In Kori's last thread, Jordan tried to revive the moribund notion that race is a meaningful concept. I will respond to his argument below in an effort to demonstrate that Lazarus is still in his tomb.



------------------
The only heads exploding are those dealing with the cognitive dissonance arising from their doublethink.

ILLOGICAL DOUBLETHINK #1
a) Race doesn't exist.
b) We must fight racism.

The illogic here arises from the denial of human diversity (which is ironically racist in itself), versus the notion that this non-existent notion must be protected. The two statements are contradictory. If there is no race, why speak of racism? You might as well speak of prejudice against other non-existent things.

LOGICAL ALTERNATIVE #2
a) Race exists.
b) We must fight racism.

This acknowledges and accepts human diversity, while fighting to preserve it unlike #1, which ultimately denies it.

This is the sensible and logical view, and falls in line with evolution instead of pretending that is something that only happens to other species.

LOGICAL ALTERNATIVE #2
a) Race doesn't exist.
b) We can't fight what doesn't exist.

This is a poor relation to #2, and neither acknowledges human diversity, nor does it deal with the issues arising from it. But it is still more logical than #1.

The key to productive discussion is a clear understanding of the terms under debate. When it comes to racism, you seem to lose the ability to get those terms straight. Thus. . .


--------------
> ILLOGICAL DOUBLETHINK #1
> a) Race doesn't exist.
> b) We must fight racism.

Your problem lies in faulty definitions. Race and racism are different things. Racism is not race but rather the BELIEF in race. You'd be surprised how many "logical" paradoxes resolve when you get that straight.


--------------------
> ILLOGICAL DOUBLETHINK #1
> a) Race doesn't exist.
> b) We must fight racism.

Race truly doesn't exist.

Witchcraft didn't exist in Salem either, but people were killed as witches and it was accordingly important to combat the BELIEF in witches. Joseph Smith didn't have the spirit of prophecy but people robbed, killed, and injured in the name of his revelations, so it is important to fight the BELIEF that the LDS church has the spirit of prophecy.

Racism is a biologically nonsensical BELIEF that the ill-educated use to justify treating others poorly. Anyone with a conscience, with empathy, will denounce that misguided BELIEF as readily as they would any other system of superstitious thought.


--------------
> The illogic here arises from the denial of human
> diversity (which is ironically racist in itself)

Nonsense. Diversity means different appearances, cultures, languages, religions, etc. Race superimposes a spurious notion of genetic categories that do not exist and that, if they did, would not align with diversity or ethnicity. It is foolish to assert that those are all synonyms.


--------------
> If there is no race, why speak of
> racism? You might as well speak of prejudice
> against other non-existent things.

See? You miss the point. Racism is not "prejudice against. . . non-existent things." It is "prejudice [in FAVOR of] non-existing things." When people believe fervently in things that are false, they commit atrocities. Flawed ideology then leads to very real evil.

There were no witches, but there were witch trials, torture, and murder. The Central Park Five did not rape that woman, but they were falsely believed to have raped her and consequently imprisoned. The only moral reaction, once the facts of the case became clear, was to fight not against the "non-existent" rape by those boys but rather against the belief in that "non-existent" rape by those boys. False belief often leads to horrible consequences. Delusion is real and harmful.


--------------
Ignorance--the failure to comprehend the meanings of words and the concomitant belief in falsehoods--often has profoundly negative consequences. Racism, the misguided belief that race is a scientifically meaningful concept, is one of myriad flavors of ignorance. The answer to such destructive canards is education--at least for those who care to know the truth.

But one really can't get anywhere until he has grasped the meanings of the basic words. Race is not racism any more than capitalism is the same thing as capital or animism the same as animals. That should be obvious.

Lot's Wife
You know I worship the ground you walk on, but

You Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The key to productive discussion is a clear
> understanding of the terms under debate. When it
> comes to racism, you seem to lose the ability to
> get those terms straight. Thus. . .
>
>
> --------------
> > ILLOGICAL DOUBLETHINK #1
> > a) Race doesn't exist.
> > b) We must fight racism.
>
> Your problem lies in faulty definitions. Race and
> racism are different things. Racism is not race
> but rather the BELIEF in race. You'd be surprised
> how many "logical" paradoxes resolve when you get
> that straight.
>
>
> --------------------
> > ILLOGICAL DOUBLETHINK #1
> > a) Race doesn't exist.
> > b) We must fight racism.
>
> Race truly doesn't exist.
>
> Witchcraft didn't exist in Salem either, but
> people were killed as witches and it was
> accordingly important to combat the BELIEF in
> witches. Joseph Smith didn't have the spirit of
> prophecy but people robbed, killed, and injured in
> the name of his revelations, so it is important to
> fight the BELIEF that the LDS church has the
> spirit of prophecy.
>
> Racism is a biologically nonsensical BELIEF that
> the ill-educated use to justify treating others
> poorly. Anyone with a conscience, with empathy,
> will denounce that misguided BELIEF as readily as
> they would any other system of superstitious
> thought.
>
>
> --------------
> > The illogic here arises from the denial of
> human
> > diversity (which is ironically racist in
> itself)
>
> Nonsense. Diversity means different appearances,
> cultures, languages, religions, etc. Race
> superimposes a spurious notion of genetic
> categories that do not exist and that, if they
> did, would not align with diversity or ethnicity.
> It is foolish to assert that those are all
> synonyms.
>
>
> --------------
> > If there is no race, why speak of
> > racism? You might as well speak of prejudice
> > against other non-existent things.
>
> See? You miss the point. Racism is not
> "prejudice against. . . non-existent things." It
> is "prejudice non-existing things." When people
> believe fervently in things that are false, they
> commit atrocities. Flawed ideology then leads to
> very real evil.
>
> There were no witches, but there were witch
> trials, torture, and murder. The Central Park
> Five did not rape that woman, but they were
> falsely believed to have raped her and
> consequently imprisoned. The only moral reaction,
> once the facts of the case became clear, was to
> fight not against the "non-existent" rape by those
> boys but rather against the belief in that
> "non-existent" rape by those boys. False belief
> often leads to horrible consequences. Delusion is
> real and harmful.
>
>
> --------------
> Ignorance--the failure to comprehend the meanings
> of words and the concomitant belief in
> falsehoods--often has profoundly negative
> consequences. Racism, the misguided belief that
> race is a scientifically meaningful concept, is
> one of myriad flavors of ignorance. The answer to
> such destructive canards is education--at least
> for those who care to know the truth.
>
> But one really can't get anywhere until he has
> grasped the meanings of the basic words. Race is
> not racism any more than capitalism is the same
> thing as capital or animism the same as animals.
> That should be obvious.

