Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Too White to Win (now enhanced with an evolutionary biology lecture!)
Comments
-
@Sledog would like a strategically slow word with you.WeakarmCobra said:
some? we all hate white people2001400ex said:I thought some people on this board were racist. Until I read this thread.
-
Having read Soccernomics I can actually weigh in on this. South Africa (the country) is a very interestic example because of Apartheid. Obviously it caused the socioeconomic divide to split exactly based on racial differences. Even to this day, rich, middle class and poor are basically the exact same groops as white, mix-raced, and black.Dennis_DeYoung said:
In sports? I don't follow soccer, so they well could... there are a lot of theories about why West Africans seem to be so dominant in sport, but a) it doesn't seem equally distributed across all Africa and b) there's not really a good handle on it right now, partially because it's so controversial of a topic.RhythmicSlappingDawg said:@Dennis_DeYoung you forgot the Zulus in Soufffff Africa. Those guys tear shit up.
In South Africa, whites dominate rugby, whereas mixed-raced dominate soccer. Rugby is basically the rich people sport for cultural reasons. Soccer is the most popular sport, but is still dominated by mixed-race players, even though it's a smaller portion of the population than white people.
For the record, the population breakdown (according to wikipedia) is this: Black 67%, White 21%, Mixed 9%. So why have mixed-race players dominated South Africa's most popular sport since the fall of Apartheid? The answer is really simple: They're in the sweet spot.
Black people in South Africa often live in abject poverty. They often don't have access to enough food or medicine to develop physically, nor do they have the free time to pursue sports even if they did, in a lot of cases. Plus, y'know, AIDS.
White people on the other hand, live a lot more comfortably. The will have a nice life even if they don't succeed in sports. The few that decide to pursue sports anyway usually end up in Rugby or Cricket. Or legless running (not really).
Mixed-race people are poor enough to pursue sports as a way out, but not so poor that they don't have food and medicine to physically develop. Pretty much the same as urban black kids in America. That's why they succeed in sports at a very disproportionate rate.
This is obviously very simplified, but it's the essence of it. -
Good chit. This is definitely the smartest thread of 2018. I'm learning and shit.NorwegianHusky said:
Having read Soccernomics I can actually weigh in on this. South Africa (the country) is a very interestic example because of Apartheid. Obviously it caused the socioeconomic divide to split exactly based on racial differences. Even to this day, rich, middle class and poor are basically the exact same groops as white, mix-raced, and black.Dennis_DeYoung said:
In sports? I don't follow soccer, so they well could... there are a lot of theories about why West Africans seem to be so dominant in sport, but a) it doesn't seem equally distributed across all Africa and b) there's not really a good handle on it right now, partially because it's so controversial of a topic.RhythmicSlappingDawg said:@Dennis_DeYoung you forgot the Zulus in Soufffff Africa. Those guys tear shit up.
In South Africa, whites dominate rugby, whereas mixed-raced dominate soccer. Rugby is basically the rich people sport for cultural reasons. Soccer is the most popular sport, but is still dominated by mixed-race players, even though it's a smaller portion of the population than white people.
For the record, the population breakdown (according to wikipedia) is this: Black 67%, White 21%, Mixed 9%. So why have mixed-race players dominated South Africa's most popular sport since the fall of Apartheid? The answer is really simple: They're in the sweet spot.
Black people in South Africa often live in abject poverty. They often don't have access to enough food or medicine to develop physically, nor do they have the free time to pursue sports even if they did, in a lot of cases. Plus, y'know, AIDS.
White people on the other hand, live a lot more comfortably. The will have a nice life even if they don't succeed in sports. The few that decide to pursue sports anyway usually end up in Rugby or Cricket. Or legless running (not really).
Mixed-race people are poor enough to pursue sports as a way out, but not so poor that they don't have food and medicine to physically develop. Pretty much the same as urban black kids in America. That's why they succeed in sports at a very disproportionate rate.
This is obviously very simplified, but it's the essence of it. -
dnc said:
Good chit. This is definitely the smartest threadNorwegianHusky said:
Having read Soccernomics I can actually weigh in on this. South Africa (the country) is a very interestic example because of Apartheid. Obviously it caused the socioeconomic divide to split exactly based on racial differences. Even to this day, rich, middle class and poor are basically the exact same groops as white, mix-raced, and black.Dennis_DeYoung said:
In sports? I don't follow soccer, so they well could... there are a lot of theories about why West Africans seem to be so dominant in sport, but a) it doesn't seem equally distributed across all Africa and b) there's not really a good handle on it right now, partially because it's so controversial of a topic.RhythmicSlappingDawg said:@Dennis_DeYoung you forgot the Zulus in Soufffff Africa. Those guys tear shit up.
In South Africa, whites dominate rugby, whereas mixed-raced dominate soccer. Rugby is basically the rich people sport for cultural reasons. Soccer is the most popular sport, but is still dominated by mixed-race players, even though it's a smaller portion of the population than white people.
For the record, the population breakdown (according to wikipedia) is this: Black 67%, White 21%, Mixed 9%. So why have mixed-race players dominated South Africa's most popular sport since the fall of Apartheid? The answer is really simple: They're in the sweet spot.
Black people in South Africa often live in abject poverty. They often don't have access to enough food or medicine to develop physically, nor do they have the free time to pursue sports even if they did, in a lot of cases. Plus, y'know, AIDS.
