Oh wait, no, the left actually has responses to that silly canard. Responses explaining the structural factors affecting minorities in the United States, and how that makes it more likely that a given member of the community will turn to violent crime, and how "race" is an arbitrary concept which doesn't actually mean much of anything on a biological level.
Why are you arguing against some weird eugenics strawman? He wasn't saying "blacks are a more violent race" he's saying "blacks commit more violent crime statistically."
To qualify his police statistic with a reason and ensure he kept the dreaded South Park Neutrality.
I love several people repeating to him that no one is saying that blacks are more violent, just that the statistic is true and that it's one the far left doesn't like being said. His response is twofold:
Yell about how he doesn't like it being said and if you say it you're a racist
Deny that the far left doesn't like it being said
Like holy fuck this is that spongebob Venezuela meme.
He's just trying to "win" and can't bear to "lose" against someone he presumes is on the right (because who else would criticize something about the left!?!?!! In their world either you're on the left and criticize the right or vice versa, no other possibilities).
He doesn't realize he looks like a psycho, and that's before he started saying there was hate speech.
/u/NonHomogenized is doing exactly that in the thread. "No way leftists don't have a problem with that, BUT OMG WHY DID YOU SAY YOU MUST BE RACIST TO SAY IT!!!!"
Yeah /u/nonhomogenized when a gangbanger pulls a gun on a cop the cop needs to stop and think about how the history of racism and segregration has led to this poor black man being born into poverty without a father, and surrounded by a culture that doesn't value education and glorifies crime
"race" is an arbitrary concept which doesn't actually mean much of anything on a biological level.
How the fuck did this retarded meme ever gain any traction? There are obvious physical differences between races and some races are more susceptible to certain diseases or illnesses.
Is this that thing where the left tries to arbitrarily change the meaning of a word and then says anyone who doesn't use their made up definition is wrong? Like do you think "race" literally only refers to skin colour and anything that has a 100% correlation with skin colour doesn't count as being a racial attribute?
There's a bit of a difference between "increased genetic predisposition to heart disease or alcoholism" and " malarial resistance at the cost of sickle cell anemia" as "racial" differences (they're not, but close enough for government work) and the "phrenologically sound" conclusions that are implied by framing higher AA crime as a strictly racial issue.
Crime isn't genetic. Racial traits are just lazily categorized genetic traits. Crime is only related to race because people make it related to race, and historically that's been... any guesses?
It's either been a good call or a bad one, take a shot.
Sorry, must have been my mistake. See, when I read this:
when a gangbanger pulls a gun on a cop the cop needs to stop and think about how the history of racism and segregration has led to this poor black man being born into poverty without a father, and grew up surrounded by a culture that doesn't value education and glorifies crime
Then you go on to be AGAINST this stance:
"race" is an arbitrary concept which doesn't actually mean much of anything on a biological level.
I just assumed that they were related. Boy do I feel like a fool, assuming the content of a comment was all connected and shit. A thousand apologies, it was clearly ALL me.
Acknowledging that there are biological differences between races does not mean that you think black people are naturally prone to violence or other criminal behaviours. It also does not preclude acknowledging that there are serious cultural issues in black communities which came about as a result of the systemic and institutional racism of the past.
You keep saying that if there are natural inherent differences between races then one of these differences must be that black people are prone to criminal behaviour. You're the only one who's been saying this.
Apparently I don't understand how you think my second comment, 80% of which is just formatted quotes from your comment, came off as saying "Race and Crime are/aren't related" In fact I'm pretty sure I took all the blame for it.
But now you've got armfuls of straw, so what do you need me for?
"Race" is a social construct. There are more genetic differences within sub-Saharan Africa than without. Two random tribes in Africa are likely more genetically diverse than Ukrainians and Han Chinese are.
There were only two successful migrations out of Africa, the Ethiopia-Yemen route that populated the coast of the Indian Ocean and Australia, and the route through Egypt into the Levant. Almost everyone you are likely to meet that isn't of Sub-Saharan African descent is from the second one. The original migration tracked into central Asia(Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, etc.), got cut off from Africa during a population bottleneck. It then spread outwards, back into the Middle East and across Siberia into Asia, and, when Neanderthals started declining, into Europe.
