How do I cope with being a self hating black man?

I'm a self aware white person and its hell.

are both of your parents "black" or are you mixed? I'm mixed, but "black passing" as leftists say. I honestly don't remember my exact thoughts growing up, but perhaps to an extent I did wish I wasn't "black." though in all honesty more than anything I just didn't care. I grew up in rural Iowa, in a small town, so aside from my two sisters there was like one kid who looked like us. there were times where I felt insecure, but that was mostly just myself being a fag. as it stands, while I don't care to associate with typical black people, I don't think you are - or have to be - your race. and there are like-minded people out there. your objection of

not [being] compatible with any racial group

is self-imposed, something you can act in opposition to. in short, stop being a faggot and overthinking it.

Why do so many of them stare like that
It's unsettling. I'm on a campus with a lot of jeets and a lot of them behave like androids trying to mimic a human being

Both parents are black
Had a single dad

Animal brains is why, but even animals have more soul then those freaks.

every black forum is delusionally ethnocentric

Lmao, as if Anon Babble isn't delusionally euro-centric.
You need to get out of your comfort zone and experience what your own culture has to offer you, because you're not going to get any meaningfull interactions here.
Unless ofc, you're just here to shitpost white people. In that case, you can stay.

Had a single dad

that's interesting. why exaclty are you self-hating?

I dislike everything about black american and african life and culture. Nothing but murder and self destruction. Personally I believe Africa should just be glassed as it is a lost cause.
I sometimes dream of having political power so I can sterilize most of the black populace as well

I'd hire you to get morbid obese and fight latina teenagers in oil wrestling. Something about morbid obese fat guys crushing teen sluts makes my pp diamonds.

you sound like a conceited loser, but I don't necessarily disagree about black culture. at any rate, that doesn't really get at the heart of the question: what is it about you not liking black american and african culture that makes you self-hating? it seems like you're not able to fully distinguish yourself as an individual, separate from your race (perhaps due to low IQ); you're not a hivemind. I'm not sure there's any trick that'll necessarily work, but maybe try to reflect more on that fact that you are more than your race (otherwise you'd be doing everything they did) and that you're not that important.

I know I'm a loser
I'd hate myself at any race
Only reason I haven't roped is because I'm a pussy

so then it's just general cope. in that case I'd say be less of a loser and try to live a meaningful life. the biggest pussy move you could make is to quit early.

Better just kill yourself and leave this gay Earth then. If you're not even going to invest time into figuring out why the world is how it is and just choose to use youre time to continiously bitch about it instead, you are a burden to society and better of dead.
The difference between you and those black people is that they know why the world is how it is, but you seem like the type who, through white indoctrination, is rejecting all the data which suggests that the socio-economic state in Africa and that of black Americans and native Americans is how it is because of white colonial practices and institutionalized racism.
Those are the facts. If you're running away from black people who are aware of that and whom are trying to build their own communities of black liberation in opposition to white supremacy then they're not in the wrong or retarded. You are. You, especially as a black man, should do everything in your power to support them and not get yourinformation from these white autists who use pseudo science and pseudo history to claim their supposed superiority.
Though, you're going to reject all the above but somebody needed to have tell you that as you don't seem to be around people who can make you feel what being black is all about.

wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Transracial_Adoption_Study#Interpretations

In support of this interpretation, they drew special attention to the finding that the average IQ of "socially classified" black children was greater than that of the U.S. white mean.

Black people aren't inherently less intelligent, they are being made less intelligent by depriving them from the same socio-economic advantages even the most poorest of white benefit from.
As soon as you realize that and see the full potential of black people, maybe now you'll work towards the common goal of black upliftment.
Black people don't need bridges to white people. They need land to build the bridge on first.
youtu.be/BMpICsEa3l0?si=ASenY11PDoODxp74

I think you should go full Uncle Rukus. That would be very funny.

That is a big wall of text just to tell people you're a social Marxist. You should probably suck on the business end of a shotgun.

