BREXIT [Poll] vote!

[FGFlann]

The problem is not of characteristics that are "asserted" to them, the problem is that you are denying the validity of observable traits on racial lines for the sake of debunking exaggerated cultural stereotypes.

It isn't necessary to conflate the two, they are sufficiently distinct.

 

[notimp]

The problem is not of characteristics that are "asserted" to them, the problem is that you are denying the validity of observable traits on racial lines for the sake of debunking exaggerated cultural stereotypes.

It isn't necessary to conflate the two, they are sufficiently distinct.

Yes and certain 'interpretations' follow because of traits like everyone of us liking some sort of tribalism, so you have to interject earlier.

Thats why we have taboos here.

I love your argument that people are the 'masters of their own believes' and not just 'imprinted with naturells' and that they can change their believes individually. (Freedom!) And differentiate exactly when needed. Agreed.

Group behavior is different (less rational, less enlightened).

And if you have a certain kind of behavior pattern, that always replicated through history (hey, lets go after the other!) you start implementing stories - where this has to stop.

(Where the other cant become exactly like you. And then you arguing, so they have to live in different country, or not live at all. (Hey I know something, we are strong, lets take over!))

Thats stuff you even teach children. So thats imprinted culturally, so the other stuff doesnt happen.

(Neo-)Nazis raise their kids pretty differently in that one point.

 

[FGFlann]

Human behaviour is something we all have to come to terms with. Racism is never going away, nor are people drawing faulty conclusions. The best you can do is try to convince them that their way of thinking is wrong. Even if the odds of succeeding are low, it's the honest choice. Denying the existence of reality is insulting not only to them, but to everyone observing the conversation as well, and only lowers your chance of succeeding.

Those of us who are capable of holding conversations like this don't need to make that same mistake, and we don't need to forbid each other from entertaining certain concepts just because they're uncomfortable.

Don't make the truth good or bad when it just has to be the truth, and nothing else.

There are four lights.

 

[notimp]

The best you can do is try to convince them that their way of thinking is wrong.

Uh. But thats the hardest part. ("Your holding it wrong") Thats the least likely to just work. So you dont do it intellectually, you do it culturally. Even though intellectually its easier to confront.

(Why do you need culture, as an elite? (In general. Ask Putin. (If you are far right leaning. )))

Now long winded paragraph for why manipulation (cultural imprinting) is ok in that one specific instance.

We dont ask much. We ask, that you pick an ingroup, that isnt defined by characteristics that prevents people to belong, because of something they are born with.

Thats all - everything else is fair game. Your ingroups dont have to be strictly equal - and they can be anything you like, ideology life concept, even size (some cultures are bigger than others, some cultures can be more important than others), just dont make them that exclusive.

We very much understand, that that will not lead to a worse life for you (so you are not suffering for 'god' or a goal 200 years into the future). edit: In most cases. (In cases where there are other cultural taboos, and belonging to the group you were born into is a very needed security anchor - we give you: religion (born into).)

Even if we take that known 'born with' sense of belonging (you can still have Nation, if you like!), that makes bonds so strong in racism in the first place. Just dont insist on 'born with' as your necessary membership qualification and we are good.

Economically its also more beneficial if we do that, some guys found out.

And that 'born with' bond of your race? Most likely just a story. So you can find something similar in life, hopefully.
-

And we hopefully do it for all the best reasons, and in a very minimalistic way, that doesnt require preaching to everyone to see the wrongs in their ways.

 

[FAST6191]

I am going to have to go with FGFlann on this one.

Humans after wandering around on foot for millennia to cover the earth, and possibly mixing a bit with some of the other branches of the evolutionary tree, formed distinct genetic and cultural* populations (if riding a horse was about as good as it got, and that was not for everybody even then -- America and parts of Africa where they don't do so well). There are then any number of inherited traits that go along with that.
Historically and colloquially this is known as race. It may lack much descriptive power in a scientific concept, and within science the boundaries have been redrawn on many occasions (and the last few hundred years serving to force further redraws as more was discovered, people move and intermingle), but to forcibly see people drop the word is a bit much and serves no great purpose (especially not one that would want some measure of force, be it physical or battering someone intellectually or socially, even if that is not really force) and hardly invalidates the term. The various flavours of science often have some other terms and further descriptors (haplogroups being a favourite of geneticists, ethnicities for the more social science persuasion) which are helpful if you know what you are talking about along with conversation partners.

