White is a colour, black is a shade


Black is not a colour.

White people are POC. Recessive phenotype variation.

Words originating from optics retain the definitions found in Optics, 101.

Thank you, Newton.

This is like the morons like Rihanna who say diamonds “shine”.

No diamond has ever shone. I doubt she even knows the word ‘shone’.

They reflect because they cannot emit visible light. Child level physics.

If you refuse to use English properly, use a non-white language instead.

Actually, why do so many Africans appropriate white language in America?

White people are also a global minority, the only race that isn’t at replacement level, so stop trying to play that card too. We owe you nothing.

If you hate white people so much, move back home. Aw, but it sucks there, doesn’t it?

The places with no pesky whites, like the future.

White people are literally a minority, get over it SJWs: http://www.prb.org/pdf13/2013-WPDS-infographic_MED.pdf

Those 8 billion won’t last long.

You can’t blame whites for failures thousands of years long.

Like refusing to shut your legs according to food supply.

When you ‘kindly’ feed 10 million starving Third Worlders, what do you get?

A billion starving Third Worlders.

Ironically, fake Christians will be historically recorded as the greatest mass murderers.


Asia will be Africa’s owner, they already are.

Suck it up.

In conclusion, fuck foreign aid.

Eye colour genetics

It is completely unique, like a fingerprint but there are genetic markers that sway it broadly.

Dominance is the real theory, recession is just an absence of dominance. Recessive genes are more evolutionally novel, that’s why they’re quite easy to steamroll.

This is a simplified graph but instructive.

You could associate probabilities based on the parent’s DNA, their genotype, not phenotype outcome.

Basic primary colour perception varies by sex.


Basic. Red. Yellow. Blue. Rainbow colours. Not terracotta versus rust. [former is red-orange, latter more brown]
Primary colours too. So this would really throw the cat among the pigeons for any upper level function since a man and a woman can look at literally the same object, same section of the nm spectrum and still disagree/misperceive.

Not that it supports the “nothing is objective” philosophy. These things are quantifiable with optics. The difference is labelling and perception between sexes based on what their senses are capable of perceiving. Cat, pigeons.

Click on this to mix colours online and do a random sample of m/f friends: http://www.wolframalpha.com/widgets/view.jsp?id=82d2083bea117b6f3e03d6426ba2d29f Women give more florid descriptions, men tend to be blunt. That might not be male simplicity or stupidity, as is often claimed, but a difference in colour processing in the brain. Women, being gatherers in tribal societies, required higher colour discrimination than men, who often only needed to catch what they were chasing. Lo and behold;

Guys’ eyes are more sensitive to small details and moving objects, while women are more perceptive to color changes, according to a new vision study that suggests men and women actually do see things differently.

Abramov explained in a statement these elements of vision are linked to specific sets of thalamic neurons in the brain’s primary visual cortex. The development of these neurons is controlled by male sex hormones called androgens when the embryo is developing into a fetus. [and according to pro-choice feminists, not really a person]

“We suggest that, since these neurons are guided by the cortex during embryogenesis, that testosterone plays a major role, somehow leading to different connectivity between males and females,” Abramov said. “The evolutionary driving force between these differences is less clear.” [he says tongue firmly in cheek]

Vive la Evolution!