The Impossibility of Equality

January 7, 2017 RyanFaulk Uncategorized 37

Many people think that racial populations are “equal” with respect to their genetic potential for cognitive traits. On this website, we look at a lot of data having to do with racial differences in various traits to assess the validity, or lack thereof, of this assumption. Sometimes, though, it is important to step back and recognize just how impossible the notion of equality truly is. If the races really are genetically equal with respect to most psychological traits, it is nothing short of an evolutionary miracle, and in this article, I will explain why.

We all accept that the races differ in various ways for genetic reasons. For instance, East Asians are shorter than Africans and Europeans. Certain body types were more likely to evolve in different climates. In response to environmental variables such as UV radiation, we evolved differences in skin color, hair color, hair texture, etc. Some historic populations had cows available to milk while others did not and, so, some populations are lactose tolerant while others are not. Some populations had to face malaria, while others did not, and this led to differences in our blood. The list could go on. This is all utterly uncontroversial.

The races also differ in brain size. This has been shown repeatedly, all over the world, dating back more than a century (Last, 2016). More recently, it has been shown that you can predict someone’s race by looking at the shape of their brain (Fann et al. 2015). Yet, it is supposed that, unlike the racial differences in virtually every other part of the body, these ones are due entirely to the environment. This is obviously a political move. Evolution doesn’t care that genetic differences in personality are politically controversial, it sees the brain as just another organ. If we evolved differences in all the others, we probably evolved differences in the brain too.

In fact, the brain is a more likely site for genetic differences between races than most other parts of the body are. Why? Because researchers have shown that genes involved in the brain are the ones that differ most between the races (Wu and Zhang, 2011) .

“Other genes that showed higher levels of population differentiation include those involved in pigmentation, spermatid, nervous system and organ development, and some metabolic pathways, but few involved with the immune system.” – Wu and Zhang (2011) (emphasis added)

Given this, if anything we should expect racial differences in the brain to be larger than other racial differences. The assumption that they are infinitely smaller, such that they do not exist, is not genetically plausible.

Ultimately, this is just common sense. Populations around the world had different food sources. They hunted different kinds of animals and picked different kinds of plants. They lived in different climates. They fought different diseases. These differences impact behavior. For instance, some animals require more group work to kill than others. Harsh winters require more pre-planning and delayed gratification (saving food) than more temperate climates. The more easily acquirable food is around, the less important working with the group is. The more predators and other humans are around, the more physical strength and aggression will be needed. The more pathogens are present, the more important cleanliness will be. This list could go on infinitely.

And maybe you think one of these explanations is wrong and an environmental difference will have the opposite effect of what I have said. That is certainly possible, but the idea that any one of these environmental differences, let alone all of them together, will have no effect whatsoever on the selective pressures for any mental traits is completely implausible.

And this is all before culture comes into the picture. Once that happens, these differences are magnified times a hundred. In some cultures, being smart is the best way to have lots of kids. In others, physical strength, or determination, or social intelligence, etc., will be the most effective way. The notion that in every culture every psychological variable has the exact same association with fertility, which is the logical implication of egalitarianism, is obviously insane.

That culture has sped up evolution is evident in our own DNA. By looking at our genome, researchers can estimate how the speed of evolution has changed over time. In 2007, a landmark paper was released showing that evolution sped up by a factor of 100 within the last 5000 years, suggesting that the development of civilization, which happened at different times and in different ways around the globe, had an extremely dramatic impact on evolution (Hawks et al., 2007).

Even more recently, we are starting to get some idea of how culture influenced evolution. For instance, a 2014 paper found that England’s “war on murder”, a time in which criminals were essentially sent to die for fairly petty crimes, had a significant eugenic effect on the population in terms of criminality (Frost and Harpending, 2015). And, after all, how couldn’t it? If you kill a ton of criminals every generation, genes that predispose people towards criminality are obviously going to become less common.

My pointing in bringing this up is not to suggest that England is especially non-criminal. Other countries no doubt had similar periods and England has had its share of crime problems in its history. Nonetheless, the “war on murder” is a vivid example of the fact that culture can, and in fact must, impact evolution. Anything that differentially impacts people’s probability of reproducing will. Given this, and given the enormous amount of culture diversity which has existed on earth for millennia, it is, once again, lunacy to suggest that this all led to every population on earth possessing the exact same genetic predisposition for every mental trait there is.

