# SDMB Bigoted Asshole Omnibus Thread **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [May 29, 2012, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-bigoted-asshole-omnibus-thread/623489 "2012-05-29T22:59:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 112
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2012, 1:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-bigoted-asshole-omnibus-thread/623489/2221 "2012-06-20T01:06:46Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > And if not, do you agree that “Ashkenazim”; “Ethnic French”; and “Han Chinese” are not genetic groups by your definition? Why should we think they are? As has always been shown repeatedly “ethnic groups” turn out to be a _collection_ of genetic groups, which may not even be that closely related. It seems highly unlikely that a group as huge and old as “Han Chinese” is all one genetic group. And a quick hop over to Wikipedia gets me this: > [@](#): > > There is considerable genetic, linguistic, cultural, and social diversity among the subgroups of the Han, mainly due to thousands of years of immigration and assimilation of various regional ethnicities and tribes within China. Yeah, that sure sounds like they are all the same genetic group. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2012, 1:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-bigoted-asshole-omnibus-thread/623489/2222 "2012-06-20T01:14:36Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Why should we think they are? I don’t know . . . it depends on how you define “genetic group.” ETA: For purposes of the race and intelligence debate, I don’t think it’s necessary to have such a concept. The reason I asked the question is that it’s pretty non-controversial that there are differences between ethnic groups which are primarily the result of genetics. > [@](#): > > As has always been shown repeatedly “ethnic groups” turn out to be a _collection_ of genetic groups, which may not even be that closely related. It seems highly unlikely that a group as huge and old as “Han Chinese” is all one genetic group. And a quick hop over to Wikipedia gets me this: Again, it depends on how you define the phrase “genetic group.” Without a definition, it’s rather pointless to argue whether Han Chinese are a “genetic group.” ---
**Author:** ![Waenara](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/50afbb/32.png) [@Waenara](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Waenara)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2012, 1:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-bigoted-asshole-omnibus-thread/623489/2223 "2012-06-20T01:35:21Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > Which people outside the group lack? Simple question. Of course. If you define a “genetic group” has having a certain gene, then people with the gene belong to that group. People without the gene don’t belong to that group. I’m not seeing how this is a difficult concept. > [@brazil84](#): > > > [@Waenara](#): > > > > You did not actually define “3 races”, you merely asserted they exist. > > Nonsense, I defined them very precisely in Post #1148. Please refrain from misrepresenting my position. My mistake, I was thinking your referring to “3 races” was how either you and **NDD** have said that there are three major races (e.g. white, Oriental/Mongloid, and black). I forgot post #1148 referred to your non-sensical hypothetical. > [@brazil84](#): > > Nobody in this thread has (1) provided a precise set of criteria to support the claim that blacks “don’t exist” or “don’t exist as a genetic group” or whatever the claim is; and (2) applied the exact same criteria to to other groups, such as ethnic groups or families. Many people have posted evidence that “blacks” don’t exist as a “genetic group”. It has been _repeatedly_ shown that there is greater genetic diversity within Africa (even within just sub-Saharan Africa) than within the rest of the world. And that many sub-Saharan African groups are more closely related to Europeans or Asians than to other sub-Saharan African groups. Just because you ignore the criteria posted by others doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. These criteria can’t be applied to ethnic groups reliably, because ethnic groups cannot be accurately defined by genetics. They are culturally or historically defined groups, that do not have a genetic basis. That’s the point of this thread. > [@brazil84](#): > > That’s pretty rich coming from a guy who obviously hasn’t read the thread but thinks he has. I’m a chick, thanks. And I have read every single post (unlike you, who at least claims to ignore many of them). just because I didn’t immediately recall all the details of one of your posts (_over 1,000 posts ago_) doesn’t mean I haven’t read it, and doesn’t excuse you acting like a sanctimonious prick. > [@brazil84](#): > > Ok, and is there a gene that defines “Ashkenazim”? A gene that defines “Ethnic French”? A gene that defines “Han Chinese”? > > If so, what are they? And if not, do you agree that “Ashkenazim”; “Ethnic French”; and “Han Chinese” are not genetic groups by your definition? _Of course_ there is no gene that defines any of those groups. And of course they are not “genetic groups” by my definition (or any rational definition). They may be an ethnicity, or a culture, or a traditional socio-economic group, but they are not a “race” or a “genetic group”. You may not have noticed, but that’s kind of the point of this thread. If you can provide proof that any of those groups have an identifying gene(s) that has any specificity or sensitivity for reliably identifying members of those groups, please don’t hesitate to post it. > [@Truman\_Burbank](#): > > Waenara, believe me I know the feeling, it is a difficult impulse to resist. I know. But sometimes it’s [just too difficult](http://xkcd.com/386/). ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2012, 1:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-bigoted-asshole-omnibus-thread/623489/2224 "2012-06-20T01:53:57Z")
> [@Waenara](#): > > Of course. If you define a “genetic group” has having a certain gene, then people with the gene belong to that group. People without the gene don’t belong to that group. I’m not seeing how this is a difficult concept. If you’d actually read the thread (which you obviously haven’t) you would know how evasive people have become when asked questions along these lines. > [@](#): > > My mistake, I was thinking your referring to “3 races” was how either you and **NDD** have said that there are three major races (e.g. white, Oriental/Mongloid, and black). I specifically referred to the “3 Races I defined earlier.” So if you had actually read the thread, you would have known what I was talking about. > [@](#): > > Many people have posted evidence that “blacks” don’t exist as a “genetic group”. Yes, depending on how you define “genetic group.” Of course there is no need to post evidence for a claim if everyone agrees on it. I am happy to concede that there is no gene which is universal among blacks and universally lacking among non-blacks. > [@](#): > > Just because you ignore the criteria posted by others doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. I haven’t ignored the criteria at all; I have simply asked for precision and asked that those criteria be applied universally. > [@](#): > > These criteria can’t be applied to ethnic groups reliably, because ethnic groups cannot be accurately defined by genetics. They are culturally or historically defined groups, that do not have a genetic basis. That’s the point of this thread. Ok, and let me ask you this: Do you agree that there exist gaps between ethnic groups which are primarily the result of genetics? For example, Ashkenazim are much more likely to have blue eyes than Han Chinese and to suffer from Familial Dysautonomia than Han Chinese? > [@](#): > > I’m a chick, thanks. And I have read every single post (unlike you, who at least claims to ignore many of them). just because I didn’t immediately recall all the details of one of your posts (_over 1,000 posts ago_) doesn’t mean I haven’t read it, and doesn’t excuse you acting like a sanctimonious prick. The polite thing to do would have been to say “I don’t recall you defining 3 races before. Can you point me to the post where you did so?” Instead, you rudely (and falsely) claimed that I had never defined 3 races. > [@](#): > > You may not have noticed, but that’s kind of the point of this thread. If you can provide proof that any of those groups have an identifying gene(s) that has any specificity or sensitivity for reliably identifying members of those groups, please don’t hesitate to post it. Sure. Now please answer my questions. 1. Do you agree that there exist some genetic traits which are not evenly distributed among the 3 Races I defined earlier? 2. Do you agree that there exist measurable differences between ethnic groups which differences are primarily the result of genetics? ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2012, 2:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-bigoted-asshole-omnibus-thread/623489/2225 "2012-06-20T02:32:47Z")
> [@New\_Deal\_Democrat](#): > > Your silly little tree is difficult to read and irrelevant to the reality that whites and Orientals perform and behave better on the average than any black race or sub race. If a non-white person like myself finds the “silly little tree” a true-blooded aryan such as yourself finds it “difficult to read” doesn’t that suggest that your theories of whites being “mentally superior” is bullshit? BTW, why is it that you have such an obsession with this subject and such a strong hatred of black people? Did a black person beat you up once? Did a white woman you had a crush on wind up going out with a black man instead? That would certainly explain your odd reactions to the claim of your hero Rushton that whites were anatomically inferior to blacks when it came to penis size and the ability to satisfy sexual partners and why you prattled on for several paragraphs insisting that women didn’t actually care about the size of a man’s penis. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/73ab20/32.png) [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tao_s_Revenge)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2012, 2:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-bigoted-asshole-omnibus-thread/623489/2226 "2012-06-20T02:36:34Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > Of course there is, but you have to lay out your position clearly and respond to what I actually say (as opposed to what you wish or imagine I said). > > As a practical matter, I realize that that for a lot of people, this means that there is no “debating” with me, but there it is. > > Or perhaps the mote is in your eye not mine. > > At any rate, I simply pointed out something **Heart of Dorkness** said. Why is it so hard for you to process such information? Hmmmmm. I’ll make this simple in your native retardese. He banned you, you bag of cunts. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/73ab20/32.png) [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tao_s_Revenge)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2012, 2:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-bigoted-asshole-omnibus-thread/623489/2227 "2012-06-20T02:41:36Z")
