"Race doesn't exist" and affirmative action: Can't have cake and eat it too

[MrDibble]

@Revenant_Threshold

It would seem something like saying someone “jewed you down” and then explaining that actually all you meant was that this was a particularly hard bargainer.

Oh, I agree, it’s not an actual explanation

Perhaps the meaning is an entirely different one in Australia, with separate roots.

The original meaning of the word is pimp, not gay man, but since the Oz usage is derived from the UK one, I doubt that’s it.

[MrDibble]

@DrDeth

Coroners can sometimes tell a "race’ from just the bones.

“Sometimes” is not very scientific.

So, no, there is no one strand of DNA, no one marker that is the “bright line” between race A & race B. “Pure” races do not exist. That’s not the same as saying “race” has *no biological characteristics at all. *

Yes, it is. Races are held up as biologically distinct groupings. If they’re not distinct, then they don’t exist.

So, since there is no "bright line’, race can be hard to tell, thus we use “self identify”.

No, we use “self identify” because it’s a social construct.

[MrDibble]

@Snowboarder_Bo

(bolding mine)

Socialistswho support internal evolution of the State to a socialist one, rather than overthrow.

[Blake]

@DrDeth

Many people are border cases, they might identify as one or the other or mixed. But not all people are that mixed.

OK, so tell us what these races are that you are talking about. Tell us how many there are, what they are called and how they can be identified to >95% certainty.

We can’t have a sensible discussion when we don’t even know what you mean by race, can we?

Then tell us what you mean by “border cases”. I assume that by “border case” you mean they can;t be put into any race with >95% certainty. But if not, tell us what you do mean.

Then tell us what proportion of people are “border cases”, however you define it. Are 10% of humanity border cases, or 95%, or something else. Then tell us how you arrived at that figure.

Coroners can sometimes tell a "race’ from just the bones.

No, they can not.

Coroners can sometimes make an educated guess at a person’s "race’ from just the bones using pre-existing population data to generate likelihoods.

That is vastly different from what you claimed.Basically, if a coroner finds a skeleton of a certain type in Alabama, they can assign a likelihood that the person identified as White person while they were alive. Exactly as you or I can do by looking at someone’s face and with the same likelihood of being right.

But if given the same skeleton and told it was from Australia, their identification changes completely. And if given no geographic location where it was found, they can assign it a race, but the odds of being correct are less than chance.

Basically, a trained person can look at bones and guess “race” based on the predominant races living in the area. That is no diffferent at all to being able to guess someon;s race by looking at their face. And it falls over on a global scale for exactly the same reasons: there are no physical features that map to race.

So, no, there is no one strand of DNA, no one marker that is the “bright line” between race A & race B. “Pure” races do not exist. That’s not the same as saying “race” has *no biological characteristics at all. *

WTF?

You start out by admitting that races do not exist, and then saying that there are characteristics of those races. That’s schizophrenic man. Something that doesn’t exist can’t have characteristics.

So, since there is no "bright line’, race can be hard to tell, thus we use “self identify”.

We? Who are we? And how is self identification a biological category? I self identify as an atheist. Does that make atheist a race? If not, then explain why me self identifying as Black makes Black a race.

[Blake]

Dr Deth, I suggest you read thisbefore you reply. Especially

“Let me stress the significance of those words. Using race in forensic anthropology is largely reliant on probabilities, and even then, it requires context.”

[Revenant_Threshold]

@Commodore

I remember my Dad reversing his car with a trailer out into the road and this dude came around the corner and then went over to the other side of the road behind the trailer, my Dad went off, you f ing Ponce !

He and his generation used the word poncing about a lot and the word poncing about was used for an fool being a dolt playing around not doing his job diligently.

Were you aware at all of the potential slur implications?

[DrDeth]

@tomndebb

However, the word “race” has taken on meanings that are not supported by science. A person’s bone structure, DNA, blood factors and other traits may be used to place them within a specific population, …

Absolutely. Far more social than science.

[DrDeth]

@Blake

Dr Deth, I suggest you read thisbefore you reply. Especially

“Let me stress the significance of those words. Using race in forensic anthropology is largely reliant on probabilities, and even then, it requires context.”

Which is more or less what I was saying but you clearly didnt really read my post.

