HOME | DD
TheJewishMarxist — Support Interracial Relationship
#politics #opinionstamps #controversial_opinions
Published: 2018-03-07 16:00:18 +0000 UTC; Views: 2150; Favourites: 116; Downloads: 1
Redirect to original
Description
Warning!
Possible unfavourable opinion coming through. If you don't like my opinion, get out of here!
If you don't like my opinion, too bad, I'm not going to change my worldview just to please your feelings.
I am fed up with people always claiming that interracial marriages and relationships are akin to genociding of a race or ethnicity. Those claims are not only racist, but above all, regressive and harmful to the people who are in those relationships, as well as to the country that these types of people reside.
Related content
Comments: 218
That's what she's trying to do, since she has a kike fetish. She wants to radically change their culture, while ironically be a fucking ZIONIST at the same time.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Lemme guess, you're trying to get your cunt filled with Jewish cocks? Tough luck, most Jews are against race mixing with goyim like you.
👍: 0 ⏩: 3
Why don't you give me an actual fucking argument instead of insult, m'kay hon?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Here's an argument:
Since you're a Zionist, which is ETHNOnationalism by the way, why do you support race mixing?
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
This sounds patriotic enough for Hatriot Mail!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You're being so alt-right, it's wrong.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I'm not alt right, but okay.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Didn't claim you were, but you sounded just like one so I pointed that out.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yes, those are called "accusations". You know, like Bernie accusing Hillary of rigging the DNC?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Can you feel the difference between "you're alt-right" and "you're being alt-right"?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Can you tell that the DNC doesn't want Bernie or not?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yes, it's in the WikiLeaks emails, Donna Brazile's admission, and generally out there on their goddamn faces.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I only speak the truth.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
As someone of mixed race(Caucasoid and Semite), I'm against it. Not because it destroys race but because of the potential effects of the offspring could bare. Which includes things such as increased risk of diseases, depression, etc. I'm not against someone who wants to marry the love of their life, but this is something I chose personally to practice.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Where’s your proof of this? I’m not saying you are part of this group but the only people I’ve heard the “mixed race= bad genes” thing is from ethnonationalists/alt-righters and most of their sources are science from centuries ago which has since been debunked. Not only that, but there are some races/peoples which came about basically because of race mixing. Egyptians are a good example.
Not only that but I’ve heard that having offspring with someone who has diffenated genes is beneficial to the offspring because the genetic difference in their parents. If you have genetics which are too similar (like siblings or cousins had children) then that often causes things like infertility and brain damage. Because I have a mental disorder, I have a sort of interest in them I guess, but I don’t really think mixing races imparts mental disorders. Mental disorders often occur due to biological events in the mother’s womb, or because other people in the family line have a comobrid/cousin disorder to the one they have, or the same one. Personally, I’m in two lines that are pretty much guaranteed to be almost 100% white, and mental disorders are extremely common in my family just because of a long line of inheritance.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Then perhaps you should wonder why creatures too racially different,
yet still capable to reproduce, become sterile. Good examples of
this are donkeys and horses producing mules, or tigers and lions
producing ligers, all sterile over 90% of the time.
So you see, I'm not certain nature actually wants "genetic diversity".
Instead it sterilizes it. Truth is, nature, like any other thing in
this world, has a healthy in-between. Too close from the sun and life
is not possible, to far away, and life isn't possible as well. When
you claim genetics need as much difference as possible to be "healthy",
you are just as extreme as massive in-breeders.
What people popularly consider to be race-mixing, is by far extreme on
the genetic barometer. You should perhaps look at Poncho-Official's
comments to other deviants to see the studies she has linked.
Yours faithfully,
Der Himmelstern
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
All humans currently alive today are the same species, just as all dogs currently alive today are the same species.
Tigers and lions are two DIFFERENT species.
Interspecies and interracial are two different things.
Interracial marriage is more akin to a couple of dogs of two different breeds having puppies. Race is just a physical appearance, a phenotype.
All dogs are the same species, but each breed is like a "race" of dog, and human races are much like "breeds" of human. They're all the same species, but have different appearances.
The only time crossover breeding (Whether with humans, plants, animals or fungi) ever produce sterile children due purely to the fact it is a crossover is because either one of the parents had a gene that would make the offspring sterile, or the parents were of two different species.
A Siberian Husky and a German Shepherd can have puppies together and those puppies can have as many puppies of their own as they want with no side effects. But a dog and a coyote cannot. You're conflating race with species.
Then again, I should kinda expect this.