On top of all this, there’s the Neanderthals (and others). After humans left Africa they met, and bred with, other species or subspecies of human. These other humans had been evolving separately from us for a really long time and they are universally accepted to have been different from us physically, and mentally, due to evolution. Some populations bred with these groups more than others, and Africans didn’t breed with them at all. This has led to the races differing in their degree of Neanderthal admixture.

Moreover, Neanderthal DNA is associated with various traits, including mental ones. For instance, one researcher described their findings from early last year thusly: “We discovered associations between Neanderthal DNA and a wide range of traits, including immunological, dermatological, neurological, psychiatric and reproductive diseases.” Specifically, they found that Neanderthal DNA was related to traits like nicotine addiction, depression, and other mental traits.

How is it even possible, you might ask, for the races to differ in their level of Neanderthal admixture and still be “equal” if Neanderthals weren’t “equal”? It’s not. For this, and all the other reason’s laid out here, equality is, practically speaking, a biological impossibility.

Facebook Comments

L.Q. Cincinnatus

We also know that mendelian diseases have both different prevalence and different alleles that explain most of the variance in different populations. This is true for virtually all mendelian diseases, no matter what organs or tissues they affect. The same is true for genetic risk factors of multifactorial diseases.

So, coupled with what you wrote, we know that when it comes to diseases of all kinds and to physiological non-mental traits human populations differ from each other. Somehow, despite different environments, despite different admixtures from ancient hominids, despite the presence of differences in phenotypes, despite that we know some alleles related to IQ are differently distributed among different races, we should assume that there is not even a single pair of human populations that are genetically different when it comes to cognitive ability or personality.

Many people say that this is akin to creationism but it’s not, it’s far worse, creationists at least have magic and that can make everything happen, egalitarian atheists have nothing similar that allows for this kind of wishful thinking.
- Hoosh
  
  That last point. Pure cognitive beauty. Thank you.
- Jim Araya
  
  Egalitarian atheists believe in evolution and therefore natural selection, I don’t know where you got this idea from. Egalitarianism is simply treating people equally based on how they act. The way forward for equality is teaching people things like empathy and critical thinking skills to create decent smart human beings that can create a better future for the human race regardless of what we can measure of them on an IQ test. Belief in inequality is a large reason for oppression, war, and all sorts of heinous insane shit we delude ourselves into doing, if we could truly disregard it that would be a much larger evolutionary step than we could ever achieve through natural or human selection or whatever the fuck you believe in. Wishful thinking though, right? Maybe.
  
  Maybe I’m just an edgelord, I mean look how I’m spending my time. This site? lol. This site panders to bigots by ignoring cultural factors and just throwing out meaningless numbers so that idiots can delude themselves into thinking they’re right. If you truly believe some races, countries, whatever, are better than others you share a core principal and a world view responsible for the Holocaust, I mean good on you, just think of how much evil those Jews could have done without the damage ol’ Adolf did. Godwin’s Law.
  - Medieval Knievel
    
    Ryan and Sean constantly talk about cultural factors. So wrong there. Stop with this inferiority and superiority shit. Its not about that shit, its about looking at the very real differences between the races. You immediately start with the Nazi comparisons. You guys really need something original to say.
    - Jim Araya
      
      My point to Cincinnatus was that belief in equality is a moral question not a scientific one. Even if we can evaluate differences we should still treat everyone if not the same then with the equal respect based on how they act. Because a person’s race and sex are mostly shallow and meaningless in their lives, or at least they should be.
      
      Looking back my argument quickly devolved though, into that of an SJW. Especially the second paragraph, I’m not going to delete it myself because I would think it’s hilarious if I didn’t write it.
      - Medieval Knievel
        
        The point is though is that race and sex aren’t meaningless or shallow. They have a very real impact on us. Trying to ignore these differences is naive.
      - sea_nettles
        
        I agree that people should be treated with respect based on how they act. That said, that premise isn’t going to make a world based on the meritocracy you seem to espouse.
  - Sean Last
    
    Just so we are all clear, you do not actually have any arguments against the material on this site, correct? Because so far all I have gleamed from your comments is that you don’t like what we say. Paragraphs are not necessary to express this. A simple “Boo!” would suffice.
    - Jim Araya
      
      I don’t stand by anything I said before at least in the second paragraph. The only argument I have against this article, really the title, is that “equality” is possible and it’s already happened in many places of the world. I know you mean scientific equality though.
      - Web Pundit
        