[Blake]

I’m sure everyone has noticed that I asked Dr Deth a lot of really simple questions, and he has avoided answering them. He read, andquoted, the post where the questions were asked, but completely ducked the questions.

Instead we get this comedy gold:

Which is more or less what I was saying but you clearly didnt really read my post.

:rolleyes:

Yep. The exchange goes like this:

Dr Deth: Coroners can *sometimes *tell a "race’ from just the bones.

Actual scientist: Coroners can *never *tell a "race’ from just the bones. They *always *need to rely on the context of census data as well.

Dr Deth: Which is more or less what I was saying.
Yeah mate. That’s more or less what you were saying. Aside from being the exact opposite of what you were saying.

You claimed that coroners can sometimes tell race using just the bones.
Actual science says that coroners can never assign a race using *just *the bones.

I know you consider this a trivial distinction, but it’s really not. It’s the total antithesis of what you said. Scientists always need sociological data (ie a census) to correctly assign a race to an individual. They can never assign a race using just the biological material (ie bones).

Now would you like to have a go at answering my simple questions. I’ll ask them again, just in case you missed them.

Can you tell us what these races are that you are talking about. Tell us how many there are, what they are called and how they can be identified to >95% certainty.

We can’t have a sensible discussion when we don’t even know what you mean by race, can we?

Then please tell us what you mean by “border cases”. I assume that by “border case” you mean they can’t be put into any race with >95% certainty. But if not, tell us what you do mean.

Then tell us what proportion of people are “border cases”, however you define it. Are 10% of humanity border cases, or 95%, or something else. Then tell us how you arrived at that figure.

Thanking you in advance for your answers to these simple questions.

[DrDeth]

@Blake

Yep. The exchange goes like this:

Dr Deth: Coroners can *sometimes *tell a "race’ from just the bones.

Actual scientist: Coroners can *never *tell a "race’ from just the bones. They *always *need to rely on the context of census data as well.

Dr Deth: Which is more or less what I was saying.
Yeah mate. That’s more or less what you were saying. Aside from being the exact opposite of what you were saying.

You claimed that coroners can sometimes tell race using just the bones.
Actual science says that coroners can never assign a race using *just *the bones.

I know you consider this a trivial distinction, but it’s really not. It’s the total antithesis of what you said. Scientists always need sociological data (ie a census) to correctly assign a race to an individual. They can never assign a race using just the biological material (ie bones).

Now would you like to have a go at answering my simple questions. I’ll ask them again, just in case you missed them.

Can you tell us what these races are that you are talking about. Tell us how many there are, what they are called and how they can be identified to >95% certainty.

We can’t have a sensible discussion when we don’t even know what you mean by race, can we?

Then please tell us what you mean by “border cases”. I assume that by “border case” you mean they can’t be put into any race with >95% certainty. But if not, tell us what you do mean.

Then tell us what proportion of people are “border cases”, however you define it. Are 10% of humanity border cases, or 95%, or something else. Then tell us how you arrived at that figure.

Thanking you in advance for your answers to these simple questions.

Well, yes. If they are looking at a skeleton from a Easter Islander , they will guess that. But of course we’re talking about the uSA, where the population is much more mixed than Easter island from before European Explorers. :rolleyes:

So, based on the fact that the bones can be from a mixed USA population, they can tell from the bones- sometimes. They honestly dont need to check the most recent US Census data.

Of course you chose a rather biased cite, other cites dont lean like that one:
http://www.sfu.museum/forensics/eng/pg_media-media_pg/anthropologie-anthropology/

Can you tell a person's race from his or her skull?

How many races? Well, the US government has five:About the Topic of Race

Most of these are based upon social or self-identify considerations, except for Native American, which definition is dictated by each tribe.

Where did I say " they can be identified to >95% certainty.“? Well, of course if you accept the *legal *definition of a Native American, it’s pretty close to 100%. if you accept 'self-identify” it’s also very high- except for a few jokesters or people who accidentally mis-mark or other reasons.

Border cases would be when you identify as “mixed”, no? Which they now are on some forms. I am not sure what % that is.