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
i.4pcdn.org/pol/1453786048663.…
Yes, talk about species and races.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
My, my. This is what happens when a single image, providing an obvious reality check,
infuriates the intellectually immature or deficient mind, who's only coping capability, is
to insult people to hide it's own cowardice to process a personal opinion, behind it's
vulgar hysteria. Using the remaining cognitive functions of it's brain, it understands
that blocking is the only option, for an open debate would only end in the witnessing
of it's own mental failure, and thus, would strike a fatal blow to it's deficient ego.
Isn't it ?
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Oh, look, a nazi being racist.
In other news, the sky is fucking blue, everybody!
I think I'm going to block you now because you're nothing but a bigot and if I met you in real life and recognized you, I'd shove you out of the way if you got close to me. I fucking hate nazis and that includes you.
And I have nothing against Germans because my mother was BORN in Germany and my maternal grandmother even had the German accent, and I'm part German too.
But it is nazis that make innocent Germans look bad, 99% of racism directed towards Germans is only there because of the Nazis. Don't you realize you are hurting your own race, your own country and your own people? Wake up, get your head out of your ass, and quit being a bigot. Just because people have different skin colors means JACK SHIT about whether or not they are not the same species.
Dogs are all Canis Lupis Familiaris, NO MATTER WHAT BREED THEY ARE.
Judging purely based on looks is not how science works, and since you claim racism is supported by science, I know you're talking bullshit. Human "races" are less "races" and more "breeds". At most you could call them subspecies, but every member of a subspecies of, say, dog, is still the same species and can still breed with no infertility. if different breeds were subspecies, that would make sense but they're still all the same species, just different looks of it. That's like saying people who are left handed and people who are right handed are different species, it's fucking BULLSHIT that is not based on science at all! And by the way, ALL HUMANS are technically Africans, because if you trace human ancestry back to where it began, IT ALL STARTED IN FUCKING AFRICA! You claim to be a scientist, so ACT LIKE ONE AND OPEN YOUR FUCKING MIND UP! If anyone is "subhuman", it's not black people, gay people, Jews, women, or anyone like that. It's ASSHOLES LIKE YOU who judge people for things THEY HAVE NO CONTROL OVER! It's people like you who judge people for things THEY ARE BORN WITH! Do me a favor: Go to Auschwitz when nobody else is there, and see if the showers still work while you're in there alone.
And also, fuck off too. That would be good.
Bye!
👍: 1 ⏩: 0
You do realize that too much of a "good" thing often leads to a bad thing? Let's talk about bone marrow transplant for a second. If a multiracial person needs a bone marrow transplant, it would be EXTREMELY difficult to find a suitable donor for them. Why? Because at most 1-2% of the population have a similar genetic makeup to them. Even then, it would still be difficult for them to find a suitable donor due to how mixed they are.
Even TIME has wrote about this issue:
content.time.com/time/health/a…
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Please cite where you go this information.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/artic…
www.nber.org/papers/w14192
You can find more of this by doing a GOOGLE search next time.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
did you actually read your own sources? because they clearly say that their information isn't as consistent or definitive as they'd like it to be, that the health risks are pretty dang low even if there is a measurable difference, and than the majority of said health risks are related to stress or mental health rather than physical illness, which can very easily be attributed to the way kids are treated, not their genetics. that whole problem could be pretty easily addressed by simply not trying to tell children that you don't think they should be around.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"did you actually read your own sources? because they clearly say that their information isn't as consistent or definitive as they'd like it to be,"
You do realize it's only due to the information they've received, correct? "The findings of this study are subject to the limitations of respondent reporting and cell sizes. Adolescents did not always report their race."It's not gonna be completely accurate, but it doesn't change the overwhelming evidence that us mixed race individuals DO face problems like substance abuse, violent behavior, depression, etc.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16…
Like this study with monoracial and multiracial Latinos, it doesn't change that conclusion.
"that the health risks are pretty dang low even if there is a measurable difference,"
That sentence alone is contradictory, if there is a measurable difference on the health risks that multiracial individuals are predispose to compared to monoracial individuals, then said health risks aren't at "a low risk" for said multiracial individuals.
"and than the majority of said health risks are related to stress or mental health rather than physical illness, which can very easily be attributed to the way kids are treated, not their genetics."
I hope you do realize that stress and mental health can be genetic as well, right? While yes, their relationships with said peers can affect them, it also appears genetics do play a role in this as well.
"that whole problem could be pretty easily addressed by simply not trying to tell children that you don't think they should be around."
Yes, because that MAGICALLY solves everything.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
having an excuse for the information being incomplete or inaccurate doesn't suddenly mean their information isn't still, you know, incomplete and inaccurate.