Well then the issue is not your race. Lots of people hate themselves so you're not a lost special case, you can work on this and get better

Well first off, if you can critique the community you belong to and speak regular english not even the Gen X racists have a problem with you and certainly none of the Gen Z racists either. If I was you, I'd feel a little bit betrayed by my people, and I feel a littleee bit like that being white since I cant get my white family members or classmates to stop feeling guilty for nonsense and support anything overtly prideful or invest in their families future but anyways, that leaves you with two paths: find a way to try to fix your community/fix it for a group of individuals (hard but rewarding if it works out) or appropriate yourself into a group of people that really likes you. And tbh the GenZ racists are probably gonna be a good match lol, just get into guns or backpacking or lifting or something. All of those will be good for you anyways and youll make friends in the hobby and become less emotionally effected by the wider spectacle.

Go outside nigger <3 we want you to be happy

You're trying to put me into a box to help you cope more instead of adressing the subject matter.
I am a relaist who has studied world history, psychology, economics and theology. If being knowledgeable about the world makes me sound like a social Marxist then that would say something about its superiority, wouldn't it?
Now tell me what's wrong with social Marxism from a your black perspective and not the white perspective.
I make this distinction, because you know damned fucking well that black and white people have different interests when it concerns the allocation of government funding.

Black people aren't inherently less intelligent

how'd you make that determination?

This, act like a black and not a nigger and you'll go far.
Nobody in Amuttica is THAT racist no matter what they say

The greentext above that line is the conclusion of the Minnesota Transracial Adoption study which I linked above.
They concluded that the post-natal environment has a bigger influence on intelligence than the pre-natal environment.
Example: did you know that the average iq was 70 a couple decades ago? The reason it changed to 100 was because we improved our environment drastically.
There are groups in America and parts of the world whom have not fully benefitted from the same changes. Africa mostly has not seen these changes at all for a while.
The study clearly shows that intelligence is mostly environmental (assuming you don't have autism or other mental disabilities ofc) which means that we can uplift anybody to the mean by changing their environment.
but good luck finding white people willing to have their taxes go to support the black community to make this change when they don't directly benefit from it. Even though we'd all benefit from a larger class of higher educated civilians.

wikipedia.org/wiki/Nabta_Playa

for the sake of the argument, I can agree that your post-natal environment matters more, but that doesn't mean that there are fundamental racial differences that affect the averages - regardless of post-natal environment. saying

this variable matters more than that

does not give you license to say

black people aren't inherently less intelligent

and I'm not even saying they are, should they be given the same relevant resources as other races, but if the study supports what you say it does you're making more out of it than is proper.

wikipedia.org/wiki/Songhai_Empire

but that doesn't mean that there are fundamental racial differences that affect the averages

doesn't mean that there aren't*

that doesn't mean that there aren't fundamental racial differences that affect the averages

That's what you're presupposing, because you've been indoctrinated with scientific racism.
Not only that, you haven't even given a single example.
No respectable psychologist or biologist supports that view anymore, because the data we have gathered does not support it.

but if the study supports what you say it does you're making more out of it than is proper

The study said the children performed above the white mean. If they were genetically inferior their mean wouldn't be higher than the white mean. Surely you can agree.

wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghana_Empire

Become like that based blackcell kid

You should look up how many Greek philosopher either studied in Egypt or studied under a philosopher who has studied in Egypt, because the answer is "all of them" .
That's one of the reasons why people hate to admit that Ancient Egypt was founded by black people.

That's what you're presupposing, because you've been indoctrinated with scientific racism

I'm not. I quite explicitly said so here:

and I'm not even saying they are, should they be given the same relevant resources as other races

and I could take it a step further and say that, should we somehow make all other things equal, perhaps blacks/Africans would prove to be slightly more naturally intelligent than other races.

Not only that, you haven't even given a single example.

my point doesn't hinge on any studies proving this or that, I'm giving an internal critique of *your* position, which is why I granted that the study you brought up supports what you say it does. my point is ultimately a more general one about not misappropriating studies.

the data we have gathered does not support it.

maybe that's true, but that's unclear at best and deceptive at worst. for one, truth isn't determined by data. but also, a lack of evidence one way does not mean the reverse is true.