And of course, by no means are they 'simple questions" they are loaded, biased questions. Which of course you know.:rolleyes:

Race is a social construct (other than the few legal definitions) but it still can be useful for a coroner to say that a Jane Doe was 5’6, about 25 yo and likely black. That can bring forth more people to help ID. isn’t that useful? Or would you have them leave it out as the bones have not 'self-identified"?:rolleyes:

[Blake]

@DrDeth

Well, yes. If they are looking at a skeleton from a Easter Islander , they will guess that. But of course we’re talking about the uSA, where the population is much more mixed than Easter island from before European Explorers.

Does anybody understand what he is trying to say here?

So, based on the fact that the bones can be from a mixed USA population, they can tell from the bones- sometimes. They honestly dont need to check the most recent US Census data.

No, they can not. I just showed you the evidence for this.

Of course you chose a rather biased cite, other cites dont lean like that one:

Oh, I see.

So first you claim that my cite agrees with you. Then when I point out, with quotes, that if actually contradicts you, you claim that it “leans”.

Man, are you trying to destroy your credibility?

http://www.sfu.museum/forensics/eng/pg_media-media_pg/anthropologie-anthropology/

Right.

So you said "Coroners can sometimes tell a “race’ from just the bones.”
And that article says “In the absence of DNA, can you really determine race from a jawbone? Probably not.”

And this supports your claim how?

Can you tell a person's race from his or her skull?

Right.

So you said "Coroners can sometimes tell a “race’ from just the bones.”
And that article says “**races do not exist in the biological sense and anthropologists prefer the term ancestry. **”

And this supports your claim how?

Man, please keep this up. Please. You are doing a far better job of demolishing your nonsense position than we could ever do.

How many races? Well, the US government has five:About the Topic of Race

OK, so you believe that there are five races.

So, what race are Indonesians? What race are Asian Indians? What race are Ethiopians? What race are Russians?

Most of these are based upon social or self-identify considerations, except for Native American, which definition is dictated by each tribe.

Hang on. You are listing these races to support your contention that “Many people are border cases, they might identify as one or the other or mixed. But not all people are that mixed.”

But now you tell us that the races are all “based upon social or self-identify considerations”, except for American Indians.

Please explain to us how a race based upon social or self-identify considerations can contain border cases, or how someone can be mixed? If someone self-identifies as Black doesn’t that make them Black regardless of “mixing”?

Where did I say " they can be identified to >95% certainty."?

Are you admitting that they can’t be identified to >95% certainty?

If so, then tell us what the chances of success are. Is it 5%

If they can’t be identified with >95% certainty, then in what sense are they scientific? 95% is the default for scientific testability.

Well, of course if you accept the *legal *definition of a Native American, it’s pretty close to 100%.

Cite please. Show us the evidence that people who meet the legal definition of native American can be biologically identified with close to 100% certainty.

I await this with bated breath.

f you accept 'self-identify" it’s also very high- except for a few jokesters or people who accidentally mis-mark or other reasons.

Cite please.

Show us your evidence that people who self identify can be biologically identified with a very high level of certainty.

I await this with bated breath.

Border cases would be when you identify as “mixed”, no?

Is that a question, or the answer to my question?

And of course, by no means are they 'simple questions" they are loaded, biased questions.

Yep.

You claim that races have identifiable biological characteristics.

Therefore asking how many races there are and how they can be biologically identified and with what certainty are loaded questions.

I see that now.

Race is a social construct (other than the few legal definitions) but it still can be useful for a coroner to say that a Jane Doe was 5’6, about 25 yo and likely black.

Of course it is. Just as it is useful for the coroner to say that Jane Doe is a Moslem. That doesn’t make Moslem a race. Nor does it mean that Moslem has any scientific basis.

I have no idea what point you think you are making here. A coroner using a social construct to inform social decisions is not evidence that race has any sort of biological basis or utility. It is perfect demonstration of race having social validity despite having no scientific basis.

Can anyone in the peanut gallery work out what point Dr Deth is trying to make here? Because I am bamaboozled.

In one post he claims that the races have biological characteristics. Then he claims that the are purely social constructs social. Then he says that a person’s race can be ascertained from their bones. Then he links to an article that says that races do not exist in any biological sense and can not be identified from a bone. Then he says that many people are mixed race but some are not. Then he says that all races aside from American Indians are purely culturally defined, thus if a person says they are White, they are White.

