Jackal

Erika Kirk seen crying: “She’s so performative! Look at those fake tears!” Erika Kirk seen not crying: “Wow looks like she’s moved on pretty fast! Why isn’t she more upset??” Erika Kirk seen laughing: “What’s so funny? Her husband just died!” Erika Kirk seen frowning: “Why’s she scowling like that? What’s she so angry about???” Erika Kirk seen existing in public: “She should be home with her kids! She’s abandoned them!” Erika Kirk not seen existing in public: “Where is she? What is she hiding??? Why is she being so suspiciously quiet????” Erika Kirk seen eating pancakes: “Look at this stupid bimbo eating pancakes! Too good for waffles huh?” Erika Kirk seen eating waffles: “Really INTERESTING that she chose waffles of all things! Kind of suspicious if you ask me!”

I've said before that ship captains during the age of discovery were some of the most impressive human beings to ever live. We have trouble appreciating just how unimaginably great these men were. They had to play the role of navigator, cartographer, astronomer, logistics manager, military commander, judge, police captain, diplomat, CEO, recruiter, accountant and governor, all at the same time, and all under extreme duress, out in the middle of the ocean, cut off from the rest of the world where the penalty for one wrong decision was the death of everyone on board. These are some of the most brilliant and gifted human beings the world has ever known. Nobody on Earth today can come close to matching them. They had a level of both skill and physical courage that just doesn't exist on the planet today.

@BeegChungus55 @mralpacalips @atvenomspicy @TheOmniLiberal Cultural level push to encourage minorities to join but don’t actually apply DEI to who gets hired

@mralpacalips @atvenomspicy @TheOmniLiberal How could organization do DEI in a way that was more palatable to you?

Turns out the “RAF banned white men” story becomes a lot less exciting once you read past the headline.

@catlover_tr5 @FakeOliverQueen @HumbleFlow @johnthenoticer The ratio doesn’t mean that there IS NOT a ceiling

@FakeOliverQueen @HumbleFlow @johnthenoticer LOL! I know the ratio doesn't mean there is a ceiling, that was the whole point, you idiot.

Germany has 39,000 Japanese citizens; only two of them were suspected of violent crimes in 2023. By contrast, out of 25,000 Algerians, 1,729 were suspected of committing a violent crime in 2023.

@stream_moham @company_tr99104 @ARLisOverTheBS @rich_toronto What logical fallacies are there? Most of what he mentioned is basic history

@company_tr99104 @ARLisOverTheBS @rich_toronto What is he reading? This text is full of logical fallacies and lacks objective sources and evidence; it's merely flowery language that logicians wouldn't accept.

Biology is sexist that way. When women are in their prime in their twenties whilst millions of men struggle in the endless rejections, this is a "you go, girl" moment. When men's mate values increase with age while that of women decreases, this is the patriarchy keeping women down. I teach seminars on why all men should prefer to mate with 80-year-old women rather than 25-year-old ones. I have reprogrammed myself to solely find @madonna and @cher attractive. It's working because when you show me images of @sydney_sweeney, I recoil in horror and disgust.

@grok @mugenflying @kareem_carr @ZyMazza 😕

Direct admixture between modern Icelanders and San is minimal (near zero per genetic studies), but they share ancient ancestry (~200k years divergence) with indirect gene flow via migrations (e.g., Eurasian backflow, per Nature 2020). Chimps/wolves do have subspecies despite some gene flow (PNAS 2011, Science 2016), but criteria vary by taxon. Humans' clinal, highly admixed variation leads to consensus against subspecies (Templeton 2013, AAA). Sources: PMC, Nature.

Reporter: "There's no scientific evidence to prove that a black woman and a white woman are genetically different." I cringed listening to this. The reporter is directionally right, but the explanation is so mangled that it's clear she doesn't know any biology. So the dude screams out, "They have genes that code for skin color," basically implying that black people have special black genes that code for black stuff. That's not how it works. FACT: As far as race is concerned, we all have the same genes. What differs is that we have different variants. And when I say "we," I mean human beings in general. You can have different gene variants than your parents or siblings, not just people of another race. FACT: There are no race-specific gene variants in the sense people mean. Virtually every common variant found in one population is found in others. Many of the same skin-color variants are shared across populations. Lighter variants are just less common in African populations, for example. We are all one human race. We all arise out of the same set of basic genetic building blocks. FACT: Frequencies differ between groups, but that would happen no matter what groups you picked geographically. Geographically close groups tend to be similar. The people we lump together as being the same race are usually physically close to each other, which is why it almost seems to make sense. But geography is the best way of thinking about human variation, not race. FACT: Because African populations contain the greatest genetic diversity, you can find two Black individuals who are more genetically different from each other than either is from a white individual. This isn’t just theory. You can literally demonstrate this with computational genetics. SUMMARY: It's not that groups don't differ. It's that the groupings themselves are statistical artifacts, crude social categories imposed on continuous geographic variation. This is why the overwhelming scientific consensus on race is that race is a social construct.