That one small group makes up Whites, Arabs, East Asians, Southeast Asians, Polynesians, Native Americans, Berbers, Persians, Turks, Greeks, all the Central Asian groups, etc.
The things you and others use to define race are inconsequential from a genetic perspective. Merely because you can categorize people based on these things does not make this categorization useful.
That's just crazy talk. It's gender and biological sex that are socially constructed. The notion that a difference in biological sex is determined by XX v XY chromosomes instead of fashion choices, clothing and feelings is nonsensical pseudoscience. Race, on the other hand, is hard wired genetically though. The genes which control things like religious beliefs, cultural behaviour, song lyrics and styles of food preparation cannot be changed!
Within sub-group differences are smaller than without. By definition. That's why there are groups. If they were larger, then the groups would cluster differently.
I also have two (nearly three) degrees in genetics you fucking Mong.
Classic geneticists, always using archaic Downs insults that are based on genetic misconceptions.
You know how everything you ever spent your life studying goes out the window when you're frustrated with a person? No?
I'm not saying you AREN'T a geneticist, but you sure do talk like you're from the 50's and are excited to find out what style this fall's genes come in, when it comes to slapfights.
Oh, I'm sure if you graduated high school you could follow the thread of Mong > Mongoloid > Down's patients look Asian so we'll call them that. (You know, the basic history of the word)
The point is it's a lot like calling someone a fucking faggot when you want to weigh in on gay marriage. It's weird phrasing to use when you want to be seen as at the very least credible on the topic.
You used cretin, so clearly you know other words, I just assumed someone with two degrees one would inherently understand that "using old slurs based on bad assumptions relating to my field" would make you look less like an expert and more like an armchair race realist.
Sorry to assume you're brighter than you appear to be. It won't happen again.
Oh sweetheart, flowery language like that only works when you buy me dinner first.
I like that instead of talking about what you came here to talk about, you've switched to "geneticist insults" because even if you say you don't care what I think, you're still trying to play up your field of study. I suppose I got you in the feels with that first comment, huh?
That's the point, chucklefuck, there's a ton of words you could have used, you chose the one in the conversation you should least identify with. It was a shit pick.
Actually, let me put it in more simple terms as to why you seem to have an excess of malfunctioning TATA boxes and that I fucking hate pearl clutchers dipping their toes into biological ethics.
Every time one of you assholes starts up with your "But muh social constructs" it ends up with a cost to human lives. Black men need to take heart pills. Racial sub-populatons have dispositions to particular abnormalities because of localized genetic admixture. Fuck everyone who wants to deny that because you're as bad as the christians when you do. Humans are just as susceptible to evolution as the rest of the animal kingdom. We're not special just because you've deluded yourself into thinking differently.
Dude, you're wailing on an argument no one made. I said capping off your "I'm an geneticist, trust what I say" argument with Mong severely undercuts your appeal to authority because it reads like a dockworker, not someone who should understand why Mong isn't offensive, but a stupid term that doesn't reflect what it describes.
Like when a mechanic calls a car a Vroom-Vroom Machine. It's a bad slur choice for the topic. I don't care that you feel the need to insult people. You just chose a shit term when you did and now you won't let up on it.
We don't have to do this, you can stop at any moment, but you're just lashing out at this point, and you're not going to convince me that you were somehow right to choose that particular word in this context. It was lazy, it hurt your argument, you seem mad about it.
Oh, sorry I missed rule 78: Plant Geneticists must not be questioned.
I don't give a fuck about everyone else's use of the word. I'm telling you that you specifically made yourself look less like a credible expert and more like an edgelord pretending to be one. I don't care if you're a real expert, or a real troll, but you need to either be funnier or more convincing, cause right now it feels like failure on two fronts. I mean that first link wasn't meant as a shitpost, was it?