I honestly have no idea what point he thinks he is making.

[Commodore]

@Blake

Do you think there is such a thing as a Buddha? If not then how can one point out that another is a Buddhist?

Do you think there is such a thing as human perfection? If not then how can one point out that another human is a perfectionist?

Do you think there is such a thing as a ghost. If not how can anyone point out that another is a spiritualist?

Do you think the world was created by a rogue archangel against Gods wishes? If not then how can one point out that there another is a Gnostic?

These things are beliefs. Whether they have any basis in reality is irrelevant to whether people believe them.

That’s the whole bloody point.

Oh well, if “everybody” knows it, it must be true. Right? Because “everybody” has never believed stupid things or wrong things.

Am I right?

In the days when everybody knew the world was flat, the world really was flat. Right? After all, everybody knew it.

My mate says he is blonde. And his girlfriend says she is a redhead. And the thing is they know it and I know it’s true, I can see the difference it sticks out like dogs balls.

That makes redhead and blonde races, right?

Why don’t you just answer the questions put to you?

We’ll start with something simple: Tell us what you mean when you say “Race”.

Can you do that for us?

So your evidence that they have their own race is your claim that they have their own race. And your evidence that these races are not cultural is that they have their own cultures.

A persuasive argument indeed.

No, the Jews had grace according to my god, the FSM. He is more powerful than your god and overrides him. You are wrong to suggest otherwise, but the FSM won’t punish you because he is all loving and doesn’t punish people for their shortcomings. Which once again proves his superiority.

Oh, so not like the Christian religion then. That is constant and unchanging. To this day it endorses slavery, rape-in-war, puts a ban on women having uncovered heads in church and demands all services take place in Latin.

Just as it always has.

Am I right. Because it wouldn’t endorse those things at one time and then change as the times change. That would make it a whore.

I think Tomndebb is Sheldon Cooper and I am wondering who you are.

There is a Buddha and I am just as much a Buddha as you.

I have seen Ghost twice in my life and I don’t know why they exist, but the Holy Spirit is not as like such to my mind and there are other spirits than the Holy Spirit.

Beliefs can be anything or with faith, one could have some faith in something and one could have more faith and one’s faith can grow, it does not truly grow for no reason but the facts prove that they do or can grow and the Bible talks about such things and a person who is dead to such can not pick it up, Jesus talked in parables and the reason is because the dead to it can not fathom what is being said, but the ones who understand have life in the Spirit.
I can pick who has the Holy Spirit just by talking to them and I sure know if they don’t.
It sure does have a basis in reality, because it’s all about reality and the truth.
I understand that what you are on about is only truly idolatry, many so called religious are off with the pixies with al sorts of rubbish and you are right about that type of nuts.

The RCC was on the main stating that the solid proof was at the time not there to support that the world was round and it was not saying what morons claim nowadays in there ignorance, sure I swallowed what they claimed at school as correct, but then when I looked into it my self I found they were just being simple minded clowns about it all.
The RCC just does not come to conclusions about things without the facts to support such.
Sure I thought the RCC were stupid once just like a lot of people do, but I found out that they were way beyond all the rest of the world by far.
When the RCC were on about the earth, there is a Spiritual context that others do not understand and miss read it, because they are Spiritual dead.

Everyone knows what a race is and have never met anyone that does not until on this forum.
I think it’s just stupid ignorance to disregard race as the new age PC do and I gave an example of two races that look totally different, you could line people up for me to point out what there race is and I could do it on the spot easy as pie and I could point out the fact of how I could get a different reactions out of them, just like one could point out with different breeds of dogs with a difference between them and I know up tight PC type people will misconstrue all that for some madness they want to make up, but I am just stating a point and use dog as a point and nothing other that you may start barking up the wrong tree with.
Different races have different ways and culture.

With the Australian true Aboriginals peoples history from when the poms turned up, the stupid whites could not understand them, they were like why don’t you do as we do ? and then get pissed off at them and start blaming them for something that the whites are just totally pig ignorant about. no not all races are the same and they don’t want what you want or what you think they need.

There is only one God but many gods, big difference, you know that the God of the Jews killed all of the evil people who rejected him don’t you.
You can go up against God bro, I know it’s human nature to do so, but the fact is you can’t fight them big waves bro, you have to go with the grain, don’t forget to eye ball it and feel the way, you ever heard big Z and how cool he is.

