Deterministic race ideology is wrong

[UltraDolphinRevolution]

Yes there are genetic differences (*duh*), in fact there are so many of them, that you cant easily use them to define race (because there is more variability cross one race as well),

There is more variability of height between men (roughly 1,50m to 2,20m = 70cm) than there is between the average of women and men (1,60m to 1,75m = 15cm).
Therefore men are not taller than women.
And the terms "man" and "women" are social constructs.

If you are Black you might be less likely to get skin cancer. Sure. But the reason for it is not 'race' but melanin production. And melanin production varies within a race. And we dont define races by melanin levels alone (there are some pretty darkskinned ... *insert maybe racist attribution here*). And ah, you see the problem.

We have already been through this. The reason Sub-Saharan Africans are less likely to get skin cancer is genetic. It is not based on a social construct but genes. Genes means where one originally comes from, one´s ancestry.
Australian Aborigines and certain Indian groups also have higher melanin levels, but they are not of the same race / origin. When people say "black" they usually mean "of Sub-Saharan African descent" and when they say "white" they usually mean "of European descent". I advocate for more scientific terms but daily-life terminology does not negate the scientific truth behind it.

My race/ethnicity/origin is not a lottery by the way. I did not play the lottery of life, I am the product of my parents and their parents and so on. E.g. two people of European descent do not suddenly have an East-Asian baby. You still have not acknowledged this fact, by the way.
You have acknowledged, however, that your assertion that race is not based on genetics is due to consequences you perceive. Therefore your argumentation it is not truth-based.

 

[notimp]

There is more variability of height between men (roughly 1,50m to 2,20m = 70cm) than there is between the average of women and men (1,60m to 1,75m = 15cm).
Therefore men are not taller than women.
And the terms "man" and "women" are social constructs.

There is more variability in organs and hormones between man and women, and those are less of a social construct.

But we are getting to the core of the argument, namely - those grouping terms are social constructs (not a 'higher truth'), now how much deterministic value are we willing to attribute to one, and why (scientific approach of 'determinating factors' or something else).

We have already been through this. The reason Sub-Saharan Africans are less likely to get skin cancer is genetic. It is not based on a social construct but genes. Genes means where one originally comes from, one´s ancestry.
Australian Aborigines and certain Indian groups also have higher melanin levels, but they are not of the same race / origin. When people say "black" they usually mean "of Sub-Saharan African descent" and when they say "white" they usually mean "of European descent". I advocate for more scientific terms but daily-life terminology does not negate the scientific truth behind it.

Dont you see the mismatch here? One definition is a definition "to the best of our current scientific knowledge (falsification based logic), and one is a term jokel and the hans came up with to indicate that they are different from the tribe next door (additive logic), the definition of a 'race' is just more random, less though out, less 'challenged', more doctrinistic, ... They wouldnt be the same grouping category.

(Talking about skincolor as a factor of genes, and skincolor as a factor of race. Why one would have more 'deterministic' qualities. And the other wouldnt.)

So I'm questioning if those are the same 'quality' of category. Similar thing in the comparison to man/women. One can have babies vs - ones skin is a bit darker, and the eyes are at a different orientation. That scientific - huh?

And before you move back to Mendel, societies will always be more willing to accept a difference between man an women (i.e. needed for the survival of the species) than a difference between races (i.e. send them where they belong "tendencies"). So while both are something you are arguably born with and thats so hard to change, one generally doesnt - looking at whats attributed to those groupings, one has by far more potential to be used as a negative prejudice. (Women (or men) are part of the ingroup 'our people', 'other race' maybe isnt so much.)

Remember, how I'm always arguing, that we cant make 'race' as a deterministic concept a 'more important construct in society' -- this very much has to do with peoples tendencies of behavior derived from group identities. If everyone would not care about race identities at all, but there would be a grouping definition called 'race' - we wouldnt have to have this discussion. But thats not the world we live in. So we construct a social taboo ("thats racist man, you cant act like that") for the purpose of race (as a grouping term) not becoming 'too important' societally. (As a rectification for believes.)

My race/ethnicity/origin is not a lottery by the way. I did not play the lottery of life, I am the product of my parents and their parents and so on. E.g. two people of European descent do not suddenly have an East-Asian baby. You still have not acknowledged this fact, by the way.

Again, you are countering with 'pathos' ("the importance of ancestry"). Thats hardly better than a story. (In quality of argument.) But lets let this slide for once.

The "birth lottery" argument wasnt meant to indicate that your parents 'race' had no impact on yours - it was meant to indicate - if you let race be a 'more important factor' in society (because lets say you 'demand it' (activism)). And this gets to the point where it becomes a deciding factor if a person would be able to get a job or not, then as a human being, all you have is praying to a higher being, that you were born in the right body.

Because you wont be changing race.

Therein lies huge conflict potential. Hence - not good for a working society.

