Thread 939483035

You're the real traitors. To your families, your country, and your race. You value moon rocks over your own in-group. You put your own people last, as opposed to the J6 protestors who put their own people first.

they are traitors attacking a goverment makes them traitors.

>>939483035 (OP)
I think you're misinterpreting this survey, as many people do.

>>939483113
>muh gubmint
That's where your loyalty is. Not to your own people, not to any ideal like the constitution or whatever, but to the state.

>>939483171
If your empathy is directed at rocks as well as your family, that empathy must be divided evenly or in some proportion. If it is divided evenly, then it means you care as much about a rock as people. If it is divided in another proportion, necessarily you must care less about family than a conservative, or at the very least, the proportion is the same and leads to no practical difference. You cannot say it is an overabundance of empathy, because when one is presented with a choice between helping the good of family or that of rocks, if it is an excess yet in equal proportion, you would help rocks just as much as family, or if in the same ratio as a conservative, the difference would be trivial, and your actions would be the same.

While I used rocks as an example, we can extend this to any group. If you value all the earth equally, you may help pandas over people, or a random nation in botswana over your own country. If it is in equal proportion to the conservative, (i.e., you value pandas less, you value a random family in Botswana less than your own family, and you value rocks much less than anything else) then the difference between a liberal and a conservative is trivial. Whether there is more empathy or not leads to no practical difference.

The study in question asked "do you value all"
>1. immediate family
>2. extended family
>3.closest friends
>4. friends (including distant ones)
>5. acquaintances
>5. people you have ever met
>6. people in your country
>8. people on your continent
>9. people on all continents
>10. mammals
>11. amphibians, reptiles, mammals, fish, and birds
>12. animals on earth including paramecia and amoebae,
>13. animals in the universe, including alien lifeforms
>14. all living things in the universe including plants and trees
>15. all natural things in the universe including inert entities such as rocks
>16. all things in existence
Liberals tended to value more to the end, valuing humans less relative to conservatives.

>>939483171
>>939483919
>https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-12227-0.pdf
>Again, these findings demonstrate that liberals and conservatives differ not in the total amount of moral regard per se but rather they differ in their patterns of how they distribute their moral regard.
Page 7 of the study. Not even the authors consider it a lower level of "empathy" total in conservatives.

The study is generally misunderstood by liberals. A note is that yes, conservatives were more likely to include entries up to (e.g.) 6, but the net difference is very little when a liberal's moral regard is divided up for things like quartzites or cadmium salts.

>>939483919
>You cannot say it is an overabundance of empathy, because when one is presented with a choice between helping the good of family or that of rocks, if it is an excess yet in equal proportion, you would help rocks just as much as family, or if in the same ratio as a conservative, the difference would be trivial, and your actions would be the same.
Well, this claim is very obviously wrong.
A person with little empathy, and who values their immediate family more, might not contribute to the wellbeing of their immediate family much, or at all. Or to the wellbeing of anything but themselves.
A person with a lot of empathy, but proportionately more turned towards the outgroup, might contribute a lot to the wellbeing of others in general, their close ones included. Even if their close ones receive proportionately less of their contribution, they'd still be better off than the close ones of the first guy.
The amount of support you show for other people is not a fixed quantity from person to person, and affects your actions in a very significant way.

>>939484146
No, both groups equal moral regard per the study. Now we are discussing the proportional distribution of this moral regard to various groups. I'm going to ignore the fact that you likely used ChatGPT, evidenced by the last line, as you restated what I said:
>The amount of support you show for other people is not a fixed quantity from person to person, and affects your actions in a very significant way.
and
>or if in the same ratio as a conservative, the difference would be trivial, and your actions would be the same.
This being that if you had an overabundance of empathy, you would distribute this empathy the same way a conservative does. I.e., you would not favor the rocks over the people, because this proportional value is distributed the same or similar way.

>>939484275
have equal moral regard*
Or more specifically, not proven to have a different amount.

