MovieChat Forums > Politics > So what exactly are white people superio...

So what exactly are white people superior at?

posted 3 years ago by Rorikon (16393)
68 replies | jump to latest

https://youtu.be/BYZ2XoaBO2A

Look at this gem from the CUT. That and the like/dislike ratio, KEK!

"replace the word "white" with "black" and watch how suddenly the world is outraged and calls it racist,Watch how only then does society shut it down and dox the people.

You cannot have a healthy society with this allowed.The worst part is the rich elites movies stars and athletes wont condem racism if its a certain race.This is evil this is racism at its finest.

The reason we are seeing this is too divide the nation so they can do the globalist takeover.They want you to hate america and your neighbors so you willingly destroy it from the inside.Dont fall for evil."

reply

[–] ultravioletx (10216) 3 years ago

It's fine to generalize things such as infrastructure and education favoring white communities, but to say the white race is superior at all those negative things just isn't the truth. It's not skin color itself that is responsible. It's who has the number advantage. Whichever race has more numbers is going to have at least a slight advantage over a race with less numbers. It's a basic aspect of humanity that both sides need to understand is very real and has nothing to do with racial genetics.

At the end though, near the 4:33 mark, they finally got to the right answer.

reply

[–] B1cKsurN (14776) 3 years ago

White is not a race.

reply

[–] djangounlamed (1769) 3 years ago

yes we get it. you dont know wtf the are talking about. do you come on here to get embarrassed?

reply

[–] Kowalski (58123) 3 years ago

WHITE ISNT A RACE...DUDE IS RIGHT...MAKING YOU THE EMBARRASSED ONE.

reply

[–] djangounlamed (1769) 3 years ago

and yet we still measure"white". society still uses it and so do political scientists and various other academics. it doesnt change the fact we can use this as a variable to measure various things. just as you could say nor is "black or asian". yet we can still measure people who are black and see various statistics such as average income, education, family size ect and how they compare to other groups

I know simple things are hard for you since you are special :) but you will get it one day

reply

[–] Kowalski (58123) 3 years ago

THATS INCORRECT...AS WHITE SKINNED PEOPLE COME FROM ALMOST EVERY CONTINENT...AUSTRALIAN,AMERICAN,BRITISH,SCOTTISH,IRISH,RUSSIAN,SOUTH AFRICAN,ETC ETC...NOT THE SAME PEOPLE OR RACE....WHITE IS A COLOR,SCRATCH THAT,IT ISNT EVEN A COLOR...ITS THE ABSENCE OF COLOR...BTW YOURE RIGHT...BLACK AND ASIAN ARENT RACES EITHER....SEE YOURE LEARNING.

reply

[–] djangounlamed (1769) 3 years ago

"ITS THE ABSENCE OF COLOR...BTW YOURE RIGHT...BLACK AND ASIAN ARENT RACES EITHER....SEE YOURE LEARNING."

im not learning anything if I said it myself first spazo... honestly how slow are you? were you dropped or born this way?

"HATS INCORRECT...AS WHITE SKINNED PEOPLE COME FROM ALMOST EVERY CONTINENT...AUSTRALIAN,AMERICAN,BRITISH,SCOTTISH,IRISH,RUSSIAN,SOUTH AFRICAN,ETC ETC...NOT THE SAME PEOPLE OR RACE....WHITE IS A COLOR,SCRATCH THAT,IT ISNT EVEN A COLOR...ITS THE ABSENCE OF COLOR"

and who gives a fuck? its still sued to measure various things google. "crimes by race", "income by race", "education levels by race"

please im tired of embarrassing you spaz. nothing is aid is :incorrect' in fact it was perfectly correct. "race statistics" are still very much used to compare demographics.. spazo confirmed

reply

[–] Kowalski (58123) 3 years ago

DID YOU PROOF READ THAT COMMENT?...HONESTLY I CANT UNDERSTAND HALF OF THAT PISSY RANT.