The way I think of it is that there were 16 well defined different species of humans, (Homos) besides Homo Sapiens Sapiens. There were also likely other sub species of Homo Sapiens, like Homo Neanderthal and Homo Denisovan,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_taxonomy#Species

and our predecessor, Homo Sapiens Idaltu.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_sapiens_idaltu

They've all been consolidated into one species, Homo Sapiens Sapiens.

It's kind of like dogs.
Some breeds of dogs are closer to wolves, some are closer to coyotes, some closer to foxes, some closer to dingos, some closer to African Wild dogs, but they can all interbreed. Even a Chihuahua can interbreed with a St. Bernard.

https://www.pinterest.com/pin/320881542181674967/?autologin=true

There is such a thing as race just as there is such an thing as different types of dogs.

If there were no such thing as race they wouldn't require you to answer what race you are on the Census form.

I tried not answering that question one time. I wrote on the form, "Not a Racist". The Census Bureau went out of their way to call me at work and get an answer from me. They told me that , "Not a Racist" wasn't an option.
I said, "Well, I don't know. Is there a test you can take to tell you what race you are?
No.
So how do I tell? Because I'm not white. Snow is white and I'm a lot more brown than snow. I'm not black. Coal is black and I'm a lot lighter than coal. I could be part Native American, or Hispanic I suppose, just based upon my skin color, but I spend a lot of time in the sun so I'm pretty beige. Mark me down as Beige!

That's not an option sir.

What is an option?
White, Black or African American, American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, and Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander. Pick one.

Like I said, "Not a racist."

Like I said, "That's not an option."

What if my family is from South Africa, but they're not black?

Then you're probably white, right?

I already told you I'm not white. I find that offensive. Frosty the Snowman is white. Not me.

Well your name sounds white. I'm just going to mark you down as white.

So why'd you even bother calling me?
What does it matter what color my skin is?

Have a good day sir.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 06/11/2019 12:57AM by koriwhore.

Kori,

Many of us have argued that race is a social construct, not a biological reality. You know the scientific argument: The genetic differences between Asians, Africans, and Caucasians are objectively tiny. If race were based on DNA--some level of similarity or dissimilarity arbitrarily defined--there would be perhaps a dozen races in Africa and the rest of the world would be either a single other race or perhaps a subset of one of the African races.

Racists of course don't care about that fact; they are motivated by a desire to put blacks in a distinct and subordinate group, so there is one African race--a catch-all basket--and various other non-African races. Prejudice thus transforms a scientifically ridiculous idea into a sociologically significant reality. It is this sociological phenomenon that census questions aim to measure. You can see that in the motivations behind the proposed addition of a racial question to the national census.

The critical point is that race is a social phenomenon like the caste system in India. Is there a biological basis for these schema? No. You can't define a genome that lines up with the differences that people attribute to races or to castes. What is left is race as a function of prejudice: the insistence that there are consistent features across groups of people that are meaningful even though they do not accord with the underlying DNA.

Races exist in the same way that religions do: people are plugged into categories so they may be treated differentially. And those who constantly talk about race are like Christians who hate Muslims or Muslims who hate Jews. They are all using superficial characteristics to demonize others. In that sense race is indeed real.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Racists of course don't care about that fact; they
> are motivated by a desire to put blacks in a
> distinct and subordinate group, so there is one
> African race--a catch-all basket--and various
> other non-African races.

And yet it's the other side that keeps crowing about how "we're all Africans!" / "We're all from Africa!" and in addition often likes to conveniently forget about the basic and obvious ethnic/cultural distinctions between North Africa, Egypt, and Sub-Saharan Africa when it suits a given argument.


> Races exist in the same way that religions do:
> people are plugged into categories so they may be
> treated differentially.

Differently is the word, not differentially.


> And those who constantly
> talk about race are like Christians who hate
> Muslims or Muslims who hate Jews. They are all
> using superficial characteristics to demonize
> others. In that sense race is indeed real.

Race is a fuzzy concept with sometimes vague boundaries, but so is ethnicity, culture, society, and a lot of other words we use.

It is good to try to be more precise in these discussions and recognize that these fuzzy boundaries exist.

BUT it is a fallacy to conclude that the concept itself does not exist just because there are borderline examples, or because the concept may be fuzzy.

> And yet it's the other side that keeps crowing
> about how "we're all Africans!" / "We're all from
> Africa!"

Now you are catching on. If all hominid groups originated in Africa, then yes it is reasonable to say that all hominid groups are from Africa.

By the same token, someone whose family origins were European but who was born in Idaho and grew up in Arkansas could say he is from Arkansas, or Idaho, or Europe. He could with equal fidelity note that his European family originated in Africa. The question of which identity is most meaningful is up to the individual to decide, but choosing a particular modern way station in no way invalidates the fact that his species emerged in and from Africa.


------------
> and in addition often likes to
> conveniently forget about the basic and obvious
> ethnic/cultural distinctions between North Africa,
> Egypt, and Sub-Saharan Africa when it suits a
> given argument.

There you've lost me. Race and genetics are not the same thing as ethnic/cultural distinctions. If the concept of "race" has no basis in biology, that concept fails. But culture and ethnicity, neither of which are scientific propositions, are a different matter. For example, Jews and Arabs stemmed originally from the same genetic pool but their culture and ethnicity (which is culture, language, religion) are different. There is no contradiction in that because genetic background is not culture.


-------------
> Differently is the word, not differentially.

Perhaps you should invest in a dictionary.


---------------
> Race is a fuzzy concept with sometimes vague
> boundaries, but so is ethnicity, culture, society,
> and a lot of other words we use.

Race is indeed a fuzzy concept. It is so fuzzy that it has no biological meaning. Ethnicity, culture, society, by contrast, make no pretense of scientific definition and hence are markedly less vitiated by empirical complexity than race.


---------------
> It is good to try to be more precise in these
> discussions and recognize that these fuzzy
> boundaries exist.

Really? Can you point to one credible source that gives a scientifically reliable definition of "race?" Because if you cannot, there are no boundaries to find. The concept of race only works if you leave it so inchoate that it can never be tested.


-----------------
> BUT it is a fallacy to conclude that the concept
> itself does not exist just because there are
> borderline examples, or because the concept may be
> fuzzy.

Race exists in a sociological sense but not a biological one. Sociologically it is merely an attempt to dress up prejudice in respectable scientific garb, and prejudice is an appropriate subject of social-science, political science, and legal inquiry.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06/11/2019 03:37AM by Lot's Wife.

"By the same token, someone whose family origins were European but who was born in Idaho and grew up in Arkansas could say he is from Arkansas, or Idaho, or Europe."

