The factors she mentioned, impulse control, aggressive behavior, pro or antisocial abilities, et al are all known genetic markers that can be looked for.
Also, I really dislike the name calling just because you are either ignorant of the data she is putting forth for consideration, and/or just disagree with the data because you were unaware of its fact based existence and do not like it because it triggers your irrational emotive responses, thus the name calling in an attempt to discredit not only the data, but her specifically.
No. If you check her sources, most of them are outdated, because the genetics knowledge advances very quickly, so it's better to use fresh data.
And it's clear to me that Kaitlyn accomodates her findings so to match her racist view. In any case, it's good that you consider being neonazi something bad. It's indeed bad, but it's what I see when Kaitlyn proposes segregating people along with her biased arguments.
Race and culture are not “the favorite elements of racists,” again, that’s an ad hominem and a strawman fallacy. Truth =/= racism. Facts =/= racism. Only liberals call it racism because liberals hate the truth. Truth = racism. Just stop it already. It diminishes your position and comments when you keep crying wolf (racism).
Yes, it is. It's well documented that racism didn't end when slavery was abolished. This is specially true when europeans started to use the culture as an element to discriminate the inmigrants in the 80s given that they couldn't use the racial theory.
Race and culture go hand in hand, they are not mutually exclusive. And mixing races with zero respect for the separate cultures is where all the problems happen. Just look at all the foreign emigrants and illegal immigrants that refuse to assimilate to American culture, language, ethics, etc. and the problems/barriers that cause.
There used to be pure races and pure cultures, do you really need a history lesson on how destructive it has been for some races throughout history when introduced to other races/cultures? Hell, some even had their own problems within their own race due to different ideologies and lust for power and control (e.g. the kingdoms in Africa that raided other villages, killed many, castrated men, etc. and sold them into slavery).
It's true that we sort people by races, but this is a politcal categorization, not biological. Races don't exist, we're not dogs.
As for the rest of you argument, I completely disagree. Europe has been a multicultural continent and they are alright now after a long time of wars and a lot of spilled blood.
Yeah, I disagree. There is nothing wrong with one race wanting to associate with their own. Blacks do it in America, and so much so that they have been re-segregating themselves (e.g. black graduations, black proms, black spaces in college, so on and so forth).
They're just doing what whites have been doing all the time. I always compare the racism in the States and Brazil, you'll never see segregation in the later, to the extent that demographically there is almost 50% of mestizos (mulatos) in this country, and only around 8% of blacks.
Now what do you think would happen if we did give that 20% of the lower income threshold of blacks an entire state all to themselves. Do you think they would run it sufficiently without the need for outside intervention? Or would they invite whites back in because they ruined the economy of their state and lack necessary services due to insufficient number of qualified individuals to run things?
It depends. Is there a black elite? The success of a country will depend mainly on hthe capacity and values of the elite.