It was a low effort refutation. The piles of studies that say genetic sub-populations have a real and definite effect and I didn't have the time to go into a long-winded explanation about genetic proximity gradient, clustering algorithms and other nonsense that demonstrate that you can cluster even when there's a continuous distribution of genetic exchange.
Orange doesn't not exist because you can slide the RGB gradient to Yellow.
You're a big fan of tilting at windmills, ain't you? I asked if you meant the link seriously (since a troll would just grab whatever) and now you're on a tirade about gradients.
All you seem to be capable of is attacking positions you imagine I might fancy, or just insults detached from the conversational flow. It's pretty tiresome. Tell you what, I'll stick around if your next post directly answers the question "What's the best movie Steve Zahn was in?", otherwise I'll know that nothing I say can penetrate that thick skull of yours.
"race" is an arbitrary concept which doesn't actually mean much of anything on a biological level.
How the fuck did this retarded meme ever gain any traction? There are obvious physical differences between races and some races are more susceptible to certain diseases or illnesses.
Advances in the field of biology?
Broad racial categories like black and white don't really have a foot to stand on. And those 'races' aren't more susceptible to anything on the whole, it's a diagnostic helper for doctors.
Sickle cell for example has a higher rate of occurance in certain geographical areas because of an adaptation to malaria in those areas. One of those is west africa, and seeing as nearly all black slaves in the US were taken from west africa, 'black' on a form is a mildly useful tool for US doctors to aid them in diagnosing a patient. It fails if the black patient hails from other parts of Africa, the category will still say 'black' yet the patient will not have the mutation. At the same time, some mediterranians and mid easterners do have the mutation, yet no one would classify them as black.
Radiolab did a segment on race and its genetic untenability. One of their first avenues of attack was sickle cell. They also talked about heart disease.
Oh, I'm not american so I hadn't heard about them.
Sickle cell is just a good one to take because of two reasons: Firstly, it's basically the only disease used in edgy far-right circles as one of their building blocks to justify their race theories. Secondly, it has a history of being branded as a 'negro disease' for various purposes, much like it is similarly used again now.
No, it's a building block. They can't go from 0-100 with "the black race is dumb and violent". It goes from simple 'innocent' shit like athletic differences and diseases like sickle cell all the way to racial IQ's and certain races being prone to violence and all the horseshit. It serves as a proof for the reality of race because muh doctors use it, basically.
"The method used by Celera has determined the genetic code of five individuals. We have sequenced the genome of three females and two males, who have identified themselves has Hispanic, Asian, Caucasian or African American. We did this sampling not in an exclusionary way, but out of respect for the diversity that is America, and to help illustrate that the concept of race has no genetic or scientific basis."
Of course, some scientists in the room have walked back on their absolute language. But of course they've done so on tiptoes, so as to not lose house and home.
"The method used by Celera has determined the genetic code of five individuals. We have sequenced the genome of three females and two males, who have identified themselves has Hispanic, Asian, Caucasian or African American. We did this sampling not in an exclusionary way, but out of respect for the diversity that is America, and to help illustrate that the concept of race has no genetic or scientific basis."
Of course, some scientists in the room have walked back on their absolute language. But of course they've done so on tiptoes, so as to not lose house and home.
Just to be clear that while the rest of what that comment or said is retarded race really is actually a pretty hard to genuinely define in any biological or scientific sense. It's dead easy to define culturally and with a handful if physical traits but fir instance someone who is 75% Irish and 25% black is pretty much just considered black and with skin color and a few other physical characteristics that we arbitrarily define as race being just the tip of the iceberg as far as genetic variance gors it's pretty much a useless concept in actual science.
Clouds are conposed ofbwater vapor, we can study the effects of water vapor scientifically but to study the effects and motions of large collections of water vapor in clouds you turn to meteorology which would be analogous to sociology in this case. You can certainly comment on the shape of clouds with some form of objectivity but the difference between the water vapor in a cumulonimbus and a stratus cloud isn't really a useful scientific question because they have so much more to do with wind patterns, surrounding water sources and things like volume than some variation in water vapor characteristics.