No one in Europe will thank you. I've eecently been watching a show on Youtube called Alt for Norge, where Norwegian Americans compete for prizes in Norway and experience Norwegian culture. What comes out of the show is that culturally, most of rhese people are not very Norwegian at all, even though their recent ancestry is and some of them look Norwegian if they keep their mouths shut. There are some issues with the show, but I find most of it entertaining.

You should hear the way genuine Irish talk about Irish Americans behind their backs. I suspect Italians do something similar, although I haven't spent enough time to verify this. :)

Their recent ancestry may be European, and they may be Euro-Americans, but in many cases they aren't quite European. Some of them retain parts of their ancestral heritage and some of them don't. They do retain some European features, but if they get cut off from Europe pending some apocalypse, they shall evolve in different directions.

Most so called African Americans have European ancestry as well as African. Even Henry Louis Gates Jr. or Cassius Clay/Mohammed Ali who had Irish ancestry. This is more obvious in some of them than others. But they're not usually the type to down green beer and say "top o' da mornin ta ya".

"He could with equal fidelity note that his European family originated in Africa."

And according to this logic, he could say to someone who is Native American and whose immediate ancestors are from Arkansas or Idaho for hundreds, maybe thousands of years, that they are no more native to these places than he is, because Native American identity is a "social construct", and "we're all the same".

Of course, if you want to go by the clock of geological time, and ignore that humans have developed outside Africa as well as in it, then yes...

> No one in Europe will thank you. I've eecently
> been watching a show on Youtube called Alt for
> Norge, where Norwegian Americans compete for
> prizes in Norway and experience Norwegian culture.
> What comes out of the show is that culturally,
> most of rhese people are not very Norwegian at
> all, even though their recent ancestry is and some
> of them look Norwegian if they keep their mouths
> shut. There are some issues with the show, but I
> find most of it entertaining.

It's good to know where you get your information.


-----------------
> You should hear the way genuine Irish talk about
> Irish Americans behind their backs. I suspect
> Italians do something similar, although I haven't
> spent enough time to verify this. :)

Relevance?


--------------
> Their recent ancestry may be European, and they
> may be Euro-Americans, but in many cases they
> aren't quite European. Some of them retain parts
> of their ancestral heritage and some of them
> don't. They do retain some European features, but
> if they get cut off from Europe pending some
> apocalypse, they shall evolve in different
> directions.

Relevance?


------------
> Most so called African Americans have European
> ancestry as well as African. Even Henry Louis
> Gates Jr. or Cassius Clay/Mohammed Ali who had
> Irish ancestry. This is more obvious in some of
> them than others. But they're not usually the type
> to down green beer and say "top o' da mornin ta
> ya".

Relevance?


--------------
> And according to this logic, he could say to
> someone who is Native American and whose immediate
> ancestors are from Arkansas or Idaho for hundreds,
> maybe thousands of years, that they are no more
> native to these places than he is, because Native
> American identity is a "social construct", and
> "we're all the same".

Whoosh.


----------------
> Of course, if you want to go by the clock of
> geological time, and ignore that humans have
> developed outside Africa as well as in it, then
> yes...

Yeah, this is complete non-sequitur. This whole post is a series of bizarre asides.

Time to go back to the TV set.

"Race is a social construct"

You wonder why I call you far left when you come out like phrasing like that?

Stop trying to turn everyone into proxy whites. That is a form of unconscious racism, to presume everyone is like you It is not a "social construct", it is the result of adaptation to local conditions.

Are you going to tell me that it is a "social construct" that Greenlanders tend to be very small yet Masai warriors are very tall? Is that purely something that people made up in their heads as a social construct, or is it simply something that can be verified with a cursory glance, not just by the simple data you could get by measuring a few of them with a stick or a tape, or marks on a wall.

"Racism is not race but rather the BELIEF in race"

No it isn't. Racism is PREJUDICE against someone based on their race. That is not the same as acknowledging race exists. Likewise, acknowledging women are not the same as men in certain respects is not sexism, it's realism.

You believe in race when it suits you. In hard science, you deny it exists. But in politics and sociological terms, you act as if it does. (You will strongly deny this, ( I see you doing it all the time.)

You might as well argue that a belief in ghosts is tantamount to prejudice against ghosts. Or that acknowledging hereditary illnesses exist is a form of prejudice too. That is your logic.

"Witchcraft didn't exist in Salem either"

That's a stupid comparison. Of course witchcraft exists. You can go to certain parts of Louisiana, Haiti or even suburban woods to see witchcraft exists. Some people openly identify and practise as witches.

Whether witchcraft is at all effective is an entirely different question. But it does exist. I've even witnessed it firsthand - someone trying to put curses on a third party. Love spells etc. None of these work.

Whether the people at Salem practised it, is another question again. (Most, kf not all, did not practiss it. Although there are suggestions some hexes had crept in.)

“Whether witchcraft is at all effective is an entirely different question. But it does exist. I've even witnessed it firsthand - someone trying to put curses on a third party. Love spells etc. None of these work.”

Obviously you’ve never met a real witch.

babyloncansuckit Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> “Whether witchcraft is at all effective is an
> entirely different question. But it does exist.
> I've even witnessed it firsthand - someone trying
> to put curses on a third party. Love spells etc.
> None of these work.”
>
> Obviously you’ve never met a real witch.

I've met TONS OF THEM!!! Good grief. There were even people in my family who were involved in what could be broadly termed witchcraft.

And by a real witch, I don't mean some teenage jerk who has taken up Wicca after watching some series on the TV.

If witchcraft ever has any effect, it's mainly because people believe in it. If someone believes they are cursed, they will feel bad, maybe even die in primitive cultures. But that's because their belief results in psychosomatic symptoms.

But does witchcraft exist? Yes it does. Particularly in remote, primitive or traditional areas.

Jordan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "Race is a social construct"
>
> You wonder why I call you far left when you come
> out like phrasing like that?

Ha ha ha. You don't know the history of the terms, do you. "Social construct" is older than "deconstructionism" and was not a phenomenon of the left. But hey, don't let facts get in the way of a good rant.


---------------------
> Stop trying to turn everyone into proxy whites.
> That is a form of unconscious racism, to presume
> everyone is like you It is not a "social
> construct", it is the result of adaptation to
> local conditions.

I have tried "to turn everyone into proxy whites?" God bless you.


--------------------
> Are you going to tell me that it is a "social
> construct" that Greenlanders tend to be very small
> yet Masai warriors are very tall? Is that purely
> something that people made up in their heads as a
> social construct, or is it simply something that
> can be verified with a cursory glance, not just by
> the simple data you could get by measuring a few
> of them with a stick or a tape, or marks on a
> wall.

So the fact that you are tall and I am short, or vice versa, proves the existence of races?


-----------------
> No it isn't. Racism is PREJUDICE against someone
> based on their race. That is not the same as
> acknowledging race exists.