*often formed a bit of a feedback loop for the genetics so I will note it in that, even if culture is a learned concept.

As far as I can tell it is completely useless for the man on the street test, which is to say I see someone on the street and observe them to be of a given race (however nebulous and fuzzy edged that concept might be) then it has no bearing as an individual on their moral character or intellectual capacity, or worth as a human being. There may or may not be some correlations within what is termed race and some of those but the distribution curves and percentage differences observed (some of which may be cultural, very stark differences often forming in those, or down to circumstance -- it is not so very hard to manufacture a dumb psychopath by means of deprivation, and in some cases that or lesser versions thereof can be endemic within locations) and as such you would be ignoring a nice bit of maths and logic if you do operate under such assumptions (a rather foolish thing to do when you have time to ponder things). I would similarly encourage ignoring such things (the whole "be aware of the struggle" thing not sitting well at all for me -- everybody struggles and it is often hard to know without first learning of the person's history and possibly speaking to them) but to dismiss it as a concept entirely seems like ignoring data. If you ignore it at hiring level in a company I would consider you a fool too -- it is bastard hard to find people these days so why chop out people arbitrarily? I would say you also deserve a slap (by the law) if you happen to be justifying a pay difference or hiring on such a basis.

It is also rather useful in a variety of fields. If playing medic and a black guy comes in showing what looks like anaemia (bit simple but lack of blood) my diagnostic routine flows towards sickle cell, likewise someone black as the ace of spades walks in having lived somewhere far north and it might well speak to vitamin D possibly being lacking and probably less likely to have skin cancer than the ginger guy that comes in after them that lived in a sunny place for a while (or his similarly ginger girlfriend that had a fondness for tanning beds). Likewise I am unlikely to go whole hog on VR and first person shooters in the orient (not such about Indian subcontinent here and the like) as the motion sickness seems to be a genetic trait within such populations and that limits my market rather a lot.

In the end so there are stupid people in the world. Hardly seems worth nixing a useful term because there are, and in doing so giving such people some power as though they are onto something. For a more in depth conversation there probably would be more terms, however for a first pass generally understood concept... seems fine to me.

 

[notimp]

@FAST6191:

I'm not arguing, what is the right term ("no, no - I believe this is race").

I'm, arguing, why you literally cant have race as a 'born into' concept for 'the important things' (like government, or your main social or legal structure).

You can have nation (can assimilate people), you can have religion (people can convert), you can have cultural heritage (race as a cultural concept), but you cant have race based on characteristics you only are born with.

If you then go with - no no, but in america, we are race!

You are dumb. (You dont understand the argument.)

I'm not telling you, why race is not the right word for what you have - I'm literally discribing, why you cant have race in todays society as that 'rallying concept' with that born into feel to it, if you go by 'born with or not' (nobody can change them) characteristics of 'membership'.

And you dont have it in the US, or anywere else in the world. You have it as self attribution, because people still wanted it. (What do you 'feel like'.)

But you cant have it as a governing structure, or as a legal structure, or as the main social structure.


Similar issue with religion btw. Islam - we dont like, because of Sharia. Sharia is a legal system that is fixed. That already has all answers to all questions. That cant develop anymore. Race (with born with attributes) in a similarly fixed state, has a very similar issue.

("Drive out the infidels!")

Now you can say you believe in race, or in Sharia - we have no problem with that even. But when you start to want to champion it as the reason why things 'obviously' are a certain way - someone is putting that STOP sign in front of you. (Self attribution is ok.) ("Certain races are..." colloquially is ok to hold as an opinion, but as soon as we get to 'governing, or political structures' it is not. It even isnt allowed in politics (which is why you have *dogwhistles* in populist politics).)