>>939483974
Right before what you're quoting, there's this:
>Importantly, in addition to examining proportion, we also examined total allocation, and allocation to humans and to nonhumans. Liberals and conservatives did not differ such that political ideology was not significantly correlated with total allocation to all targets, r (261) = 0.04, p = 0.51, total allocation to humans, r (261) = 0.04, p = 0.50, or total allocation to nonhumans, r (261) = 0.04, p = 0.51
Which precisely means that liberals do not, in fact, value moon rocks over their own in-group. Nobody does, and the study states as much in as many words.
Once again, ragebaiting, fearmongering, painting the outgroup as less than human. Standard fare from /pol/.

>>939483171
>you're misinterpreting this survey
Here's a screenshot from the PDF. Note the highlighted text.

>>939484275
The study constrained choice to the same number for everyone and recognizes this is a potential drawback. "Both groups equal moral regard" - that's not true, you're stating things because you want them to be true and they match with your preexisting view of the world. The evidence is right there in your face, you brought it to the table yourself, but you'd rather hide your head in the sand than admit it.
The two sentences you highlighted do not mean the same thing.
>This being that if you had an overabundance of empathy, you would distribute this empathy the same way a conservative does. I.e., you would not favor the rocks over the people, because this proportional value is distributed the same or similar way.
No, what I said is, if someone had an overabundance of empathy, and distributed it as a liberal, with proportionately less attention to your family, the care you'd show your family would be higher than the care shown by a conservative with less empathy. And the care to the outgroup even higher.

>>939484342
Yes, this is the part of my post. The difference in distribution is either trivial:
>If it is in equal proportion to the conservative, (i.e., you value pandas less, you value a random family in Botswana less than your own family, and you value rocks much less than anything else) then the difference between a liberal and a conservative is trivial.
While if your implied conclusion (that conservatives are less empathetic) is true (meaning a different distribution of moral regard) then:
>Liberals tended to value more to the end, valuing humans less relative to conservatives.
Because as stated previously, they MUST be proportional, or liberals MUST values humans less PROPORTIONAL to rocks, relative to conservatives.

Slow down before you rage.

>>939484467
No, because resources and care are strictly not infinite. You cannot distribute equal level of care to a rock, snail, and toddler.

>>939484523
They don't have to be infinite for the argument to be sound. It's perfectly possible to care for your family more than anything else, and to never lift a finger to help or support them. Just as it is possible to care for more things than just your family, and still devote a lot of time and energy to your family.
Anyway, enjoy your thread, I'll stop bumping it. It's like talking to a particularly slow brick wall.

>>939483035 (OP)
Our worldviews are so far apart. Conservatives loves family, community, tradition. Liberals love niggers, the science, and homosexuals. How do we reconcile?

>>939483113
>attacking a goverment makes them traitors
Wrong.
--> Not in America!
Our constitution says we have a Right and a Responsibility to remove and replace our government becomes corrupt, which it is, has been for decades!
Constitutionally protected Right!

>>939484617
No, you're an imbecile and you aren't really sure how to make a point because you aren't familiar with the topic. Feigning this kind of superiority and ditching when you encounter resistance is the hallmark of an insecure loser. I'll humor you, though:
>They don't have to be infinite for the argument to be sound. It's perfectly possible to care for your family more than anything else, and to never lift a finger to help or support them.
Conservatives and liberals have the roughly the same levels of empathy, although you can likely find different averages. In most cases, two people will have similar levels. Your argument here is a straw man: The argument is that if you have two people of equal empathy and separate moral regard (to which they distribute their empathy) then they must be in proportion or different. If one has an overabundance, this extra amount, when divided in its proportion, results in no difference.

To repeat: Increasing the magnitude of empathy will not make liberals suddenly prefer taking care of rocks over needy children. Their care will STILL be distributed proportionally, and they will STILL care for their family in the same way. Do you understand math?

