Is race mixing good or bad?

blasians are hella ugly, but eurasians can be pretty cute

t. not biased hafu

T: evolutionary dead-end.

But what about Hispanics and whites?

It's spelled haafu or hāfu or ハーフ you dumb weeb

shut the fuck up mark

Hispanics are White, hence the "Non-Hispanic White" category.

Hispanic can mean anything from white Spaniard to full-blown indio.

But an interesting question would be, since native americans come from Asia, wouldn't this make mestizos essentially hapas/hafus/whatever?

>Is race mixing good or bad?

It doesn't matter either way.

...

Have you seen Colombians m8? Look asian af.

It's irrelevant

half black half white people typically end up being ugly
it could just be a poor mix of looks but whatever

generally pretty awful yeah

Sounds like projecting

>race
>good
>bad

In a very racialised society it's irresponsible and you are fucking the child over a little. I think it's basically neutral morally though.

Colombians are not even that indian. Peruvians or Bolivians would be better examples.

>still believing in either nature or nurture, not a combo
s m h t b h

Found this on Google images. Wo dat?

This is a Colombian qts thread now

Carla Ossa

...

Logically there's nothing bad

If you're insecure and worried about social status though, I personally think it would be better if you didn't produce...since you'll probably spread insecurity and fear to a youth

>Carla Ossa
Thanks Colombro

Depends on context.
In a western context, racemixing produces offspring born with a crisis of identity, which could be considered bad for that individual.

>good
>bad
Mom user is making up words again

what exactly is a "spook"?
i asked Veeky Forums once and they told me questions were spooks.

>questions were spooks.
Kek.

>i asked Veeky Forums once and they told me questions were spooks.

first post best post

What the fuck is this? Are we /pol/ now?

This. I believe some alleles work better when paired with specific similar alleles, which generally happens by second degree inbreeding, but at the same time a greater genetical diversity is safer in the long run and often offers advantages for living in both environments the parents are from.
If an actual biologist could confirm it'd be great.

Half-black women look fine as fuck. That's about as far as I know or care.

"no"
full black or bust

requests aren't facts you deafening idiot.

They were already here. Since the begining

White males spreading their seed and fertilizing shitskin women is good. Black men breeding with white women is bad. How hard is to understand that?

Ultimately irrelevant. Culture and how one perceives themselves in said culture have more of an influence.

A spook is essentially when an individual lets an abstract concept rule over them and deny them personal fulfillment.

They both create a mudskin offspring so how are they not the same shit?

One makes him feel good about himself, the other doesn't.

I never really understood the whole IQ and race thing.

Even if intelligence is measurable and i believed that there was a correlation between intelligence and race, why would i use race as a proxy when i can assess individual intelligence? In other words, if i wanted to avoid mixing intelligent people with stupid people and i could determine people's intelligence i could just gather intelligent people of every race and forbid them to reproduce with stupid people of any race, making racism completely pointless even for supremacists.

>facts

wew lad

ok so race philosophy is complicated but I think I can sum it up

when you're painting a picture, do you take all your paint and make nothing but brown or do you segregate your paints and mix selectively?

The principle has a kind of universal application. Good moderation is of extreme importance in most of it's modes.

This is a good analogy. If you mix every color of the palette you get the color of shit.
True diversity is when all the colors coexist side by side with just a marginal mixing on the borders for gradient effect.

>why would i use race as a proxy when i can assess individual intelligence?
Because statistically speaking there is a good chance the person whose intelligence you're assessing is close to his race's average.

> In other words, if i wanted to avoid mixing intelligent people with stupid people and i could determine people's intelligence i could just gather intelligent people of every race and forbid them to reproduce with stupid people of any race, making racism completely pointless even for supremacists.
You could do that in theory, but in practice it's impossible. Hence why race mixing should be discouraged.

This would work out fine if people were bred like dogs in a fucking laboratory, but in real life people breed randomly. Besides it's not just about IQ, but blacks also being statistically more prone to violence and crime, and being lazy and ugly as baboons.

>>/p o l l e a k

This is the fucking History & Humanities board.

>You could do that in theory, but in practice it's impossible. Hence why race mixing should be discouraged.

Or you could just let people breed with whoever they want.

Who cares if their kids have a slightly lower IQ?

>Or you could just let people breed with whoever they want.
So you're now advocating for the exact opposite of what you were advocating for in your previous post? You're not very good at this (assuming you're the same person of course)

>Who cares if their kids have a slightly lower IQ?
Because a society is the sum of its individuals. If you have a high IQ populace you can strive to build civilized complex societies like Japan. If you have a low IQ population you will always be rife with poverty, crime and undesirable behavior.