"Adolescents who identify themselves as mixed race are at higher health and behavior risk than those of 1 race. Nevertheless, most mixed-race adolescents are at low risk."
this is taken directly from your link. like i said, having a measurable difference between two things does not mean that the overall number must be high. if you still think it's contradictory, it's because you've not read your own material well enough.
either way, you can't sit there and tell me that a group of people that you yourself are currently trying to talk down on must only ever have issues with mental health because of genetics and not because of the social behaviour that you're trying to defend. you'd have to be pretty naive to legitimately think those two things aren't connected in any way. and yes, treating them better will in fact help solve the problem. not because of magic, but because of common sense.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"having an excuse for the information being incomplete or inaccurate doesn't suddenly mean their information isn't still, you know, incomplete and inaccurate."
Oh I'm sorry, but did you hear WHY it's "inaccurate"? Many of these people DO NOT report their race for the study, you know, the WHOLE purpose of the study to begin with dealt with race. But despite it's "inaccuracy", it seemed to hold well with the Latino study as it came to the same conclusion, amongst others.
"this is taken directly from your link. like i said, having a measurable difference between two things does not mean that the overall number must be high."
"having a measurable between two things does not mean that the overall number must be high."
Holy shit lad, by your logic since sickle cell anemia is found to HIGH in Africans compared to Whites, that means the prevalence for sickle cell anemia in general for the Black population isn't as high as the study claims. Oh but wait, 80% of sickle cell anemia cases happen to be of Black descent, but of course there is no correlation to what the study claimed. Totally!
books.google.com/books?id=FEf4…
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21…
"either way, you can't sit there and tell me that a group of people that you yourself are currently trying to talk down on must only ever have issues with mental health because of genetics"
I didn't bloody say it was solely genetics, I said that peer pressure did had a role as well. Stop putting words into my goddamn mouth and reread what I said.
" and not because of the social behaviour that you're trying to defend."
Where the HELL did I say the shit I've faced along side many others of mixed descent as well was PERFECTLY okay and justifiable? Are you fucking serious? You got to be the most dense cunt I've ever came across. So me saying that genetics DOES have a factor alongside peer treatment means that bullying those of multiracial background is OKAY? You've come off as pretty illiterate.
"you'd have to be pretty naive to legitimately think those two things aren't connected in any way."
You got to be fucking stupid to think I was justifying bullying those of a mixed background just because I said genes played a role themselves as well.
"and yes, treating them better will in fact help solve the problem. not because of magic, but because of common sense."
Ah yes, telling those pure blooded Jews who called me a "half-breed"(amongst other terms) and ridiculed my family to treat me nicely, I'm sure that would fucking work. Oh wait, most of these ethnic groups are TRIBAL, they don't give a shit if they hurt a "half-breed", they RELY on ethnic purity. Are you that naïve on other ethnic groups besides your own? I can definitely tell you, pure Jews DO NOT care if they offended someone who has half, 1/4th, or 1/8th of their racial bloodline.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
k, it's still inaccurate and incomplete information
k, your own link still straight up said that the risk is low as an overall number
k, the problem here is still dependent on how people are treated by others and not the physical condition of their bodies
like for real tho how are you not getting the issue of relativity in the risk factor?? like let's say you take a group of a million people and see how many of them catch a flu or some shit. one white person and one black person get the flu. two mixed race individuals get the flu. you might be tempted to say "see???? twice as many mixed race peoples!!!" even though it's still only two people out of a million, or 0.0002% of people. the OVERALL risk is LOW. it's not that hard.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Well, I'm ready to believe you, why don't you link actual studies to support your claim?
I am curious.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
explain to me what part of that comment needs a study linked and why and i'll be glad to do so
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The part where one white and another black person person get flu,
while two race-mixed get flu get it supposedly disproving what it
would actually prove, and which states the 0.0002% statistic.
Because you can't just expect people to believe a pseudo demagogue
like yourself. If you claim something which is supposedly statistically
proven, you should expect people to put your claims in doubt.
Now, where are the studies for your claims?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
actually the study to prove my claim is very readily available on your computer already
it's called a calculator
because the point of that analogy is numbers and math
which i already explained like three times
how is this hard to understand
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
No, actually you avoid resorting to a real study
because that would contradict your demagogy.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
alternatively, the point is math and numbers and i could have just as well made an example about toothbrushes and badgers or some shit because the subject literally does not matter in the slightest
but let's step aside for a sec and examine the fact that you're literally trying to tell me what i'm trying to write as if you're some kind of psychic or something
is that really how hard you have to read just to find something to complain about here lmfao
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
No, you just can't back up your claims.