>>939484837
> Conservatives and liberals have the roughly the same levels of empathy
Yeah but conservatives have empathy for the people actually around them, liberals have empathy for niggers and illegal immigrants they see on TV.

>>939484634
>Liberals love niggers, the science, and homosexuals
The love fake science!
Most of the 'science' you are allowed to hear or see is Tier-II science, it's out dated, disproven, or actually Disinformation!
Storms are driven by electricity in the atmosphere from solar radiation.
As are comets, the tail is electric plasma.
Jupiter also puts out energetic electrical radiation, hit the Voyagers pretty hard.
UFOs were captured from Nazi scientists at the end of the WWII.

>>939484869
>conservatives have empathy for the people actually around them, liberals have empathy for niggers and illegal immigrants they see on TV.
Sounds true

>>939484617
>>939484837
I said
>straw man:
and then began explaining the original point, but to be generous (I suspect reading comp. issues) I will explain:
Your straw man is made by constructing the scenario where the conservative has no empathy and the liberal does. If they have the same or similar empathy, the proportional distribution remains the same. This is not really the point, but you did roll with it because you had nothing else to say.
>>939484869
Well I'm not a conservative, I just have autism and was correcting an ideologue. But yes, by nature, if a liberal includes foreigners in their moral sphere, then:
>1.
If it is proportional to the conservative, then the regard will be similarly low. The liberal cannot provide the same level of resources to their own child as a foreigner, unless they had an overabundance of resources, in which case the self-sacrifice becomes trivial.
>2.
If not proportional, and the illegal has a lower proportion, say, 0.1% of resources, it is close to trivial. As we increase this (for foreigners, rocks, etc) then the level of care offered lowers itself.
>3.
If anon means that they will simply "care" and by this I mean pay lip service and grandstand for social standing, then yes, typical.

>>939484949
>They love fake science
They don't know there is a difference between Niel degrasse Tyson, or Bill Nye (the science guy) & REAL Science!
Real science is secret, owned by the Military, DARPA, & Military corporations.
Top secret & above.
It's Not published in magazines OR your textbook!

Is this another thread hosted by /b/'s resident avatarfag? Is that literal shit head even from America?

If any /b/tarded niggers want to develop brain matter to rape the shit out of libtards (intellectually) then start reading books. /lit/ has a good reading list for entry levels, and it can help you verbally sodomize sharties like >>939484617

It all starts with little things, though.

I'll just mention than morality =/= empathy. You can be highly moral and have no empathy; you prioritize someone in your moral considerations even though you empathize with someone else.

>>939485037
What do you mean, straw man?
>You cannot say it is an overabundance of empathy, because when one is presented with a choice between helping the good of family or that of rocks, if it is an excess yet in equal proportion, you would help rocks just as much as family, or if in the same ratio as a conservative, the difference would be trivial, and your actions would be the same.
>Whether there is more empathy or not leads to no practical difference.
This was the statement being argued against. Statement : "You cannot argue it coud be on overabundance of empathy because it would change nothing if it were". Counterargument : "An overabundance of empathy would in fact change things, here is the logic why".

>>939483035 (OP)
if the parties on January 6th were reversed, you'd be calling for mass executions of all involved. Admit it.

>>939483919
>If your empathy is directed at rocks as well as your family, that empathy must be divided evenly or in some proportion

You couldn't even go 1 sentence without being retarded

>>939486058
Conservatives are doing that already, no need for your hypothetical

>>939486104
you couldn't even go one reply without using a straw man argument, retarded sophist.

>>939486137
This anon has read one book, remembers two concepts from it, and now lives in a delusion where he is somehow a master rhetorician owning libs left and right.