WHITE ISNT A RACE.🙂

reply

[–] djangounlamed (1769) 3 years ago

honestly how stupid are you?

"and who gives a fuck? its still used to measure various things. how about you google "crimes by race", "income by race", "education levels by race" and tell me those dont exist?

please im tired of embarrassing you spaz. nothing is said is incorrect. in fact it was perfectly correct. "race statistics" are still very much used to compare demographics.. spazo confirmed"

reply

[–] Kowalski (58123) 3 years ago

YOU KEEP TELLING YOURSELF THAT...ITS GOOD FOR YOUR SELF ESTEEM.

reply

[–] djangounlamed (1769) 3 years ago

keep telling myself that I can google these things and they are real....

yes I will keep living in reality tard. go fart in the tub and laugh your ass off whatever spaces like you do for giggles

reply

[–] Kowalski (58123) 3 years ago

LOL...RIGHT OVER YOUR HEAD.🙂

reply

[–] djangounlamed (1769) 3 years ago

you keep not addressing the topic. good job tard :) this is your modus operandi

reply

[–] Kowalski (58123) 3 years ago

IMPOTANT ANGER AND INSULTS...YOURE A REAL PEACH YOURSELF.

reply

[–] djangounlamed (1769) 3 years ago

im sorry you are stupid and deserve no respect. two different topics you re being exposed as a full tard on. you make it so easy but I feel bad you might actually be special needs

reply

[–] ultravioletx (10216) 3 years ago

It's funny watching what they'll come up with to gripe about when they have nothing important to say.

reply

[–] djangounlamed (1769) 3 years ago

the guys seriously going to argue laypeople as well as academics dont use a simplified umbrella categorization like "white" when looking at racial groups.

by his logic we can no longer analyze white vs black vs asian average income. no we now have to analyze Americans based on their ancestors such as American "germanic caucasian, British caucasian, French caucasian".

ohh and dont forget no ones ancestors came form a same place, most people have a mix. so now we have to divide each person into what percent of each caucasian ancestry they are from"

He is so dumb it hurts my head

reply

[–] djangounlamed (1769) 3 years ago

https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2018/07/12/income-inequality-in-the-u-s-is-rising-most-rapidly-among-asians/

look at that! the totally unrepeatable PEW research, talking about race, black, white, asians ect

derp derp

https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/visualizations/2018/demo/p60-263/figure1.pdf

derp derp

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/07/12/key-findings-on-the-rise-in-income-inequality-within-americas-racial-and-ethnic-groups/

you are so dumb it hurts

reply

[–] Kowalski (58123) 3 years ago

5 SECONDS INTO LINK NUMBER ONE....

"America’s major racial and ethnic groups."

NOT RACES...RACIAL GROUPINGS WHICH INCLUDE MANY SIMILAR RACES.FOR THE PURPOSE OF STATS AND RESEARCH....WHITE ISNT A RACE.

reply

[–] djangounlamed (1769) 3 years ago

you do realize what the word racial means.......................

you are so dumb it hurts man.. seriously..

yes no one said "thee is one white race". what we said and people doing this do the same, is lump them together for ease and give them the title "white" or "black"

this is so easy for any normally functioning person to get. but you re sooooo dumb you cant grasp it :)

reply

[–] Kowalski (58123) 3 years ago

IM SMART ENOUGH TO KNOW RACE AND RACIAL ARE TWO DIFFERENT WORDS,THAT MEAN TWO DIFFERENT THINGS....OH AND I DIDNT IGNORE THE WORD "GROUP" LIKE YOU DID EITHER.🙂

reply

[–] djangounlamed (1769) 3 years ago

please please please go into a "quantitative research methods in Political sci"

and yell "white isnt a race and white isnt a color". and everyone will look at you like the tard you are.

reply

[–] Kowalski (58123) 3 years ago

WHITE IS THE ABSENCE OF COLOR...100% NOT A COLOR...SCIENCE AND ALL...IT ALSO ISNT A RACE.

