"Race" is irrelevant for looks; you're either attractive, unattractive or somewhere in-between.

[Deleted Member 107512]

To be fair, there's a fair bit of subjectivity when it comes to physical looks, but most of looks is objective and can be meaningfully quantified.

"Race" is a biologically untenable, biologically meaningless concept. There's more variation between "races" than outside. It's a poorly defined, often revised concept that changes based on vibes. I.E, in what world do Latvians and Italians constitute a "coherent racial group"? Conversely, how does one make arbitrary divisions between Italians and Syrians? Italians share more ancestry and genetic drift than Italians do with Latvians (a lot more). Genetics are clinal and don't correspond to malleable "Europe" or "West Asia/Middle East" boundaries.

In any event, human attractiveness is more varied within groups than between groups.

Arbitrary, inaccurate classification systems are cope; they won't explain your recessed chin or bug eyes or balding head or excessive horse face.

 

[snow]

Yup

 

[trueceljester]

Inb4 @ogrecel and @theRetard walk in and try to explain how all blacks are subhumans and how white subhuman > black chad

 

[selank]

To be fair, there's a fair bit of subjectivity when it comes to physical looks, but most of looks is objective and can be meaningfully quantified.

"Race" is a biologically untenable, biologically meaningless concept. There's more variation between "races" than outside. It's a poorly defined, often revised concept that changes based on vibes. I.E, in what world do Latvians and Italians constitute a "coherent racial group"? Conversely, how does one make arbitrary divisions between Italians and Syrians? Italians share more ancestry and genetic drift than Italians do with Latvians (a lot more). Genetics are clinal and don't correspond to malleable "Europe" or "West Asia/Middle East" boundaries.

In any event, human attractiveness is more varied within groups than between groups.

Arbitrary, inaccurate classification systems are cope; they won't explain your recessed chin or bug eyes or balding head or excessive horse face.

It's not race, it's actually pheno that matters.

 

[Auggy]

It’s about phenotype, not necessarily race

 

[Cat.]

To be fair, there's a fair bit of subjectivity when it comes to physical looks, but most of looks is objective and can be meaningfully quantified.

"Race" is a biologically untenable, biologically meaningless concept. There's more variation between "races" than outside. It's a poorly defined, often revised concept that changes based on vibes. I.E, in what world do Latvians and Italians constitute a "coherent racial group"? Conversely, how does one make arbitrary divisions between Italians and Syrians? Italians share more ancestry and genetic drift than Italians do with Latvians (a lot more). Genetics are clinal and don't correspond to malleable "Europe" or "West Asia/Middle East" boundaries.

In any event, human attractiveness is more varied within groups than between groups.

Arbitrary, inaccurate classification systems are cope; they won't explain your recessed chin or bug eyes or balding head or excessive horse face.

It’s just not true tho is it?

 

[eternal love]

Inb4 @ogrecel and @theRetard walk in and try to explain how all blacks are subhumans and how white subhuman > black chad

but saar race is undefinable (jfl)

 

[Cat.]

but saar race is undefinable (jfl)

Saar im indoaryan bhaijaan

 

[eternal love]

Saar im indoaryan bhaijaan

original indoaryans who invaded india were unironically europeans (happened in bronze age), modern brahmins have a lot of their DNA. It proves one more time how superior whites are

 

[Cat.]

original indoaryans who invaded india were unironically europeans (happened in bronze age), modern brahmins have a lot of their DNA. It proves one more time how superior whites are

But bro we are all equal!!!

 

[Deleted Member 107512]

It’s just not true tho is it?

Well, what I said about race is true, but there is more flexibility with looks.

It is NOT over for you if you have NCT per say IF the rest of your face has congruence.

 

[Cat.]

Well, what I said about race is true, but there is more flexibility with looks.

It is NOT over for you if you have NCT per say IF the rest of your face has congruence.

Nct is not the biggest failo you can have so ofc

 

[Deleted Member 107512]

original indoaryans who invaded india were unironically europeans (happened in bronze age), modern brahmins have a lot of their DNA. It proves one more time how superior whites are

“Original Indo-Aryans were Europeans”
This is wrong in two different ways:
What the evidence actually shows
The people associated with Indo-Iranian languages (often linked to Sintashta/Andronovo-related horizons) were:
Steppe-derived, yes
But not “Europeans” in any modern or racial sense
Already admixed with CHG/Iranian-related ancestry
Culturally Steppe pastoralists, not “Nordic Europeans”
They were not Swedes on horses. They were part of a West Eurasian Steppe continuum stretching from Eastern Europe into Central Asia.
There was no “white European race” in the Bronze Age. That’s a 19th–20th century invention retrojected backwards.
“Modern Brahmins have a lot of their DNA”
This is half-true but badly framed.
What genetics actually shows:
North Indian populations (including many Brahmin groups) have higher Steppe-related ancestry than South Indians. But:
Steppe ancestry in most North Indians is roughly 10–30% (varies by region and group)
The majority of their ancestry is indigenous South Asian + ancient Iranian-related
Brahmins are not “mostly Steppe”
They cluster genetically with other North Indians, not with Europeans
In PCA and FST terms:
Brahmins are far closer to other Indians than to any European population.
So no, Brahmins are not “Europeans in India.”
They are South Asians with some Steppe admixture, like Iranians, Armenians, Greeks, Turks, etc. also have.
The fatal contradiction: Steppe ancestry ≠ “white”
Here’s where the entire racial narrative implodes:
If Steppe ancestry = “white”:
Then Armenians are “white”
Iranians are “white”
Kurds are “white”
Tajiks are “white”
Pashtuns are “white”
Turks are “white”
Southern Italians are “white”
Greeks are “white”
Many Levantines are “white”
But these same race-copers explicitly exclude all of these groups.
So they don’t actually believe:
Steppe = white
They believe:
Steppe is “white” only when it’s in Northern Europeans.
That’s not genetics — that’s ideological laundering.
The deeper irony: Indo-Aryans weren’t even “European-looking”
Reconstructed Steppe populations were:
Dark-haired
Brown-eyed
Often darker-skinned than modern Northern Europeans
More similar phenotypically to modern Caucasus / Iranian plateau populations than to Scandinavians
The pale, pink-skinned “Nordic” look is:
A late European adaptation
Amplified by post-Neolithic selection in low-UV environments
Not some ancient Indo-European phenotype exported to India
So the whole “European phenotype civilised India” story is fantasy.
“It proves how superior whites are” – the stupidest part
Even if we entertained this fantasy:
Steppe ancestry didn’t create Indian civilisation
The Indus Valley Civilization predates Steppe arrival
The intellectual, urban, technological foundations of South Asia were already there
Steppe pastoralists entered a civilisation more advanced than their own
So even the “civilisational” angle collapses historically.
This is just the old colonial myth:
“We brought civilisation to the natives”
— except now repackaged with DNA buzzwords.
The final irony
The same people who scream:
“Indo-Aryans were Europeans and superior”
Also scream:
“Middle Easterners and Iranians are subhuman”
Even though:
Indo-Iranian Steppe peoples mixed heavily with Iranian-related populations
Indo-Aryan languages are literally Indo-Iranian
Ancient “Aryan” identity was as much Iranian as Steppe
They’ve created a racial fantasy where:
The “Aryan” is white
The Iranian is non-white
Even though the entire Indo-Aryan complex is inseparable from Iranian ancestry
It’s historical illiteracy + racial cope stacked on top of each other.