I actually really enjoy this metaphor, thank you. The only thing I would add is that in this scenario, the water molecules are generally sentient and make conscious and unconscious choices influenced by what cloud they're currently in and their relationship with that cloud as opposed to other clouds, which in turn affects the shape, composition, and the points where the clouds are understood to "begin" and "end". In addition to all the other weather characteristic that you mentioned, which I guess would fall under "meteorological intersectionality". :3
Some of the metaphor still doesn't feel quite right to me because individual water vapor should probably be analogous to genes and it's not really clear where it transitions from gene to individual to "racial grouping" from vapor to cloud to (storm/weather/climate?).
It seemed intuitive when I started writing it but something still seems off. It workers pretty easily for relating individuals to cultures but I think I'm missing something to really have it work for genes.
In fairness, human scientists don't fully understand the relationship of our genetic makeup to our environment and our socio-cultural influences either, which is how the whole study of epigenetics came about. It may not be a fully precise idea yet, but I think it works well enough for the purpose of separating out race as a primarily sociological phenomenon as opposed to a primarily biological one.
81 comments
1 SnapshillBot 2017-09-20
You're oversimplifying a complex situation to the point of adding nothing to the discussion.
Snapshots:
I am a bot. (Info / Contact)
1 bleepis 2017-09-20
bring down zachums...... more like SACK 'em's! Sack zach [current year]!!
1 ironicshitpostr 2017-09-20
We all have off days champ. If that's the best you can do you should probably hang up the keyboard and try again tomorrow.
1 bleepis 2017-09-20
sorry i let you down, coach
1 Eternal_Mr_Bones 2017-09-20
/u/NonHomogenized
Why are you arguing against some weird eugenics strawman? He wasn't saying "blacks are a more violent race" he's saying "blacks commit more violent crime statistically."
To qualify his police statistic with a reason and ensure he kept the dreaded South Park Neutrality.
1 renewalnotice 2017-09-20
I love several people repeating to him that no one is saying that blacks are more violent, just that the statistic is true and that it's one the far left doesn't like being said. His response is twofold:
Yell about how he doesn't like it being said and if you say it you're a racist
Deny that the far left doesn't like it being said
Like holy fuck this is that spongebob Venezuela meme.
1 marsjazztrio 2017-09-20
He's just trying to "win" and can't bear to "lose" against someone he presumes is on the right (because who else would criticize something about the left!?!?!! In their world either you're on the left and criticize the right or vice versa, no other possibilities).
He doesn't realize he looks like a psycho, and that's before he started saying there was hate speech.
1 ProphetRith 2017-09-20
Gimm de spongbob meem
1 aqouta 2017-09-20
The Venezuela not real communism meme or some kind if OC?
1 ProphetRith 2017-09-20
Both
1 renewalnotice 2017-09-20
You know the one.
/u/NonHomogenized is doing exactly that in the thread. "No way leftists don't have a problem with that, BUT OMG WHY DID YOU SAY YOU MUST BE RACIST TO SAY IT!!!!"
1 saint2e 2017-09-20
aka we only talk about class when we're not promoting mayocide.
1 headasplodes 2017-09-20
Yeah /u/nonhomogenized when a gangbanger pulls a gun on a cop the cop needs to stop and think about how the history of racism and segregration has led to this poor black man being born into poverty without a father, and surrounded by a culture that doesn't value education and glorifies crime
How the fuck did this retarded meme ever gain any traction? There are obvious physical differences between races and some races are more susceptible to certain diseases or illnesses.
Is this that thing where the left tries to arbitrarily change the meaning of a word and then says anyone who doesn't use their made up definition is wrong? Like do you think "race" literally only refers to skin colour and anything that has a 100% correlation with skin colour doesn't count as being a racial attribute?
1 robotronica 2017-09-20
There's a bit of a difference between "increased genetic predisposition to heart disease or alcoholism" and " malarial resistance at the cost of sickle cell anemia" as "racial" differences (they're not, but close enough for government work) and the "phrenologically sound" conclusions that are implied by framing higher AA crime as a strictly racial issue.