reply

[–] djangounlamed (1769) 3 years ago

i'm embarrassed for you. so I guess Pew research, other private groups, and governments statisticians never sued the simplified "white" or "black race"

honestly how stupid are you to deny reality

reply

[–] Kowalski (58123) 3 years ago

never sued the simplified "white" or "black race"

I DONT KNOW ABOUT ANY LAWSUITS.🤔

reply

[–] djangounlamed (1769) 3 years ago

honestly how dumb are you? yes a single letter change would be too hard for your brain to do by itself :) tardo. obvious troll is now obvious. im done here. go get your attention elsewhere shit diapers

reply

[–] Kowalski (58123) 3 years ago

IVE BEEN POLITE THIS ENTIRE EXCHANGE...YOU ACT LIKE AN ANGRY CHILD...YOU WILL NEED TO GROW UP SOONER OR LATER.FOR YOUR OWN GOOD.

reply

[–] djangounlamed (1769) 3 years ago

get your attention elsewhere tard troll :)

"OMG GROP U!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!? what's GROP UP!!?!?!?! omg!"

see how retarded you sound?

reply

[–] Kowalski (58123) 3 years ago

I CORRECTED MY TYPO...THANK YOU FOR BRINGING IT TO MY ATTENTION.

reply

[–] wheelin176 (2026) 3 years ago

Caucasian race

reply

[–] B1cKsurN (14776) 3 years ago

White people are not a race. This is a fact.

reply

[–] legnadibrom (5711) 3 years ago

but the Daytona 500 is, fact

reply

[–] Rorikon (16393) 3 years ago

My reply to this question is I am of the Human Race (i do not consider that there is more than one race within humanity) Ethnicity has two answers the DNA which is of course not subject to change and the "Ethnic" group in which I was raised and/or am habituated to. There is no reason to continue to see it as any more complicated than that.

Other than that, according to NatGeo:
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/culture/topics/reference/race-ethnicity/

reply

[–] Rorikon (16393) 3 years ago

Hmm, not really. Look at South Africa and the white farmers which have I think a lot of the land in their grasp still.

It is estimated that white South Africans – who make up approximately nine percent of the country’s population – own more than 70 percent of the commercial agricultural land.

reply

[–] ultravioletx (10216) 3 years ago

Post-apartheid South Africa is all over the place. Not sure why you'd compare it to the US.

reply

[–] Rorikon (16393) 3 years ago

Was basing it off the comment you made of "It's who has the number advantage. Whichever race has more numbers is going to have at least a slight advantage over a race with less numbers."

reply

[–] ultravioletx (10216) 3 years ago

South Africa was a white country for a long time.

Also, ownership of land and property isn't what I was referring to as number advantage goes.

reply

[–] Redsfan001 (6004) 3 years ago

Herman Cortes leader of the Spanish Conquistadors and Willam Bradford leader of the Puritan's would strongly disagree with your statement that #'s are everything.

Culture counts.

reply

[–] ultravioletx (10216) 3 years ago

If one race has a majority which they use to fill the higher-up positions, how does a minority race fill those higher-up positions at the same rate?

Comparing that with something involving battle strategies and weaponry sounds kinda silly, doesn't it?

This isn't Sparta where 300 soldiers can use the phalanx to defeat 10,000 in a choke point.

reply

[–] Redsfan001 (6004) 3 years ago

Culture counts.

Historians are amazed at how a small band of men can conquer a city state as large as Aztec. They were outnumbered 10,000 to one. The conclusion that master historians came up with is that the Aztecs didn't have books, their culture was unaware of the trickery of leaders past, unable to learn from it beacuse this knowledge was unable to pass from generation to generation.Cortez and the Spanish Conquistadors knew history, and were well versed in deception, they assessed correctly that the Aztec culture and their leader Montozuma, were deficient in this knowledge.

Culture counts.

