ALL HAIL PRESIDENT TRUMP

"

Xavderion wrote:

The Root is a deeply racist site. It's always fun to swap "white" with "black" or "jewish" in their headlines and articles. Reads like Stormfront.

Race is largely a social construct anyways.

Don't know why y'all fighting over something so trivial.

Republican: That's racist.
Democrat: No, that's racist.
Republican: No, you!
Democrat: No, you!

1e6 * No you!

Well that was fun.

"

Turtledove wrote:

"

Xavderion wrote:

Damn that list is something else. When criticizing black people is racist.

It would seem that you're saying that criticizing black people because in general they are too lazy to work themselves out of poverty (or what ever?) is not a racist attitude?

Has nothing to do with race it;s enabling. You wanna fuck someone up quick enable them.

USA have done so with black ppl. Telling them how special they are and giving handouts/preferences.

Meanwhile illegals who dont even speak English become millionaires here. Or well to do. I know many Hispanics who barley speak english and are kicking ass because they were not enabled. Same with asians. Find me one homeless asain? you won't. again not enabled.

Adversity makes you stronger not weaker. A lot of white ppl are weak now IMO because they get enabled. I'm sure you'd agree WRT Trump. amirite?


Anyway another big reason I'm a republican besides selfish reasons is their policies makes for a better more competitive world free of moral hazard. The free shit dems give away ruins ppl.

"

rojimboo wrote:

Race is largely a social construct anyways.

Technically, yes. But I'm amused by how the phrase "social construct" is used to hand-wave it away as if it doesn't exist, or at least doesn't matter. The legal system, language, and newsworthiness are also social constructs, so why aren't they dismissed as easily?

"

鬼殺し wrote:

racism is a good indication of other, arguably bigger problems bubbling under the surface. Most notably to me, the need to oversimplify differences and supplant critical thinking with thoughtless, unchallenged categorisation.

Exactly. But you might want to tread carefully with this, or orange man might be bad most times, good sometimes.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

rojimboo wrote:

Race is largely a social construct anyways.

Technically, yes. But I'm amused by how the phrase "social construct" is used to hand-wave it away as if it doesn't exist, or at least doesn't matter. The legal system, language, and newsworthiness are also social constructs, so why aren't they dismissed as easily?

Probably because people are not applying objective things, like genetics, to explain the categories within race, to the legal system and language.

Probably because people are not profiling other people based on language or newsworthiness, to such an extent or at all.

Probably because people actually harm each other based on this misconception that race is something real, objective in the real world, and is not a social construct.

Racial categories are weak proxies for genetic diversity and need to be phased out.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/race-is-a-social-construct-scientists-argue/

Whilst scientists can tell based on a person's genome what race they are, it is a very crude and poor proxy for genetic diversity.

Most scientists actually agree now that race is a social contstruct when it comes to biology and natural sciences, yet in soft sciences might still be a useful tool in combating racism for instance.

Humans are remarkably similar in fact, a pack of chimpanzees has more genetic diversity and variability than the entire human race. If you are doing medical research focused on race differences, chances are you will be wrong most times than not due to your assumptions, like black people should not get cystic fybriosis, which is complete bullshit and lead to its under-reporting and under-diagnosing.

race is a social contrust. We are basically identical when you get past the "look" of someone. Thats whats so lame about identity politics - it throws away thought for appearance. Very shallow.

And then ppl complain abt an oligarchy of the managerial elite but I would argue this not by design, but by *default*. The working class - which once read newspapers and cared about government - is occupied with bread and circuses now. race celebrity etc

"

鬼殺し wrote:

Ah, that's more like it, rojimboo.

But 'race' goes so far back culturally that it's entirely possible and even probable that certain disorders and weaknesses have evolved into certain 'races' that practically, we call them issues associated with race even though they're not *really* genetic.

For example, East Asian lactose intolerance -- because my Asian ancestors just weren't as exposed to dairy products as my Occidental.

Exactly, but to be more precise, that has less to do with race, and more to do with ancestry and population.

From my quoted article:

"

So what other variables could be used if the racial concept is thrown out? Pääbo said geography might be a better substitute in regions such as Europe to define "populations" from a genetic perspective. However, he added that, in North America, where the majority of the population has come from different parts of the world during the past 300 years, distinctions like "African Americans" or "European Americans" might still work as a proxy to suggest where a person's major ancestry originated.

Yudell also said scientists need to get more specific with their language, perhaps using terms like "ancestry" or "population" that might more precisely reflect the relationship between humans and their genes, on both the individual and population level.

"

rojimboo wrote:

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

rojimboo wrote:

Race is largely a social construct anyways.

Technically, yes. But I'm amused by how the phrase "social construct" is used to hand-wave it away as if it doesn't exist, or at least doesn't matter. The legal system, language, and newsworthiness are also social constructs, so why aren't they dismissed as easily?

Probably because people are not applying objective things, like genetics, to explain the categories within race, to the legal system and language.

Probably because people are not profiling other people based on language or newsworthiness, to such an extent or at all.

Probably because people actually harm each other based on this misconception that race is something real, objective in the real world, and is not a social construct.

Racial categories are weak proxies for genetic diversity and need to be phased out.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/race-is-a-social-construct-scientists-argue/

Whilst scientists can tell based on a person's genome what race they are, it is a very crude and poor proxy for genetic diversity.