Crime isn't genetic. Racial traits are just lazily categorized genetic traits. Crime is only related to race because people make it related to race, and historically that's been... any guesses?
It's either been a good call or a bad one, take a shot.
1 headasplodes 2017-09-20
And no one's saying it is you fucking mong
1 robotronica 2017-09-20
Sorry, must have been my mistake. See, when I read this:
Then you go on to be AGAINST this stance:
I just assumed that they were related. Boy do I feel like a fool, assuming the content of a comment was all connected and shit. A thousand apologies, it was clearly ALL me.
1 headasplodes 2017-09-20
Acknowledging that there are biological differences between races does not mean that you think black people are naturally prone to violence or other criminal behaviours. It also does not preclude acknowledging that there are serious cultural issues in black communities which came about as a result of the systemic and institutional racism of the past.
You keep saying that if there are natural inherent differences between races then one of these differences must be that black people are prone to criminal behaviour. You're the only one who's been saying this.
What the fuck is wrong with you?
1 robotronica 2017-09-20
Apparently I don't understand how you think my second comment, 80% of which is just formatted quotes from your comment, came off as saying "Race and Crime are/aren't related" In fact I'm pretty sure I took all the blame for it.
But now you've got armfuls of straw, so what do you need me for?
1 OhNoHesZooming 2017-09-20
"Race" is a social construct. There are more genetic differences within sub-Saharan Africa than without. Two random tribes in Africa are likely more genetically diverse than Ukrainians and Han Chinese are.
There were only two successful migrations out of Africa, the Ethiopia-Yemen route that populated the coast of the Indian Ocean and Australia, and the route through Egypt into the Levant. Almost everyone you are likely to meet that isn't of Sub-Saharan African descent is from the second one. The original migration tracked into central Asia(Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, etc.), got cut off from Africa during a population bottleneck. It then spread outwards, back into the Middle East and across Siberia into Asia, and, when Neanderthals started declining, into Europe.
That one small group makes up Whites, Arabs, East Asians, Southeast Asians, Polynesians, Native Americans, Berbers, Persians, Turks, Greeks, all the Central Asian groups, etc.
The things you and others use to define race are inconsequential from a genetic perspective. Merely because you can categorize people based on these things does not make this categorization useful.
1 Country-asshole 2017-09-20
That's just crazy talk. It's gender and biological sex that are socially constructed. The notion that a difference in biological sex is determined by XX v XY chromosomes instead of fashion choices, clothing and feelings is nonsensical pseudoscience. Race, on the other hand, is hard wired genetically though. The genes which control things like religious beliefs, cultural behaviour, song lyrics and styles of food preparation cannot be changed!
1 Lumene 2017-09-20
That's wrong:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002929707625786
Within sub-group differences are smaller than without. By definition. That's why there are groups. If they were larger, then the groups would cluster differently.
I also have two (nearly three) degrees in genetics you fucking Mong.
1 robotronica 2017-09-20
Classic geneticists, always using archaic Downs insults that are based on genetic misconceptions. You know how everything you ever spent your life studying goes out the window when you're frustrated with a person? No?
I'm not saying you AREN'T a geneticist, but you sure do talk like you're from the 50's and are excited to find out what style this fall's genes come in, when it comes to slapfights.
1 Lumene 2017-09-20
I work on plants you cretin. But considering your reading capability, you're basically a vegetable, so I think I'm an expert on people like you.
1 robotronica 2017-09-20
Oh, I'm sure if you graduated high school you could follow the thread of Mong > Mongoloid > Down's patients look Asian so we'll call them that. (You know, the basic history of the word)
The point is it's a lot like calling someone a fucking faggot when you want to weigh in on gay marriage. It's weird phrasing to use when you want to be seen as at the very least credible on the topic.
You used cretin, so clearly you know other words, I just assumed someone with two degrees one would inherently understand that "using old slurs based on bad assumptions relating to my field" would make you look less like an expert and more like an armchair race realist.
Sorry to assume you're brighter than you appear to be. It won't happen again.
1 Lumene 2017-09-20
That's a lot of words for "I have aneuploidy in one of the larger chromosomes".