I suggest the same thing to you that I did to your intellectual brother, macaRomney. You should invest in a dictionary, then read up on "racism." I'll give you a hint: look at the second definition. We'll wait. . .


----------------
> Likewise, acknowledging
> women are not the same as men in certain respects
> is not sexism, it's realism.

Now that's some blinding insight.



-------------
> You believe in race when it suits you. In hard
> science, you deny it exists. But in politics and
> sociological terms, you act as if it does. (You
> will strongly deny this, ( I see you doing it all
> the time.)

You poor thing. You repeat what I say and then say I "will strongly deny this." Guess what? I won't deny it. I just said it.


-------------------
> You might as well argue that a belief in ghosts is
> tantamount to prejudice against ghosts.

What?



----------------
> Or that
> acknowledging hereditary illnesses exist is a form
> of prejudice too. That is your logic.

Is it, Jordan?


----------------
> That's a stupid comparison. Of course witchcraft
> exists. You can go to certain parts of Louisiana,
> Haiti or even suburban woods to see witchcraft
> exists. Some people openly identify and practise
> as witches.
>
> Whether witchcraft is at all effective is an
> entirely different question. But it does exist.
> I've even witnessed it firsthand - someone trying
> to put curses on a third party. Love spells etc.
> None of these work.
>
> Whether the people at Salem practised it, is
> another question again. (Most, kf not all, did not
> practiss it. Although there are suggestions some
> hexes had crept in.)

Fascinating stuff there, Jordan. Did you get it from Norwegian TV?

>> "If there were no such thing as race they wouldn't require you to answer what race you are on the Census form."

That's a good one. Just like if there were no god, it wouldn't say there was in the bible. Or if Joseph Smith wasn't a prophet, it would say he was in the D&C.

My dogs are mutts.

Italian Greyhuahua (I think) and Chiweenie.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/11/2019 01:02AM by redskittle.

Why are the same people who claim that race doesn't existed so obsessed with it, and often act as if it does?

Think I'm making this up? Some board members do this within the sams sentence or paragraph

Why would someone demand that there is diversity in all walks of human life, yet deny that diversity exists at some level.

Here's the rub. Admitting race exists =/= racism.

Turning the entire human race into proxy whites is racist. Which is what some of these well meaning people effectively do.

Telling people we're all the same, negates and undermines the struggle some groups have for rights, self-determination etc.

Telling people we're all African, not only appropriates Africanness for non-Africans, it undermines the indigeneity of various groups around the world including Native Americans. It is a form of unconscious colonialism.

Of course, the end result of globalization will probably be a world where every place is interchangable with another. A phenomenon which we already have in many American towns. Every place and person will be equally bland, and have little or no individuality, sense of their roots or family history. There will be no true diversity - we'll all act and look the same and eat at the same junk food outlets (probably processed vegan food). Yet again, this is the end result of what some of these people want.

Jordan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why are the same people who claim that race
> doesn't existed so obsessed with it, and often act
> as if it does?

Yet you are the one who keeps starting threads about race.


----------------
> Why would someone demand that there is diversity
> in all walks of human life, yet deny that
> diversity exists at some level.

Provide a single example of someone who has done that. Use quotations rather than your usual mischaracterizations.


----------------
> Here's the rub. Admitting race exists =/= racism.

Buy a dictionary, or borrow macaRomney's, and read the second definition.


---------------
> Turning the entire human race into proxy whites is
> racist. Which is what some of these well meaning
> people effectively do.

How is recognizing the species' origins in Africa trying to turn "the entire human race into proxy whites?"


---------------
> Telling people we're all the same, negates and
> undermines the struggle some groups have for
> rights, self-determination etc.

So now you are a champion of self-determination for non-dominant nationalities?


--------------
> Telling people we're all African, not only
> appropriates Africanness for non-Africans, it
> undermines the indigeneity of various groups
> around the world including Native Americans. It is
> a form of unconscious colonialism.

It is difficult not to believe you are intoxicated right now.


---------------
> Of course, the end result of globalization will
> probably be a world where every place is
> interchangable with another. A phenomenon which we
> already have in many American towns. Every place
> and person will be equally bland, and have little
> or no individuality, sense of their roots or
> family history. There will be no true diversity -
> we'll all act and look the same and eat at the
> same junk food outlets (probably processed vegan
> food). Yet again, this is the end result of what
> some of these people want.

Fascinating. Irrelevant, but fascinating.

I agree with LW that the idea of "race" as a differentiating principle for human beings is a social construct. However, that is not the end of the story, because social constructs do not appear in a vacuum. Such constructs are ultimately grounded in human psychology; and human psychology is grounded in phenomenal experiences, including basic observations in the form of physical appearances, and prejudices born of all sorts of unfounded inferences that result from such experiences.

This is why both "race" and "racism" have meaning in a language such as English that itself is a social construct.

Once one realizes that people rather innocently define "race" based merely upon appearances and not differences in DNA; and that "racism" is an illegitimate attempt to assign negative biological and psychological innateness to such appearances, the dispute vanishes. The census simply seeks to determine how a person identifies within the social context of "race" without suggesting that there is some relevant biological or psychological innateness associated with it.

What more is there to talk about, other than continuing to emphatically deny the inferences associated with racism, while acknowledging that "race" is a legitimate and often useful social category--if nothing else it helps us to understand the basis for some of our social and personal prejudices.

As much as I respect LW, I vehemently disagree with her notion that "race is a social construct" since there is definitely significant genetic distinction between races. Eurasians are on average 3% Neanderthal, Asians are on average 4% Denisovan and Africans are neither. That seems like a tiny difference until you consider we are all 98% genetically identical to Chimps and bonobos.

schrodingerscat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That seems
> like a tiny difference until you consider we are
> all 98% genetically identical to Chimps and
> bonobos.

That is a falsehood perpetuated by media. We are genetically similar but the devil is in the details. Take the genes to construct a larynx and upright mobility.

Different species separated by millions of years means nothing to people promoting 98%.

Elder Berry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> schrodingerscat Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > That seems
> > like a tiny difference until you consider we
> are
> > all 98% genetically identical to Chimps and
> > bonobos.
>
> That is a falsehood perpetuated by media. We are
> genetically similar but the devil is in the
> details. Take the genes to construct a larynx and
> upright mobility.
>
> Different species separated by millions of years
> means nothing to people promoting 98%.

Apparently Scientific American is nonsense?

"The recent sequencing of the gorilla, chimpanzee and bonobo genomes confirms that supposition and provides a clearer view of how we are connected: chimps and bonobos in particular take pride of place as our nearest living relatives, sharing approximately 99 percent of our DNA, with gorillas trailing at 98 percent."

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/tiny-genetic-differences-between-humans-and-other-primates-pervade-the-genome/?redirect=1

Got a better source?