        There’s no equality in Olympic sprinting. No equality in math SAT scores. No equality in anything, really, other than your imagination. Humans are animals, and are thus subject to the same environmental and evolutionary pressures as wolves or rabbits. The strong wolf kills the weak one, and so on. Humans are no different, yet they’re sophisticated enough to come up with artificial constructs (religion, Commnism, equality) that are not borne out by the real world.
      - sea_nettles
        
        Yes, living in civilized company (most of the time) is a possibility. Yes, many countries and cultures have achieved something close to this– at least for periods of time. That said, I’d have to assert that it is not my job or your job or anyone else’s job to subsidize peoples outside of my whomever I choose to form a community with – and in this case it’s (by and large) with people of my own heritage, history, ethnicity, background – and the town and county and state my ancestors created – Again, out my own community of people I choose to associate with and create community with, it’s not my job to economically, intellectually, or culturally subsidize anyone. Freedom of association. Feel free to go out and create that “equality” that “is possible.”
        
        Not a mega fan of Sam Harris, but he says it very succinctly here: “Some ideas really are worse than others. And the idea that all religions, cultures, and belief systems are equal is one of the worst of them all.”
        
        I think part of your inherent misunderstanding of the way the world works, Jim Araya, is you’re operating under false impressions. You believe you actually know the world you were born into, and you believe you have an understanding of who you are, where you are, and how you got here. I disagree. I suspect, just based on a couple of comments, that you know rather very little about the reality of the world in which you find yourself. May I recommend starting with this? – 6 million. Do a basic search for “six million” “history” “New York Times” “history” “Jew”. Why start here? I confess, I’m bored writing this response already and my cute son wants me to read to him in bed – so I’m going to get sloppy– but this is the quintessential place to start as doing a little digging here, and how many times that number has popped up in history and where and how, and you’ll begin to wonder who writes this and who writes that, what else have you been told and not told, and perhaps it’ll be the beginning of a beautiful friendship for yourself: You and (at least more of a sense of….) reality.
  - L.Q. Cincinnatus
    
    Egalitarian atheists believe in evolution as long as evolution doesn’t entail significant innate differences in mental traits between different populations. Which isn’t that different from creationist who believe in evolution as long as it doesn’t entail speciation. In fact, it’s basically the same thing: there are some things which you don’t agree with a priori and if scientific findings seem to suggest they mightbe true, then science can go to hell.
    
    I doubt anyone here is against teaching empathy or critical thinking skills. Do you think I don’t have empathy towards someone who has a IQ of say 92? Why wouldn’t I?
    
    And no, egalitarianism is a lot more than “treating people equally based on how they act” for example, thinking that equality is a moral good, or that equality is just a fact and any evidence that goes against is incorrect, just because.
    
    Your last paragraph doesn’t even contain half an argument, you’re just committing a fallacy after another: “evil people agreed with you on this!” isn’t an argument, asserting that people are just wrong without any evidence isn’t an argument either, and so on and so forth
pymotes

the null hypothesis (µ = µ) [aka population mean of group 1 = population mean of group 2] on any characteristic between groups is rarely supported by evidence. to believe in the null hyothesis a person must believe that mean height of group 1 = mean height of group 2, so that if a group 1 tall person dies, a group 2 tall person must die, for the population means to remain equal!
Marshall Lentini

Very well done. Having to “prove” racial differences is in any case tautological: if there were no variation, there would be no subject whatsoever — and thus no controversy.
alan2102

Has anyone ever suggested that humans are precisely equal in terms of talents or aptitudes? I don’t think so. Equality is about equality of opportunity, not about some ridiculous and non-existent genetic equality of constitution. We are still a long way away from equality of opportunity, and if the right has its way, we will remain a long way away from it forever.
- Ryan Faulk
  
  It is a universal implicit belief that undergirds all policy.
  
  For example, racial income gaps. Racial test score gaps. Racial crime gaps.
  
  These are always considered “problems” that “need to be solved” – any when people get into university discussions to TV show discussions or political discussions on the internet, it’s always about what environmental factors cause these racial gaps.
  
  What’s happening with you here are two things:
  1. The complete absurdity of genetic equality is made obvious just by merely stating the proposition.
  2. Nobody actually states it explicitly, otherwise we wouldn’t have this problem of belief in equality. If it WAS stated explicitly on a regular basis, the obvious stupidity would be apparent and nobody could ever use the mere existence of group outcome disparity as evidence of unequal opportunity.
  - alan2102
    
    They are considered problems that need to be solved because they REFLECT PRIMARILY INEQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY, or other inequality, WHICH OUGHT TO BE CORRECTED.
    
