You’re exactly as racist as I think. Because I base my opinion of your racism ON YOU.
Well your city can’t beat my city in sports championships. So there’s that.
Uh, okay, champ.
Naah, we knew that already from all your other posts on the Board.
I already called Bingo, mags…
Aaaaand … scene!
Great work today guys. Remember, we’re starting our read-through of Sexual Perversity in Chicago next week, so please bring your scripts and some pencils.
Why are you quoting me for? She’s the one who started this whole deal of what city is better.
Pray tell, what is the incidence of sickle Cell in Xhosa? In San Bushmen? In Ethiopians?
Conversely, what is the incidence in Tamils? In Turks? In Sicilians? In Emirates Arabs?
It’s racist when you lump all Sub-Saharan Africans into one group.
Lego men could only date Smurfette…
I don’t have any daughters (yet), but any daughters that I have will be mixed race, with significant amounts of black, white, and Jewish ancestry. I will be pleased to meet any guy (or girl) that they choose to bring home.
Which 100 years from now will be more common in the US as there will be fewer and fewer totally white or black people and most common will be brown skinned. Already most times I can tell an ethnic European (say a German for example) from a “white” American simply because Americans tend to be slightly darker.
No, I wouldn’t agree. I believe our methods to measure both characteristics are poor and inconsistent.
Obviously, I disagree.
It might matter for some reason, but not for whether the claim is racist or not. This claim is racist, regardless of who makes it, or why they make it.
I don’t care about motives for wanting to answer a question. Motives are irrelevant as to whether a certain claim is racist or not.
“It appears” that this claim is racist. Just like “it appears that Jews are inherently genetically less trustworthy” is still a racist claim.
All of these hypotheticals you mention are so far removed from reality that I’m not sure how they’re at all relevant to anything but a thought exericse. It’s as if someone makes the claim “aliens helped the Egyptians build the pyramids”, and I say “that claim is ahistorical and counterfactual” and “any claims about aliens helping people build ancient structures are ahistorical and counterfactual”… and then you complain “but it doesn’t have to be ahistorical and counterfactual… why are you making such a sweeping claim, and what if the researcher has really good evidence?”. Perhaps things will change in the future, but today, in the real world, I am perfectly comfortable with the understanding that any claim that says “blacks are inherently genetically less intelligent” is a racist claim, just like any claim that says “aliens helped the Egyptians build the pyramids” is a counterfactual and ahistorical claim, and any claim that says “Jews are inherently genetically less trustworthy” is a bigoted claim.
All this is irrelevant, you know. You’re just trying to make yourself look “better than anyone else” with your “magical” circumstances. Surely, your just being “smug” and “ridiculous.” 
~Today’s vocabulary brought to you by the letters B, U and P
What?! Skin color “matters” only to the degree of the differences they bring: melanin content, presence or not of epicanthic folds, etc. They are factual differences. My only point has been that looking at whatever differences might manifest themselves in different races is not necessarily a racist endeavor.
And what does that have to do with religion?
More nonsense from you. Please cite one instance—just one—where I’ve said anything that could be fairly interpreted to indicate that I have this dream, hell even a slight desire, that such research will surface.
Your posts are perfect examples of the dangers of an echo chamber. That such nonsense can be served up yet your teammates will keep mum. It speaks equally poorly of both of you. And unsurprisingly so.
The last whine of the racist who thought he was talking to people who agreed with him.
For the sake of reference, magellan01, I did one quick search and the first time I could find a post from you about this subject was nine years ago. If you’re not committed one way or the other, why bother defending it for that long? It’s not like you’re upholding the ideal of scientific progress or talking about some breakthrough discovery that’s going to save humanity - you’re holding the door open for the possibility that one race is smarter than another, which wouldn’t matter to any non-racist even if it were true. Of all the theories out there that could be true, why waste time on this one given its incredibly sordid history?
Because many of us doubt that just race is the only factor the parents could be reacting to. I think it’s natural for parents to want their children to belong to the same cultural group as them. Many white cultures in the United States do not have a corresponding black version of their cultural group.
It doesn’t matter why a parent might react negatively to their child dating a member of a different race – it’s always a racist reaction if it’s negative or disapproval due to race/ethnicity/etc. Whether it’s due to hatred or due to the desire to continue one’s traditions/cultural practices/bloodlines/etc., disapproval of one’s child dating outside their race is always racist.
According to the RGB model, the opposite race of East Asians is Smurfs.
None of which are tied to race. Not skin colour, not epicanthic folds, none of it.
Of course, this is not something you admit, with your “I know it when I see it” attitude to race. Tell me, have you calculated the r-value for the correlation between Blackness and hair curl yet?