Services in Latin as it should be, I could only hope it were true, but you are barking up the wrong tree, good buddy.

[Blake]

So you are unable to answer even one of my questions.

Tells me all that I need to know.

[Kimstu]

@Commodore

you could line people up for me to point out what there race is and I could do it on the spot easy as pie

Try it.

[Chief_Pedant]

Human populations are not genetically homogeneous for genes, nor for average source gene pools.

What we socially construct as “race” reflects a biological reality. For example, in the US, a social construct has been created for 5 “races” (white/black/asian/native/islander) which roughly parallels continent of origin. Self-identification with those categories creates average biological differences. The history of human migration separates populations, and evolutionary changes affect only descendants. Where geographical and cultural barriers promote separation, entire populations–even at the crude “continental source” level–can have marked differences in the average frequency of genetic variants.

For example, sub-saharan africans have a much lower average of neanderthal genes since those genes were introgressed in post-africa populations which did not penetrate extensively back into africa. As another example, haplogroup D microcephalin is widely penetrated into post-african populations as compared with sub-saharan africans. It is relatively common to see geneticists refer to “african” and “non-african” populations when talking about frequency differences for gene variants. In practical terms, a self-identified US “white” is much more likely to have neanderthal genes or MCPH1 haplogroup D than is a self-identified US “black.” In medical studies, when self-identified race is used as a way to construct groups, average differences in physiology are very common, and many underpinning average differences in gene variant frequency are found.

What is unknown is the extent to which these average source pool differences in genes drives average outcome differences at a genetic level rather than a nurturing level.
To date, average outcome differences for scholastic achievement remain among US self-identified groups. These outcome differences are not erased by accounting for income or parental education. US blacks from high-income families woefully underperform their socioeconomic peers, performing barely on par with poverty-stricken whites.

Until we are able to erase outcome differences by groups for the kind of academic standards which affect social outcomes, it seems prudent to retain affirmative action. Many professional careers–and indeed many ordinary jobs–require some kind of screening examination for entrance to the job or ongoing promotions. In the end, it does not really matter whether persistence of outcome differences on those exams is nature or nurture.

What matters is that the outcome differences are stubbornly persistent.

As such, only affirmative action has the potential to efface some of the outcome difference.

We should retain self-identified “race” and use it to implement race-based affirmative action. This is not “having your cake and eating it too.” Instead, it is a recognition that this is the only path we have ever found to outcome parity. Without it, for example, there would be almost no black physicians in the United States, and certainly none from our most competitive academic institutions.

[Blake]

Wall of text, but once again, he refuses to answer my simple questions.

[Commodore]

@tomndebb

This is just dumb. It is a word game that has been tried on many occasions, including in the OP to this thread.
Note: at no time have I ever said that there is no such thing as race. Why would you open your question by basing it on something I have never said?

The point that I have made on several occasions is that in the nineteenth century, people looked at different human populations and tried to lump them together using the word race (which was an earlier word indicating all the people in a tribe descended from one common ancestor–a meaning that you have employed, but which has nothing to do with this thread).
The groups identified as races were collections of different populations with similar features that were lumped together based on erroneous assumptions. In addition to lumping different populations together as races, the people who named those races went further and assigned moral values to those artificially constructed races, calling some of them lazy and stupid and others industrious and smart.
Based on the belief in such races and the imagined traits assigned to them, people decided to use them as categories that allowed one group to persecute another group. That is racism–assigning values of quality based on invented similarities and differences.

In 2016 you have never heard that science has rejected the notion that there is a valid biological separation of humanity into races? You must spend most of your time ignoring anything to do with human science. That discussion has been going on for around forty years among scientists and even large numbers of lay persons have been involved in such discussions for well over twenty years.
Multiple points:
[ol]
[li]First: you are not using race in the way that is normally used, today. You are using an older definition of the word in which it is used to identify smaller groups of related people. [/li]In science, such groups are now called populations because the word race was used erroneously by people who divided the world into three groups, (e.g., Caucasian, Negroid, and Mongoloid) or four groups or a dozen groups and then wrote treatises to falsely describe them and even laws to govern them based on those socially created “races.” (Note the race laws of the United States and the more recent race laws of South Africa.)
If a person talks about sub-Saharan Africans or Europeans as each being one race, that is the more common usage today. You, yourself, appear to reject that notion with your claims that Maoris and Australian Aborigines are different races, so you seem to have been pitching a fit in this thread to no purpose without even understanding the discussion.