The study said the children performed above the white mean. If they were genetically inferior their mean wouldn't be higher than the white mean. Surely you can agree.

maybe they did, but obviously not everyone from a given race is *exactly* the same; their particular DNA is unique to them, with more or less overlap with different members of their ancestors. the existence of some women being taller, faster, and stronger than some men does not negate the fact that men on average are due to their biology taller, faster and stronger than women.

wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Age

but that's unclear at best and deceptive at worst

It's 50 years of data. The data is not unclear, you're just arguing for arguments sake when there is much, much more about your people I have to tell and show you so you'll have to excuse me for rushing through this comment.

lack of evidence one way does not mean the reverse is true.

Any proposition offered without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Pink unicorns, etc, etc.

not everyone from a given race is *exactly* the same

There is more diversity between Africans than there is between Africans and Europeans. Look it up. However, the straws you're trying to grasp at, if they exist, are so inconsequential that I don't need to factor them in.

men and women

That's a false equivalence. You're trying to differentiate men and women whom are different sexes. There is only 1 race, the human race and you're arbitrarily trying to divide it.

Whites told you this was a dickwashing routine.
It's actually a circumcision. Circumcisions were done by priests and priests were the highest caste in Ancient Egypt only surpassed by the pharaoh.

The data is not unclear

I was talking about your phrasing

you're just arguing for arguments sake when there is much

believe that if you like

your people

those being?

Any proposition offered without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Pink unicorns, etc, etc.

the question is what counts as "evidence", which you obviously have to believe proper logic is part of that. you don't look through x number of studies before you believe this or that, and the foundation of science itself rests upon logic; the idea that scientific evidence can foundationally justify itself is circular

There is more diversity between Africans than there is between Africans and Europeans. Look it up

again, I could grant that's true, that still wouldn't necessarily affirm that Africans aren't on average less intelligent than some other races

That's a false equivalence

the equivalence being drawn is that there are different groups with biological trends, however great or small, which can affect the averages.

There is only 1 race, the human race and you're arbitrarily trying to divide it

you say, while also saying

There is more diversity between Africans than there is between Africans and Europeans

it can't be both

You're on an anonymous board. It's like that for a reason. I hide or don't mention my nationality a lot. If you don't tell people you're a nigger, where's the problem? And don't post frogs.

I was talking about your phrasing

That's why I gave you link to look it all up yourself.

the idea that scientific evidence can foundationally justify itself is circular

Experiments get repeated over and over. Hence why they received new information a decade later and concluded that it supported their previous results.
Meanwhile, the scientific racism has not received any evidence and it's why racists are stuck showing hypotheses and images out of books from pre-1960.

Africans aren't on average less intelligent than some other races

Removing the genetic factor which was founded on pseudo-science (like comparing *female* African skulls to that of European males to determine that Africans have smaller brains), which we have done, leaves room for the socio-economic explanation which I have explained in length and have also provided historical context for. As you recall. The average white mean was 70 a couple decades ago which is lower than the African-American mean right now.

it can't be both

It is both. There is one human race. Humans are diverse. The idea that Africans are genetically different from Europeans is disproven by the fact that there is more genetic difference between Africans than between africans and Europeans. IF it worked how you're suggesting then there would be *less* genetic difference between Africans than between Europeans.

Nevertheless. Did you see that Africans invented mettalurgy a 1000 years before Europeans got introduced to it? They never invented it themselves.
Did you see that Africans thought the Greeks philosophy? Africans thought us how to reason.
If we were living 2000 years ago and you'd make the claims you're making now, you'd be laughed at by the same white Euopeans you're trying to emulate.

youtu.be/vgbHfT3Dcq4?si=Wvga06AVkRLyHO3w
You don't have to agree with everything said here, but you must listen to it.

Yeah, Michael Jackson did it so we all know it's possible.

It's no problem to be black. Black people are fine. I'm white and I'm friends with a non-nigger black guy too. Great dude. Just don't be a nigger. Niggers are awful.