The American Indians, for all of their bravery, never invented the wheel and didn't have books. The Indians also didn't have a man in their history named Francis Bacon. This man is one of the major reasons the European culture moved from a religious mindset to scientific, where reason overtook superstition. With this change, the culture learned of power of cause and effect, and more importantly, that man can control his destiny.

Example

In "The Voyage of the Beagle" Charles Darwin noted that the natives of South America had the same carved out wood log "boats" they used for thousands of years. When a storm or rogue wave came and sometimes killed it's occupant's, the natives believed that it was the gods will. No effort was made to improve the boat because the scientific mindset of cause and effect wasn't instilled in them.

reply

[–] Rorikon (16393) 3 years ago

We're regressing back from science to religious mindset now, well, some of us anyway.

reply

[–] Redsfan001 (6004) 3 years ago

The word regressing might be a bit harsh.

Spirituality seems to be part of human nature.

I understand where you are coming from though.

reply

[–] ultravioletx (10216) 3 years ago

American natives are the most adventurous people this planet has produced. While white people stayed put in Europe, more adventurous people crossed the Alaskan landbridge into the Americas. About 15,000-20,000 years ago that landbridge melted, cutting natives off, leaving their population very low compared to the amount of American land they had to cover, which they did top to bottom, just in sparse areas.

So while American natives are exploring land, Europeans are building a society. But for the most part, Europeans didn't see much advancement until about 3,000 years ago. And they didn't do much major exploring until less than 2,000 years ago. Yet Europeans had over 10,000 years of society building and more numbers to build those societies.

When European settlers arrived in America, it was practically empty. The natives did not have the time to reproduce enough to populate the land and build massive societies. Europe did, because it was a continent inhabited by humans many thousands of years earlier.

But none of that compares to a majority race having a numbers advantage to a minority race when both races are established within the built society like here in the US in 2020. The Jewish Holocaust kinda does though. The Armenian Genocide kinda does though. Those didn't turn out well for the minority race. They were swamped not only by a numbers advantage military-wise, but politically as well. And it's the politics that got the ball rolling.

reply

[–] Redsfan001 (6004) 3 years ago

Excellent post.

While I do highly admire parts of American Indian culture, they were also a somwhat stagnate one,living the same way for thousands of years. They USED Western inventions well, but never improved or quite comprehended them in the same way those that invented them.

I was trying to answer the OP's question on why Western culture has dominated history and conquered other cultures in far off lands for the past 500 years.

No answer will ever be complete. But the invention of the printing press/books which gave people access to knowledge of past lives, ideas etc. , along with a scientific mindset (the idea that man can control nature, power of observation cause and effect), were two very large advantages that they had over other cultures.

There is a excellent example of this power in the movie The Mission (1986), where the Jesuit priest was writing in a diary and a native asked why and how it worked. Gabriel (Jeremy Irons) asked the native to tell him something personal, something that nobody else knew about him. The native told Gabriel, who it wrote down and gave the book to his apprentice who wasn't nearby. The apprentice read the personal information, the look on the native was astonishment.

(I looked but this interesting scene is not on YouTube)

reply

[–] ultravioletx (10216) 3 years ago

"While I do highly admire parts of American Indian culture, they were also a somwhat stagnate one,living the same way for thousands of years."

We left Africa between 50,000 and 70,000 years ago. All data points to something along the lines of 40,000 years ago for human settlements in Europe and 15,000 years ago or less for human settlements in the Americas.

It doesn't seem fair to say American natives stagnated when Europe had a 25,000 year head start.

Your movie example reminds me of every time I help my grandmother use certain apps on her mobile phone.

reply

[–] Redsfan001 (6004) 3 years ago

There was a best selling book I read years ago by Jared Diamond that tried to answer the OP's question called "Guns, Germs and Steel".Diamond is a scientist by trade and encroched on historians
territory writing it. In this book Diamond argues that type of land, the # of available animals that could be domesticated and germ/virus immunity from living in large cities were THE key factors as to why Western Civilization were prosperous over others.