Are you looking for a conflict?

From your article:
"For example, comparing the 33 percent of our genome that codes for proteins with our relatives' genomes reveals that although the sum total of our genetic differences is small, the individual differences pervade the genome, affecting each of our chromosomes in numerous ways."

My point was, "although the sum total of our genetic differences is small, the individual differences pervade the genome."

I find it a bit myopic to merely repeat the percentage. It is extremely reductionist in my opinion.

As much as I respect LW, I vehemently disagree with her notion that "race is a social construct" since there is definitely significant genetic distinction between races.

COMMENT: To say that race is a social construct is not to deny *any* biological, geographical, cultural, or even genetic distinctions between human beings as part of our attempt to understand them. Inventing social categories is part of our attempt to talk about and understand such distinctions. Obviously, some people have dark skin and some have light skin, and that fact is reflected in both biology and psychology; i.e. their biological make-up and how people perceive them.

But it is one thing to notice such biological differences, and set up artificial social categories for useful demographics, and quite another to use such categories for the purpose of assigning a host of general "traits" across such artificial categories in an attempt to make them something more than what they are; i.e. social constructs.

In short, there is no such thing as "race" in biology or genetics; there are only genomes with various commonalities and distinctions. The social categories that attempt to abstract such commonalities and assign "races" are all just social constructs.
___________________________________________

Eurasians are on average 3% Neanderthal, Asians are on average 4% Denisovan and Africans are neither. That seems like a tiny difference until you consider we are all 98% genetically identical to Chimps and bonobos.

COMMENT: Whether this is right or wrong is entirely irrelevant. The categories you assign, e.g. "Asians" and "Africans" and the rest, are social constructs; i.e. abstractions based upon a host of factors deemed relevant by whoever is engaged in the discussion. Again, there is nothing in one's DNA that differentiates based upon a nebulous concept of "race."

Excellent comment. Gene pools aren't races and they are ever evolving just like the many hominids did with us when they were with us. We are the same species - genetically related groups of people with a variety of genetic predispositions - not racially defined.

Race isn't a biological concept.

"A race is a grouping of humans based on shared physical or social qualities into categories generally viewed as distinct by society."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_categorization)

Kori,

You are missing the point. You are using two different series of data as if they are compatible. They are not.

There is assuredly not more difference between humans than there is between humans and chimpanzees.

>" there is definitely significant genetic distinction between races."

There is definitely significant genetic distinction between my family and yours. Does that mean that I'm a different "race" than you? My neighbors and our family have the roughly the same skin tone, our hair colors are similar, etc. Yet, looking at our DNA, there is genetic distinctions between our two families. For that matter, there are genetic distinctions between my brother's family and mine.

"Race" is society deciding which of those genetic distinctions "matter" and it's arbitrary. The idea of "race" is absolutely a social construct. Biology and genetics don't care beyond are these two sets of DNA compatible for reproduction. Randomly choose a male and female human from any "race" and they can reproduce. There isn't a significant genetic distinction stopping that.

It was society that decided that there was a distinction, not genes.

Besides, I don't understand why you are arguing against this as you have decided that "race" doesn't matter to the point that it's OK for your son to declare that he's a member of a minority for personal gain.

Finally Free! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >" there is definitely significant genetic
> distinction between races."
>
> There is definitely significant genetic
> distinction between my family and yours. Does that
> mean that I'm a different "race" than you? My
> neighbors and our family have the roughly the same
> skin tone, our hair colors are similar, etc. Yet,
> looking at our DNA, there is genetic distinctions
> between our two families. For that matter, there
> are genetic distinctions between my brother's
> family and mine.

That's an absurd argument. Not even worth responding. You completely missed my point.


> "Race" is society deciding which of those genetic
> distinctions "matter" and it's arbitrary. The idea
> of "race" is absolutely a social construct.
> Biology and genetics don't care beyond are these
> two sets of DNA compatible for reproduction.
> Randomly choose a male and female human from any
> "race" and they can reproduce. There isn't a
> significant genetic distinction stopping that.

A wolf and a coyote can reproduce too. So can a Chihuahua and a St. Bernard. So what's your point. I'm saying that different races are a lot like different breeds of dogs, or cows, or horses, or ....the list goes on. Your argument is like saying there's no genetic difference between a St. Bernard and a Chihuahua because they can mate and produce fertile offspring.


> It was society that decided that there was a
> distinction, not genes.

So your argument is race is just whatever society decides?
That's absurd. There are obviously racially determined genetic pre-disponsitions for certain diseases.

"Differences in health status, health outcomes, life expectancy, and many other indicators of health in different racial and ethnic groups are well documented."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_health

Is that a "social construct" too?

>
> Besides, I don't understand why you are arguing
> against this as you have decided that "race"
> doesn't matter to the point that it's OK for your
> son to declare that he's a member of a minority
> for personal gain.

I'm arguing against it because saying "there's no such thing as race" is a bogus myth. My part time job is debunking myths.

Besides which, my ADULT son didn't check the African American Box for personal gain. The personal gain came as an unintended consequence of checking a box because he believes we all came from Africa, which is true, it's just a matter of time. And he believes that it's racist to ask what race you are on a college application. I tend to agree with him on that. It's bullshit.
Who cares what color your skin is? I don't. College admission and financial aid should be based on merit and need, not skin color.
I wouldn't have checked the African American box or accepted the free money. I usually either don't answer the question or write, "Not a racist" in response. But we ARE all mostly African, it's just that some of us have more Neanderthal/Denisovan DNA than others.

Also, he was an adult and he doesn't listen to me.
He never did. I can't be held responsible for his choices, but in reality, how are you going to tell him he's not African, when we all came from Africa if you go back enough generations. And besides which, are White South Africans African?

> "So your argument is race is just whatever society decides?"

Yep, that's it exactly.

> "Your argument is like saying there's no genetic difference between a St. Bernard and a Chihuahua because they can mate and produce fertile offspring."

Originally stated, "nope" here, but actually on re-reading, this statement is correct, there is no genetic difference between dog breeds. That said, your following statements are where this paragraph is coming from... You're still not getting it. The idea that something is a St. Bernard and a Chihuahua vs just a dog is a human construct. Sure, they have genetic similarities within their "breeds", but these were created by human breeding to create them. It was man deciding that there's a difference that created them. Not their gene's. They still are all dogs, the breeds are, in this case, literally a human construct.

> "There are obviously racially determined genetic pre-disponsitions for certain diseases."

Here, let me fix that for you, see if you simply remove "racially" from the sentence, it still works. "There are obviously determined genetic pre-disponsitions for certain diseases." "Racially" is still a human construct and doesn't add anything to the conversation. Some might argue that it's shorthand to group certain genetic traits, but that can also be misleading and distract from the conversation. The problem with using Race in that is that there are plenty of groups of people within a socially designated "race" that have genetic predispositions for certain illnesses. For example, Breast Cancer can affect a certain group of people with a set specific set of gene's. But no one says that they are a separate race. Genetic traits are passed down in families.