That's why I gave you link to look it all up yourself.

my comment was about when you said

the data we have gathered does not support it

which was a more general claim about data on racial intelligence and how "no respectable" researcher would believe such and such, presumably more than just because that Minnesota study

Experiments get repeated over and over

that sometimes happens for some experiments. but to the extent it does, you're still assuming that it's foundation is valid, which is a logical first principle

The idea that Africans are genetically different from Europeans is disproven by the fact that there is more genetic difference between Africans than between africans and Europeans. IF it worked how you're suggesting then there would be *less* genetic difference between Africans than between Europeans.

you're conflating quantity with quality. again, granting your claim about the degree of differences (or lack thereof), it's about the *quality* that matters. you're probably not going to like this analogy, but I would go back to the differences between men and women. quantiatively they are more similar than alike, but there are fundamental *qualitative* differences which affect the averages of statistical variables (as previously mentioned). the same hypothetical logic applies to race: you could be quantitatively more the same than different, but if there are one or more qualitative differences, it could have notable effects in the averages. also it simply can't be both. you are on one hand saying I'm arbitrarily dividing races, and then dividing humans arbitrarily along racial lines - regardless to what extent this divide is greater or smaller than mine. your last point about metalurgy is a red herring which I could fully grant, it doesn't change my fundamental critique of your approach to the stud(y/ies).

more similar than alike

you get what I mean

by hating other niggers more than anyone else uncle ruckus

t self hating asian

Yeah OP, stop being a fucking faggot

which was a more general claim about data on racial intelligence and how "no respectable" researcher would believe such and such

It was based on the results of that study, statements by my psychology professor and other experts in the field. Nobody agrees that racial inferiority and neither do they agree that race itself exists.

you're still assuming that it's foundation is valid

I'm not going to have a debate about whether or not science itself is valid. I consider that a stupid debate, because we all know the value of empirical data. The only people really infested in that debate are Christian apologists to defend their faith against scientific findings that disprove their theology, but that's not me. Are you one?

it's about the *quality* that matters

You're literally saying that being less exposed to the sun for a couple millenia (aproximately 8000 years) has made a certain group of people smarter which in itself, at face value, is a preposterous proposition and is not historically supported as they areas they settled have been behind the settlements in Africa and Asians for the longest of times.
The development of Europe had more to do with luck than intelligence and I can elaborate if you want, but it'd be a separate post.

it's about the *quality* that matters

You're going back to "but this tribe can run fast, and this one can jump high", etc. All these characteristics have developed over several generations due to the environment they lived in. Any tribe, when living under the same circumstances can develop these traits as well. This ofcourse, is unlike the traits between men and women.

you are on one hand saying I'm arbitrarily dividing races, and then dividing humans arbitrarily along racial lines

No, I divided between *area*, you're interpreting that racially.

your last point about metalurgy

Is an historical fact. Mind you, I have said that there are more important things to discuss than staying stuck on your incredulity.

Ive noticed most nogs hate their race as a whole and just pretend to be united for clout.

Go to dojo, learn how to fight, go to a gym, start to lift weights, educate yourself as much as possible and share what you've learned with your community. You can even join the Freemasons if you really want to feel some sort of community, but you have to help build up your own community or you'll forever stay feeling the same.

It was based on the results of that study, statements by my psychology professor and other experts in the field

right, so the point about providing the Minnesota study doesn't make your statement any less unclear or potentially deceptive, that's my point

I'm not going to have a debate about whether or not science itself is valid

that's not what I was doing, I was critiquing this:

Any proposition offered without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Pink unicorns, etc, etc.

implying that I didn't have studies or perhaps some other sort of material proof of a logical internal critique (which doesn't necessitate studies or the like). your belief system is not based solely on studies or other material evidence, and more affirmatively depends on logic to some extent - even its foundations. the entire foundation of science rests on a logical framework, so if you are to use it to justify anything you have to acknowledge non-scientific/material evidence to some extent.

because we all know the value of empirical data

that's an appeal to the majority and/or common sense. I would maintain that if you're a scientist worth your salt you would hold to a few logical fallacies as possible.