> [@Smeghead](#): > > Waaaait a minute…I just came up with the perfect answer here. Ready? Here we go. > > -I am white. > -Therefore, I am predicted to be smarter than average. > -Yet I am still participating in this thread. > -Therefore, NDD’s thesis is proven to be invalid. > > QED. > > We can shut the thread now. Oh but in his retard science, you probably have a mixed ancestory, making you a mojito! Or some similar sounding thing just as retarded. Be honest, do you have any inferior alcoholic spirits in your ancestry? Are you 1/8th minty? ---
**Author:** ![Waenara](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/50afbb/32.png) [@Waenara](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Waenara)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2012, 2:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-bigoted-asshole-omnibus-thread/623489/2228 "2012-06-20T02:56:36Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > Sure. Now please answer my questions. > > 1. Do you agree that there exist some genetic traits which are not evenly distributed among the 3 Races I defined earlier? Maybe? But the “Races” you defined in your hypothetical are so arbitrary and random, that I don’t see the point. I think this question is pointless anyways, as you’ve only set it up as an attempted “gotcha” to lead into your second question. > [@](#): > > 1. Do you agree that there exist measurable differences between ethnic groups which differences are primarily the result of genetics? A lot of the genetic differences between population groups are actually from non-coding portions of DNA (often called “junk” DNA) or mitochondrial DNA. Non-coding/junk DNA actually comprises 95-98% of the human genome (estimates vary). And actually, non-coding DNA is more likely to be used to study the relationships between human populations _because_ it doesn’t code for an actual gene - therefore it isn’t selected for or against very much, and it makes a more useful “clock” to date when populations diverged in history and how much admixture there has been between them. So even if I stipulate that there are some differences in the DNA between populations that may in some cases correspond to traditional ethnic or "racial: groups, these differences wouldn’t necessarily correspond to coding sections of DNA that affect gene expression or a particular phenotype or physical trait. Of course there are measurable genetic differences between population groups, but it’s pretty messy and it’s impossible to draw neat “race” categories around those groups. However, what you have _completely failed_ to acknowledge is that even if there are some genetic differences that, on average, differ between fuzzily-defined groups, that doesn’t mean that any particular observable difference in physical traits or phenotypes or behaviors are due to genetics. It’s ridiculous. You have repeatedly derided “Pure Environmentalists” (IIRC that’s the name of the straw man you set up?). “Nature versus Nurture” debates have always seemed stupid to me, because it seems obvious that most of the time people’s behaviors are not Nature _or_ Nurture - they’re both. You dismiss out of hand the possibility that observed performance gaps in IQ testing or rates of criminal convictions are due to “nurture” (i.e. sociocultural factors or environmental non-genetic factors). But you have no proof whatsoever that those observed differences are solely or even mostly due to genetics - just you bald assertion that it is so. So to more succintly answer your question - "_Do you agree that there exist measurable differences between ethnic groups which differences are primarily the result of genetics?"_ There are some measurable physical/behavioral differences between individuals and populations that sometimes loosely corresponds to ethnic groups _but often does not_. Some of these differences may be not at all, or slightly, or somewhat, or mostly, or totally the result of genetics. It depends on which differences you are talking about, and if there is any scientific studies and genetic proof to back up any particular association. In regards to this thread - I have not yet seen any compelling evidence to state that intelligence can be linked to any gene(s), or that those (not identified) genes can be linked to populations or ethnic groups. ---
**Author:** ![holmes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e95f7d/32.png) [@holmes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/holmes)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2012, 2:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-bigoted-asshole-omnibus-thread/623489/2229 "2012-06-20T02:57:00Z")
> [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](#): > > Oh but in his retard science, you probably have a mixed ancestory, making you a mojito! Or some similar sounding thing just as retarded. > > Be honest, do you have any inferior alcoholic spirits in your ancestry? Are you 1/8th minty? Maybe he ate someone today. ---
**Author:** ![Truman\_Burbank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ecc23a/32.png) [@Truman\_Burbank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Truman_Burbank)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2012, 3:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-bigoted-asshole-omnibus-thread/623489/2230 "2012-06-20T03:20:44Z")
“I don’t know . . . it depends on how you define “genetic group.” ETA: For purposes of the race and intelligence debate, I don’t think it’s necessary to have such a concept.” “I haven’t ignored the criteria at all; I have simply asked for precision and asked that those criteria be applied universally.” Does it hurt much when you do that? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2012, 3:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-bigoted-asshole-omnibus-thread/623489/2231 "2012-06-20T03:21:09Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > If I met anyone who could lay out the “anti-racist” position in a way that stood up to scrutiny, then I would change my mind. To begin with, the burden of proof here is on **you.** ---