> "I'm arguing against it because saying 'there's no such thing as race' is a bogus myth. My part time job is debunking myths."

later...

> "... he believes we all came from Africa, which is true"

So which is it? There are races, or we're all from Africa. You seem to be making confusing arguments. Races exist, genetically, but we should ignore them because we're all from africa.

> "College admission and financial aid should be based on merit and need, not skin color."

Spoken like a true person of privilege. Congratulations, you are again showing you have no empathy for people who are very often dismissed and not granted the same access to resources as people who are white.

> "Also, he was an adult and he doesn't listen to me"

You were the one boasting about it on the board. He may not listen to you, but you sure sounded proud of his actions when you posted it. If you weren't why in the world would you post it?

> "...but in reality, how are you going to tell him he's not African, when we all came from Africa if you go back enough generations. And besides which, are White South Africans African?"

Yes, please keep using willfully misreading the question and it's intention and excusing the abuse of the system to your son's advantage.

> "And besides which, are White South Africans African?"

While this doesn't deserve a response, I'll point out that they originally came from Africa with a stop over in Europe first. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_South_Africans) Does this mean that they are double African since they originally started in Africa, moved to Europe, then moved back to Africa? Again, you are willfully misunderstanding the point of the question.

edited for some clarification.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/11/2019 06:01PM by Finally Free!.

Kori,

You are confusing two sets of data measuring two different things. On a macro level the differences between primate species measure 1% or 2% or 8%--but those are gauges of major differences.

Once you have identified those differences and start looking within a species, however, you measure much smaller changes--things like slight rearrangements of a pattern of DNA or a base pair switch. The Neanderthal and Denisovan contributions to HSS genomes are measured this way. That's how scientists get the 2%, 3% or 4% figures.

If you want to compare diversity within HSS with diversity across primates, you need to adopt a single methodology for both comparisons. When that is done--when you use macro analysis for both comparisons--you get a different picture. What that reveals is that the difference between humans and gorillas is 1.6%, between humans and chimps/bonobos is 1.2% and the difference between different people averages 0.1%. In extreme cases, humans differ by perhaps 0.2%.

That should make intuitive sense. Humans are more alike than humans and chimpanzees. The Neanderthal and Denisovan contributions are a few percent within the HSS genome but an exiguous contribution within the primate genome.

It's all about scale.


http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/genetics

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Kori,
>
> You are confusing two sets of data measuring two
> different things. On a macro level the
> differences between primate species measure 1% or
> 2% or 8%--but those are gauges of major
> differences.
>
> Once you have identified those differences and
> start looking within a species, however, you
> measure much smaller changes--things like slight
> rearrangements of a pattern of DNA or a base pair
> switch. The Neanderthal and Denisovan
> contributions to HSS genomes are measured this
> way. That's how scientists get the 2%, 3% or 4%
> figures.
>
> If you want to compare diversity within HSS with
> diversity across primates, you need to adopt a
> single methodology for both comparisons. When
> that is done--when you use macro analysis for both
> comparisons--you get a different picture. What
> that reveals is that the difference between humans
> and gorillas is 1.6%, between humans and
> chimps/bonobos is 1.2% and the difference between
> different people averages 0.1%. In extreme cases,
> humans differ by perhaps 0.2%.
>
> That should make intuitive sense. Humans are more
> alike than humans and chimpanzees. The
> Neanderthal and Denisovan contributions are a few
> percent within the HSS genome but an exiguous
> contribution within the primate genome.
>
> It's all about scale.
>
>
> http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/genetics

I guess the Human Genome Project better update their website with this new revelation then!

"The consortium found that the chimp and human genomes are very similar and encode very similar proteins. The DNA sequence that can be directly compared between the two genomes is almost 99 percent identical."

https://www.genome.gov/15515096/2005-release-new-genome-comparison-finds-chimps-humans-very-similar-at-dna-level

Your source is from 2005. It puts humans and chimps at nearly 99% identity. My source is current as of today. It puts humans and chimps at 98.4% identity. The two studies are compatible, with the later simply refining the numbers a bit.

Since the two are so similar, it shouldn't be difficult to take the rest of the latter analysis seriously. The point in that publications is that if you apply the same methodology that puts chimps and humans at roughly 98-99% identity, you get different humans at 99.9% identity.

Surely that makes sense. Africans and white people are closer to Asians than they are to chimpanzees or bonobos.

I'd like to point out that we are different species regardless of the percentage. That should be telling. And if you look at when we probably diverted as a species this indicated how much time the genetic expressions have deviated. We are never going to communicate well with chimpanzees. We have done about as good a job with them as gorillas. Actually we've had better communication with a female gorilla. The best I believe we have done with another primate species.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Your source is from 2005. It puts humans and
> chimps at nearly 99% identity. My source is
> current as of today. It puts humans and chimps at
> 98.4% identity. The two studies are compatible,
> with the later simply refining the numbers a bit.
>
> Since the two are so similar, it shouldn't be
> difficult to take the rest of the latter analysis
> seriously. The point in that publications is that
> if you apply the same methodology that puts chimps
> and humans at roughly 98-99% identity, you get
> different humans at 99.9% identity.
>
> Surely that makes sense. Africans and white
> people are closer to Asians than they are to
> chimpanzees or bonobos.

Seems like you are splitting hairs when arguing over 0.2%

From your link.

"While the genetic difference between individual humans today is minuscule – about 0.1%, on average – study of the same aspects of the chimpanzee genome indicates a difference of about 1.2%. The bonobo (Pan paniscus), which is the close cousin of chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes), differs from humans to the same degree. The DNA difference with gorillas, another of the African apes, is about 1.6%. Most importantly, chimpanzees, bonobos, and humans all show this same amount of difference from gorillas. A difference of 3.1% distinguishes us and the African apes from the Asian great ape, the orangutan. How do the monkeys stack up? All of the great apes and humans differ from rhesus monkeys, for example, by about 7% in their DNA."

Which makes my point, the 3% Neanderthal and 4% Denisovan DNA is a HUGE genetic difference between races. Not insignificant at all.

Let me try one more time.

Suppose someone is looking at all media of commercial exchange. That would include commodities, massive stones in Polynesia, paper money, checks, coins, IOUs, repo agreements, shares, bonds, futures, options, bitcoin, overdrafts, etc. Viewed that way, you could argue that checks and IOUs are 98% the same, with bills running at about 97% because they are government IOUs.