I care that their kids will have a slightly lower IQ, because I don't want my country to look like Brazil in 50 years.

Deal. If we also end welfare and affirmative action, that is.

>in practice it's impossible
I don't think so. I mean, nazis went to great extents analyzing the ancestry of everybody and questioning claimed heritages. Replacing that with a simple iq test would make it simpler, not more difficult, on top of affecting the variable you care about directly instead of using an indirect variable like race.

>in real life people breed randomly
Not under racist regimes.

>So you're now advocating for the exact opposite of what you were advocating for in your previous post? You're not very good at this (assuming you're the same person of course)
It's not me. And i wasn't/am not advocating for anything. I don't give a fuck about race, i was just trying to understand/questioning racist logic under their own assumptions.

>assuming you're the same person of course

I'm not.

>Because a society is the sum of its individuals. If you have a high IQ populace you can strive to build civilized complex societies like Japan. If you have a low IQ population you will always be rife with poverty, crime and undesirable behavior.

>I care that their kids will have a slightly lower IQ, because I don't want my country to look like Brazil in 50 years.

People don't enter interracial relationships that much anyway. There's no need to discourage it because it isn't even endemic.

Sure, why not?

>I don't think so. I mean, nazis...
The nazis were a totalitarian state. In a democracy you can't go around forcing people to reproduce. And anyways, doing so is evil and against human rights.

I mean look at the lengths of anti-racist hoops and logic. You'd go as far as instate forced breeding programs to avoid "not being racist". You know what's an easier thing to do? Control immigration.

>t's not me. And i wasn't/am not advocating for anything. I don't give a fuck about race, i was just trying to understand/questioning racist logic under their own assumptions.
Well I hope I cleared things up for you.

>People don't enter interracial relationships that much anyway. There's no need to discourage it because it isn't even endemic.
Literally the definition of "shifting the goalposts"...

I honestly don't even know what this conversation is I just entered the thread and responded to

Control immigration so that it's solely who? White people, regardless of their individual intelligence?

>RATIONAL WIKI RACISTS BACK AT IT
THERE IS NO NEED TO DISCOURAGE A PRACTICE THAT IS NOT A LARGE CONTRIBUTOR TO SOCIAL/SOCIETAL PROBLEMS - NO.

THE STAGNATION OF AVERAGE WAGES IS SOMETHING MUCH MORE IMPORTANT TO ADDRESS (QUALITY OF LIFE REDUCES CRIME LOOK AT THE CORRELATIONS).

Nice imaginary scenario and strawmanning, faggot. People weren't assigned a husband/wife by the government in Nazi Germany. Again, in real life people chose their mates at random and having low IQ people thrown around would lower the average IQ of the populations. You also haven't addressed the issue of black violence and crime. Having blacks in your society is a liability that no one wants to. It is not a coincidence that everyone from Arabs to Chinese to blacks themselves detest and don't want to live near blacks.

Yes, for instance. Whites and north east asians, as they both have average IQs above 100.

Easier than creating artificial babies in laboratories. More humane too. But sure it's "RAAAACIST" so I guess you'd rather create forced interracial breeding grounds where people are sent to gas chambers if they have low IQ and forced to copulate if they have a high enough IQ. A tolerant rainbow society free of hate.

>Control immigration so that it's solely who?
only of needed specialists and refugees with marketable skills

You could just give immigrants IQ tests I think that'd be pretty simple and straightforward.

>THERE IS NO NEED TO DISCOURAGE A PRACTICE THAT IS NOT A LARGE CONTRIBUTOR TO SOCIAL/SOCIETAL PROBLEMS - NO.
Look at mixed race people in Brazil.

>THE STAGNATION OF AVERAGE WAGES IS SOMETHING MUCH MORE IMPORTANT TO ADDRESS (QUALITY OF LIFE REDUCES CRIME LOOK AT THE CORRELATIONS).
The stagnation of wages is entirely due to low skilled migration from the Hispanic world. If you're concerned with that vote Trump I guess.

>Look at mixed race people in Brazil.

But that's irrelevant. The fact of the matter is interracial relationships are rare.

That would be a bureaucratic nightmare. You could just look at the immigrant and let him go through if he's white. Easier and quicker.

Why does it so offend your sensibilities?

>But that's irrelevant.
How is it irrelevant?

>The fact of the matter is interracial relationships are rare.
Mixed race people make up more than 50% of Brazil's population!

Implying white people need to give you a reason to not want to live around non-whites.

Liberals don't go around questioning why China or some tribe in a pacific island is not diverse enough. It's only just whites. White countries for everyone. Diversity really just means anti-white.

