Seriously. Do you have an orgasm when you do this? It’s the only reason why I can think that you repeatedly do it. Despite it making you look like an utter fool.
Brazil84 doesn't get what's wrong with the claim that majorities of sub-saharan africans are retards
Yeah, this is part I don’t get about mags contrarian defense of b84, who has grouped all sub-Saharan Africans into the same putative race in the past. Not only does that make no biological sense, it only makes sense to group them that way if you’re going to make a fundamentally racist argument.
You don’t seriously believe he can even come up with one example of the impossible, do you? Now you’re engaging in his methods.
You’ll have to follow up with “goodbye, liar”, you know. And it will make you look like the idiot.
This gets at one of the great difficulties. No, there’s not a link between black people and sickle cell anemia. There is a link between people with ancestry from certain regions (Cameroon, Benin, Senegal, Bantu, and Saudi-Asian, according to Wikipedia) and Sickle-Cell. But that’s very different from saying there’s a link to black people. Someone with ancestry from aboriginal Australia is no more at risk of sickle cell disease than someone with ancestry from Sweden, but society consider them to be black.
That’s why I said assigning sociological groups with characteristics based on genetics is racist. Racial groups are very real, sociologically speaking. Genetically speaking, much less so.
But let’s look at when you’d call someone racist:
This may well be the best example of begging the question I’ve ever seen.
Nah, I got “banned” ages ago, but I know he still reads some of my posts.
Besides, I do a good enough job of making me look like an idiot most of the time. I like tweaking b84 because he makes me look like Einstein by comparison.
[underline added]
Freudian slip? You be the judge.
Yeah, he makes my dog look good, too. He’s good at making others look ‘smate’.
I think its just an easier game for him to win than laser tag or WoW.
And he can play it with one hand.
-
no.
-
yes- it fits the dictionary definition of “racist” pretty much exactly.
I answered “no” for #1 because you asked whether the person is a racist, not the view.
nm - Not only did I miss a page but someone already made the same comment.
Two problems with this.
- Every discussion of race is tainted by past influences, and these influences need to die. You know what you never see people offering in threads like this? Claims that don’t fit old stereotypes! That ought to be pretty fucking telling, shouldn’t it?
- The debate isn’t in need of tempering; it’s been over for several decades now. The only people who keep bringing it up are, in fact, ratfucking racist shitbags. And then the ignorant, like you, join in the discussion because they don’t know better.
But here’s the thing: the debate, on a genetic level, is over. There is no more debate to be had. The science is settled. At least in one respect - the respect in which anyone uses “black” “white” “asian” or any of the typical Victorian races as a basis for discussion is a fucking moron. There is more genetic diversity in Africa than in the rest of the world combined. And that’s the problem: assdicks like Brazil and Chen talking about “african-american” as if it was a race. As if it had any non-sociological meaning. And that’s definitely a remnant from the past. And that people like you and Chen and CP and Brazil don’t get this is part of why so many are unwilling to give you the benefit of the doubt and label you “racist”. Especially because there is literally nothing you can do with any knowledge in this regards, absolutely nothing productive, that does not involve marginalizing minority groups even further.
Yes. Because “Race A” does not exist. Race is utterly arbitrary. It is a sociological construct with no place in genetic science. You want begging the question? There you have it. No shit you’re going to find different things that are based largely on sociology when measuring in groups determined by sociology. No real geneticist would craft such an experiment.
It’s a bit like suggesting that Christians are genetically predisposed toward violence, despite the fact that “Christians” is a sociological group, not a genetic group.
Thanks for answering. I’m really quite astounded. Basically you’re saying that putting forth factual statements relaying scientific data about races makes the person relaying the data a racist. So, the people who made 3D ergonomic software I did some work for about 20 years ago were racist for allowing the user to place a model into the drawing that represented the average Asian (shorter of stature and reach) as opposed to the average Westerner.
As far as your explanation to Number 2, Someone can put forth a racist view and not be racist? Then what makes someone a racist?
Again, I’m not judging the people- only claims, beliefs, or statements. Claims about height are different from claims about intelligence. I would not classify claims about height (or skin color, or other superficial physical characteristics) as racist. But claims about intelligence (or aggression, as another example) do meet the criteria. There’s the dictionary definition, and there’s a more in-depth topic too- for example, the first sentence in the Wikipedia article on Racism:
So claims about intelligence are racist claims, but claims about height are not.
I make judgments about claims because I can see everything I’m judging- I don’t make such judgments about people (in general) because I don’t know what’s in their mind. Basically, I’m just much, much more careful about making such judgments about people.
An appeal to emotion, as I said. Nature made Asians shorter of stature. Pointing that our is not racist. Using that info, as the software company I mentioned did, is not racist. Period.
We disagree on whether things called races exist. Just because lines cannot be drawn with absolute clarity does not mean that drawing them as best one can is not meaningful.
On the one hand we have actual identifiable groups sharing identifiable traits that align with the concept we have of “race”. On the other hand we have people who don’t want that to be the case and have determined that the best way to make the differences between the races meaningless and invisible is to simply wave the politically correct wand and say, “Presto: there are no races.” Neat trick.
But why? As long as, as per my hypothetical, the thing you’re looking at is measurable, like height, why is pointing it out necessarily racist? You might as well say nature is racist.
Well, the pithy answer is “that’s the definition of racism- it includes qualities like intelligence, but not qualities like height”. To fill this out a bit- intelligence is one of those fundamental qualities that makes us human (along with things like compassion, creativity, love, other emotions, etc). Making judgments about one of these fundamental qualities based on race (or religion, ethnic group, gender, sexual orientation, etc.) has led to so many bad things in human history that it got lumped into this special category called “racism” and/or “bigotry”. I think this is proper. So claims that one race/group/ethnicity/etc is inherently less intelligent on average, however these claims are reached, are racist claims.
I strongly disagree. According to how you parsed things here, since we tend to view height and strength as positive attributes, pointing out that women tend to be smaller and weaker than men is racist. I maintain that if something is measurable and their seems to be a statistically significant differences from one group to the next—regardless of how you define them, including by race—then it is NOT necessarily racist. Now, I can see how someone who is a racist might seek to use this information to serve their shitty cause, but that does not mean that simply acknowledging the science makes someone a racist.
But it looks like we’ll have to agree to disagree on this one.
No, already addressed. Height and strength are different kinds of characteristics than intelligence. That first sentence of the Wikipedia article sums it up well.
Noting that black people score lower on various tests is not racist. “scores on tests” is not a fundamental human quality. But taking that data and claiming “black people are inherently less intelligent on average” is a racist claim. Do you see the difference? The second is called “scientific racism”, and quite helpfully, it has it’s own article.
Based on this post, you still don’t fully understand my position. I hope I’m being helpful.
The devil is in the details. If you are grouping people into a biological grouping based on something like skin color you’re already off the track of meaningful science. I maintain that if you are defining races you’ve already gone down a pretty poor path that doesn’t lead me to give you the benefit of the doubt. Sure, lots of people don’t understand that the concept of biological race doesn’t make sense at first, but after it has been explained a few dozen times and they still stick to it you have to question their motivations.