# Are you a racist? Warning signs **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [July 7, 2014, 8:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-a-racist-warning-signs/692519 "2014-07-07T08:12:08Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 24
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2014, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-a-racist-warning-signs/692519/461 "2014-07-20T21:05:52Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > Woopsie…did you decide to pretend the other [article](http://genomebiology.com/2002/3/7/comment/2007) I gave you didn’t exist? Did it counter anything I said about your first cite? Nope, it did not. > [@](#): > > The stupidity of your simpleton statements around how these racists decide genetic clustering by looking at a person is typical for those who want to reassure themselves that race-based genetically driven differences are bullshit, but from a science perspective it doesn’t even reach a fourth-grade level of understanding. It wasn’t _my_ statement, _it was from your own damn cite_. So who’s the simpleton now, **Chief Poultrymolester**? You don’t have an answer for the actual criticisms of that blog post I raised, so you’re just going to try the full Gish Gallop instead? > [@](#): > > It doesn’t sound like you are interested in science articles One of us has posted a full scientific paper, one of us can’t tell the difference between a scientific paper and an opinion piece that’s clearly labelled as such - the journal equivalent of a Letter to the Editor. So who’s the one interested in science, again? > [@](#): > > But if you just prefer to put your brain up your ass and shout “racist white chicken fucker” instead of providing any debate of substance, have at it. I’m not here to debate you, you dumb shit. I’m here to call you names, because the debate has already been won. It was won when [organizations like the AAPA](http://physanth.org/association/position-statements/biological-aspects-of-race)recognized the unscientific nature of the race concept you and your racist friends still cling to. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2014, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-a-racist-warning-signs/692519/462 "2014-07-20T23:22:13Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > Clinging to the idea that “race” has no genetic basis is the greatest threat to the black middle class in the USA. For example, without substantial race-based consideration for medical school admission scores, we would have almost no black physicians in the US even if we continued to adjust admission preferences for socioeconomic background privileges. Not really. Black society has already provided a cultural marker that says nothing about a biological construct identified as “race.” In 1989, a group proclaimed a desire that those whose ancestors were imported as slaves from Africa be identified as “African American.” Regardless how one feels about that declaration or the term that was chosen, it immediately removed and “biological race” from the matter, leaving only the history of one’s more immediate ancestry. Desmond Tutu, Nelson Mandela, Patrice Lumumba, Jean-Bertrand Aristide, and any number of others might well be of any imagined biological “race,” but they are clearly not African Americans. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2014, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-a-racist-warning-signs/692519/463 "2014-07-20T23:28:55Z")
Black Americans don’t seek solutions for biological problems. They seek solutions for social, economic, and legal problems. No one denies that blacks exist as a social group. They don’t exist as a biological group. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2014, 4:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-a-racist-warning-signs/692519/464 "2014-07-21T04:43:13Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > Is it the case in your construct that: > > 1. These are racist articles > [snip] > The first is unlikely. Not so fast - a study _from 1988_, that thinks it’s OK to clump African Americans and South African Blacks as a group (or American South African Whites, for that matter - do you _know_ the degree of non-European admixture in the latter?) certainly seems racist to me. ---
**Author:** ![Chief\_Pedant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@Chief\_Pedant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chief_Pedant)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2014, 10:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-a-racist-warning-signs/692519/465 "2014-07-21T10:24:58Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > And this is it. ‘Races might differ in non-superficial ways’, therefore black people are inherently genetically less intelligent. ‘Races might differ in non-superficial ways’, therefore the racial attitudes of the most evil people in history from the last few centuries just happen to be correct. It doesn’t matter that we know virtually nothing about the genetics of intelligence (and most importantly – _ **absolutely nothing at all about which genes are responsible for intelligence** _)… if black people might be dumber, _they are dumber_. It doesn’t matter that IQ test scores have varied extremely widely over time, such that modern people (including black people) score significantly higher than people in past decades. It doesn’t matter that there is much about societal discrimination that we don’t fully understand. > > If black people might be dumber, _they are dumber_. You’ve made up your mind, and without any genes at all. Zero genes, and you ‘know’ that they’re dumber because of genes. > > I don’t know how that kind