**Author:** ![Waenara](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/50afbb/32.png) [@Waenara](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Waenara)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2012, 3:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-bigoted-asshole-omnibus-thread/623489/2232 "2012-06-20T03:42:03Z")
> [@Truman\_Burbank](#): > > Does it hurt much when you do that? Yeah - I can’t imagine how he doesn’t sprain something in his brain with all those contortions and mental gymnastics going on up there. Imitating **b84** : “Is it too much to ask that precise criteria be defined and applied universally? Except when it comes to this debate - then I’ll just ignore it all and go with the truthiness I know in my gut.” ---
**Author:** ![Truman\_Burbank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ecc23a/32.png) [@Truman\_Burbank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Truman_Burbank)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2012, 3:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-bigoted-asshole-omnibus-thread/623489/2233 "2012-06-20T03:43:47Z")
Brazil’s bad news: science is hard. Boo! His good news: it is not needed for this debate! Yay! ---
**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:** [June 20, 2012, 6:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-bigoted-asshole-omnibus-thread/623489/2234 "2012-06-20T06:56:36Z")
Jeepers - Cannibals and savages ? I was right. **NDD** really does see Africans [like this](http://comicattack.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/tintin-in-africa.jpg). ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2012, 7:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-bigoted-asshole-omnibus-thread/623489/2235 "2012-06-20T07:27:04Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > I don’t know . . . it depends on how you define “genetic group.” ETA: For purposes of the race and intelligence debate, I don’t think it’s necessary to have such a concept. :rolleyes: If you want to claim that groups are _genetically_ less intelligent, then you most certainly need such a concept. Or are you going to claim that the groups you don’t like are less intelligent because of a divine curse? Or perhaps it’s stupification rays projected by the gay Jewish Illuminati. ---
**Author:** ![cmyk](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cmyk/32/3353_2.png) [@cmyk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmyk)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2012, 7:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-bigoted-asshole-omnibus-thread/623489/2236 "2012-06-20T07:47:21Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > If it makes “no sense to talk about” Group X as a “genetic group,” (by your standards) it is nonetheless possible that an observed disparity between Group X and some other group has a genetic basis. > > For example, suppose I divide the world into 3 groups: > > Race 1: {People born on Ceylon; People born in China between 1950 and 1970; People who self identify as “Puerto Rican”} > > Race 2: {People who hold citizenship in Scandinavian countries; People born in US states which border Canada; and Ashkenazim} > > Race 3: {Everyone else} > > Would you agree that by your standards, “it makes no sense to talk about” these groups as “genetic groups”? > > Would you agree that if you picked people from these 3 groups at random and made measurements, the average measurements (for some attributes) would vary between groups? > > Last, would agree that some of these disparities are due in part to genetics? > > * * * > > Also, is it your position that there is a gene (or pattern of genes) which is present in nearly all Ashkenazim and which is absent (or far less prevalent) in non-Ashkenazim? > > If so, what is it? > > If not, then is it your position that it makes no sense to talk about Ashkenazim as a genetic group? Let’s gently take your definitions and repackage them back over to you; keeping it on an honest mark with the assertion of this thread and the OP; no obfuscation: Race 1) {Negroes} Race 2) {Orientals} Race 3) {Caucasians} We’ll start with just two simple, and honest questions: 1. Genetically, how should we define each of the races you insist exist? That is, by what genetic criteria is each to fall under, at the minimum? 2. Failing genetics, how is someone like myself supposed to determine, with accuracy, which race some individual should fall under? ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2012, 9:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-bigoted-asshole-omnibus-thread/623489/2237 "2012-06-20T09:10:20Z")
> [@Waenara](#): > > Maybe? But the “Races” you defined in your hypothetical are so arbitrary and random, that I don’t see the point. The point is that even with arbitrarily defined “Races,” it’s still logically possible to (1) observe average differences between those races; and (2) conclude that much of the difference is due to genetics. I take it you agree with this? > [@](#): > > A lot of the genetic differences between population groups are actually from non-coding portions of DNA (often called “junk” DNA) or mitochondrial DNA. Non-coding/junk DNA actually comprises 95-98% of the human genome (estimates vary). And actually, non-coding DNA is more likely to be used to study the relationships