Historians around the world went ape shit.

reply

[–] christomacin (4529) 3 years ago

Is it possible that this is why the wheel was never invented in the Western Hemisphere - because there were no pack animals suitable for pulling wheeled carts and vehicles?

reply

[–] Redsfan001 (6004) 3 years ago

It is a interesting book, although I read it years ago it was unique because of a different completelscientific cause and effect approach to the question. Historians were highly critical of Diamond who didn't take into account the power of culture had on society. They also pointed out that the book focused mainly on Africa, and ignored the Aztecs and parts of Asia.

Still a good book I recommend.

reply

[–] ultravioletx (10216) 3 years ago

I agree with the land/climate for sure. Both Europe and North America have a similar variance of climate perfect for the average human.

There are similar climates on the opposite side of the equator like in Brazil and Africa, but they are covered in rainforest. Something about the northern hemisphere gives us the most comfortable temperatures without all that extreme forest baggage.

But I have to reiterate that ancient native cultures of North America just didn't have the population to get major societies growing. And because of that low population, we saw how quickly the natives became outnumbered the instant Europeans began traveling to the new world.

reply

[–] Redsfan001 (6004) 3 years ago

I am going to give my rebuttal to the ghost of George Armstrong Custer...

Ghost of Custer- "WTF are you talking about?? I'm dead!"

reply

[–] kukuxu (5409) 3 years ago

White people (particularly Ancient Greece and Rome and post-Renaissance north European one) has created:
- 99% Science
- 99% Technology
- 99% Great art (music, paintings, literature)

That sounds like a good reason.

reply

[–] djangounlamed (1769) 3 years ago

Ever notice how wealth, stablility, a strong centralized leadership and disposable income allows countries to excel in all these areas?

its not a "white thing". its a what happens when a country has these things. its why Ancient Rome was enjoying plumbing and amazing technology while white brits were living in the Stone Age.

I always tell you you need a few more L's in your name so people can see that Hood you were loud and proud

reply

[–] kukuxu (5409) 3 years ago

Ever notice how wealth, stablility, a strong centralized leadership and disposable income allows countries to excel in all these areas?

You're not "noticing" it, you're imagining it. Ancient Greece never had a strong centralized leadership, and most technological development in Ancient Rome happened during the Republic, which was anything but a strong centralized leadership. During the Imperial age in Rome, which was the strong centralized leadership, technology and development stagnated.

I always tell you you need a few more L's in your name so people can see that Hood you were loud and proud

My name is the basque word for 'flea'. If you see nazis and KKK in everything, that says something about you, not about me.

reply

[–] djangounlamed (1769) 3 years ago

"Ancient Greece never had a strong centralized leadership, "

and Greece never reached the heights of ROME. while Persia in terms of empire size and conquest did. thanks for the proving my point.

the greeks were also organized into centralized CITY STATES.

"most technological development in Ancient Rome happened during the Republic, which was anything but a strong centralized leadership. "

wtf are you talking about? because ti was a senate it wasn't centralized? honestly you have no clue wtf you are talking about.

"During the Imperial age in Rome, which was the strong centralized leadership, technology and development stagnated. " and the empire declined. at times it expanded then it started to detract, split in two, was constantly attacked, was sacked.

again you are proving ym point.

"y name is the basque word for 'flea'. If you see nazis and KKK in everything, that says something about you, not about me."

I call a spade a spade. Your race genetics theories may be accepted by crazy racists but everyone else will call you out

reply

[–] kukuxu (5409) 3 years ago

Greece never reached the heights of ROME [...] (Rome) because ti was a senate it wasn't centralized?

Your thesis was that "the key point for development and wealth was a centralized and strong leadership". So, according to your thesis, the greatest civilizations should have been specially centralized and should have had a particularly strong leadership.

Greece and Rome were the two greatest civilization in the antiquity. Greece city states system could barely be considered centralized in comparison with ancient Empires. Rome during the Republic (when developments happened) was centralized but it didn't have a strong leadership.