of mind works… maybe I don’t have the genetic aptitude for it. You might consider starting [here](http://www.yale.edu/scan/GT_2004_NRN.pdf) for a review of some of the genes related to neurobiology that you are confident mother nature must have exempted from evolution. As an aside, the “ethics” part of the article review refers to the rather delicate fact that once we start discussing genes and intelligence, we open up a can of “ethical” worms. Why? Because every researcher of genes and physiology accepts this fact: genes make a difference in our outcomes–even intelligence–and gene frequencies differ among human populations, including at the race level. Were this not so, there would be no “ethical” dilemma of studying genes and intelligence. ---
**Author:** ![Chief\_Pedant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@Chief\_Pedant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chief_Pedant)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2014, 10:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-a-racist-warning-signs/692519/466 "2014-07-21T10:29:35Z")
> [@Smeghead](#): > > Oh, for fuck’s sake. Are we really going to beat this dead horse yet again? You idiots have had your asses handed to you SO MANY times. I just can’t even. Perhaps what you just can’t even is provide any scientific counterpoint to the following points: 1. Genes affect outcomes 2. Gene frequencies for variants cluster by populations, including the race grouping 3. The observed patterns are so strongly expressed that, for example, highly educated and wealthy black families have children who academically underperform white and asian children from poorly educated and poverty-stricken backgrounds, making standard explanations for outcome differences (such as socioeconomic status) completely unsupported by data ---
**Author:** ![Chief\_Pedant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@Chief\_Pedant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chief_Pedant)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2014, 10:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-a-racist-warning-signs/692519/467 "2014-07-21T10:39:09Z")
> [@Hector\_St\_Clare](#): > > **ChiefPedant** have you read this, from Ron Unz a couple months ago? > > [Does Race Exist? Do Hills Exist?, by Ron Unz - The Unz Review](http://www.unz.com/item/does-race-exist-do-hills-exist/) It’s similar to many, many blogs and articles on the topic. My approach is this: “race” is a self-defined grouping that exists at a fairly crude level. In modern populations with a history of mixed migrations, it’s definitely less accurate as a proxy for genetic profile than it would be within the source population pre-migration. At a group average level, outcome differences can be ascribed to genes where other factors are taken into account appropriately. I think it would be a good idea to get rid of “race,” except that there is a natural human predilection to self-identify. If we were to get rid of “race” as a categorization, we would not be able to set aside special consideration for race, and if we can’t do that then we would see a substantial loss of representation for blacks in the middle class. Without special consideration for race that ignores academic performance differences, the average academic scores for blacks would keep them out of higher education, even if admission preferences were adjusted for socioeconomic backgrounds. ---
**Author:** ![Chief\_Pedant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@Chief\_Pedant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chief_Pedant)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2014, 10:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-a-racist-warning-signs/692519/468 "2014-07-21T10:58:45Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > Did it counter anything I said about your first cite? Nope, it did not.It wasn’t _my_ statement, _it was from your own damn cite_. So who’s the simpleton now, **Chief Poultrymolester**? You don’t have an answer for the actual criticisms of that blog post I raised, so you’re just going to try the full Gish Gallop instead? One of us has posted a full scientific paper, one of us can’t tell the difference between a scientific paper and an opinion piece that’s clearly labelled as such - the journal equivalent of a Letter to the Editor. > > So who’s the one interested in science, again? > > I’m not here to debate you, you dumb shit. I’m here to call you names, because the debate has already been won. It was won when [organizations like the AAPA](http://physanth.org/association/position-statements/biological-aspects-of-race)recognized the unscientific nature of the race concept you and your racist friends still cling to. It’s a good thing you aren’t here to debate, because you are either clueless or dumb. I’m going to give you the time of day just this once, recognzing you probably can’t be educate past your privileges. Here’s your post: By Mr Dibble: \*"“Simple” is right. Not in the “uncomplicated” sense, but in the “mentally retarded” one. Seriously, you link to a page (Looks like a blog, in no way any kind of academic journal. Not your own, is it? That would be too brazilian of you.) that purports to be all about genetics and last common ancestor and all this other supposedly scientific stuff, and then reduces it to “Africans have curly hair and dark skin” like those are actual genetic markers - ignoring, oh, Melanesians and Andamese and Aborigines, who have, if anything, more genetic separation from Sub-saharan Africans than Europeans (Andamese, in particular, are by their DNA the most distant from African anywhere on the planet, biologically) yet have the same physical features of “curly hair, thick lips, dark skin” your blog post harps on about. And that’s the level of science the racists use, everybody. “I know a Black by how they look, and damn the DNA” \* But you keep fucking that (White) chicken, Pedant." You quote, out of context, a single part of an essay which in toto does not represent the topic the way that out of context quote seems to suggest. Here’s the paragraph, and I suggest reading the whole essay again: \*“Without getting too technical with scientific explanations (those will come later, but I am just trying to establish the basics for now), you can think of genetic clusters in the following manner: curly hair does not in and of itself prove that the person is black. A person of any race, and in particular a Caucasoid, could have curly hair. A Caucasoid may have thick lips and even somewhat dark skin. Any one of these does not prove the person to be black. But when you see that a person’s hair is curly, his lips are thick, his skin is dark, his bone, cranial and dental structure is like most other blacks, and so on, so forth for hundreds and even thousands of different qualities, you realize that the person can only be someone of African descent. You know this just by looking at a person. Geneticists know this by looking at a person’s DNA.” \* The “debate” around the use of the term “race” has been “won” on the field of word usage (we’re pretty much all agreed it’s not a scientific term; it has exceedingly soft biological edges; there is no single marker for race; race is best left as a self-identified socially useful marker; and there are nuances to the use of the term when understanding genetic clusters and frequencies. Enjoy your “win.” However, debates about how (and whether) to use “race” have nothing to do with the simple scientific fact that genes variations cluster by self-identified “race” because of the historical migration patterns of the human species, and that even when so broad a lumping as self-identified “race” is used to group large populations, one will see a consequent distribution for gene variants that has an average difference. Moreover those gene differences drive average physiologic outcome differences. Thus we can say in linguistic shorthand, “For the US population, Blacks have a higher likelihood of SS based sickle cell disease than do whites, and white males have lower testosterone levels than do blacks” even if the “black” we happen to be looking at is Navin Johnson, and the “white” is Barack Obama. Only a dullard–and I grant you, they are not rare–confuses group averages with individuals. ---
**Author:** ![Chief\_Pedant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@Chief\_Pedant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chief_Pedant)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2014, 11:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-a-racist-warning-signs/692519/469 "2014-07-21T11:10:46Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Not really. Black society has already provided a cultural marker that says nothing about a biological construct identified as “race.” In 1989, a group proclaimed a desire that those whose ancestors were imported as slaves from Africa be identified as “African American.” Regardless how one feels about that declaration or the term that was chosen, it immediately removed and “biological race” from the matter, leaving only the history of one’s more immediate ancestry. > Desmond Tutu, Nelson Mandela, Patrice Lumumba, Jean-Bertrand Aristide, and any number of others might well be of any imagined biological “race,” but they are clearly not African Americans. I am confused about this point, since I know nothing about how to define who is an African American, and hold no position on it. What I do know is that if we get rid of (self-identified) race preferences, and substitute socioeconomic status only (i.e. “opportunity”) as acceptable preference for getting into higher education and getting jobs, the black middle class in the USA will suffer terribly. Currently, the best schools give substantial race-alone preferences to admissions for blacks, and once an education is received, companies are also freer to give preferences to blacks in order to keep up diversity. But if we get rid of race-alone preferences, at every SES tier, blacks will be outperformed (as a group average) by equally SES-disadvantaged students, and by a margin so wide that blacks will not be competitive candidates. Currently, for example, the Ivy League schools preferentially admit blacks who are from higher SES tiers (because that’s where the best students can be found) even when the academic records and scores from those high-SES black students are woefully behind their asian and white counterparts (from all SES tiers). They (and most other schools) ignore the SES advantage those black students have in the same way they might ignore poorer scores from a white legacy student. They need to protect “black race” as a category to get the best black students just the way they might protect “legacy” as a category to get the best legacy students. Without a notion of “race” this is not possible, and those excellent black candidates would not be able to be given preferences because their race category would not even exist. It is way too simplistic for Judge Roberts to think we’ll get rid of racism by getting rid of race. What would happen instead is that underrepresentation by blacks in the middle class of America would increase substantially if we get rid of race. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2014, 11:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-a-racist-warning-signs/692519/470 "2014-07-21T11:12:29Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > You might consider starting [here](http://www.yale.edu/scan/GT_2004_NRN.pdf) for a review of some of the genes related to neurobiology that you are confident mother nature must have exempted from evolution. As an aside, the “ethics” part of the article review refers to the rather delicate fact that once we start discussing genes and intelligence, we open up a can of “ethical” worms. “Related to neurobiology” does not mean intelligence, not in the least. Face it – we have, effectively, no idea which genes are responsible for high or low intelligence. > [@](#): > > Why? Because every researcher of genes and physiology accepts this fact: genes make a difference in our outcomes–even intelligence–and gene frequencies differ among human populations, including at the race level. This provides zero evidence that black people are less intelligent. You fail at trying to sidestep your complete lack of data about the genes for high and low intelligence. Not genes related to the brain, or related to the nervous system, but related to _high and low intelligence_. > [@](#): > > Were this not so, there would be no “ethical” dilemma of studying genes and intelligence. I don’t see an ethical dilemma. Study all you want. But until you find the genes responsible for high and low intelligence, there’s absolutely no reason to accept the genetic explanation as the best one to explain various discrepancies in test scores. No reason at all. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2014, 11:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-a-racist-warning-signs/692519/471 "2014-07-21T11:18:19Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > Perhaps what you just can’t even is provide any scientific counterpoint to the following points: > > 1. Genes affect outcomes > 2. Gene frequencies for variants cluster by populations, including the race grouping These don’t need to be ‘countered’. Whether they’re true or not does nothing to support your assertion that black people are inherently genetically less intelligent. > [@](#): > > 1. The observed patterns are so strongly expressed that, for example, highly educated and wealthy black families have children who academically underperform white and asian children from poorly educated and poverty-stricken backgrounds, making standard explanations for outcome differences (such as socioeconomic status) completely unsupported by data “Copmletely unsupported by data”? Wrong. There is plenty of data that supports the fact that socioeconomic status affects academic and test score outcomes (among other outcomes). This particular characteristic may not be the entire explanation for test score disparities, but everyone (even your bad-scientist buddies) accept that it is part of the story. If it weren’t, it wouldn’t have to be corrected for! But there are countless other non-genetic factors that may be playing a part, which you conveniently dismiss. Unfortunately, many of them, like intrinsic, low-level day-to-day difficulties and challenges that are likely present for various minorities, are nearly impossible to measure in a laboratory or experimental setting. But that doesn’t mean they can be dismissed. And considering that we have absolutely no data on the genes for high and low intelligence, much less their prevalence in various populations, it’s utterly ridiculous to make a conclusion about these populations’ likelihood of having these genes. ---
**Author:** ![Chief\_Pedant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@Chief\_Pedant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chief_Pedant)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2014, 11:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-a-racist-warning-signs/692519/472 "2014-07-21T11:21:14Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > “Related to neurobiology” does not mean intelligence, not in the least. Face it – we have, effectively, no idea which genes are responsible for high or low intelligence. > > This provides zero evidence that black people are less intelligent. You fail at trying to sidestep your complete lack of data about the genes for high and low intelligence. Not genes related to the brain, or related to the nervous system, but related to _high and low intelligence_. > > I don’t see an ethical dilemma. Study all you want. But until you find the genes responsible for high and low intelligence, there’s absolutely no reason to accept the genetic explanation as the best one to explain various discrepancies in test scores. No reason at all. There is remarkable evidence that genes drive physiologic functions, including those relating to the brain. There is remarkable evidence that gene variants cluster by race. There is remarkable evidence that observed gene variants are driven by Darwinian selection for positive effects. There is remarkable evidence that nurturing does not overcome differences. There is remarkable evidence that exactly the same patterns of performance for the various “races” exist across all boundaries, creating over-representation for race-based groups within any number of skillsets. Your “zero evidence” mantra feels to me like you are clinging to a cliff edge by your fingernails in demanding the exact gene(s) be identified. I’m pretty sure we humans are smarter than cockroaches, but I’m not sure we know which genes are responsible for that, either. So I guess there’s “zero evidence” humans are smarter than cockroaches? ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2014, 11:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-a-racist-warning-signs/692519/473 "2014-07-21T11:33:39Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > There is remarkable evidence that genes drive physiologic functions, including those relating to the brain. So what? Are you saying _every single human characterstic_ – sense of humor, musical ability, ability to dance, close-up vision, finger strength, nose-hair prevalence, bowel strength, intestine-length, fingernail sharpness, tooth thickness, hair-follicle malleability, foot pronation, and a million others, must have some sort of ‘racial heirarchy’? > [@](#): > > There is remarkable evidence that gene variants cluster by race. Whether this is true or not, there is no evidence that the genes for high and low intelligence cluster by race, chiefly because we _don’t know what these genes are_. > [@](#): > > There is remarkable evidence that observed gene variants are driven by Darwinian selection for positive effects. Again, whether true or not, this tells us nothing about the genes for intelligence in various populations. Another useless assertion. > [@](#): > > There is remarkable evidence that nurturing does not overcome differences. Complete bullshit. There is tons of evidence that nurturing has a huge affect on outcomes. Kids with more successful and more attentive parents do better than kids with less successful, less attentive parents. This doesn’t mean every discrepancy is erased, but there’s a huge difference. How can you say such crap with a straight face? > [@](#): > > There is remarkable evidence that exactly the same patterns of performance for the various “races” exist across all boundaries, creating over-representation for race-based groups within any number of skillsets. No, there is very poor evidence for this. Really, really weak evidence, and none of it is genetic. No genes at all. > [@](#): > > Your “zero evidence” mantra feels to me like you are clinging to a cliff edge by your fingernails in demanding the exact gene(s) be identified. LOL. No, you. You’re the one who, after literally centuries of the most brutal treatment imaginable, thinks that a few decades of weak testing and very weak efforts at correcting discrepancies is enough to declare “finished – nothing we can do”. You’re the one who believes that the hood-wearing thugs from a hundred years ago just happened to be correct about black people. You’re the one whose assertions have the backing of no major scientific organizations. You’re the one who blames conspiracy theories and the like for the complete lack of support for your ideas among the scientific community. > [@](#): > > I’m pretty sure we humans are smarter than cockroaches, but I’m not sure we know which genes are responsible for that, either. So I guess there’s “zero evidence” humans are smarter than cockroaches? Hint: if you’re trying to convince us that it’s not racist to state that black people are less intelligent than white people, it’s probably not wise to compare black people to cockroaches. **Chief Pedant** – he’s not racist… he just thinks black people are inherently genetically less intelligent than white people – not because of any genetic data, but for the same reasons we know that cockroaches are less intelligent than white people. Good luck with that one. ---
**Author:** ![Smeghead](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f1d935/32.png) [@Smeghead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smeghead)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2014, 11:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-a-racist-warning-signs/692519/474 "2014-07-21T11:39:10Z")
I’m going to ignore the word “remarkable” in all of these, because it’s irrelevant, but it’s mostly wrong. > [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > There is remarkable evidence that genes drive physiologic functions, including those relating to the brain. Yes, of course. You fully understand that you need to start your chain of illogic in “true” territory. > [@](#): > > There is remarkable evidence that gene variants cluster by race. SOME do. Mainly those responsible for the superficial phenotypic features we use to define race. A few others at well. There is no evidence that this holds true for genetic determinants of intelligence. > [@](#): > > There is remarkable evidence that observed gene variants are driven by Darwinian selection for positive effects. SOME do. Most do not. The relative importance of selection vs genetic drift and other neutral effects is a matter of active debate in the literature. Signatures of selection are actually fairly rare in the human genomes. > [@](#): > > There is remarkable evidence that nurturing does not overcome differences. This is so vague as to be meaningless. WHICH differences? Nurturing will never change skin color, obviously. > [@](#): > > There is remarkable evidence that exactly the same patterns of performance for the various “races” exist across all boundaries, creating over-representation for race-based groups within any number of skillsets. And this is, well, let’s say questionable at best. Always end your chain in bullshit territory. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2014, 11:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-a-racist-warning-signs/692519/475 "2014-07-21T11:41:12Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > It’s a good thing you aren’t here to debate, because you are either clueless or dumb. I’m going to give you the time of day just this once, recognzing you probably can’t be educate past your privileges. Well, of course not. I’m not White, so I must be teh dumb…:rolleyes: > [@](#): > > You quote, out of context, a single part of an essay which in toto does not represent the topic the way that out of context quote seems to suggest. Oh please - what does the context change (a context anyone could find by clicking your link)? Does anything in the “context” invalidate the content of the part I quoted? Is there any part of that blog post that goes on to say “But of course, this is wrong, we can’t identify Blacks by their physical features like we said earlier!” Nope, doesn’t happen. But nice try at accusing me of making shit up. > [@](#): > > Here’s the paragraph, and I suggest reading the whole essay again: What would be the point, when you refuse to accept that what was written in the damn blog post was what it actually says? > [@](#): > > **we’re pretty much all agreed it’s not a scientific term** So why you keep trying to fuck it like it’s a scientific chicken, _ese_? ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2014, 11:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-a-racist-warning-signs/692519/476 "2014-07-21T11:43:12Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > There is remarkable evidence that gene variants cluster by race. Bullshit. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2014, 11:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-a-racist-warning-signs/692519/477 "2014-07-21T11:44:53Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > Bullshit. And even if it’s not bullshit, it offers no support whatsoever for his assertions about black people’s intelligence. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2014, 11:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-a-racist-warning-signs/692519/478 "2014-07-21T11:50:05Z")
> [@Smeghead](#): > > SOME do. Mainly those responsible for the superficial phenotypic features we use to define race. Not even those - not dark skin, not curly hair, not thick lips (you know, the Gollywog trifecta) …not even blonde hair… There _is_ no clustering, human phenotypic variations are clinal, or multi-polar at worst (like say blonde hair, or lactose tolerance). Don’t concede this point. There’s no need to. ---
**Author:** ![Chief\_Pedant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@Chief\_Pedant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chief_Pedant)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2014, 12:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-a-racist-warning-signs/692519/479 "2014-07-21T12:36:45Z")
(by CP): There is remarkable evidence that nurturing does not overcome differences. > [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Complete bullshit. There is tons of evidence that nurturing has a huge affect on outcomes. Kids with more successful and more attentive parents do better than kids with less successful, less attentive parents. This doesn’t mean every discrepancy is erased, but there’s a huge difference. > > Hint: if you’re trying to convince us that it’s not racist to state that black people are less intelligent than white people, it’s probably not wise to compare black people to cockroaches. Either you struggle with reading skills, or you hope folks here do… “Overcoming” differences is quite different from “huge effect” on differences. Nowhere have I ever said that nurturing does not have a “huge effect” on outcomes. Were I maximally nurtured, I would be a (hugely) better golfer. No amount of nurturing would overcome the genetic limitations that keep me off the PGA tour. As to the charge I would “compare black people to cockroaches”… You are an ignorant, race-baiting, stupid, incompetent, inflammatory, uneducated asshole who wants to ratchet up the rhetoric, fling around dung, misrepresent positions and generally obfuscate because there is not a shred of science backing up your deepest hope that mother nature has somehow exempted all functionally signficant genes from being maldistributed among human populations. Idiot. ---
**Author:** ![Chief\_Pedant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@Chief\_Pedant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chief_Pedant)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2014, 12:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-a-racist-warning-signs/692519/480 "2014-07-21T12:42:40Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > Well, of course not. I’m not White, so I must be teh dumb…:rolleyes:Oh please - what does the context change (a context anyone could find by clicking your link)? Does anything in the “context” invalidate the content of the part I quoted? Is there any part of that blog post that goes on to say “But of course, this is wrong, we can’t identify Blacks by their physical features like we said earlier!” Nope, doesn’t happen. But nice try at accusing me of making shit up.What would be the point, when you refuse to accept that what was written in the damn blog post was what it actually says? > So why you keep trying to fuck it like it’s a scientific chicken, _ese_? (Re your trouble understanding why, if “race” is not a scientific term, it has relevance:) Read slowly. Work through these points. Get help if needed. Start with a simple example: “Tall” is not a scientific term. A grouping of self-identified “tall” and “short” people nevertheless separates two groups with average height differences. Those differences are driven by nurture and nature. When nurture is accounted for, the residual difference is genetically driven (even when all the genes are not identified). Genes promoting “tallness” cluster within the self-identified “tall” group. Get back to me after you’ve digested that much, and you might also consider that screeching with large text or flinging around vulgarity does little to promote a reasoned point. Not that you have one. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-a-racist-warning-signs/692519.md?page=23) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-a-racist-warning-signs/692519.md?page=25)