>>939486137
You shouldn't use words you don't understand if you wanna insult someone. It'll only backfire

>>939486217
>This anon has read one book
No fucking chance, he heard some big words on a podcast

>>939485868
If you want a serious answer rather than invectives, re-read this:
>If your empathy is directed at rocks as well as your family, that empathy must be divided evenly or in some proportion. If it is divided evenly, then it means you care as much about a rock as people. If it is divided in another proportion, necessarily you must care less about family than a conservative, or at the very least, the proportion is the same and leads to no practical difference. You cannot say it is an overabundance of empathy, because when one is presented with a choice between helping the good of family or that of rocks, if it is an excess yet in equal proportion, you would help rocks just as much as family, or if in the same ratio as a conservative, the difference would be trivial, and your actions would be the same.
The difference in behavior cannot be explained by an overabundance, because we are talking about assumed averages. You pick a hypothetical edge case. I'll elucidate, however:
When managing care for ones you care about, like children and rocks, your resources must be divided in some proportion. What proportion? If you value both, are they proportioned equally?
Let us give a hypothetical.
>There is a trolley that is about to delete one hundred tons of Cadmium Salts from the universe. If you press the lever, you will sucessfully save the Cadmium Salts, while crushing an innocent toddler.
How many tons of Cadmium Salts would there need to be for you to finally decide to save the child instead?
This allows a rough estimate for how much you value both of those things. The proportion, I assume, would be the exact same as a conservative: You would never kill the child (excepting an edge case like causing everyone to die of cadmium deficiency).

So what does it mean to value rocks? If you simply have an ABUNDANCE of care, then yay! You care more about both and can care for both more in total than the conservative! Again, the same problem arises: (cont)

>>939484490
>Random conclusion not drawn by the authors, but by a random poster on a Mongolian basket weaving dorum.
Please find where in the paper proportionality was ever brought up?
None of those stars are contingent on each other, that's why they have their own P value.

>>939485068
>Real science is only military science and "practical physics" or "Practical Engineering"
I see innovation isn't your favorite thing.

>>939485868
How do you distribute this care? Ultimately, the result will be proportional to a conservative, in which case whenever you make a decision, it will roughly reflect that of a conservative peer, OR CONVERSELY, you will provide less care to your immediate family, children who need you, etc., as you must provide some of your care to others. If care is simply a meaningless lip service, then it is again trivial. You "care" about some Botswanan family, but your resources and actions are still directed towards your own. If they are directed towards the Botswanan, you give less to your family.

Ultimately, including all of these random groups in a sphere of "moral regard" is semi-meaningless. Your behaviors will still roughly line up. And if they don't, it means that yes, resources that would go to people may have some proportion (0.001% for example) go to cardboard, plastic dildos, or cadmium salts.
>>939486104
You could explain.

>>939486488
It wasn't; I bring it up to explain how the results are either
>1. Trivial
or
>2. Lead to liberals distributing more resources as a proportion to outer circles.
Trivial includes results like extremely similar proportions, or the amount of care being simply "having empathy" (which again, conservatives have a similar amount of) etc.

>>939486543
I need to explain that empathy isn't a limited resource like a pie you have to split?
Yikes, I heard a rumor you people think that way but assumed it was hyperbole

>>939486624
What does this empathy result in? Is the result trivial? There is a common stereotype of the liberal that has them crying and beating their chest but ultimately never sacrificing anything for it. The empathy is lip service.

>>939484778
Replacing corruption with more corruption.

>>939483672
No, we are not civilizational racists fags like you. The system that was built to create the perfect form of government is what needs to be preserved because civilzations brought us kings and emperors and that shit sucks. So, Fuck You and everyone who thinks like you, faggot.

>>939486654
Depends, you can empathize without being in a position to fix it.
You'd need a different study to answer that question with accuracy

>>939483113
They protested/rioted against the people in charge, unlike treasonous dems who attack, loot, rape and murder (see chaz) their own neighbors.