[li]Second: that you resorted to name-calling (“PC clown” and “communist”) when you did not even know what the actual discussion was about does nothing to make a case for your beliefs. If you are not even talking about the same thing as other posters in the thread, it is more than silly to post abusive language defending your point of view when it is not even the same topic as the thread addressed.[/li](And in this context, you demonstrate that when you use the word “communist,” you are not even talking about Marxism or its many dependent systems, but are simply using a word about which you have negative feelings, in much the same way that some college kids call everyone they don’t like “fascist.” The word has no definition when you use it except that you don’t like something. So since it is nothing but a multi-purpose insult, I can recognize that it has no meaning in future discussions with you.)

[li]Third: I have not called you prejudiced and I would prefer that you not make false accusations against me. [/li]Everyone has some prejudices and I noted one of yours, but I have not described you as a prejudiced person.
[/ol]

meh
This discussion is not about salvation, but about word usage and you have demonstrated that you are unaware of the words being discussed, their meaning and history.

I have no idea what prompted this meaningless rant, but it has nothing to do with me or this discussion. I am not a communist or even a socialist. I am Christian capitalist. However, I do prefer that words be used in ways that make sense.
This discussion was whether there could be racism if race was not real.
My response to that question is that
[ul]
[li]Race (as it is typically used to mean Europeans or sub-Saharan Africans, or East Asians, not in the older sense of culturally bound groups of people as you have used it), does not have a biological foundation, but is a social construct. That is because, while we can identify populations within humanity, every effort to claim a biological race is based on social ideas, not on biology. If biologically based race was a real thing, then scientists would tend to agree on who was a member of which race, but they do not, coming up with all sorts of different numbers of races.[/li][li]Since people have divided up humanity using socially determined criteria and labeled those groups “races,” it is clear that when they use those groups to oppress or exalt one or another of those groups, based on their definitions of race, they are engaged in racism.[/li][/ul]

I will just say that you are totally lost on the point of Grace and I know full well the Grace you are on about. you can’t be a Christian surely, no truly I can’t believe it.

Sadly truly I just think you are just one of them brainwashed new age PC new world order type nut case jobs, with all this dictator like claptrap nonsense you rant on about that will only lead the world into slavery and damnation, a Sheldon Copper type, all tied up in just total nonsense.
Truly I don’t believe a word you say, God help us if people like you run the world, it will be hell on Earth.
I can’t see how anyone could do business in a world like you would want to push, rubbish like that can only be conducted in government jobs where true reality does not exist and the money comes in just regardless.
So many people would be suing each other over just nonsense day in day out, oh some one offended me boo hoo someone called me a name, oh no, not reality ! it’s not fair koala bear.

You come across as like a letter of the Law type, and the fact is there is no Grace in that type of Law and to me that’s the world your type of mob is pushing down the neck of others.
I don’t like it as it goes against everything that made our nations history great, sure nothing is perfect, but it will never will be.
Utopian type dreamers have always been madmen you know.

Hell I can get on with full on racist have done so from when I moved home and started grade 3 out in the bush, they hated white people full on and I was attacked the first day, never even said a word to anyone and 36 people trying to kick me and I put up with that full on racist shit for years and I know where they are coming from and know how to deal with it and the only main thing that stirs up disharmony is the f ing media and government shit heads, that keep banning on about it from a perspective that they know f all truly about and keep barking on about it all only from one simple narrow minded perspective.
I see things from a like cube with 6 sides to understand it all every side must be examined, not just one degenerate side that PC people love and only want to see this from the front elevation because they are not truly interested in it or truly give a toss any way, because it’s there way or nothing and all others don’t have a right to a view, because they are Nazi types who are correct and all others are wrong.
So then we have this new age Nazi type dick weed giving orders you must this you must that, and it f ing shits me to take orders from pricks like that who know truly f all and they are not going to help jack shit.