1 robotronica 2017-09-20
Now who's got the comprehension problems?
1 Lumene 2017-09-20
You must be an e. Coli bacterium under high selection pressure, because your ability to translate is full of errors.
You Microcephalic asshole.
1 robotronica 2017-09-20
Oh sweetheart, flowery language like that only works when you buy me dinner first.
I like that instead of talking about what you came here to talk about, you've switched to "geneticist insults" because even if you say you don't care what I think, you're still trying to play up your field of study. I suppose I got you in the feels with that first comment, huh?
1 Lumene 2017-09-20
Or I could just call you a cunt. Either/or.
1 robotronica 2017-09-20
You could. You haven't.
That's the point, chucklefuck, there's a ton of words you could have used, you chose the one in the conversation you should least identify with. It was a shit pick.
1 Lumene 2017-09-20
Actually, let me put it in more simple terms as to why you seem to have an excess of malfunctioning TATA boxes and that I fucking hate pearl clutchers dipping their toes into biological ethics.
Every time one of you assholes starts up with your "But muh social constructs" it ends up with a cost to human lives. Black men need to take heart pills. Racial sub-populatons have dispositions to particular abnormalities because of localized genetic admixture. Fuck everyone who wants to deny that because you're as bad as the christians when you do. Humans are just as susceptible to evolution as the rest of the animal kingdom. We're not special just because you've deluded yourself into thinking differently.
1 robotronica 2017-09-20
Dude, you're wailing on an argument no one made. I said capping off your "I'm an geneticist, trust what I say" argument with Mong severely undercuts your appeal to authority because it reads like a dockworker, not someone who should understand why Mong isn't offensive, but a stupid term that doesn't reflect what it describes.
Like when a mechanic calls a car a Vroom-Vroom Machine. It's a bad slur choice for the topic. I don't care that you feel the need to insult people. You just chose a shit term when you did and now you won't let up on it.
We don't have to do this, you can stop at any moment, but you're just lashing out at this point, and you're not going to convince me that you were somehow right to choose that particular word in this context. It was lazy, it hurt your argument, you seem mad about it.
1 Lumene 2017-09-20
This is r/drama you fucking ziphead. What's the sidebar say?
1 robotronica 2017-09-20
Oh, sorry I missed rule 78: Plant Geneticists must not be questioned.
I don't give a fuck about everyone else's use of the word. I'm telling you that you specifically made yourself look less like a credible expert and more like an edgelord pretending to be one. I don't care if you're a real expert, or a real troll, but you need to either be funnier or more convincing, cause right now it feels like failure on two fronts. I mean that first link wasn't meant as a shitpost, was it?
1 Lumene 2017-09-20
It was a low effort refutation. The piles of studies that say genetic sub-populations have a real and definite effect and I didn't have the time to go into a long-winded explanation about genetic proximity gradient, clustering algorithms and other nonsense that demonstrate that you can cluster even when there's a continuous distribution of genetic exchange.
Orange doesn't not exist because you can slide the RGB gradient to Yellow.
So piss off.
1 robotronica 2017-09-20
You're a big fan of tilting at windmills, ain't you? I asked if you meant the link seriously (since a troll would just grab whatever) and now you're on a tirade about gradients.
All you seem to be capable of is attacking positions you imagine I might fancy, or just insults detached from the conversational flow. It's pretty tiresome. Tell you what, I'll stick around if your next post directly answers the question "What's the best movie Steve Zahn was in?", otherwise I'll know that nothing I say can penetrate that thick skull of yours.
1 Lumene 2017-09-20
That's a nonsense question. It's obviously Daddy day care.
1 robotronica 2017-09-20
Well shit. I was 50/50 on if you'd even answer, but to land on the right answer too? Damn. You win that round.
1 moudougou 2017-09-20
I had no idea you were so ignorant
1 glmox 2017-09-20
im sorry that scientists not hating darkies as much as you anymore hurts your feels
1 D4ddyDr4m4 2017-09-20
Right because saying that skin colour is biologically determined is racist?