Also
> Biden won so hard, they couldn't imagine him winning round 2

>>939486852
>You'd need a different study to answer that question with accuracy
Good answer. It was essentially the only answer. I've had the same debate over this quite a few times on 4chan and reddit, but no one ever says it. You can probably find them on 4chan by looking the study link up on the archives.
>Depends, you can empathize without being in a position to fix it.
For a lot of it, it falls apart. When you are actually confronted with saving an amphibian or a starving child, I doubt you would ever choose the amphibian. This means there is a proportional basis, of course, but at the end of the day you still have some X amount of resources to distribute and 0.1% of them could be divided by the ~1 billion indians or some such. Either way, the study isn't actually saying much.

>>939486967
>For a lot of it, it falls apart. When you are actually confronted with saving an amphibian or a starving child, I doubt you would ever choose the amphibian. This means there is a proportional basis

No it doesn't, you can equally empathize with two living things in peril yet recognize which has more 'value'/moral obligation to do something about it.

>>939487091
Yes, that is what I'm saying. So now we shift moral value to what is proportioned. Amphibians, for example, have a lower proportion of the 'value'/moral obligation, and your own child might have a higher 'value'/moral obligation to take care of than a Botswanan. When you recognize that something has more 'value' then that value comes from some proportion. Amphibians might be 0.1% of it, while people make up 99.9%.

>>939487322
Thats a pretty big shift and an odd choice in terminology. But yes, not what the study is about.

>>939487322
If there wasn't a hierarchy of care that favored 'your own' over 'the other,' then you would see equal value in something like an amphibian over your pet amphibian. The hierarchy of moral value is how you proportion this.

But yes, this is not what the study is about. It is a trivial study and one of many in social sciences that are only good for political rhetoric. It's similar to this Harvard study: https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2300995120
I found it interesting, at least.

Good luck anyway, leftyanon.

>>939487446
>>939487652
Meant not to reply to myself.

>>939487652
I call those 'no doi' studies. It's good/useful that someone tested it but its not news lol

>>939486058
>were reversed
Well, you know what, the parties indeed were reversed in that image you posted there in comparison to what happened to, let's say, Breonna Taylor. So this proves what a hypocrite you are.

>>939486812
>The system
How does it make you feel knowing that this system you stan for elected Trump over your guy?

>>939483035 (OP)
Cool blog post, retard

>>939488182
>Never Go Full Retard
Too late, in your case.

>>939488127
Comparing traitor Ashley babbitt, to Breanna Taylor is some top tier trolling. Well played.

>>939483919
So by this loguc, if I value thingsborher than my family I dont love my family?

Thats superb logic. If you are not ready to watch a species go extinct in order to save your kid a five minute walk you are literally a monster.

Fucking idjits.

>>939488206
>nou
GOTTEEEEEEM

>>939484778
This. Everyone else ITT is a whiney faggot.

>>939488309
Pretty much, didn't you know if you empathize with rosicita down the street you have less empathy at home with John?

>>939488309
That becomes a moral problem. Do you think I can give an objective answer to the question of whether the conscious, intellectual child deserves life more than all Buergeria choui frogs in the world?
If you mean a strictly straw man argument (literally saving a 5 minute walk) then I think the amount if conservatives that would do so would be similar to the amount of humans that believe it would be better for all humans to die than pandas.

>>939488527
Ever hear of Reductio ad absurdum?
(No, its not a Harry Potter spell)

The January 6th insurrectionists are, in fact, traitors. The only one who feels different is the 34 time convicted felon who "pardoned" them. When actual patriots are back in charge, the J6 traitors will be, rightly, "dissapeared". And good riddance.

>>939488647
Absurdum? I barely know'um.

>>939488684
>When actual patriots are back in charge, the J6 traitors will be, rightly, "dissapeared". And good riddance.

Naw, dems are too bitch mode for that unfortunately

>>939488127
>a woman killed in her own home is the same as a woman breaching the capitol with a mob
>apples are, in fact, oranges
if you couldn't debate in bad faith, you couldn't debate at all.