    As opportunity and general conditions have improved, racially, we see consistent (over decades) test score increases for blacks relative to whites:
    http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01802.x
    
    That does not have to mean, and may not ultimately mean, that blacks are precisely equal to whites in I.Q. Perhaps blacks have lower I.Q. than whites, and perhaps that is genetically fixed. If that is true, we will come to know it some time over the next century or so. It is much too early to say. Meanwhile, the urgent work that faces us is of achieving social justice for all, i.e. APPROXIMATE equality of opportunity and general conditions, such that every human (black, white, whatever) has a decent shot at actualizing their potential. Outcomes of course will differ wildly, since human potentials differ wildly.
    
    Also, much more important than any “racial crime gap” is aggregate violent crime, which fortunately (miraculously!) has been in steep decline for the last couple decades. The reason, almost certainly (google: nevin lead crime) is the delayed effect of deleading of gas. Lead is a distinct neurotoxic risk factor for criminal behavior. As we continue to make environmental and social investments and improvements — e.g. radical conversion to renewables and complete elimination of fossil fuels, among other things — we will see further improvements in all aspects of human behavior, all else equal. Of course, all else might not be equal; i.e. we can still screw things up. But with a smidgen of smarts, we’ll do better than that.
    
    Unfortunately, we are in the midst of a massive crime wave perpetrated by whites at the highest levels of political and economic power, causing massive suffering, dispossession and death throughout the world. This is a “racial crime gap” that is seldom spoken of, as such. It is seldom spoken of, as such, because it is stupid to speak of it, as such. It is stupid to speak of it, as such, because criminal behavior — either violent or non-violent — has nothing to do with race. Blacks, in the same conditions and positions as the whites in question, would no doubt behave as criminally as do the whites.
    - Michael
      
      I get the impression you believe people that accept this reality are somehow happy about it. Sure, there are despicable racists out there who dehumanize other groups, but I believe most people just want to know the uncensored truth, even if it is heart-breaking.
      
      As far as I am aware, every single research study that has directly assessed race and IQ has come to the same conclusion – even when standardizing for a multitude of other variables. The question is – what do we do about this truth? Can the world handle it? Will it lead to more problems, or will it help solve them? I honestly don’t know, but you can’t solve a problem when you chose to ignore one of the most pertinent pieces of information.
      - alan2102
        
        See my reply to Web Pundit, immediately above.
        
        I do not believe that “race realists” are “broken hearted” about racial I.Q. differences. I think they are delighted. It gives them an excuse to be bigots. There are probably exceptions to this, but only rare ones.
    - Web Pundit
      
      Sure. And if whites had better track and field coaches they’d dominate sprinting.
      - alan2102
        
        What are you talking about? Did you not read what I wrote? I spoke of actualizing our human potentials, whatever they may be for given individuals, races, whatever. I did not say there were no innate differences. I explicitly said that “OUTCOMES OF COURSE WILL DIFFER WILDLY”, because of innate differences. Please read before typing.
      - Web Pundit
        
        You’re right, I was kind of lazy. Still, you’re being lazy by sitting on the fence about data that just screams the obvious to you. The Bell Curve is the most elegant explanation for the success of various societies and subgroups within societies, whether it’s the Chinese in Indonesia or the Jews in the US. Fifty years of SAT math scores show us that the boy-girl gap is completely unaffected by “cool girls do math” cheerleading efforts on the part of feminists. Not only did human evolution not stop at the neck, but it continues to this very day. All the “social justice” totalitarianism in the world ain’t gonna change it.
      - alan2102
        
        The Bell Curve was stuffed with data; perhaps you think that qualifies it as “elegant”. I don’t. In any case, TBC has been soundly rebutted many times; there is a whole literature on this. I.Q. has turned out to be much more fluid (no pun intended) than the psychometricians and would-be psychometricians (e.g. herrnstein and murray) would have it. In nation after nation, with development and urbanization, better nutrition, and other changes, population I.Q.s ascend, sometimes dramatically. It is NOT genetically fixed in the way that “race realists” (actually UNrealists) contend. There surely is some genetic contribution to I.Q., but how big it is is anyone’s guess, and it would appear at this moment that it is not very big. When lack of a SINGLE micronutrient like iodine can cause cretinism, with loss of ~70 I.Q. points, then what does that fact do to genetic determinism? Answer: kills it. Absolutely slays it, in one stroke. Or at least puts it in perspective as a MINOR influence. And iodine is just ONE critical influence; there are scores more. As for male/female differences: there surely are some. BFD. There are no “social justice totalitarians” that argue against innate differences or try to impose sameness. There are people who give a damn about social justice who are trying to get rid of the worst, most egregious prejudices and bigotries that hold people down, including sometimes whole large groups of people. Thank God, they are slowly succeeding, albeit against stiff resistance from assholes and the morally blind. “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice”. YES. Thank God.
      - Web Pundit
        
