors, cultural practices, and social constructs rather than inherent biological distinctions. Consequently, the emphasis on biological race can perpetuate stereotypes and social inequalities.In contemporary discourse, the focus has shifted towards understanding human diversity through the lens of population genetics and evolutionary biology. This approach emphasizes the interconnectedness of all human beings and the shared ancestry that underlies our species. By moving away from the outdated concept of biological race, researchers and scholars advocate for a more nuanced understanding of human variation that acknowledges the complex interplay of genetics, environment, and culture, ultimately fostering a more inclusive perspective on human identity.

So is institutionalized race different from biological race?

My point was that, if someone from, say the Philipines moves to Germany they may choose to identify as German for cultural purpose. This would be different from their biological race (Philipines), so yes, it IS nature vs. nurture. Cultural identification is different from biological race.

NO! All wrong...again!

Komrade Khrushchev wrote:

vonlettowvorbeck wrote:

Komrade Khrushchev wrote:

vonlettowvorbeck wrote:

HenrikSchreiber wrote:

vonlettowvorbeck wrote:

General Sherman wrote:

vonlettowvorbeck wrote:

AnonymeggABC1234 wrote:

vonlettowvorbeck wrote:

Taffyta Muttonfudge wrote:

Can you explain that in better words please? I don’t really understand what you’re saying here.

Should I Tiktok it maybe ?

Using Tiktok shows your support for the Chinese Communist government.

Is someone having a hard time understanding sarcasm?Btw, for educational purposes only: Homo sapiens sapiens, which all currently alive humans belong to, is a subspecies of the species Homo sapiens.That fact - yes, yet another undisputable, scientifical fact - should really end the discussion about different human races.There is only one human race. Period.

"There is only one human race. Period."I already proved that wrong here.

No, you did not, as despite whatever you have said, there still is only one human race.All differences you might notice pertain to adaptations to local circumstances, but do not seperate the different populations as a race.The one and only human race is Homo sapiens sapiens.

If there is another according to you, please provide us here with the correct scientific name.

The scientific names for the peoples of the world are pretty obvious: Russians, Germans, Japanese, French, Chinese, Bengal, etc.I've explained multiple times now how these are all different races/species of humans.

OMG.... were you born dumb or had an accident later?How can you persist in denying science?

This is simple science, no?

WilhelmSchultz wrote:

If Romanians are the worst group in the world, Russians are the second worst.

Romanians are like flies or vermin, doing nothing productive, just looking for scraps of food (money) for their own benefit.

Russians are like subhuman orcs, they don’t have enough braincells to understand that they have the actual control over their country, but they’re told by Putin to fight Ukraine, and instead of even second-thinking it they are programmed with “FUCK UKRAINE! DESTROY UKRAINE!” in their heads and can’t even realize what they’re doing is totally wrong and fucked up.

All countries of the Western world should impose sanctions and immigration quotas on Romania and Russia, to prevent these groups from infiltrating their societies and overthrowing their governments.

CrnaGora2006 wrote:

Why is there two types of homo sapien? What’s the difference between homo sapiens and homo sapiens sapiens?

Homo sapiens sapiens is a the only alive subspecies of Homo sapiens.

The Homo sapiens included (past tense) other subspecies, which died out (or may have been assimilated).

So, though we often refer to ourselves as 'Homo sapiens', it actually is 'Homo sapiens sapiens'.

Bandersnatch wrote:

russ_russ1 wrote:

I wanna be racist to racists. I think that’s totally fair and agreeable

I will help!

everyone here I feel like is running out of their anal lube and needs replenishment (y’all are yapping)

Komrade Khrushchev wrote:

No, you are denying the simple, obvious fact that there are multiple human races categorized by physical and/or habituatl differences. The same way other animals are subdivided into species based on these same characteristics.

This is simple science, no?

If you cannot name it, will you please go to a bookstore tomorrow and buy a book on biology and learn something?

FYI: Russian, German, Bengals etc are not races nor species or even subspecies.

We, ourselves, belong to a subspecies called Homo sapiens sapiens, which is the only alive subspecies of Homo sapiens.

How then are Russians or bengals suddenly a species even???

Don't you see how ridiculous your attempts are to redefine science?

If any, you have a doctorate in Phantasmia!

vonlettowvorbeck wrote:

Komrade Khrushchev wrote:

No, you are denying the simple, obvious fact that there are multiple human races categorized by physical and/or habituatl differences. The same way other animals are subdivided into species based on these same characteristics.

This is simple science, no?

If you want to make your point, then here and now you should name the 'human race' that exists next to Homo sapiens sapiens today of this planet!

If you cannot name it, will you please go to a bookstore tomorrow and buy a book on biology and learn something?

FYI: Russian, German, Bengals etc are not races nor species or even subspecies.

We, ourselves, belong to a subspecies called Homo sapiens sapiens, which is the only alive subspecies of Homo sapiens.

How then are Russians or bengals suddenly a species even???

Don't you see how ridiculous your attempts are to redefine science?

If any, you have a doctorate in Phantasmia!

The recognition or nonrecognition of subspeciesof Homo sapiens has a complicated history. The rank of subspecies in zoology is introduced for convenience, and not by objective criteria, based on pragmatic consideration of factors such as geographic isolation and sexual selection. The informal taxonomic rank of race is variously considered equivalent or subordinate to the rank of subspecies, and the division of anatomically modern humans (H. sapiens) into subspecies is closely tied to the recognition of major racial groupings based on human genetic variation.

A subspecies cannot be recognized independently: a species will either be recognized as having no subspecies at all or at least two (including any that are extinct). Therefore, the designation of an extant subspecies Homo sapiens sapiens only makes sense if at least one other subspecies is recognized. H. s. sapiens is attributed to "Linnaeus (175" by the taxonomic Principle of Coordination.^[44] During the 19th to mid-20th century, it was common practice to classify the major divisions of extant H. sapiensas subspecies, following Linnaeus (175, who had recognized H. s. americanus, H. s. europaeus, H. s. asiaticus and H. s. afer as grouping the native populations of the Americas, West Eurasia, East Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa, respectively. Linnaeus also included H. s. ferus, for the "wild" form which he identified with feral children, and two other "wild" forms for reported specimens now considered very dubious (see cryptozoology), H. s. monstrosus and H. s. troglodytes.^[45]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_taxonomy#Homo_sapiens_subspecies

Komrade Khrushchev wrote:

vonlettowvorbeck wrote:

Komrade Khrushchev wrote:

CrnaGora2006 wrote:

But where is the connection to biological race?

What? When did we mention biological race?

@Anonymegg brought it up.But you are right; let's not forget the other races, like Formula 1 or the 24hrs of Le Mans!

Biological race is different from culture. It's an example of "nature vs. nurture"

For example, hypothetically 25% of the world's female population becomes trans. They would identify with the male community despite being a biological female. Thus, s*xual identification is different from biological s*x.

I don’t think séxual orientation and biological séx are connected because the gender/séxual identification of the people someone is attracted to has no impact on their biological séx.