between human populations _because_ it doesn’t code for an actual gene - therefore it isn’t selected for or against very much, and it makes a more useful “clock” to date when populations diverged in history and how much admixture there has been between them. > > So even if I stipulate that there are some differences in the DNA between populations that may in some cases correspond to traditional ethnic or "racial: groups, these differences wouldn’t necessarily correspond to coding sections of DNA that affect gene expression or a particular phenotype or physical trait. > > Of course there are measurable genetic differences between population groups, but it’s pretty messy and it’s impossible to draw neat “race” categories around those groups. I take it this means “yes”? i.e. you concede that (1) there are observable differences among ethnic groups which (2) are due in large part to genetics? > [@](#): > > However, what you have _completely failed_ to acknowledge is that even if there are some genetic differences that, on average, differ between fuzzily-defined groups, that doesn’t mean that any particular observable difference in physical traits or phenotypes or behaviors are due to genetics. I completely acknowledge that. But it’s irrelevant to my point. > [@](#): > > It’s ridiculous. You have repeatedly derided “Pure Environmentalists” (IIRC that’s the name of the straw man you set up?). “Nature versus Nurture” debates have always seemed stupid to me, because it seems obvious that most of the time people’s behaviors are not Nature _or_ Nurture - they’re both. So you concede that much of the observed achievement gap between blacks and whites is likely to be due to genetics? And let me ask you this: Why do you think people in this very thread talk about economic embargos on Haiti? Why do you think they assert that blacks underperform because of American culture? Seriously, why? > [@](#): > > You dismiss out of hand the possibility that observed performance gaps in IQ testing or rates of criminal convictions are due to “nurture” (i.e. sociocultural factors or environmental non-genetic factors). That’s not true, my position is that the performance gaps are due in large part to genetics. I am open to the possibility that some of the gap is due to non-genetic factors. Again, please do not misrepresent my position. > [@](#): > > But you have no proof whatsoever that those observed differences are solely or even mostly due to genetics - just you bald assertion that it is so. Again, not true. The evidence is that the differences are substantially universal in space and time. > [@](#): > > So to more succintly answer your question - "_Do you agree that there exist measurable differences between ethnic groups which differences are primarily the result of genetics?"_ > > There are some measurable physical/behavioral differences between individuals and populations that sometimes loosely corresponds to ethnic groups _but often does not_. Some of these differences may be not at all, or slightly, or somewhat, or mostly, or totally the result of genetics. Fine, so the claim that races are not “genetic groups” does not mean that the observed achievement gaps among the races are not substantially genetic in cause. In other words, the “race doesn’t exist” argument is a red herring. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2012, 9:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-bigoted-asshole-omnibus-thread/623489/2238 "2012-06-20T09:12:22Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > :rolleyes: If you want to claim that groups are _genetically_ less intelligent, then you most certainly need such a concept. Why? In your view, is the “Race 1” I defined earlier a “genetic group”? ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2012, 9:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-bigoted-asshole-omnibus-thread/623489/2239 "2012-06-20T09:13:54Z")
> [@Waenara](#): > > Yeah - I can’t imagine how he doesn’t sprain something in his brain with all those contortions and mental gymnastics going on up there. Perhaps the contortions and mental gymnastics are going on in your brain. After all, you have misstated my position 2 or 3 times now. ---
**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:** [June 20, 2012, 9:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-bigoted-asshole-omnibus-thread/623489/2240 "2012-06-20T09:31:49Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > Again, not true. The evidence is that the differences are substantially universal in space and time. No one denies there is an achievement gap, so any evidence for the achievement gap is pointless for this discussion. There is zero evidence that this achievement gap is due to genetic difference between populations (or “races”). You believe it despite there being no evidence for it. And you apparently believe all “black” populations share this, despite the fact that many “black” populations are more closely related to “white” and “asian” populations than to other “black” populations. Your only explanation (which you have no evidence for) is that some “smart” genes appeared in “white” and “asian” populations after those populations were separate from “black” populations… but if it’s such an adaptive advantage, why didn’t it spread to the rest of humanity? Humans have been (and still are) breeding across “racial” boundaries for all of history… why wouldn’t those (hypothetical and evidence-free) beneficial genes spread through all of humanity? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-bigoted-asshole-omnibus-thread/623489.md?page=111) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-bigoted-asshole-omnibus-thread/623489.md?page=113)