        Yeah, I guess all those black guys dunking in the NBA got better nutrition than privileged white guys, which is why they magically developed more fast-twitch muscle fiber, greater overall muscularity, longer femurs and denser bones. But somehow they didn’t get enough iodine, so they can’t average higher than the mid-800’s on the SAT. The Ashkenazi Jews who slaved in the garment districts of New York got LOTS of iodine from gefiltefish, which is why their descendants make up the majority of grad students at Harvard. All we need to do is come up with something like iodized salt, and these problems will be solved. Wait, iodized salt is virtually everywhere, and IQ gaps persist. What else could it be? Thiamine? Riboflavin? Vitamin D? Damn, every kid in America who eats garbage breakfast cereal gets these.
        
        Must be the invisible institutional racism, eh? The genetics argument is just too scary to contemplate.
      - alan2102
        
        “All we need to do is come up with something like iodized salt, and these problems will be solved. Wait, iodized salt is virtually everywhere, and IQ gaps persist.”
        
        You obviously know nothing about iodine deficiency, one of the most-prevalent micronutrient deficiencies in the world, with well over a BILLION sufferers, and a large scientific literature, including many books, yearly conferences, etc., pertaining thereto, as well as a large literature on iodine and I.Q. (VERY large literature, including whole books.)
        
        No, iodized salt is NOT everywhere. And even if it were, it is not the complete answer to iodine deficiency for several reasons, not least the need for cofactors to allow utilization, (i.e. sufficient iodine ALONE does not ensure the desired outcomes), and the fact that not everyone salts their food to the same degree, and the varying prevalence of goitrogens which limit the utilization of iodine, and and… it is a complex subject, which the “race (un)realists” do not even attempt to understand.
        
        As I said, and as you ignored, iodine is one of many relevant and critical factors influencing I.Q. It so happens to be a particularly critical one, as we see from the literature on cretinism. Endemic iodine deficiency in sub-Saharan Africa easily explains most (though not all) I.Q. gaps there. But many other factors play a role, as well. This is described in the extensive medical/biological literature on I.Q. and influences thereon — all of which is routinely ignored by “race (un)realists”. They HAVE to ignore it, because it is fatal (or at least severely injurious) to their little genetic hobby-horse.
        
        I could write lots and lots more, but what’s the point? The environment argument is just too scary for guys like you to contemplate.
        
        But, eventually you might recover from your self-imposed ignorance and prejudice. You could actually join those who give a damn about their fellow humans, and who desire justice to prevail. Hope springs eternal!
      - Web Pundit
        
        LOL. Racial IQ gaps persist in the US and Europe, both of which are flooded with iodized salt. You lose.
    - sea_nettles
      
      “much more important than any “racial crime gap” is aggregate violent crime”– uh… I guess…. unless you’re one of the unlucky victims of violent crime. I disagree that aggregate violent crime is more important than the racial crime gap. You’re assuming that we should all be forced to live together. We may be to an extent for now, but why should we be? Why can’t I go live in a place with a demographic that perpetrates less crime, and those in the demographic that perpetuates more crime can go evolve and improve their violent crime rates together? Why do I need to be there? Why do my kids? Why do my family members, my neighbors, or anyone not part of the more crime prone demographics?
      
      Why are Europe’s violent crime rates rising? Why was there a significant dip of violent crime rates in the US during the 40s-early 60s? Lead paint was still being used…. also, were native European families more apt to not use lead paint than Black families? My understanding is that lead paint was everywhere. Did Africans use lead paint? Do they still use paint, as a group, all around the world?
      
      *Don’t get me wrong… I think that fluoride is relevant, and I think that a diet full of bleached flour and preservatives and MSG, and pesticide-ridden veggies and fruits, etc. is bad– and there’s plenty of research this type of “Western” diet causes all kinds of problems from fluorosis to adrenal overload, diabetes, yadda yadda….. all of which may contribute to violent actions.
      