Come at me bro, I've made this dumb account just to post bussy
1 glmox 2017-09-20
im sorry that scientists not hating darkies as much as you anymore hurts your feels
1 ManhattanTransFur 2017-09-20
Akchually it is mayos I hate
1 D4ddyDr4m4 2017-09-20
I don't hate niggers either. So I think we're all good.
1 JohnBlind 2017-09-20
Advances in the field of biology?
Broad racial categories like black and white don't really have a foot to stand on. And those 'races' aren't more susceptible to anything on the whole, it's a diagnostic helper for doctors.
Sickle cell for example has a higher rate of occurance in certain geographical areas because of an adaptation to malaria in those areas. One of those is west africa, and seeing as nearly all black slaves in the US were taken from west africa, 'black' on a form is a mildly useful tool for US doctors to aid them in diagnosing a patient. It fails if the black patient hails from other parts of Africa, the category will still say 'black' yet the patient will not have the mutation. At the same time, some mediterranians and mid easterners do have the mutation, yet no one would classify them as black.
1 DickingBimbos247 2017-09-20
you're basically a flat-earther pretending to be scientific
1 JohnBlind 2017-09-20
I used plain language so you wouldn't complain about the big boy words bby
1 DickingBimbos247 2017-09-20
plain words from a plain mind
1 JohnBlind 2017-09-20
That's offensive
1 Yiin 2017-09-20
Radiolab?
1 JohnBlind 2017-09-20
?
1 Yiin 2017-09-20
Radiolab did a segment on race and its genetic untenability. One of their first avenues of attack was sickle cell. They also talked about heart disease.
1 JohnBlind 2017-09-20
Oh, I'm not american so I hadn't heard about them.
Sickle cell is just a good one to take because of two reasons: Firstly, it's basically the only disease used in edgy far-right circles as one of their building blocks to justify their race theories. Secondly, it has a history of being branded as a 'negro disease' for various purposes, much like it is similarly used again now.
1 die_rattin 2017-09-20
I've seen a lot of racist garbage on the internet but not once have I seen someone argue that black people are inferior because sickle cell
1 JohnBlind 2017-09-20
No, it's a building block. They can't go from 0-100 with "the black race is dumb and violent". It goes from simple 'innocent' shit like athletic differences and diseases like sickle cell all the way to racial IQ's and certain races being prone to violence and all the horseshit. It serves as a proof for the reality of race because muh doctors use it, basically.
1 Yiin 2017-09-20
Educate yourself.
https://www.genome.gov/10001356/june-2000-white-house-event/
"The method used by Celera has determined the genetic code of five individuals. We have sequenced the genome of three females and two males, who have identified themselves has Hispanic, Asian, Caucasian or African American. We did this sampling not in an exclusionary way, but out of respect for the diversity that is America, and to help illustrate that the concept of race has no genetic or scientific basis."
Of course, some scientists in the room have walked back on their absolute language. But of course they've done so on tiptoes, so as to not lose house and home.
1 Yiin 2017-09-20
Educate yourself.
https://www.genome.gov/10001356/june-2000-white-house-event/
"The method used by Celera has determined the genetic code of five individuals. We have sequenced the genome of three females and two males, who have identified themselves has Hispanic, Asian, Caucasian or African American. We did this sampling not in an exclusionary way, but out of respect for the diversity that is America, and to help illustrate that the concept of race has no genetic or scientific basis."
Of course, some scientists in the room have walked back on their absolute language. But of course they've done so on tiptoes, so as to not lose house and home.
1 die_rattin 2017-09-20
I fucking love science
1 aqouta 2017-09-20
Just to be clear that while the rest of what that comment or said is retarded race really is actually a pretty hard to genuinely define in any biological or scientific sense. It's dead easy to define culturally and with a handful if physical traits but fir instance someone who is 75% Irish and 25% black is pretty much just considered black and with skin color and a few other physical characteristics that we arbitrarily define as race being just the tip of the iceberg as far as genetic variance gors it's pretty much a useless concept in actual science.
1 Wordshark 2017-09-20
It's pretty damn hard to define where the edge of a cloud is. That doesn't make "clouds" a useless concept in actual science.
