TheBWCKing
Platinum
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2026
- Posts
- 1,223
- Reputation
- 4,085
If we look in any serious dictionary for the term “race,” it defines it like this:
“In biology, race refers to the groups into which some species are subdivided on the basis of phenotypic traits, based on a set of characteristics that are transmitted through genetic inheritance.”
I would like to point out: phenotypic traits. “Phenotypic” means formal characteristics that appear in the individual’s physical appearance and constitution, and based on these characteristics it is possible to form different groups within beings of the same species.
Now then: according to the definition of what a “race” is, it is obvious that races exist. Put a group of Nordics next to a group of Zulus, and the difference within the same species is more than obvious. And if two Zulus have a child, another one that looks like a Zulu is born, not a Nordic; and if two Nordics have a child, another Nordic-looking person is born, not a Zulu. So these traits are also hereditary.
You don’t even need to go that far: put a group of people of any European origin, even if they’re not extremely northern, next to a group taken from any Central African origin. I don’t know if you see the difference, but I do: this is what is called “race” according to its definition. What else would we call this characteristic that allows us to differentiate people into physical groups, if we needed to name it?
So all you need is eyes to realize that human races do exist, just like there are races of cows, sheep, dogs, cats, or any other species in the animal kingdom. It’s obvious that Chihuahuas resemble other Chihuahuas just as Saint Bernards resemble other Saint Bernards, and that you can group Saint Bernards, German shepherds, Chihuahuas, cockers, and all the dog breeds you want. Yet they all belong to the same genus and species: Canis familiaris.
Therefore, trying to convince us that human races do not exist when it is clearly visible that you can group humans by obviously similar phenotypic traits is basically treating people like idiots.
A lot of normies say “If we were talking about ‘races,’ there is only one ‘race’: the human race.” From a taxonomic point of view, “human” is the adjective for a genus: the genus Homo. That is, human beings belong to the genus Homo, and throughout time there have not only been our species within Homo, sapiens, but many others, such as neanderthalensis, habilis, floresiensis, denisovensis, and many more. According to normies, are we all the same “race”?
Today there is supposedly a broad scientific consensus that human races do not exist in a biological sense. This statement is another absurdity from a scientific point of view, because in itself it doesn’t mean anything. If, under the definition of “race,” we accept what is considered to be one (which is the definition already given from The Oxford Dictionary), the sentence can be interpreted in two ways: either races don’t exist in humans or in anything else, or races exist in other species and therefore must also exist in humans.
Think about it: if, for political correctness, we consider anything that only affects the phenotype (appearance and physical constitution) as not biological, then biologically speaking races do not exist in humans or in any other living being.
But if we consider that phenotypic traits are biological just like genotypic ones, then we must accept that human races exist exactly like they do in any other species, because it is obvious I repeat that humans can be grouped by similar phenotypes, and that is precisely what is called “race.”
So there you have it: now political correctness must impose itself over the truth, or else offended people start popping up like mushrooms. As if nature cared or had to bend to the whims of supposed human offenses.
@pfl @ZenithZXV @joao23 @Overlord- @true_femcel
“In biology, race refers to the groups into which some species are subdivided on the basis of phenotypic traits, based on a set of characteristics that are transmitted through genetic inheritance.”
I would like to point out: phenotypic traits. “Phenotypic” means formal characteristics that appear in the individual’s physical appearance and constitution, and based on these characteristics it is possible to form different groups within beings of the same species.
Now then: according to the definition of what a “race” is, it is obvious that races exist. Put a group of Nordics next to a group of Zulus, and the difference within the same species is more than obvious. And if two Zulus have a child, another one that looks like a Zulu is born, not a Nordic; and if two Nordics have a child, another Nordic-looking person is born, not a Zulu. So these traits are also hereditary.
You don’t even need to go that far: put a group of people of any European origin, even if they’re not extremely northern, next to a group taken from any Central African origin. I don’t know if you see the difference, but I do: this is what is called “race” according to its definition. What else would we call this characteristic that allows us to differentiate people into physical groups, if we needed to name it?
So all you need is eyes to realize that human races do exist, just like there are races of cows, sheep, dogs, cats, or any other species in the animal kingdom. It’s obvious that Chihuahuas resemble other Chihuahuas just as Saint Bernards resemble other Saint Bernards, and that you can group Saint Bernards, German shepherds, Chihuahuas, cockers, and all the dog breeds you want. Yet they all belong to the same genus and species: Canis familiaris.
Therefore, trying to convince us that human races do not exist when it is clearly visible that you can group humans by obviously similar phenotypic traits is basically treating people like idiots.
A lot of normies say “If we were talking about ‘races,’ there is only one ‘race’: the human race.” From a taxonomic point of view, “human” is the adjective for a genus: the genus Homo. That is, human beings belong to the genus Homo, and throughout time there have not only been our species within Homo, sapiens, but many others, such as neanderthalensis, habilis, floresiensis, denisovensis, and many more. According to normies, are we all the same “race”?
Today there is supposedly a broad scientific consensus that human races do not exist in a biological sense. This statement is another absurdity from a scientific point of view, because in itself it doesn’t mean anything. If, under the definition of “race,” we accept what is considered to be one (which is the definition already given from The Oxford Dictionary), the sentence can be interpreted in two ways: either races don’t exist in humans or in anything else, or races exist in other species and therefore must also exist in humans.
Think about it: if, for political correctness, we consider anything that only affects the phenotype (appearance and physical constitution) as not biological, then biologically speaking races do not exist in humans or in any other living being.
But if we consider that phenotypic traits are biological just like genotypic ones, then we must accept that human races exist exactly like they do in any other species, because it is obvious I repeat that humans can be grouped by similar phenotypes, and that is precisely what is called “race.”
So there you have it: now political correctness must impose itself over the truth, or else offended people start popping up like mushrooms. As if nature cared or had to bend to the whims of supposed human offenses.
@pfl @ZenithZXV @joao23 @Overlord- @true_femcel