      That said, in response to your comment “It is much too early to say”– no. Have you looked at this site at all? Have you read any of the abundant research out there? You’re welcome to assume it doesn’t matter and we all have a higher calling, to just make humanity work together – we’re all one species, etc. regardless of our inherent differences. You believe we are all obligated to live in communities with people vastly different from us – and subsidize these groups in schooling, in the workplace, in the state-funded welfare system, in our contributions to safety and security, and in even accessing the above at all – considering voting records by race, and that fiscal conservatism makes the above possible. Enjoy!
      
      I disagree with you. We don’t have to. We are animals and group-oriented, and I’m happy to simply focus on my group. I wish all others the best, but subsidizing is a form of indentured servitude, and indentured servitude seems wrong. It goes against my morals, if you will. Also, indentured servitude of this nature will have the inevitable result, given that the world is a tribal place, that my group will cease to exist if it does things your way.
      
      It’s not exactly like, but still a good analogy– of being in the middle of the zombie apocalypse, and trying to convince the four big buff former Navy Seals and their fit wives, all aged about 25-35– who have ample weaponry, ammo, wilderness survival skills, and an armored vehicle with 200 extra gallons of gas and freeze-dried rations for a year in the back and another cache in the woods some place full of first aid stuffs, antibiotics, vegetable seeds, etc.- and a plan to escape to a big island untouched by the zombies– to take you, your 100 year-old grandfather, your 11-year-old blind and deaf twin sons, your meth-addicted neighbor, and a couple of homeless people who talk to themselves and shit on themselves.
      
      Why? Why would they? They don’t need you and your group- they can go, quite happily, by themselves- and their survival is much, much more assured without you. In fact, taking you with might kill them. In the case of the men being the ones better fitted for survival (probable), they may feel a sense of loyalty and responsibility to their wives. And to the survival of humans in general. They might take you, but what if it gets one of their wives killed?
      
      The only reason they’d take you is if they cared about you, or if you had something to offer them, or if they were blackmailed somehow into taking you.
  - Web Pundit
    
    It’s the “Proportional Representation” fallacy. In a perfect Liberal Utopia, every ethnic, religious and sexual minority would enjoy perfectly proportional representation in every measurable field of endeavor from garbage collection to physics. Any deviance from this must be due to hidden, shifting, almost magical forces of “inequality.”
    
    As long as Lefties continue to reject evolutionary biology, they will continue their witch hunt for imaginary forces of discrimination.
- sea_nettles
  
  “Has anyone ever suggested that humans are precisely equal in terms of talents or aptitudes?” You’re kidding, right?
  - alan2102
    
    No, not kidding. Please point out a specific instance where anyone, anywhere, has suggested that humans are precisely equal in terms of talents or aptitudes. Just one specific instance.
    - AutisticAnglophile
      
      The James Damore debacle at Google.
      
      This incident at Portland State University is one of the most glaring examples.
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n5D_ltpw7CI
      
      Every single time someone mentions the gini coefficient and talks about the wealth inequality in the world, they are assuming that this wealth inequality is entirely due to environmental factors and that genetic variation has nothing to do with such differences.
      
      Honestly I could write pages about this but you’re being disingenuous and you know it.
      - AutisticAnglophile
        
        He deleted his comment, lol.
        
        For anyone who is curious, before he censored his comment to save face, he asked sea_nettles if one of us could show a specific instance where anyone has ever suggested that humans are completely equal. I then posted the video above, showing a bunch of egalitarian feminists getting triggered because a biologist stated, accurately, that men and women are physiologically different and not exactly the same.
Roland Cuthbert

The supposed point about everyone being equal is nonsensical. It is hard to really discern what the point is when reading most of the articles at the site, because the author mixes politics with science so much of the time. So look at this from strictly a political point of view, the issue isn’t that everyone is “equal”, but that everyone regardless of their make-believe race or culture should have equal opportunity in American society. It is a simple concept.
Freedom Of Speech

On outcome? Never. Opportunity? Difficult but possible.
Freedom Of Speech

On outcome? Never. Opportunity? Difficult but possible. Equity is the word you’re looking for.
- M.D. Geist
  
  There is no equality without sameness. How could something be different but equal? Difference always implies a difference in quality too.
DeShaun Williams

As a black man i completely agree. I have an iq of 152 and im very much ashamed of my race. Before i go on however, i have to know Ryan and Sean’s iqs. Would you mind replying them to me? Also mr Ryan you do realize faggots are statistically more likely to be pedos right? Cant argue with the stats. Stop this blasphemy before you rape a white kid (black is fine).