[tomndebb]

@Commodore

I will just say that you are totally lost on the point of Grace and I know full well the Grace you are on about. you can’t be a Christian surely, no truly I can’t believe it.

My point on all religious points that you keep injecting into the discussion is that they are not relevant to this discussion. You have no idea regarding my understanding of Grace because I refuse to clutter up this discussion by talking about it.
I really do not care what you believe, because you have demonstrated an appalling lack of understanding regarding the facts behind this thread, history, biology, and even the religious points you keep trying to insert.

@Commodore

Sadly truly I just think you are just one of them brainwashed new age PC new world order type nut case jobs, with all this dictator like claptrap nonsense you rant on about that will only lead the world into slavery and damnation, a Sheldon Copper type, all tied up in just total nonsense.
Truly I don’t believe a word you say, God help us if people like you run the world, it will be hell on Earth.
I can’t see how anyone could do business in a world like you would want to push, rubbish like that can only be conducted in government jobs where true reality does not exist and the money comes in just regardless.
So many people would be suing each other over just nonsense day in day out, oh some one offended me boo hoo someone called me a name, oh no, not reality ! it’s not fair koala bear.

The only world I want to “push” is a world in which facts are not ignored in favor of underlying prejudices.
The rest of this rant is simply stuff that you are imagining.

@Commodore

You come across as like a letter of the Law type, and the fact is there is no Grace in that type of Law and to me that’s the world your type of mob is pushing down the neck of others.
I don’t like it as it goes against everything that made our nations history great, sure nothing is perfect, but it will never will be.
Utopian type dreamers have always been madmen you know.

You do realize, I hope, that this is self-contradictory silliness?

@Commodore

Hell I can get on with full on racist have done so from when I moved home and started grade 3 out in the bush, they hated white people full on and I was attacked the first day, never even said a word to anyone and 36 people trying to kick me and I put up with that full on racist shit for years and I know where they are coming from and know how to deal with it and the only main thing that stirs up disharmony is the f ing media and government shit heads, that keep banning on about it from a perspective that they know f all truly about and keep barking on about it all only from one simple narrow minded perspective.

I am glad that you are able to get along with other people in your personal life. The rest of this diatribe is meaningless.

@Commodore

I see things from a like cube with 6 sides to understand it all every side must be examined, not just one degenerate side that PC people love and only want to see this from the front elevation because they are not truly interested in it or truly give a toss any way, because it’s there way or nothing and all others don’t have a right to a view, because they are Nazi types who are correct and all others are wrong.
So then we have this new age Nazi type dick weed giving orders you must this you must that, and it f ing shits me to take orders from pricks like that who know truly f all and they are not going to help jack shit.

Your first paragraph here is utterly wrong. You have provided no evidence that you ever look at any idea, situation, or phenomenon from more than whatever preconceived notions you bring to it.
You have failed, throughout this thread, to even understand what the discussion is about, insisting from the very beginning that you have a correct idea and that you have no need to understand other perspectives.
Rather than looking at six sides of a cube, you seem to have mastered the Time Cube.

[Gyrate]

Oh yay - Chief Pedant is here.

@Chief_Pedant

What we socially construct as “race” reflects a biological reality.

No it doesn’t, but why let that stop your usual suspiciously careful muddling of phenotype, genotype and subculture? Batten down the hatches; the Walls of Text are coming.

I don’t have time for Round #3,742 of The Race Realist Show right now, but didn’t want to let this gem go:

We should retain self-identified “race” and use it to implement race-based affirmative action. This is not “having your cake and eating it too.” Instead, it is a recognition that this is the only path we have ever found to outcome parity. Without it, for example, there would be almost no black physicians in the United States, and certainly none from our most competitive academic institutions.

Yes, God knows none of those black people could possibly be smart enough to become doctors on their own merit. :rolleyes:

[Kimstu]

@Gyrate

Yes, God knows none of those black people could possibly be smart enough to become doctors on their own merit. :rolleyes:

Actually, although I don’t think this was the way CP meant it, it’s perfectly possible to justify race-based affirmative action even if there’s no genetic component to racially disparate outcomes at all. In a historically and vestigially (and in many cases still actively) racist society, you don’t necessarily need any genetic difference in brain function to explain why a historically disadvantaged racial group typically underperforms with respect to a historically privileged one.