(Now thread explodes, because I brought religion into this.. )

 

[FGFlann]

All the more reason why we should explain the difference between racial and cultural traits to anyone who fails to make the distinction. But I'm not going to deny that convincing people via argumentation is a big task with a low success rate. I would go so far as to say it's futile in the majority of cases.

But the principle doesn't change on our end either; If we deny racial traits as an observable concept instead of directly attacking a fallacious statement such as "x is lazy because they are y skin colour", our effort to disprove what the other person is saying is no more honest.

 

[notimp]

Reason for why, on an abstract level, is simple btw. You want to be able to also create win - win scenarios.

So not just "for us to win, someone else has to lose".
("My race is best", or "My race is the best in that place" because book says so.)

And you want constant input from multiple sides, so the system becomes more stable. (Thats the concept behind democracy.)

edit:

All the more reason why we should explain the difference between racial and cultural traits to anyone who fails to make the distinction.

Thats what Im doing here, hopefully. But Im also explaining why there are cultural taboos (not many - very, very few, but racism is one.).

 

[FAST6191]

Probably even more confusing because "I don't like Islam" has some fools claiming racism.

Anyway I am going to disagree. Race is something of a genetic heritage and thus inherently born into, and pending some fun with living genetic manipulation (which does seem to be on the cards for the nearer term -- within out lifetimes I imagine) is then fixed. Plenty of fuzzy edges and delineations other than that thanks to history, and within what might be a greater taxonomy, but the term still holds as a term of common use and general understanding. The associated genetic traits may lean you towards certain occupations, hobbies and the like, as well as preference in locations to live (no chance of finding me somewhere that commonly risks sunburn if given a free choice) as well as medical fun and games when that applies but it that is a different matter.
By the time most people sought to write it down in anything vaguely resembling a scientific manner (I do have a wonderful series of shots of the text of a late 1800s biology textbook around here somewhere that seeks to define it as it was then) it quite often happened that classical empires and other such confederations (or concerts) ran up to the same geological barriers that likely created the delineations/genetic populations.
You can certainly join or create a new culture, or religion is that is to be a distinct concept where you are at, but that is a different matter entirely.

The rallying concept thing I would say you can still have (so few use American in that though, or if they do it is not race as much as some form of nationalism). It is stupid to do but I would say the same about religion and yet we still have that. Mind you with the genetics of the "white" American population you might have some claim to either a nascent one by virtue of the amount of churn there or sub grouping as some kind of distinct from those that spawned them, and the black folks in the US also have some interesting effects thanks to what is effectively a period of isolation (though culture is probably the bigger and more interesting one there if we are doing the anthropology thing).
Anyway that is of little interest to your earlier claim of "There is no such thing as a human race". If I were to go for an analogy it would seem to be like claiming there is no such thing as sport as for the purposes of aspects US immigration law then poker counts, or that there are no such thing as vegetables as some places call pizza a vegetable (after a fashion) or that indeed tomatoes are vegetables despite what botanists say ( https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/casebrief/p/casebrief-nix-v-hedden ).

 

[notimp]

When I said you cant have that form of "race" as a rallying concept in any country in the western hemisphere - I forgot about brazil:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...esident-election-run-off-latest-a8573901.html

https://www.survivalinternational.org/articles/3540-Bolsonaro


When did he make it into government?
https://brazilreports.com/brazil-is...country-in-terms-of-income-distribution/2307/

Anyway I am going to disagree. Race is something of a genetic heritage and thus inherently born into, and pending some fun with living genetic manipulation (which does seem to be on the cards for the nearer term -- within out lifetimes I imagine) is then fixed.

I refer you to my "race" is never qualified or explorerd geneticaly, and was around as a cultural trope (used as a unifying element, used in wars, ...) long before genetics was a thing. Genetics can be used as an excuse. You can find markers for regional mutations. Those can be visually identifying, or not. You can find differences in genotype that don't impact phenotype, or looks (like bloodtype) and still let you claim, you are the same race - and if you think you can graft your race theory using genetics as an excuse - thats still just you being racist.

And no, genetics arent responsible for your hobbies, or preferred occupation, as a race.

