- Joined
- Jul 1, 2011
- Messages
- 67,218
- Reaction score
- 28,530
- Location
- Lower Hudson Valley, NY
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
No, I wouldn't
Then you agree there is not racism in the world, and blacks have been complaining about nothing for hundreds of years.
So, we should accept something because people are too dumb to make the distinction? Is this really what you're arguing? Dumb down knowledge, play to lowest common denominator?
Oh ok...so let's threaten people's lives by catering to their ignorance, then...that's a fabulous idea.
You DO get that this is not some benign case of simple ignorance of technical information, right? For example, racist medical research, in which prescription drugs are marketed on a racist basis despite absolutely no evidence to support the claim that a medication is especially beneficial to people imagined to be of a certain "race" -- leading to false expectations of efficacy for some and lack of FDA approval for general use for others -- that's just no big deal.
Clearly, we shouldn't point out the fundamental errors and ignorance of science in such issues...because after all, people don't know the difference.
So your argument is that the truth depends on whether or not "most people know the difference." Calling race a social construct is either garbage or it's not. Guess what? It's not garbage. It's a fact of existence. The definition of "race" that most people work with and that was being used in this thread is a social construct. Period.
I'm not confirming it, my statement was speculation based on your moronic word choice.... for all I know it came out of a copy of Slanderous Communist Weekly Magazine.So they teach that in sociology 101... thanks for confirming my own point.
Awww... still butthurt?my you just might have to fall over and die.
Would it only be possible for you to intellectually provide something to dodge.... maybe one day.Awaiting your ockham dodge attack...
Which is exactly where the social construction comes into play.What, exactly, does race mean anyway?
Two organisms are the same species if they can mate and have fertile offspring. All humans, by that definition, are the same species.
Even taking the most extreme differences in looks, say, sub Saharan African vs. someone from Norway, the differences are rather minor compared to different breeds of dogs or horses.
It seems to me we're making a lot out of what is really minor differences in physical appearance.
That's weird, because a few posts ago, you said:Well not really.
Calling decedents of sub Saharan Africans and aboriginal Australians, the same race, is wrong.
They are not.
Saying that whites and blacks are of different races, is generally true.
Black, white, etc, defined by American census standards, is a poor measurement of race.
Actually, everything I said was accurate. First, whether or not defining race as a social construct is accurate is not a matter of whether or not "people know the difference," it's a matter of whether or not race is socially constructed or not. Second, the definition of race that most people use and that was being used in this thread is a social construct. Therefore, your original comment that referring to race as a social construct is merely "pc, feel good garbage" is one that is much too broad a statement that does not take into account the popular conceptions of race and the conception of race that has been the subject of this threaSaying race is a social construct, is much too broad a statement.
Sure there can be racism against white people. It's just not really important since white people have all the money and power and other races aren't in a position to do anything to systematically harm whites. When it comes to the comparison of whites against any other race (in white-dominant countries like the United States) the inverse is very much true. We have all the power, and we can and do use it hurt non-whites. So, our racism is the only racism with practical consequences.
That's weird, because a few posts ago, you said:
And now, you're saying that it's an accurate measurement. Why the change?
Actually, everything I said was accurate. First, whether or not defining race as a social construct is accurate is not a matter of whether or not "people know the difference," it's a matter of whether or not race is socially constructed or not. Second, the definition of race that most people use and that was being used in this thread is a social construct. Therefore, your original comment that referring to race as a social construct is merely "pc, feel good garbage" is one that is much too broad a statement that does not take into account the popular conceptions of race and the conception of race that has been the subject of this threa
As for the poll, before I answer, I think we should agree on the meaning of the word racism:
The definition of racism is controversial both because there is little scholarly agreement about what the word "race" means, and because there is also little agreement about what does and doesn't constitute discrimination.
(snip)
Some sociologists have defined racism as a system of group privilege.