Are you one?

I don't follow any religion

You're literally saying that being less exposed to the sun for a couple millenia (aproximately 8000 years) has made a certain group of people smarter which in itself, at face value, is a preposterous proposition and is not historically supported as they areas they settled have been behind the settlements in Africa and Asians for the longest of times.

I never said that, and you simply cannot find such a statement. again, I'm giving an internal critique. I'm not making any affirmative claim about this race or that being superior or inferior. I already said it could turn out that Africans are in fact more intelligent than certain other races, including Europeans/Whites.
...

the god of this world is an evil bastard. you have not known what i know. the world's evolution teachings are real, but jesus was the opposite of that. evolution says the strongest destroys the weak. or that black people kill white people essentially. jesus was called a sacrificial lamb in scripture, i.e. pale white and borderline effeminate. there are many places in scripture which attest to jesus being pale white but liars say he was brown. essentially he was literally bred by god to be a sacrificial lamb, declared sins over, and then killed at the whim of the evil jewish demiurge god as a human sacrifice for brown people. the creator of this world is evil. there is a higher god who does not control the inner workings of this universe and who gives us our souls. i am pure and good. i know heaven. loud revving cars are not part of heaven and motorcyclists who rev their engines need to be killed. most people need to be killed in fact. this is hell we're living in.

You're going back to "but this tribe can run fast, and this one can jump high"

that's not what I'm referencing. I'm saying regardless of the quantitative differences between groups of people, if there are one or more certain qualitative differences, it can have a notable effect in the averages. which could hypothetically apply to intelligence.

No, I divided between *area*

people who you are arbitrarily ascribing to this place as opposed to that, implying something about them and their ancestry which is distinct from others, which would be racial.

Is an historical fact

whose truth has no bearing on my argument

potentially deceptive

You would *feel* that way if you're already arguing from a point of disbelief, but the study itself corroborated that statement when it concerns the African IQ and the potential of African-(Americans) as a group. One of the worst things to happen to the black mean was segregation into poverty and that's exactly what somew white people want to instate again using circular logic while not being aware they're using it.
"Blacks are less intelligent so we must separate them", but segregation, Jim Crow, a lack of governmental funding into black neighbourhoods while the majority went into white ones- is exactly why they're underperforming right now.

which doesn't necessitate studies or the like

Sure, when you're "just asking questions" But you do agree that it's best to ask questions after you've read up on the subject and not before?

your belief is not based solely on studies or other material evidence

That is false. Everything I have mentioned is based on empirical data and material evidence as I have cited biologists as well.

that's an appeal to the majority and/or common sense

The value of empirical data has nothing to do with how it is perceived by the majoirty. And it's value is indeed common sense.

if there are one or more certain qualitative differences, it can have a notable effect in the averages

Which no study has found as of yet and neither have we seen it in biology.
Assuming they exist is a presupposition. And it will stay a presupposition as long as there is no evidence which makes it a time wasting technique.

which would be racial.

There is only one race so it can't be racist, objectively speaking.

whose truth has no bearing on my argument

It has on the OP which takes precedence over your questions. The MTRA study, the historical, psychological and biological facts mentioned, are all in light of that.

youtu.be/lZsCxMcV7wE?si=RTKWLjzysG-fO5HD

You would *feel* that way if you're already arguing from a point of disbelief

I could've 100% believed in the study beforehand and the general idea, the point was specifically about your phrasing. we could probably find plenty of people who agree with you but question the clarify and perhaps deceptiveness of the statement

Sure, when you're "just asking questions" But you do agree that it's best to ask questions after you've read up on the subject and not before?

the point is a meta-critique of studies, as I said before. that's why from the beginning I pointed out I could grant your study (and 100 more) in what you claimed it to find/support, that wouldn't mean you were ultimately making purely appropriate claims based off of it, namely that

Black people aren't inherently less intelligent

That is false. Everything I have mentioned is based on empirical data and material evidence as I have cited biologists as well.