Anyway.

Greece never reached the heights of ROME. while Persia in terms of empire size and conquest did

Persia barely brought any development in Technology, Science, Philosophy, Maths, Arts or Law, as Greece or Rome during the Republic did.

It was a big Empire that won battles and conquered other places. I'm not trying to downsize them, but basically that was it. You had a few ones like that in ancient times.

reply

[–] djangounlamed (1769) 3 years ago

"Your thesis was that "the key point for development and wealth was a centralized and strong leadership". So, according to your thesis, the greatest civilizations should have been specially centralized and should have had a particularly strong leadership."

NO YOU IDIOT. its not an either or, dichotomous situation where you either have a strong centralized leadership and have lots of development or you dont have that leadership and have none. its a variable that helps. you keep making shit up in your head that has no bearing on reality. you want to see things (like your original premise) in simplistic black and white terms. by your logic a king means more development than a senate. why? my point was a centralized, at the time "modern" metropolitan system with the best "current" education would lead to this.

why is it that most of the major developments didn't happen in all the backwater "white" villages? oh right most happened in the stable large empires, city states and centres of power.

"Persia barely brought any development in Technology, Science, Philosophy, Maths, Arts or Law, as Greece or Rome during the Republic did."

yes Rome was exceptional in many ways. if you attribute this to "whiteness" you might be retarded. sorry not
"might", you are

"It was a big Empire that won battles and conquered other places. I'm not trying to downsize them, but basically that was it. You had a few ones like that in ancient times."

um cool story and? my argument is development is not only multifaceted but complicated and not linear. you can have similar large states/countries/ city states/ empires with similar metrics yet some develop more than others.

the worlds complicated. sad racists like you want simple answer to complex reality.

reply

[–] djangounlamed (1769) 3 years ago

To add to this is pretty clear that Europe was extremely special. Not only were they constantly at war (which increases innovation), the high population, trade between them, diverse geography and climate, technological exchanges and arguably the diversity of soo many diverse cultures in such a small area all worked together to create a special area for massive innovation and growth. whether it was Greece, the Roman Empire or the dark age/ post dark age Europe and its rise to power (pre the US empire)

reply

[–] Rorikon (16393) 3 years ago

https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofEngland/The-Romans-in-England/

Yeah, Brits were still tribes back then. Took them awhile to advance or modernize themselves but did so eventually to form the British Empire later on. Through conquest comes know how and learning from their conqueror's.

As for the other post:
https://slate.com/technology/2016/07/why-white-supremacists-who-defend-racism-by-tallying-numbers-of-white-inventions-make-no-sense.html

Interesting read to say the least.

reply

[–] djangounlamed (1769) 3 years ago

yaa but ROrikon that makes sense..... it must have to do with "white superiority" instead. cause hes def not racists...

reply

[–] ItsGood2BeRight (3879) 3 years ago

Too bad you stole this topic from that youtube video but you probably saw Louder with Crowder.

https://youtu.be/BYZ2XoaBO2A

https://youtu.be/lkD7aPrYwPU

reply

[–] CarterBlunt (1030) 3 years ago

No one said technology. Seems like a blatantly obvious advantage, but ok.

reply

[–] elcamino (15540) 3 years ago

I really can't even think what a spike lee star wars movie would be like.

reply

[–] WuchakTheBitch (100) 3 years ago

Read Guns germs and steel. The only reason Europeans conquered most of the world was because of the blind luck of being born in a geographically advantageous part of the earth. Also the distance from the equator coincidentally means they have differing amounts of melatonin. The idea that “white is right” is just a narrative they manufactured after the fact.

reply

[–] Kowalski (58123) 3 years ago

SUN TANS.

reply

[–] ODB82 (2055) 3 years ago

I, for one, am fantastic at having visceral hatred for those who haven’t been blessed with beautiful pale skin.

reply

1
2