>>939486241
>assblasted that he was called out for his sophistry
>mfw

Liberals want to make sure youre vetted before buying a gun. Because guns kill people. Not people.
However they don’t give a SHIT about unvetted potential criminals coming across the border.

>>939486217
>>939486254
>samefagging this hard
you should put more effort into good faith debate

>>939490035
>he says while samefag coping
Haha good one.

>>939490030
>However they don’t give a SHIT about unvetted potential criminals coming across the border.
You're right. It's because guns kill people, not people.

>>939488206
>still has more brain and empathy than the logfag
I salute.

>>939483035 (OP)

ftfy
>>939490661

>>939488292
>Comparing traitor Ashley babbitt,
Ashli put her own people first, unlike you who put foreigners first. You're the traitor.

>>939492052
Haha, okay groomer

>>939492052
The only tragedy that day was, that, Babbit was the only person shot on the protesters side.
If the Dems had acted like Drumpf is right now the NG would have an insane body count for J6 even before the first person set a foot on any monument.

>>939483113
You lost sweaty.

>>939494575
>If the Dems had acted like Drumpf is right now the NG would have an insane body count for J6 even before the first person set a foot on any monument.
You're retarded. Trump was president during J6, idiot. The National Guard answers to the president. It wasn't involved in J6. If it was an actual coup and if Trump were involved in it he would have ordered the NG to do something that would have disrupted the proceedings in some way. But no such order was given. So just like 99.9% of the other things you say about him, that was a lie.

>>939494624
>asking about 90% of the users who are literally anonymous online.

>>939494575
>The only tragedy that day was, that, Babbit was the only person shot on the protesters side.
t. the "kind and empathetic" (but only to foreigners and moon rocks) left

>>939495516
You still lost sweaty.

>>939483672
You think he's a republican?

>>939483035 (OP)
Jan 6 traitors
pardoned by a traitor
racists
fascists
obey the Leader
ignore the Constitution

>>939495859
Who says I'm left? You.
Well I don't have to be left to dislike Trump and his Cult of traitorous Sheeple.
If you applaud this guy and his bullshit you are part of the problem buddy.
And I save my empathy for people in need not needy people and a clan of billionaires who want to play fascist.
So, fuck you.

>>939495359
You say that, like it makes anything better.
So what you are stating here is Trump's fucking incompetence to secure institutional buildings, as long as it's his own crowd, so now that he can play "Emperror" he sends the NG wherever he smells resistance to his retarded bullshit.
Playbook fascism.

OP is 44 and his wife left with the kids

>>939496599
Get some crayons, make a sign, and go protest about it faggot.

>>939483035 (OP)
Added directly to the ban archive.

>>939496967
>so now that he can play "Emperror"
He could back then, and yet even as president with this power he had he didn't do the "fascist" things you are always claiming he will do. If anything he should have been doing more to stop those out of control riots that were going on back in 2020. He was actually TOO soft.

>>939483113
No you dumb shit. Being a traitor means being loyal to a FOREIGN COUNTRY. Meaning you work for Israel, Russia, China, the UK, whomever. Every single fucking politician in Washington is a literal fucking traitor, they all fly Israel flags in their offices. It is overt and in your face.

The Jan 6 protesters were Americans, through an through, protesting a corrupt government who was rigging an election. Hence the American flags being waved in your own photo. To be traitors they'd need to wave the Israel flag, or the Mexican flag, or some other country's flag.

>>939501524
Dude, they were waving TRUMP flags (far more dangerous than a foreign country) and carry CONFEDERATE flags into the US Capitol. This is not the way our constitution addresses grievances.

What's more, even trump himself as well as most of his advisors have agreed that he lost.

>>939501524
>Being a traitor means being loyal to a FOREIGN COUNTRY.
Which is essentially what all Leftists are, because they put foreigners and space rocks over their own family, country, etc.

bomb ukraine

>>939483035 (OP)
This graph is just as relevant as OP. Leftist whites prefer other races over their own, not just space rocks. They put their own family and race below the families and individuals of other races.