How do you get rid of this problem? You make everyone in your society white (f.e.) - and hilarity ensues (not so much). Or you make everyone of a certain complexion believe, that they are less then human, and we've already been through that.

 

[FAST6191]

So because you fear some morons in history, and possibly some morons in the current world, you reckon we can't/shouldn't discuss manifestly observable (at the regional population, personal and chemical level) differences in human populations and assign those differences, which are generally inheritable and demonstrably so for any number of things, a term? Or that we should forgo a generally accepted and understood term, or indeed fail to constrain it/seek to more rigorously define it, especially now we have better means of understanding the mechanisms for those differences and the means to more clearly measure and categorise.

From where I sit I try to fear nothing (you will get little done if you do), and it is observable, experimentally demonstrable, concordant with understood physics/chemistry/biology (which is very much in play) and with predictive capabilities as well.
Hard lines might be hard to draw and at some point "because that is the one I am using and I needed to start somewhere" might come into play but that seldom stops much -- as I sit here pondering things before I press reply I am looking at a periodic table poster on the wall, and all the colours, groupings and more that I know of, and how it only gets more complicated from there (combined things, different isotopes and the effects they have going up and down the scales, temperature fun, electronegativity and all the fun that causes), with all the fuzzy edges, with all the rather arbitrary categories and think well we still teach the basic overviews and still find it useful to have, or maybe chemistry is a social construct based on what we see as observable behaviours of subatomic particles and the concepts governing them, not to mention chemistry has caused some heinous stuff in history so I guess we will be abandoning that in short order if you had your way. Back on topic I fail to see the difference here with this, other than the degree of complication is a lot more but still within reason.

 

[UltraDolphinRevolution]

You are still arguing from consequence, Notimp. And I do not even agree with you from a consequentialist point of you (i.e. that it is good to act as if there are not races). Without ingroup prefence, my people would not exist today. Western virtue signaling people fully understand the importance of idenitity when it comes to Tibet (though I do not know your stance on it) but disregard it everywhere else.

Yes, men and women have different organs. I was specifically talking about height. Everbody knows that men are taller than women. It is irrelevant that there is a higher variety within a group than between group averages. By pointing this out you are merely saying that "there are also tall women" or "there are also small Dutch people" (which nobody doubted to begin with). It adds nothing to the question whether average differences are genetic or whether grouping is justified.

 

[notimp]

So because you fear some morons in history, and possibly some morons in the current world, you reckon we can't/shouldn't discuss manifestly observable (at the regional population, personal and chemical level) differences in human populations and assign those differences, which are generally inheritable and demonstrably so for any number of things, a term?

Depends on how civilized a discussion we are talking about. But essentially - yes. This is what the term taboo indicates.

Also, please note, that we are essentially engaged in talking about of 'societal defaults' can be moved, and why or why not. Which is something every generation has to do at one point.

I'm mainly arguing why this red line shouldnt be moved.

Next argument would be slippery slope, I guess..


Also - we have to acknowledge, that this leaves the 'realm' of engaging and thrilling discussion at one point, and has real world impacts.

So at least we would have to discuss those as well, and not always get stuck at 'but theoretically it is so unfair, that free speech has limits'.

 

[FAST6191]

Depends on how civilized a discussion we are talking about. But essentially - yes. This is what the term taboo indicates.

In that case it sounds more like you are calling for the creation of a taboo, or the furthering of whatever group reckons there should be one.

I would say that flies in the face of rationality; give me a skeleton, give me a blood drop and I will tell you much (about where they are likely from, what they likely look like, what medical issues they might have, what medical issues their kids might have...), give me a photo and I will tell you much about what will likely come up in the other tests, such things are the results of demonstrable processes and have predictive abilities both in terms of looking back through time, forward in it and for the here and now.
In much the same way that a cosmologist will call anything heavier than helium a metal when it comes to stars, the average person not calling hydrogen a metal despite it demonstrably being one if you treat it right and chemistry having a dozen different categories of what counts as what for metals (never mind metalloids) then yeah you will have a clash between informal, legal and scientific but for the most part.

 

[notimp]

Probably group psychology.

You do some historical atrocities, then people revolt against it in real struggle, then you are shocked, and dont talk about it for half a century. Hence a taboo is created.

Compare and contrast to "I'm bored, and want to rebell against not being able to mainstream racist believes ("because we could do racial differentiation "better"") - going on all day about how unfair taboos are".

Not very rational maybe, but very human. (Creation of, and maybe need for certain taboos. Not in a long theoretical conversation, but in practice. (For society to function.))

But now our problem becomes 'who is establishing them' and 'who can confront them', to which I'd say democratic principles (edit very idealistic, I know) and call it a day. (Or argue a bit more, if I'd want to.)


Oh and btw, I tried to establish why it was rational that we ended up at 'racism' being a taboo, Based on past experiences. And limited alternatives.

Not based on ideology that says 'all expression of thought has to be free'.

While still very high on my priorities list - its not at the topmost position of principals for me.