White people on the other hand, live a lot more comfortably. The will have a nice life even if they don't succeed in sports. The few that decide to pursue sports anyway usually end up in Rugby or Cricket. Or legless running (not really).
Mixed-race people are poor enough to pursue sports as a way out, but not so poor that they don't have food and medicine to physically develop. Pretty much the same as urban black kids in America. That's why they succeed in sports at a very disproportionate rate.
This is obviously very simplified, but it's the essence of it.of 2018ever. I'm learning and shit. -
This is a pretty fascinating concept - in part because the science of it starts to veer toward verboten topics like eugenics and the Bell Curve. But of course, there are both genetic and sociological factors present WRT athletic performance.dnc said:
Good chit. This is definitely the smartest thread of 2018. I'm learning and shit.NorwegianHusky said:
Having read Soccernomics I can actually weigh in on this. South Africa (the country) is a very interestic example because of Apartheid. Obviously it caused the socioeconomic divide to split exactly based on racial differences. Even to this day, rich, middle class and poor are basically the exact same groops as white, mix-raced, and black.Dennis_DeYoung said:
In sports? I don't follow soccer, so they well could... there are a lot of theories about why West Africans seem to be so dominant in sport, but a) it doesn't seem equally distributed across all Africa and b) there's not really a good handle on it right now, partially because it's so controversial of a topic.RhythmicSlappingDawg said:@Dennis_DeYoung you forgot the Zulus in Soufffff Africa. Those guys tear shit up.
In South Africa, whites dominate rugby, whereas mixed-raced dominate soccer. Rugby is basically the rich people sport for cultural reasons. Soccer is the most popular sport, but is still dominated by mixed-race players, even though it's a smaller portion of the population than white people.
For the record, the population breakdown (according to wikipedia) is this: Black 67%, White 21%, Mixed 9%. So why have mixed-race players dominated South Africa's most popular sport since the fall of Apartheid? The answer is really simple: They're in the sweet spot.
Black people in South Africa often live in abject poverty. They often don't have access to enough food or medicine to develop physically, nor do they have the free time to pursue sports even if they did, in a lot of cases. Plus, y'know, AIDS.
White people on the other hand, live a lot more comfortably. The will have a nice life even if they don't succeed in sports. The few that decide to pursue sports anyway usually end up in Rugby or Cricket. Or legless running (not really).
Mixed-race people are poor enough to pursue sports as a way out, but not so poor that they don't have food and medicine to physically develop. Pretty much the same as urban black kids in America. That's why they succeed in sports at a very disproportionate rate.
This is obviously very simplified, but it's the essence of it.
I think it is difficult for laypersons to distinguish between the real science and the junk science and to avoid lazy generalizations.
This is a good discussion though. -
I can confirm this. However, my RSA side of the family is very wealthy. They moved to Canada in the late 70s but in SA they were objectively in the middle class. Mixed race families in RSA can really range from wealthy to poor depending on if the father/male is black or white.NorwegianHusky said:
Having read Soccernomics I can actually weigh in on this. South Africa (the country) is a very interestic example because of Apartheid. Obviously it caused the socioeconomic divide to split exactly based on racial differences. Even to this day, rich, middle class and poor are basically the exact same groops as white, mix-raced, and black.Dennis_DeYoung said:
In sports? I don't follow soccer, so they well could... there are a lot of theories about why West Africans seem to be so dominant in sport, but a) it doesn't seem equally distributed across all Africa and b) there's not really a good handle on it right now, partially because it's so controversial of a topic.RhythmicSlappingDawg said:@Dennis_DeYoung you forgot the Zulus in Soufffff Africa. Those guys tear shit up.
In South Africa, whites dominate rugby, whereas mixed-raced dominate soccer. Rugby is basically the rich people sport for cultural reasons. Soccer is the most popular sport, but is still dominated by mixed-race players, even though it's a smaller portion of the population than white people.
For the record, the population breakdown (according to wikipedia) is this: Black 67%, White 21%, Mixed 9%. So why have mixed-race players dominated South Africa's most popular sport since the fall of Apartheid? The answer is really simple: They're in the sweet spot.
Black people in South Africa often live in abject poverty. They often don't have access to enough food or medicine to develop physically, nor do they have the free time to pursue sports even if they did, in a lot of cases. Plus, y'know, AIDS.
White people on the other hand, live a lot more comfortably. The will have a nice life even if they don't succeed in sports. The few that decide to pursue sports anyway usually end up in Rugby or Cricket. Or legless running (not really).
Mixed-race people are poor enough to pursue sports as a way out, but not so poor that they don't have food and medicine to physically develop. Pretty much the same as urban black kids in America. That's why they succeed in sports at a very disproportionate rate.
This is obviously very simplified, but it's the essence of it. -
Also, I forgot to add, FUCK RUGBY those guys are massive fags.
-
Why do you hate rugby tackling and keeping our kids healthy?RhythmicSlappingDawg said:Also, I forgot to add, FUCK RUGBY those guys are massive fags.
-
So @Dennis_DeYoung since you've identified a potential flaw in Pete's recruiting model, what does the messaging need to look like for the FAST Strategy kids we need and still are likely to fit and benefit from our culture? Get Rich
and dieor be Built for Life Tryin' ? -
Where does penis size fit into the conversation?