>>939508732
I don't see the problem
I wouldn't want to be associated with you in any capacity

>>939508732
Its amazing how no other demographic is like this. Its not an issue with whites, because as your chart shows non-liberal whites have an in-group preference on par (albeit a hair less) than other races. Its just white liberals specifically who are insane like this. And its not even an issue with liberals of other races. Other races have liberals (in fact most minorities do vote Democrat), but they still have an in-group preference.

So its not a white thing or a liberal thing. Its a white liberal thing. Both those things in conjunction with each other make these weird retards that love space rocks and hate their own families for some reason. But literally no one else on Earth is like that. These people aren't favored by Darwinism since they hate themselves so much and rarely ever have sex, and usually have abortions when they do. Within a century or so they'll be extinct. Its strange that such an aberration of people ever came into being in the first place.

>>939508732
Yeah. This is another interesting topic of discussion. I was hoping someone would bring it up earlier in the thread, especially in the form of saying whites are racist >>939487652
the study I linked there is from Harvard and tries to confirm contemporary beliefs about racism (I won't point out how they're wrong just in case someone is interested in trying the game and looking through it), but aside from that same study showing reverse explicit bias, several other studies confirm that whites are the only racial group with a bias AGAINST their own race.
https://escholarship.org/content/qt8pm012h0/qt8pm012h0.pdf
>In promotions (Table 3, column 3b), we find the same pattern as in dismissals—i.e, an own-race bias for blacks and Hispanics, but a reverse bias for whites. Evidence of own-race bias is again strongest for blacks. The coefficient on the own-race interaction term for blacks is positive and significant, and suggests the relative promotion rate of blacks is 79 percent higher under black managers. For Hispanics, the estimate suggests their relative promotion rate is 40 percent higher under Hispanic managers. Although the coefficient on the own-race interaction term for Hispanics is smaller and not statistically significant, a Wald test cannot reject equality of the coefficients for blacks and Hispanics (p=.50), and together, they are jointly significant (p=.08). Finally, the interaction coefficient for whites, while not significant, does differsignificantly from the mean of the black and Hispanic coefficients (p=.06) and indicates a reverse bias. The estimate suggests that whites are promoted at a 20 percent lower rate under white managers.
Since the researchers themselves were biased against white people and the data, the conclusions section at page 26-27 is extremely, extremely, unintentionally hilarious.

>>939508970
It’s not so much a problem but simply people like you who don’t love their own families are worthless.

>>939509054
>I won't point out how they're wrong just in case someone is interested in trying the game and looking through it
*Side note: Not "how they're wrong" but how the data does not mean anything and is designed to be a political piece.

>>939508732
>white liberals have warmer feeling toward white conservatives than to white liberals

>>939508999
I would say that it's not so simple to call a Democrat or Liberal voting black a "liberal," because they are, after all, voting in the interest of their tribe. They are plundering a foreign people, voting for policies that allow their tribe more leniency in crime, more social welfare, etc., at the expense of other tribes.

Proof leftists really do worry about space rocks. Here is Neil DeGrasse Tyson (pretty far left himself) calling out CBS when they ask him if exploring and possibly settling other planets like Mars or the Moon is just colonialism all over again.

https://youtu.be/BVnGXULHh8E

>We can't colonize the space rocks!
>It is just white oppression all over again!

>>939508970
>I don't see the problem
>I wouldn't want to be associated with you in any capacity

Sure buddy
>OMG whites are the worst!
>_________ culture and people are so much better!
>Nooooooo, you have to let me in, white people!
>Access to white people and their resources is a human right!
>You can't send me back to _________, it is a violent shithole!
>This is a violation of my human rights?

Pic related.
>White people suck!
>Yet they still want in
The leftist retard that made this comic doesn't see the irony, just like you.