Most scientists actually agree now that race is a social contstruct when it comes to biology and natural sciences, yet in soft sciences might still be a useful tool in combating racism for instance.

Humans are remarkably similar in fact, a pack of chimpanzees has more genetic diversity and variability than the entire human race. If you are doing medical research focused on race differences, chances are you will be wrong most times than not due to your assumptions, like black people should not get cystic fybriosis, which is complete bullshit and lead to its under-reporting and under-diagnosing.

Actually this is very important.

To justify using racial stereotypes, it is typical to point out things like Dobermans will behave significantly differently from Golden Retrievers. While this is true, the genetic differences between breeds of dogs is huge! While the genetic difference between races is minuscule. Like you say that race is more of a social construct, expecially in comparison to different breeds of dogs or breeds of cows, sheep, etc.

Here's the definition of racism.

"

Belief in distinct human races, and that they have different inherent attributes or abilities, and generally that some are superior and others inferior.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/racism

I've explained before in this thread that my parents were racist. They wouldn't admit it, not even to themselves. To them they didn't hate anybody so they can't be racist. Note that hate is not part of the definition of racism.

"

rojimbo wrote:

Probably because people are not applying objective things, like genetics, to explain the categories within race, to the legal system and language.

Um, no. The practice of dividing people into categories based on skin color uses objective (but nigh-meaningless) genetic criteria. Unless you've seen a white couple birth a black baby recently (assuming no cuckoldry).

"

rojimboo wrote:

Probably because people are not profiling other people based on language or newsworthiness, to such an extent or at all.

So you think people are never profiled because of their celebrity status or even their diction. You think by now you'd realize people do both of these against conservatives constantly. Sad!

"

rojimboo wrote:

Probably because people actually harm each other based on this misconception that race is something real, objective in the real world, and is not a social construct.

Racial categories are weak proxies for genetic diversity and need to be phased out.

By definition, a race is merely a genetic category. Traditionally, race has meant genetic categorization according to skin/hair/eye color, because these are the traits most obviously genetic to even a layman; however, one could conceptualize race differently — for instance, if I hold that IQ is heavily genetic and use it as a basis for discrimination against low-IQ people with the intent to artificially and significantly limit the breeding capacity of low-IQ people, that would be racist.

Note that "low-IQ" people is, in the above context, a social construct. How we determine where the border between the "low-IQ" and "normal IQ" categories is the kind of thing that is simultaneously capable of objective standards (to the extent that IQ measurement is objective) yet ultimately arbitrary (a difference of a couple points could place one in a different category). Similarly, a law can have objective standards for violation once codified, but those standards could be very elastic indeed at an earlier point where it is but proposed legislation, subject to amendment, veto, etc; also, national or Congressional-district borders can be clearly defined yet changed by either treaty or gerrymandering.

So while it might be correct — and by my estimation, is correct — that current racial categories are weak and deserve to be phased out, it's not necessarily correct that racial categories of all possible permutations are weak and need to be phased out. Unless, that is, you're a devout postmodernist challenging the validity of categories of all kinds as a tool for understanding reality... which if you ask me, is little more than communist sophistry.

"

鬼殺し wrote:

(y)

I suppose my issue then is where does ancestral stop and racial begin? It seems pretty arbitrary right now.

Yea I see your point, they certainly overlap in many cases.

My main issue is when people attribute something real to this social construct, like IQ by race in the America, or crime by race, or laziness by race.

They might even find some correlation in some data.

That gets out, and suddenly people become experts in statistics and probability distributions, and are afraid to walk past a dark-skinned man at night, because 'science' says they are more likely to commit a sexual attack.

Of course, there are far better indicators and correlating variables than race.

But people want to believe something more simple that also aligns with their world view.

"

Turtledove wrote:

Actually this is very important.

To justify using racial stereotypes, it is typical to point out things like Dobermans will behave significantly differently from Golden Retrievers. While this is true, the genetic differences between breeds of dogs is huge! While the genetic difference between races is minuscule. Like you say that race is more of a social construct, expecially in comparison to different breeds of dogs or breeds of cows, sheep, etc.

So true. Dogs especially have something almost unique to them genetically that allows for such variable breeding. I don't think it's entirely understood why.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

By definition, a race is merely a genetic category.

The whole point is that it's not really. Geographic ancestry and population are the actual determinants in a genetic category, that are actually useful. I don't know if you missed that in my post, or the article, somehow. Race as a genetic category is not discrete, as that is an illusion, a social construct, not based in reality or in science. It's more like a continuum, and a probability distribution of genetics.

"

Unless, that is, you're a devout postmodernist challenging the validity of categories of all kinds as a tool for understanding reality

Again, race is almost useless as a category, genetic, or otherwise, to understand reality. I expanded on this in some follow-up posts to other people.

Here is the example from the article

"

In one example that demonstrated genetic differences were not fixed along racial lines, the full genomes of James Watson and Craig Venter, two famous American scientists of European ancestry, were compared to that of a Korean scientist, Seong-Jin Kim. It turned out that Watson (who, ironically, became ostracized in the scientific community after making racist remarks) and Venter shared fewer variations in their genetic sequences than they each shared with Kim.

And no, I am not challenging the validity of all social constructs, by pointing out we can do better than discriminate human beings by some arbitrary genetic social construct illusion.

"

... which if you ask me, is little more than communist sophistry.

;) I knew someone at some point would somehow bring communism into this, but I wasn't sure how.