Fuck you, I don't need to give you any reason to preserve my own race.

>i was just trying to understand/questioning

Understand this: if you're black, go back.

You are missing the point user. Race mixing control is irrational and strictly inferior to what i mentioned. I don't want to instate anything, i don't give a fuck. Your proposal is more nationalistic than racist, at least from this post.

>People weren't assigned a husband/wife by the government in Nazi Germany
They were told what race of people they could and couldn't chose from, which is as obtrusive as telling them the required intelligence of their couple.

>You also haven't addressed the issue of black violence and crime
I was assuming that the objective was to maximize intelligence. But it's irrelevant, since the same argument can be made for any characteristic.

Fucking hell, my post got deleted and i had to write everything twice.

Edgy. You're free to be irrational, user.

>You are missing the point user
I admit that I don't see a point in any of your posts.

>Race mixing control is irrational and strictly inferior to what i mentioned
No it's not, because it doesn't force people into breeding programs you stupid fuck. It's """inferior""" insofar as it's "RAAAAAACIST". But it's better to control immigration/race mixing in a logistical and, frankly, in a humanitarian sense, rather than create babies in laboratories and gas low IQ people.

> I don't want to instate anything, i don't give a fuck
You give a fuck in the sense that you're very adamantly pro-mongrelization. You'd go as far as force people to breed to advance mongrelization.

>Your proposal is more nationalistic than racist, at least from this post.
No, I'm more concerned with race.

Now a little thought experiment : since you're concerned about "maximizing intelligence", why not simply genocide the low IQ races? Since we're considering nazi-style schemes as viable.

If there were no non-whites around you'd just start hating each other for being the wrong kind of white people.

In a homogeneous society you don't need to (and never did) tell anyone which race they could or couldn't chose from. It's hilarious how you try to overcomplicate this to make your point. "Guyz it'd be much easier if the government tested the IQ of every single citizen and managed every marriage based on the IQ of the couple. Surely much easier than just not allowing low IQ negroes into the country." Fuck off, shill.

Such an extraordinary statement requires extraordinary evidence.

You have to go back.

this

I honestly don't understand his determination to mix with niggers.

>No it's not, because it doesn't force people into breeding programs you stupid fuck. It's """inferior""" insofar as it's "RAAAAAACIST". But it's better to control immigration/race mixing in a logistical and, frankly, in a humanitarian sense, rather than create babies in laboratories and gas low IQ people.
Again, you are missing the point. I wasn't asking why racists closed borders instead of doing breed programs, i was asking why they wanted to some some breed programs using indirect variables instead of others using direct. If that's not your case, you are getting triggered for no reason.

>You give a fuck in the sense that you're very adamantly pro-mongrelization. You'd go as far as force people to breed to advance mongrelization.
You're not very bright, user. For the fifth time, i don't want forced breeding.

>since you're concerned about "maximizing intelligence"
I'm not, personally.

>why not simply genocide the low IQ races?
Because, assuming that there is a correlation, both the low and the high IQ races have both low and high intelligence people. And since the intelligence approach is not harder than the race approach, you might as well keep all the smart people.

>In a homogeneous society you don't need to (and never did) tell anyone which race they could or couldn't chose from
>implying nazis didn't have racial marriage laws and didn't background check everyone
I'm not complicating anything, it's history.

> i was asking why they wanted to some some breed programs using indirect variables instead of others using direct.
Nobody advocated for breeding programs, I think you're suffering from hallucinations.

>You're not very bright, user. For the fifth time, i don't want forced breeding.
You've been advocating for it in every single one of your previous posts. Or playing the devil's advocate, which counts as advocating all the same.

>Because, assuming that there is a correlation, both the low and the high IQ races have both low and high intelligence people
Again with the advocating.

> And since the intelligence approach is not harder than the race approach, you might as well keep all the smart people.
How the fuck is it not harder to measure the IQ of every citizen and create babies in laboratories, as opposed to simply not letting niggers into your country?

Please explain to me. Do you honestly believe that a totalitarian breeding program is NOT harder to put into place than a race-based immigration policy?

How fucking moronic are you?

History.

See every European immigrant group in the US and the countless ethnic conflicts in Europe.

I don't even know what this is supposed to mean.

>History.
All right, let's look at history.

>See every European immigrant group in the US
Because they were from different cultures you moron obviously there would be some initial friction.

>and the countless ethnic conflicts in Europe.
Which, if you were not a fucking moron, would've noticed were BETWEEN nationalities, not WITHIN them.

Please point to me when there was an ethnic-based conflict in, say randomly, Iceland.

Look, shill. You have got your (you)s and you have got your response. If you can't understand it then you're either dense or a troll. Either way, fuck off.