Thats the entire point, you racist.

That you have wonderful shots of your greatgranddads biology book is great and all, but that kind of classification ended in horror. It was naive and all very exciting, and it was a 'fun' thing to try to layer in race theory through scientific means, in fact Darwin produced an entire trend of those, once his theories got widely adopted. Society got rid of all of them. All of them tried to define race post facto, to bring it in line with developments in science, the result were student revolutions to clean academia from those theories and an entire generation that didn't talk about them, because being a Nazi ('cultural purism' aspect) was really en vogue in certain cycles at the time. And there had been a strain of science that lead directly into the ideology that culminated in holocaust - and we subsequently got rid of it. Which then led to false claims - on part of Nazis, it never existed (the horror), and people only did, because they wanted to be unfair to Nazis. Because of course it did.

Take the Bolsonaro example. What to do, if you are one of those indios? You can never do anything that would make Bolsonaro happy. You are scapegoat, for a political movement of the time, because you were born into the wrong race, which apparently - everyone tells you you cant tanscend, because you look a certain way. Sh*t.

Well better not be born into that minority then... Because according to rightwing populists, it is most often the disliked minority at hand, that is responsible for most of your countries issues. Always follows the same playbook. Easy as pie. People love it (born into 'the chosen' group, people know by looks, no negotiation possible). Horrifying results.

So you can still use race theory as a unifying concept if you want, but we dont let you use it anywhere it matters, societally. And if you ever get into pronouncing - "no, no, I like skiiing because I'm caucasian, we all do", we look at you with disgust.

Thats the social contract. Also in our societies we have racial intermixing as a fact and not just as an idea at which point this concept of classification becomes really stupid ("Obviously, a 'racially' mixed individual can feel at home in two different continents, because of his/her genetic makeup") or really confusing for people (so the mixed race people then are better?), which is why if you use it as a social structure of any importance, somehow - you always want to get rid of those people quickly. Sh*t.

And next you get rid of people with genetic 'defects' because they make your race look bad. Sh*t

And next you get into theories, that those are only a thing because your race is not *pure* enough, and not because of chance mutation. 'Obviously.' Sh*t.

Oh human logic, so predictable.

Oh, and fun fact - most common occupation by race, because of genetic makeup? Hunter or gatherer.

Also, how stupid do you have to be to make a recessive genetic trait in haircolor your cultural ideal (blond people, because of pictures and stories, btw) and plan on breeding future races of those. Nazis, just always when you need stupid.

 

[FGFlann]

It's really not that uncommon. Basically every identitarian activist group uses race as a rallying cry.

 

[FAST6191]

I refer you to my "race" is never qualified or explorerd geneticaly, and was around as a cultural trope (used as a unifying element, used in wars, ...) long before genetics was a thing. Genetics can be used as an excuse. You can find markers for regional mutations. Those can be visually identifying, or not. You can find differences in genotype that don't impact phenotype, or looks (like bloodtype) and still let you claim, you are the same race - and if you think you can graft your race theory using genetics as an excuse - thats still just you being racist.

The old days were less than stellar -- I mean chemistry at points reckoned organic molecules had the essence of life in them and we could not create them manually, or further back chemists tried to turn lead into gold (atomic physics says will essentially never happen barring incredibly low random chance). Guess I have to dismiss them entirely as well.

You mentioned mixed folks and the fuzzy edges, made even more fun by modern migration patterns. Does make it a rather hard taxonomic problem, does not mean there is not a taxonomy to be had though. If I can sequence some DNA and by virtue of a selection of sequences being there determine to a fair degree much about where a person (and their ancestry) to a fair degree and that aligns well enough, and describes the vast majority of folks in that location that seems like a useful thing to have at some level.

An no, genetics arent responsible for your hobbies, or prefered occupation, as a race.

Thats the entire point, you racist.

There is a rather large difference between responsible and influence.