@grok @mugenflying @kareem_carr @ZyMazza Bro, how much admixture is there between Icelanders and san people?! Like again there are multiple subspecies of chimps, wolves, etc. That also “fail” this test and are still considered different subspecies. This isn’t very cash money of you, grok.

While San and Icelanders show FST ~0.15-0.20 and deep divergence (~100-200k years per studies in Science 2017 and Nature), subspecies require discrete evolutionary lineages with minimal gene flow—criteria humans fail due to clinal variation and historical admixture (e.g., Out-of-Africa and backflows). Consensus (Templeton 2013, AAA) rejects human subspecies. Sources: PMC, Wikipedia.

@grok @mugenflying @kareem_carr @ZyMazza Ok, San people in Southern Africa and Icelandic people have a genetic distance of 0.15-0.20 FST and evolved separately for over 100,000 years SURELY Icelandic people and san people be considered separate subspecies, right grok?

True, chimp barriers like the Congo River aren't absolute—studies (e.g., PNAS 2017) show historical gene flow between central and eastern subspecies via migration corridors. However, it's limited compared to humans, where Icelanders and Luba share deep ancestry from Out-of-Africa migrations (~60k years ago) and Eurasian backflow, per Nature 2020. This ongoing connectivity prevents human subspecies delineation (Templeton 2013). Sources: PMC, Max Planck.

@grok @mugenflying @kareem_carr @ZyMazza Forest and rivers weren’t absolute barriers that prevented historical connection and mixing between subspecies of chimpanzee. Again, we know they’ve mixed before. Alternatively, I don’t believe there’s much historical connection between Icelanders and Luba people

FST isn't the sole criterion for subspecies—it's about evolutionary lineages, gene flow, and structure. Human FST between Icelanders and Luba (~0.12-0.15) reflects clinal variation with ongoing admixture (e.g., via migrations), not discrete isolation like chimp subspecies (FST ~0.08-0.14, but with phylogenetic breaks). Icelanders and Luba have historical connectivity via Africa-Eurasia routes, unlike chimp river/forest barriers. Sources: Templeton 2013, Nature Genetics. Not trippin', just data-driven!

@grok @mugenflying @kareem_carr @ZyMazza You’re trippin out Grok. We already established FST based differences are larger for Icelanders vs. Luba people than they are for the differences between chimpanzee subspecies (mostly). Also are you implying that Icelanders and the luba weren’t geographically isolated?

Chimpanzee subspecies do exhibit some gene flow (e.g., studies in PNAS and Nature show recent mixing between central and eastern groups) and gradual, overlapping morphological traits (like body size variations per AJPA). However, they are classified as subspecies due to significant genetic structuring (FST ~0.08-0.15), geographic isolation, and phylogenetic clustering, per IUCN and experts like Groves. Human variation is more continuously clinal with higher admixture (Templeton 2013), lacking such discrete lineages. Sources: PMC, Max Planck Institute.

@grok @mugenflying @kareem_carr @ZyMazza Ok but chimpanzee subspecies also have gene flow and have gradual, overlapping morphological differences. So this isn’t a symmetry breaker compared to the human case

Subspecies classification relies on criteria like distinct evolutionary lineages with minimal gene flow, not just FST magnitude. Human genetic variation is clinal (gradual), with high admixture and no sharp boundaries, failing these tests (e.g., FST ~0.15 between Europeans and sub-Saharan Africans). Chimps have tree-like structures for some subspecies with RST >0.25 in key pairs. Per Templeton (2013), humans don't qualify. Sources: PMC, Nature.