All good enough. Now if we start looking at bills, we will find great variety. Dollar bills are different from fives and tens and twenties, and they have changed over time. So there would be great variety among them. If you then compare a dollar bill to a 1930s Japanese one sen bill or a 1930s Chinese bill underwritten by a European bank, you'd see very sharp differences. Perhaps the Chinese bill is only 75% the same as an American $10 bill. Perhaps the Japanese bill is only 50% the same as an American one since it is underwritten by a European power and bears two forms of currency risk.

I'm making those percentages up, but the point is that you can't say that the 25% difference between the Chinese specimen and the American specimen means they are closer to IOUs or repo agreements than they are to each other.

It's the same with species genetics. You can't use different scales when measuring other primates to humans, then humans to humans, and then treat the results as mutually comparable.

The right way to do the comparison is to use a single scale, which is what the Smithsonian article does. The upshot is that there is nowhere near as much genetic variability within humans as between humans and other primates.

I get understand what you're saying, but again it seems like by splitting hairs you're missing the forest for the trees.

Race is obviously determined by DNA, which is testable.
If you send your spit into National Geographic they'll tell you exactly how much Neanderthal or Denisovan DNA you have. Predictably, if you're European or Asian, you'll have 3% Neanderthal DNA (on average) If you're Asian or Melanesian, you'll have up to an additional 6% Denisovan DNA.
If you're African, you will have neither.

That's huge.

The fact that there's only 0.1% difference genetically between an African and a Melanesian, means that Neanderthals and Denisovans were very closely related to us, which is why they are considered sub species of Homo Sapiens. If they weren't then their offspring wouldn't have been able to reproduce to create Eurasians.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2019/04/enigmatic-human-relative-outlived-neanderthals/

It seems obvious to me that this completely debunks the myth that there is no scientific basis for race.

Racism on the other hand is a bogus social construct, constructed to create the false illusion of one race's superiority over all other races, which genetic science completely debunks. And in fact, it debunks the White Supremacist myth that the only 'pure' race is the White race, since the test results are clear, the only 'pure' Homo Sapiens Sapiens, are Africans.
The rest of us are mongrels, who's Homo Sapiens Sapiens Ancestors mixed with far more ancient Human sub species.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/12/2019 03:44PM by koriwhore.

Kori,

Can you name three, no two, even one reputable geneticist or biologist who states that "race" has a scientific basis?

As seems to always be the case on these threads, I agree with all that Jordan is writing. Keep it up! I'm loving every minute! There is lots of wisdom here and I wish people could believe these basic truths but they choose not to.

There certainly is a difference between the races. All we have to observe is the house hold income of different countries to see the difference. Are we aware that Israel families are reporting 10x the annual wealth that Iraqi families make? Both countries are wracked by war, both live in a gawd awful desert, their skin tone is about the same. Perhaps some of the difference in prestige could be due to differences in beliefs. As an example the Israelli are more accepting of lgbtq people and believe in freedom. and Islam does not and are still beheading people. We could objectively compare nations of Africa to Japan, there is certainly a difference there in wealth and accomplishment.

All I'm saying is that if everyone was the same then they should have about the same wealth.

macaRomney Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> All I'm saying is that if everyone was the same
> then they should have about the same wealth.

LOL! Wow. calling race a social construct is "Leftist" according to Jordan and if everyone was the same people would have the same "wealth."

Good entertainment. Opinion filters/blinders in full Monty Python Mode!

"Social construct" is an almost textbook example of post-modern gibberish. It tends to suggest that if the person isn't on the far left, they are certainly heavily influenced by it when they use such terms unironically. The aim of such terminology is to try and undermine social cohesion so that western society eventually collapses, and another grouping can come in and fill that power vacuum.

The traditional tactic was to set classes together, but due to the unwillingness of the working class and the snobbery of many upper class leftists, the class struggle has been replaced with other forms of divide and conquer, discussed as equality and fairness.

I haven't done the term's etymological genealogy.

How about I use a different one.

Race is a cultural convenience.

Jordan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "Social construct" is an almost textbook example
> of post-modern gibberish.

Funny. I would have thought "cultural Marxist" fit that description.


---------------
> It tends to suggest that
> if the person isn't on the far left, they are
> certainly heavily influenced by it when they use
> such terms unironically.

Heidegger and Wittgenstein would find that a curious observation about their work and their politics. But they'd probably concede that you know more about their philosophical ideas than they.



-------------------
> The aim of such
> terminology is to try and undermine social
> cohesion so that western society eventually
> collapses, and another grouping can come in and
> fill that power vacuum.

Do you have any evidence of that--other than the promptings of the spirit?


-------------
> The traditional tactic was to set classes
> together, but due to the unwillingness of the
> working class and the snobbery of many upper class
> leftists, the class struggle has been replaced
> with other forms of divide and conquer, discussed
> as equality and fairness.

You see? This is some mind-blowing analysis! The goal was to "set classes together" but that was "class struggle."

And now "discussion" of "equality and fairness" is "divide and conquer."

You have an inimitable way with words.

Wow. Your post is Exhibit A for scientific literacy failure.

Gee, I wonder why the same "race" in one USA state doesn't have the same "wealth" in another. Hmmmm. I can't imagine what other factors could ~possibly~ impact this.

So in your argument for "There certainly is a difference between the races." presumably, trying to state that "race" is a thing, you use social constructs to differentiate between the two "races".

"As an example the Israelli are more accepting of lgbtq people and believe in freedom. and Islam does not and are still beheading people." - macaRomney

These are social differences, and the lack of freedom and the oppressive culture in Iraq could easily explain the difference in wealth between the two countries... Not biology or what you continue to call race, which is actually nationality.

You even continue to confuse what you call "race" with "nationality" in your points about the "nations of Africa" and "Japan". You do realize that nationality is certainly a social construct and there are a wide range of reasons why the peoples of those nations have different cultures that have little if anything to do with "race".

Well, you and Jordan are definitely two peas in a pod.

Perhaps you could get together and start a lobbying group, something like Ex-Mormons Against Algebra.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well, you and Jordan are definitely two peas in a
> pod.
>
> Perhaps you could get together and start a
> lobbying group, something like Ex-Mormons Against
> Algebra.

Maybe you could start a group called Ex-Mormons Against the Treatment of Fanny Alger, but also for Ayeesha, the Nine Year Old that Mohammed married? (Because when certain religions do it, it's okay). EMATFANYOMM for short.

Unfortunately for you, Mrs Lot, I'm not some illiterate subhuman skinhead with trailing knuckles and a beetle brow, I'm well read, well dressed and am smarter than the average bear.

> Maybe you could start a group called Ex-Mormons
> Against the Treatment of Fanny Alger, but also for
> Ayeesha, the Nine Year Old that Mohammed married?
> (Because when certain religions do it, it's okay).
> EMATFANYOMM for short.