I don't see too many pygmies playing basketball, that tribe that lived up a mountain for a few thousand years (and thus gained a seriously high blood oxygen capacity) tends to feature a fair few runners, as mentioned before the seasickness thing that seems to be very much present within oriental types ( https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8825456 ) does rather limit the first person shooter market there, my being of ginger stock does see me rather limit my time in the sun (as well as possibly not feel pain as much and be able to drink copious amounts of booze, though that might be the same thing as blue eyes, to say nothing of not get the Asian flush thing as it were for said booze though that matters little other than being an example of an inherited trait). This list goes on for a long time.

Geography plays a nice role too in this (you find yourself in the North Sea and you tend to find yourself in need of good boats and capabilities, far more so than the nice predictable moonsoon setup around Asia and East Africa), possibly an even greater one, but that changes little. I do wonder however if there were reinforcement of traits useful to that (fish is good food after all).

It feels redundant to state, not least of all because I already did, but what they hey. None of that has any influence on your worth as a human being, might well have some influence on what you like/are good at doing (failure is fun but not all the time), nor what I treat individuals as or would suggest anybody apply to a group (you are missing out on good people if you do). If that makes me an unpardonable cunt then so be it.

Take the Bolsonaro example. What to do, if you are one of those indios? You can never do anything that would make Bolsonaro happy. You are scapegoat, for a political movement of the time, because you were born into the wrong race. Sh*t.

Well better not be in that born into minority then... Because according to rightwing populists, its is most often the disliked minority at hand, that is responsible for most of your countries issues. Always follows the same playbook. Easy as pie. People love it (born into 'the chosen' group, people know by looks, no negotiation possible). Horrifying results.

So there are morons in the world? Why does that change useful categorisations for general discussion? Do I fear them so much that I consider a long understood term verboten?

So you can still use race theory as a unifying concept if you want, but we dont let you use it anywhere it matters, societally. And if you ever get into pronouncing - "no, no, I like skiiing because I'm caucasian, we all do", we look at you with disgust.

Is there any basis for skiing unlike some the examples above? I could see something with risk taking courtesy of that pain thing and adaptation to cold (the nice layer of fat growing all over me doing rather better for that than when I run around somewhere hot, as opposed to those that store it in their arse to presumably dissipate it better in that environment) and freeze) but that is just idle speculation at this point.




That said I decided you changed my mind. If there is no such thing as race I can't be racist (not that I ever was) and nor can anybody else (even those of the dominant race). Winner that one.

 

[Deleted User]

Not sure why there's a poll. They left and that's the correct path.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

When I said you cant have that form of "race" as a rallying concept in any country in the western hemisphere - I forgot about brazil:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...esident-election-run-off-latest-a8573901.html

https://www.survivalinternational.org/articles/3540-Bolsonaro


When did he make it into government?
https://brazilreports.com/brazil-is...country-in-terms-of-income-distribution/2307/


I refer you to my "race" is never qualified or explorerd geneticaly, and was around as a cultural trope (used as a unifying element, used in wars, ...) long before genetics was a thing. Genetics can be used as an excuse. You can find markers for regional mutations. Those can be visually identifying, or not. You can find differences in genotype that don't impact phenotype, or looks (like bloodtype) and still let you claim, you are the same race - and if you think you can graft your race theory using genetics as an excuse - thats still just you being racist.

An no, genetics arent responsible for your hobbies, or preferred occupation, as a race.

Thats the entire point, you racist.

That you have wonderful shots of your greatgranddads biology book is great and all, but that kind of classification ended in horror. It was naive and all very exciting, and it was a 'fun' thing to try to layer in race theory through scientific means, in fact Darwin produced an entire trend of those, once his theories got widely adopted. Society got rid of all of them. All of them tried to define race post facto, to bring it in line with developments in science, the result were student revolutions to clean academia from those theories and an entire generation that didn't talk about them, because being a Nazi ('cultural purism' aspect) was really en vogue in certain cycles at the time. And there had been a strain of science that lead directly into the ideology that culminated in holocaust - and we subsequently got rid of it. Which then led to false claims - on part of Nazis, it never existed (the horror), and people only did, because they wanted to be unfair to Nazis. Because of course it did.