Racism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
How we define the word changes whether it was or not. This example seems more like prejudice to me.
It's a loaded, pejorative term with no legitimate use. It makes a theory based on the preponderance of evidence seem undeniably evil and a theory based on looking behind the evidence, with the goal of dismissing the evidence, seem conclusive and humanitarian.
So it doesn't matter how we define the word; it is the type of expression this word fits into that matters. It is, in fact, a slur word.
You are unfairly attacking self-defense by calling it abuse, so again you are loading the term by making racial conflict always evil. Living in a dreamworld will create nightmares in the real world.I won't go that far. Many culture have been ethnocentric and have abused races of people. It's as old as time. Having a word fot that is proper. But I think words have to be very specific and that we have to agree on a working fefinition before we can answer questions about them. But, I wouldn't eleminate words needlessly.
I won't go that far. Many culture have been ethnocentric and have abused races of people. It's as old as time.
Well not really.
Calling decedents of sub Saharan Africans and aboriginal Australians, the same race, is wrong.
They are not.
Saying that whites and blacks are of different races, is generally true.
Saying race is a social construct, is much too broad a statement.
Both statements are true.
Blacks and whites have genetic differences, that can define them as different races.
.
Race doesn't matter.
In fact, it doesn't even exist in humans.
While that may sound like the idealistic decree of a minister or rabbi, it's actually the conclusion of an evolutionary and population biologist at Washington University.
Alan R. Templeton, Ph.D., professor of biology in Arts and Sciences, has analyzed DNA from global human populations that reveal the patterns of human evolution over the past one million years. He shows that while there is plenty of genetic variation in humans, most of the variation is individual variation. While between-population variation exists, it is either too small, which is a quantitative variation, or it is not the right type of qualitative variation -- it does not mark historical sublineages of humanity.
Using the latest molecular biology techniques, Templeton has analyzed millions of genetic sequences found in three distinct types of human DNA and concludes that, in the scientific sense, there is no such thing as race.
I met a Hispanic guy online whose views I found troubling. He blamed the Jews for a lot of things such as corporate irresponsibility. He blamed the bank bailouts on the Jews. My best friend from high school was Jewish, and I'm pretty sure she wasn't scheming in the back of a synagogue on how to control all the banks so that she could rip everyone off.The man had the attitude that North America belongs to Mexicans, Native Americans, and no one else. He seemed to equate Mexico as a Native American tribe that had been abused by the white man (Americans). Do I have my history wrong? I thought Mexico was a North American country with European roots (in Spain) just like the United States has roots in England and Canada has roots in England and France. By far the most troubling thing he said was that all blacks should go back to Africa and all whites should go back to Europe. To me that sounds like a racist statement against both black people and white people. Do you agree?
Btw, I'm white, but I didn't come here from Europe. I was born here. Almost everyone I know who's black was also born here. And I think his history is wrong. Mexico is not a Native American tribe.
You are unfairly attacking self-defense by calling it abuse, so again you are loading the term by making racial conflict always evil. Living in a dreamworld will create nightmares in the real world.
As usual, one academic, eager to gain brownie points by playing up to the dominant delusion of his peers, selectively seeks a conclusion based on slanted evidence. These narrow-minded conformists glorify themselves with their unearned prestige. And also get government grants if they can seem to justify continuing 50 years of failure based on this delusion.
Now evolutionary biologists are leading a shift in perspective. Lumping people by the social categories of race, they argue, can hide patterns of biological variation and lead to misinterpretation. And although ancestral population groups may be important, more comprehensive evolutionary thinking would help doctors and researchers predict patient response, design studies and interpret the associations seen between genes and disease susceptibility. Race isn’t meaningless, says Lynn Jorde, an evolutionary geneticist at the University of Utah, but “those categories are only marginally useful.”
As usual, one academic, eager to gain brownie points by playing up to the dominant delusion of his peers, selectively seeks a conclusion based on slanted evidence.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?