1 aqouta 2017-09-20
Clouds are conposed ofbwater vapor, we can study the effects of water vapor scientifically but to study the effects and motions of large collections of water vapor in clouds you turn to meteorology which would be analogous to sociology in this case. You can certainly comment on the shape of clouds with some form of objectivity but the difference between the water vapor in a cumulonimbus and a stratus cloud isn't really a useful scientific question because they have so much more to do with wind patterns, surrounding water sources and things like volume than some variation in water vapor characteristics.
1 disgruntled_chode 2017-09-20
I actually really enjoy this metaphor, thank you. The only thing I would add is that in this scenario, the water molecules are generally sentient and make conscious and unconscious choices influenced by what cloud they're currently in and their relationship with that cloud as opposed to other clouds, which in turn affects the shape, composition, and the points where the clouds are understood to "begin" and "end". In addition to all the other weather characteristic that you mentioned, which I guess would fall under "meteorological intersectionality". :3
1 aqouta 2017-09-20
Some of the metaphor still doesn't feel quite right to me because individual water vapor should probably be analogous to genes and it's not really clear where it transitions from gene to individual to "racial grouping" from vapor to cloud to (storm/weather/climate?).
It seemed intuitive when I started writing it but something still seems off. It workers pretty easily for relating individuals to cultures but I think I'm missing something to really have it work for genes.
1 disgruntled_chode 2017-09-20
In fairness, human scientists don't fully understand the relationship of our genetic makeup to our environment and our socio-cultural influences either, which is how the whole study of epigenetics came about. It may not be a fully precise idea yet, but I think it works well enough for the purpose of separating out race as a primarily sociological phenomenon as opposed to a primarily biological one.
1 ay_what_up 2017-09-20
Lmao this is such a dumb comparison
1 heavenlytoaster 2017-09-20
Race as a social concept is very simple though, it's literally just melanin content.
1 BigBrainsonBradley 2017-09-20
I realize the OP wanted to highlight the "hate speech" part, but the whole tangent is gold.
https://www.reddit.com/r/SubredditDrama/comments/70wj3d/rpolitics_poster_says_cops_are_gang_members/dn6g9ni/
And thread, for that matter.
https://www.reddit.com/r/SubredditDrama/comments/70wj3d/rpolitics_poster_says_cops_are_gang_members/
Surprisingly the most upvoted shit is the most normal.
what is happening?!?!
1 trecht 2017-09-20
/u/HobbesCalvinandLocke is my hero
1 HobbesCalvinandLocke 2017-09-20
o7
1 heavenlytoaster 2017-09-20
The votes in that thread are awfully non-retarded, they must have been brigaded by filthy neutrals.
1 The_Reason_Trump_Won 2017-09-20
the day of the can is coming
1 LadyVetinari 2017-09-20
not soon enough
1 Ylajali_2002 2017-09-20
this tbh. I can only edge for so long.
1 freet0 2017-09-20
You can tell this is deep into a comment chain because no way would you ever see 2 sides of an argument both upvoted in SRD otherwise.
1 ComedicSans 2017-09-20
/u/Zachums, what are you, some kind of fucking idiot?
1 MajorPrick 2017-09-20
I don't understand why so many users dislike /u/Zachums [-89]. I don't think I've ever seen him say anything I would even consider downvoting.
1 Ylajali_2002 2017-09-20
I agree. /u/Zachums [-617] is a very agreeable poster and I have never once gone through his entire post history and downvoted everything.
1 Zachums 2017-09-20
I did not consent to this kind of abuse while sleeping. Please keep that in mind for the future when addressing me.
1 CC3940A61E 2017-09-20
hate speech doesn't exist. neck yourselves you disgusting communists.
1 aqouta 2017-09-20
Wait they have a drama subreddit that disallows insults? Why even exist?
1 wow___justwow 2017-09-20
You're goddamn right you mother fuckin faggots get in here and lets play
1 saint2e 2017-09-20
Dammit, /u/hammer_of_truthiness , you got me.