Take the Bolsonaro example. What to do, if you are one of those indios? You can never do anything that would make Bolsonaro happy. You are scapegoat, for a political movement of the time, because you were born into the wrong race, which apparently - everyone tells you you cant tanscend, because you look a certain way. Sh*t.

Well better not be born into that minority then... Because according to rightwing populists, it is most often the disliked minority at hand, that is responsible for most of your countries issues. Always follows the same playbook. Easy as pie. People love it (born into 'the chosen' group, people know by looks, no negotiation possible). Horrifying results.

So you can still use race theory as a unifying concept if you want, but we dont let you use it anywhere it matters, societally. And if you ever get into pronouncing - "no, no, I like skiiing because I'm caucasian, we all do", we look at you with disgust.

Thats the social contract. Also in our societies we have racial intermixing as a fact and not just as an idea at which point this concept of classification becomes really stupid ("Obviously, a 'racially' mixed individual can feel at home in two different continents, because of his/her genetic makeup") or really confusing for people (so the mixed race people then are better?), which is why if you use it as a social structure of any importance, somehow - you always want to get rid of those people quickly. Sh*t.

And next you get rid of people with genetic 'defects' because they make your race look bad. Sh*t

And next you get into theories, that those are only a thing because your race is not *pure* enough, and not because of chance mutation. 'Obviously.' Sh*t.

Oh human logic, so predictable.

Oh, and fun fact - most common occupation by race, because of genetic makeup? Hunter or gatherer.

Also, how stupid do you have to be to make a recessive genetic trait in haircolor your cultural ideal (blond people, because of pictures and stories, btw) and plan on breeding future races of those. Nazis, just always when you need stupid.

You think yourself as an intellectual, yet you don't even know the terms of races. Just makes it all pointless to even discuss.

 

[notimp]

It's really not that uncommon. Basically every identitarian activist group uses race as a rallying cry.

On the populist level yes/maybe.

But on the societal decision level never (societal contract) willingly. (Neo-Nazis would call that 'doctrine' oppression).

Remember those statements, that face recognition algos discriminated against black people? In designing societal structures, you have to look for that. Or else (quick theoretical example), black people get sidelined, identify and rally over race primarily, which makes it very hard to strike compromises (lets have both sides win a little).

And if that race identity ever becomes the main majority ideology governing your society... Better leave country (if you are intelligent).

So there is always that weird disconnect of 'sorry racially arguing person' you can have this opinion, but from this point forward, we will ignore it.

The conceptual story goes further btw. Because it never ends with 'ok, so now we've all cleanly seperated all races to places where they belong, so now finally we can live happily ever after'. Those idiologies (its very hard to strike compromises, because the classification is so absolute (even your children can never transcend it)), lead to wars. Wars lead to resentments (especially if you then culturally isolate the looser). Leads to wars, ...

Marry europe in the 17 hundreds. (Cycle of wars, all very perfectly 'theoretically argued for' (why they were needed).)

But you dont have to get into that to decide, why race (with that "only born into" quality) is a bad idea as a 'governing structure'. Or rallying structure even (its easy to argue that intellectually (winning that argument), its just convincing people thats the hard part (because the bonds (of that story ('my born brother')) are so strong.). (See religion.)

 

[notimp]

There is also one more point I have to mention, and that is 'purpose'.
So when you take racial identity away from people as a 'higher goal', they loose purpose. ('Wäääh, cant make PC masterrace win in life')

Which is a problem. We (society) hope you find yours somewhere else. (At least you can choose freely, you just can not 'maximize race interest' to a point where it works better than 'equal to others', (or better than main societal organizing system ('very efficient those Nazis, very efficient.')).)



edit: Qualifier on Islam. Not all people following islam (religion), believe in Sharia as the 'divine' main governing structure (Sharia is a fixed ('godly') law structure) of all (its divine, you know..) societies. Be nice to people, at least try to find out first.

Also, that 'divinely fixated, since centuries ago, and for centuries ahead' part ('obviously' in the race example) is what becomes problematic in democracies. (You know all answers, why even ask the people? (Or live by our laws that dont come 'directly from god'.)))