which data rests on underlying logic to assume its validity in the first place. otherwise it's just circular ("empirical data is true because it says it is")

The value of empirical data has nothing to do with how it is perceived by the majoirty.

okay, you still made an appeal to the majority and/or common sense. "everybody knows x" "x is just common sense" -- those are fallacies

Which no study has found as of yet and neither have we seen it in biology.

again, granting that's true, that doesn't prove the reverse

There is only one race so it can't be racist, objectively speaking.

if you talk about things racially - explicitly or otherwise - that's making it racial

no way that image is real kek

perhaps deceptiveness of the statement

I've explained and shown cited sources that supported my statement. You were *pondering* whether the statement was deceptive due to incredulity and a lack of those sources

those are fallacies

It was a statement of truth and at worst a generalization as clealry not everybody knows the value of empirical data. Context matters.

that doesn't prove the reverse

So you're suggesting we should be agnostic about it even though there isn't a single piece of evidence for it. You can waste your time with that.
Also, there is somethiong called the "Bayesian exception the genetic fallacy" which amounts to that if something is wrong 99% of the time it makes no sense to further pursue it. So as long as there isn't even 1% of evidence, I won't waste resources on it.

if you talk about things racially - explicitly or otherwise - that's making it racial

Again, you're trying to turn it racially because you're using outdated terms and definitions. I have explained multiple times that we only deal with geography. Race is an invented social construct. It is not a thing that biologically exists.

You were *pondering* whether the statement was deceptive due to incredulity and a lack of those sources

not even slightly. there are plenty of times I've seen things I believe in that were unclear in their phrasing and I thought might be willfully deceptive, and I've seen plenty of statements that I didn't agree with but thought were quite clear in their phrasing. you're just wrong here.

It was a statement of truth and at worst a generalization as clealry not everybody knows the value of empirical data. Context matters

fine to concede here

You can waste your time with that

already have

Again, you're trying to turn it racially because you're using outdated terms and definitions

you're keeping it racial without even knowing it.

anyways, we're not really getting anywhere at this point. if you want the last word you can have it.

The development of Europe had more to do with luck than intelligence and I can elaborate if you want, but it'd be a separate post.

Europe had no cradle of civilization - a location and a culture where civilization was developed independent of other civilizations in other locations - it got help from the surrounding greats.
When Egypt started to decline and eventually fell to the Persians whom were much larger, the Nubians conquered Egypt from the Persians whom were mistreating the Egyptians.
The Persians reconquered Egypt after a couple decades.
The Greeks then tried to conquer Egypt and the Egyptians welcomed them with open hands to get rid of the Persians.
This is what jump started Greece's introduction to philosophy, religion, masonry, etc.
The conquest continued and eventually they reached India, but never conquered it. Alexander the Great took a Buddhist wife from Bactria which was next to India. This exchanged started Grecco-Buddhism in which Greek art got mixed with Buddhism. It's why the Buddha wears a Greek toga in all art (Buddhists are actually forbidden to depict the Buddha).
Greece then sent their philosophers to India to study, like Pyrrho who started the school of scepticism.
This is the foundation of European culture. It's not European, it's an amalgamation of once greater cultures.
Then the Romans conquered the Greeks and made Christianity (which shares pacifistic tendencies with Buddhism and theology with Jews) the state religion.
The Muslims conquered North-Africa, Portugal and Spain and reintroduced masonry, science and philosophy to Europe. Arab numerals, algebra, etc.
Then, by luck, the Europeans encountered the Americas, genocided the place and extracted its resources with slave labor.

That's why the development of Europe had more to do with luck than intelligence. They wouldn't even have conquered the America's without germs they broughas single native with a bow was more capable in combat than a European with a rifle.

youtu.be/RqLv4B8MEgQ?si=4LcuGsrZHKxq98jR

Stop being such a troon

youtu.be/ao0Jozn_7HM?si=zo9dgo6gZQagKd3d

Remind yourself that you have the bibisi

youtu.be/nOTa1wQJVrM?si=b70xS0SZrmF4NpfT