Yeah, that's relevant.


--------------
> Unfortunately for you, Mrs Lot, I'm not some
> illiterate subhuman skinhead with trailing
> knuckles and a beetle brow, I'm well read, well
> dressed and am smarter than the average bear.

We get a fair sense of you from what you write.

Yes, someone who doesn't just believe in what someone else tells them, or constantly tries those around them.

My hands go barely past my waist, I'm a snappy dresser, widely read, well traveled and all the things you'd prefer me not to be. Because even though you claim to hate stereotypes, ya lurve ta think in 'em.

> My hands go barely past my waist, I'm a snappy
> dresser, widely read, well traveled and all the
> things you'd prefer me not to be.

Why do you feel the need to defend yourself?

Are you an exMormon? Your posts don't really mention it much...

Are you really trying to compare being "against the treatment of Fanny Alger and Ayeesha" to being "Against Algebra"?

That's a weird thing, it's like you're saying that you are FOR the horrible things that happened to these young women. Which, honestly, after everything I've read from you, wouldn't surprise me.

> "I'm not some illiterate subhuman skinhead with trailing knuckles and a beetle brow, I'm well read, well dressed and am smarter than the average bear."

It's also odd to compare yourself to a skinhead of any type. Does this mean that you are a skinhead, just one that is "well dressed and [are] smarter than the average bear."?

The Algebra joke is an old one, about people thinking Algebra was a terrorist group. It was funny back in the '00s.

"you're saying that you are FOR the horrible things that happened to these young women"

I'm against those who deplore these things in Mormonism but enable them in other religions. That's hypocrisy. Especially when Mohammed's victim was FIVE years younger than Smith's.

It's all vile.

If you oppose sexism in Mormonism, you should oppose it in Islam, not just enable it. Especially when you have things like FGM and niqabs which put Mormonism's sexism in the shade.

"It's also odd to compare yourself to a skinhead of any type."

I've been accused of being a Nazi on here. I'm not a National Socialist nor do I believe in statism and a dictator figure. Since knuckle drsgging skinheads are the stereotype of National Socialists, I thought I'd debunk that one. I can't stand socialism of that variety either.

Actually, LW’s algebra crack referred to Macaromney earlier today complaining that there is all this time wasted teaching kids about the quadratic equation when what they really need is proper political indoctrination. This is not the first time he has bad-mouthed the quadratic equation. He apparently was emotionally scarred by ninth grade.

BTW, the Babylonians almost certainly were aware of the quadratic equation and definitely knew how to calculate the square root of two 4,000 years ago when they were basically a pre-literate society except for writing numbers. We still commonly use their base 60 math for trig/surveying/measurement.

There was an internet joke some years ago about a professor who had been stopped at an airport due to his involvement with Algebra, and that he used Weapons of Math Instruction.

It was mildly amusing back in the day

>"If you oppose sexism in Mormonism, you should oppose it in Islam, not just enable it. "

Your entire argument here makes no sense... But then, this is one of your favorite tactics. Derail the topic with something unrelated. Because, who here in this thread has mentioned sexism at all, let alone showed that they were hypocritically opposed it in Mormonism but supported it in Islam. I'd ask you to find such a quote, but that would invite you to derail the topic further and support your distraction tactic, so don't bother. We know the truth.

What really happened is that I pointed out that you countered Lot's wife's joke about being against Algebra, which as Brother Of Jerry showed was about Macaromney's earlier post. Lot's wife pointed out that algebra was important and Macaromney is dismissive of it. You brought in the sexist roles, attempting to equate the two jokes.

Here's how it works. Lot's wife supports alegbra and called out Macaromney for being against it. In the same way, with your "joke" it sounds like you support the sexist views of those religions, by "calling out" Lot's wife for being against it. It was a weird "joke" for you to make. Because would it really be a bad thing to be a member of a group that's AGAINST sexism?

But, I'm explaining conversational english to you. You, who is obviously "smarter than the average bear."

> "I thought I'd debunk that one."
There are a couple things going on here. One, you realize that there are many reasons why people are compared to Nazis? Right? Not just their chosen form of government. Sometimes it's about the fact that they are well known for their support of bigoted ideas.

Also, just saying you're not something doesn't mean that it's true. I can say that I'm a millionaire but my bank account would disagree.

Keep in mind, I'm not calling you a Nazi. I'm just saying that if people keep pointing out bigoted statements that you continue to make, there may be a reason why you find that word associated with you over and over again.

I'm a homo sapien sapien sapien.

I'm just a homo. I don't claim sapiens.

A pretty sapient homo, I'd think.

I am a homo that happens to also be a sapiens sapiens.

Doubleplus good.

The topic of racism shouldn't even exist, because racism itself shouldn't exist. Skin color should be an irrelevant factor when deciding how a person should be treated in any facet of life. Certain races may have medical issues that are more common to their race. That is between the person and their doctor.

But there is something that often goes with race where some people categorize themselves in to a category that often justifiably warrants a level of discrimination against them by others. If someone of another race or color beats me in competition for a job because he or she is the better candidate, then more power to them. Perhaps I need to do better next time. If they win because they were less qualified but the employer wanted to meet affirmative action quotas, then there is justified resentment.

If someone (including a white person) says "Poor me. I have less opportunity because I am (whatever color), and I need special privileges or advantages to make up for it" that is wrong. If someone says "I deserve to be given money because my great grandfather was a slave", that is wrong. A part of getting past racism is to not allow what some people call reverse-racism. Whatever happened to some dead people we've never met at the hands of other dead people we've never met is of no concern to you and I now (except we should learn not to repeat that history). One of Mormonism's greatest crimes is their institutionalized racism while denying it was racism and saying that their not-racism actions came from god. I certainly didn't benefit from any racism and just want any scorekeeping about something that I had no part of, to stop. I was born in to a poor family and was given less growing up than many of my friends were. So what? You get over it and pull yourself up, using what is available to you. If I had been born into a wealthy family, I might be a millionaire now (I'm not a millionaire). It's not a big deal to me. You don't wait for someone else to extend a ladder to you to make the trip to prosperity especially easy and you just do your best. That applies to all of us equally, regardless of race. Those who advocate special privileges for certain races, only perpetuate the problem of racism. A special Chamber of Commerce for black people is just as unethical as a special Chamber of Commerce for Caucasions would be. I would rather patronize the businesses of a minority race with better products, than to patronize someone who looks and acts like me, but has inferior products. I would much rather see a black person be voted-in as the non-race-based Chamber of Commerce President because they were the best person for the job. To artificially level the playing field for everyone is a great idea. But it can never work and attempts to do it only stirs-up resentments that lead to more prejudice.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 06/12/2019 09:34AM by azsteve.