All the rest are just smoke and mirror tactics.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
"this article says the risk is low even with measurable differences"
"how can it be low if it's measurably different"
"here's an example of how different numbers can still be low relative to other numbers"
"UHHHH WHERE'S YOUR FLU STUDY U CANT BACK THAT UP"
would you care to explain what claim i haven't backed up or are you just gonna keep whining about how my very clearly made up example that i explicitly stated was made up for the purpose of explaining math is made up
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Math that has no basis in reality, that is.
Don't be buthurt. It's ridiculous.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
you are trying (and failing) real damn hard not to admit that you were wrong lolololol good job
unless you actually for some reason believe that 2+2 wouldn't be 4 if i described it with fictional characters or some shit, in which case you are a completely lost cause and i pity your parents
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Except taking your own random example with no basis in reality that
1 white + 1 black + 2 race-mixed individuals would get flue, actually
pushes forwards the reasoning that race-mixed individuals do indeed
get more flu. Apparently you don't understand that you checkmated
yourself. That's how good your argument was.
Believe me, I'm not the one trying anything here. You don't manage
to follow your own nonsense. Congratulations.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
do you not understand what an analogy is
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I understand your logic contradicts your point,
on top of not having any statistical basis in reality.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
you say the logic contradicts my point, but i'm not at all convinced you could even repeat my point back to me if i asked you what it was and how it has been contradicted
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I have to admit, I've rarely seen someone with such a level
of arrogant, bad-faithed buthurtness.
You don't have to make a fool out of yourself.
Do yourself a favor, just stop stooping lower into you
own obvious and senseless nonsense.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
apparently i am blind because i see nothing but you still trying to explain away the logistics of a made up word problem designed to do absolutely nothing but demonstrate how numbers work
feel free to actually repeat my point back to me at any time, if it's supposedly so easy to do then there's no reason you shouldn't
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
"k, it's still inaccurate and incomplete information"
"k, your own link still straight up said that the risk is low as an overall number"
Okay, fine. If it is, then are we certain the risk is actually low? What if it's low due to the inaccuracy of said study when people weren't being honest with their race? Would that somehow still greatly affect the multiracial responses to said study?
"k, the problem here is still dependent on how people are treated by others and not the physical condition of their bodies"
Okay, now you're dense for sure. That's not the only problem, clearly. Are we going to say that depression is solely caused by peer treatment by that logic?
"like for real tho how are you not getting the issue of relativity in the risk factor?? like let's say you take a group of a million people and see how many of them catch a flu or some shit. one white person and one black person get the flu. two mixed race individuals get the flu. you might be tempted to say "see???? twice as many mixed race peoples!!!" even though it's still only two people out of a million, or 0.0002% of people. the OVERALL risk is LOW. it's not that hard."
And here we have a fallacy, you're comparing a disease that ANYONE can get to a disease that only effects CERTAIN ethnicities. Damn, your analogy sure showed me. I do understand what a low risk is, JFC did you read what I said at all? Clearly you haven't to begin with since you outright claimed I am defending the social treatment that people of multiracial descent get.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"are we certain the risk is actually low?"
idk man you're the one who linked the article, if you can't even be sure of the legitimacy of the things you're presenting as proof of your argument then you're really only proving my point lmao
and the point of the analogy is not to compare diseases, it's to demonstrate the fact that having a measurable difference between two numbers does not automatically mean that either of those two numbers has to be high, good job on your reading comprehension
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"idk man you're the one who linked the article, if you can't even be sure of the legitimacy of the things you're presenting as proof of your argument then you're really only proving my point lmao"
Firstly, it was a hypothetical question. I am certain of my interpretation of the legitimacy of said study. I am using your LOGIC on the those two arguments you've made:
"The study is inaccurate and incomplete"
"but they also said the risks were low"
Okay, which if the studies are inaccurate and incomplete, then I can easily disregard your statement on it having a low risk. The study is inaccurate and incomplete, therefore whether the risk is high or low doesn't matter since it's inaccurate/incomplete. See how this works?
You have yet to address the Latino study by the way.
"and the point of the analogy is not to compare diseases, it's to demonstrate the fact that having a measurable difference between two numbers does not automatically mean that either of those two numbers has to be high"
No shit Sherlock, why I chose sickle cell anemia is because it's predisposed to certain ethnicities to start with, which by the way is what the study was similarly doing(alongside their social interaction). To see whether multiracial minorities are predisposed to higher complications as a result of their ethnic mixture. It's called an "independent" and "dependent" variable. Good job on your reading comprehension.
"good job on your reading comprehension"
This is some class A irony.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
<= Prev | | Next =>