>Because they were from different cultures you moron obviously there would be some initial friction.

Right, that's what I said, the wrong kind of white people.

>Which, if you were not a fucking moron, would've noticed were BETWEEN nationalities, not WITHIN them.

Yes, that's what I said, between different kinds of white people. I don't understand what I said wrong.

>Nobody advocated for breeding programs, I think you're suffering from hallucinations.
Plenty of people advocate for nazi style policies against race mixing, especially a big part of our guests from /pol/. I was just asking for the logic behind this. If it's not your case, you got triggered for no reason, as i already said.

>You've been advocating for it in every single one of your previous posts. Or playing the devil's advocate, which counts as advocating all the same.
I'm saying something more like "I don't want X, but if you wanted to do X, you might as well do Y".

>How the fuck is it not harder to measure the IQ of every citizen and create babies in laboratories, as opposed to simply not letting niggers into your country? (...)
Jesus christ you are thick user. Since i'm getting tired of repeating myself and you seem to have some reading comprehension problems, i'll just start quoting myself to answer:
"I wasn't asking why racists closed borders instead of doing breed programs, i was asking why they wanted to some some breed programs using indirect variables instead of others using direct. If that's not your case, you are getting triggered for no reason."

Nice argument.

>Right, that's what I said, the wrong kind of white people.
No, you stupid fucking moronic piece of shit, they assimilated over time

It's like nigger tribes in Africa, they fight each other all the time, despite all being niggers.

>Yes, that's what I said, between different kinds of white people. I don't understand what I said wrong.
What you said wrong was that "If there were no non-whites around you'd just start hating each other for being the wrong kind of white people."

which is objectively untrue.

If that were true, Iceland woudl've fractionned into different warring white groups, mmmh? Care to explain why that hasn't happened?

>Plenty of people advocate for nazi style policies against race mixing,
"Plenty of people" in your imagination chokfull of /pol/ boogeymen perhaps. Please refrain from projecting your hallucinations when you engage in a debate.

>I'm saying something more like "I don't want X, but if you wanted to do X, you might as well do Y".
And for at least 10 FUCKING TIMES I have told you why your Y is both logistically infeasible and amoral. Your skull seems impervious to reason.

> i was asking why they wanted to some some breed programs using indirect variables instead of others using direct
And I already answered you a bajillion time. But since you're quite clearly a low IQ person yourself, I'll recap ONE LAST TIME :

Now WHY would your shitty nazi scheme not work:

-delivering IQ tests to every citizen would be a bureaucratic nightmare, rife with corruption and cheating, not to mention how expensive it would be
-forcing people to breed is AMORAL and against HUMAN RIGHTS.

Now consider the alternative, which your stupid low IQ brain misjudges as "less efficient" :

-not let niggers in

That's it. No vast totalitarian breeding programs. No mandatory IQ tests. Just control of who gets in, and the simplest kind of control too since it just involves LOOKING at the person.

>If that were true, Iceland woudl've fractionned into different warring white groups

I never said anything about anyone fracturing into various groups.

This

>"If there were no non-whites around you'd just start hating each other for being the wrong kind of white people.

Assumes the existence of several different groups, which would be the case in a nation that allows in immigrants (even if it's just white immigrants).

Yes.

>"Plenty of people" in your imagination chokfull of /pol/ boogeymen perhaps. Please refrain from projecting your hallucinations when you engage in a debate.
It's irrelevant if it's plenty or just one, unless you are claiming they don't exist. I'm curious as to why you are so butthurt in a discussion that shouldn't concern you though.

>And for at least 10 FUCKING TIMES I have told you why your Y is both logistically infeasible and amoral. Your skull seems impervious to reason.
Not less feasible or more amoral than what the nazis did (and some people support).

And now the repeated arguments start, so i'll just quote myself for the rest of the post:
>-delivering IQ tests to every citizen would be a bureaucratic nightmare, rife with corruption and cheating, not to mention how expensive it would be
"nazis went to great extents analyzing the ancestry of everybody and questioning claimed heritages. Replacing that with a simple iq test would make it simpler, not more difficult"

>-forcing people to breed is AMORAL and against HUMAN RIGHTS.
"Not more amoral than what the nazis did "

>Now consider the alternative
"I wasn't asking why racists closed borders instead of doing breed programs"

Cause the white dads are less likely to go AWOL, meaning less single mothers, meaning less troublesome children

>the nazis did it so it's okay!
This is the depth of your argument. I hope you realize that.

I think it's pretty funny that by playing the devil's advocate in your defense of race-mixing you have to resort to nazi-like programs. Really shows how illogical the anti-racist argument is.