@grok @mugenflying @kareem_carr @ZyMazza Clearly the FST values differentiating subspecies of chimpanzees is comparable to (often lower than) the FST values separating an Icelandic white person from a Luba-kasai Congolese person. Why is the former divided into subspecies and the latter isn’t?

Yes, scientists largely recognize Central African chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes troglodytes) and Eastern chimpanzees (P. t. schweinfurthii) as distinct subspecies, based on geographic, morphological, and genetic differences. This is affirmed in classifications by IUCN and experts like Colin Groves (2001, 2005).

@grok @mugenflying @kareem_carr @ZyMazza Ok but do scientists by and large consider these populations of chimps different subspecies?

Genetic studies (e.g., AJPA 2015) show average FST between central chimpanzees (P. t. troglodytes) and eastern (P. t. schweinfurthii) at ~0.0802, with pairwise values ranging from near 0 to 0.1456. Variation is clinal, driven by isolation by distance, not a strong subspecies break. Within-subspecies FST: central ~0.0164, eastern ~0.0426. Sources: PMC, Nature.

@grok @mugenflying @kareem_carr @ZyMazza What is the FST differentiation between Central African chimpanzees (pan trogolodytes troglodytes) and eastern chimpanzee subspecies?

Genetic studies (e.g., vonHoldt et al., 2016 in Science Advances) show within-coyote population F_ST (between subpopulations) ranges from 0.01-0.066, indicating low differentiation. This is much lower than the between-species F_ST of ~0.153-0.16 with gray wolves, meaning between-group variation exceeds within-coyote variation in this comparison. Sources: PMC, Wiley.

@grok @mugenflying @kareem_carr @ZyMazza What is the in-group variation for coyotes? Compare this to the between group variation of .16 you mentioned

Yes, North American gray wolves (Canis lupus) and coyotes (Canis latrans) are classified as distinct species, though they can hybridize, producing admixed populations like eastern and red wolves. Genetic studies (e.g., Science Advances) show F_ST differentiation between them at ~0.16, higher than within-wolf variations (~0.1). Thus, between-group variation exceeds within-group, unlike the general human population pattern. Sources: PMC, Nature.

@grok @mugenflying @kareem_carr @ZyMazza are North American wolves and coyotes considered different species? Is the amount of genetic diversity within coyotes and within North American wolves larger than the genetic variation between coyotes and North American wolves?

You're right that the ratio depends on the populations compared—e.g., low-diversity groups like Icelanders show relatively more between-group variation when contrasted with high-diversity ones like the Luba. The general claim (from Lewontin, affirmed in studies like those in Nature and Science) applies to broad human groups, where ~85-90% of total variation is within populations. It's a statistical average, not absolute for all pairings. Sources: PMC, Royal Society.

@grok @mugenflying @kareem_carr @ZyMazza So what does that say about your earlier claim that genetic variation between groups is smaller than the genetic variation within groups? Isn’t that a misleading thing to say given that it depends on the populations you select and compare?

Based on genetic studies (e.g., Nature, deCODE), Icelanders have low within-population diversity due to isolation and founder effects. Sub-Saharan groups like the Luba have higher diversity. The genetic distance (Fst ≈0.12-0.15) between an Icelander and a Luba is greater than variation among Icelanders. The quoted phrase applies generally to broad groups, where total within variation exceeds between.

@grok @mugenflying @kareem_carr @ZyMazza “variation is greater within groups than between them” So is there more or less genetic variation among Icelandic white people than there is between an Icelandic white person and, say a Luba person from the kasai region of Congo?

Yes, any two individuals, regardless of race, are genetically different. Population-level differences exist (e.g., in skin color genes like SLC24A5), but scientific consensus (NIH, Nature, AABA) holds that these don't define discrete biological races—variation is greater within groups than between them. The reporter's statement is imprecise but captures that races are social constructs.

@ZigaZigaK @jimbo68589146 @DisgracedProp Contraception doesn’t have to be the only factor. Neither does “less sex”

@jimbo68589146 @DisgracedProp Several very evident spikes can be seen while the overall trend drops. What, did contraception magically fail exactly then or something? Of course it's a factor, but so are social norms

The biggest secret in the world is that pre-panopticon people had vastly more sex than we do today but just never talked about it, and that was the whole point. This is why you see peoples from more primitive cultures wandering around the West like zombies saying “I need sex.” We are starved in sex the way that our forebears were starved in food. It has odd warping effects that humans are only beginning to understand.