Observation on racism and race is a social construct

[GSK Lives]

toasega

Yea. But I would at least respect them more than the mealy mouthed variety of 429.

[toasega]

GSK Lives

toasega

Yea. But I would at least respect them more than the mealy mouthed variety of 429.

So then it would kind of be like the respect you have for famous dictators? Like, even though they committed such atrocities, they knew what they wanted and went out and did it with no regrets, apologies or compromises?

[foxxykitty27]

Project 429

foxxykitty27

Project 429

foxxykitty27

Project 429

foxxykitty27

Yeah I remember this one trying to prove races exist with science. He might have been the one who compared human races with dog breeds too, but I'm not sure.

That was me. I didn't try to prove it though - I put down data and the person I was responding to agreed. With the data. As in -- this isn't about my opinion. This isn't about opinion.

Oh hey there. You are right. It is not about opinion. I imagine the data you had detailed specific differences between races and I have no dispute with that. My only counter is that there are just as many differences between individuals of the same race and between races. We simply have chosen the most obvious difference that separates us and have categorized ourselves accordingly.

No, there's not. This is part of the problem. You can call the genetic differences whatever you want. You can call them races, subgroups, subspecies, breeds -- it doesn't matter. They do exist and the difference between these subgroups is greater than the differences within subgroups on the aggregate.

In other words if you use the same criteria, the differences between tulips and humans is greater within individuals than within species.

At 17:48 Bill ******** Nye participates in this.


Bill goddamn Nye. He holds his tongue - but there's a reason why there's so much disinformation about this topic.

Once again - the social implications of these genetic clusters is entirely up to you -- but these genetic clusters do exist.

Tell me something, Project. If we all had the same skin color and hair texture, would races/subgroups/whatever be the same as they are now? Every time I ask this no one answers and I'm really curious to see what people will say.

My answer is that it is highly doubtful. People were separated first by skin color and then studied as separate groups. In other words, the science that backs up separate races beyond the social name highlights the differences in order to validate what had already become a social division. Of course enetic clusters exist. However, it is what you decide to cluster that makes the subdivision of humans, which happens to follow skin color, make sense.

Yes because the genetic differences account for much more than skin tone and hair texture. It can be very difficult to determine someone's ancestry by looking at them but if you get them to give you a blood sample you can determine their ancestry in a very precise way.

Do you hear that, GSK? Do you hear that, other idiot I'm talking to?

Are you going to tell me these results are determined by some sort of magical scrying?

Please read this. I'd also like to point out that one's ethnic background may not match their perceived 'race.' That fact of the matter is, any differences we have between socially classified races is not nearly as significant as the differences we all have as individuals. Now, I've already had this same conversation like five times so I'm just going to drop it right here.

Actually before I do, I'll repeat what has become a favorite phrase of mine in these little race discussions: I am no more genetically similar to the black person down the street from me than the white person next door to me. Good day.

[foxxykitty27]

Roih Uvet

foxxykitty27

The fact that race as we know it is entirely social makes racism all the more troubling because it is hatred/discrimination based on nothing at all except for social bias.

What are you even confused about?

Except it's not entirely social. There are different races of people objectively exist, irrespective of if we believe they do, or decide to describe them in any way. Pretending that something isn't there doesn't make it go away. Not noticing something doesn't mean it isn't there.

Yeah, too bad science actually goes against race as a biological classification.

[Bogotanian]

GSK Lives

toasega

Yea. But I would at least respect them more than the mealy mouthed variety of 429.

This thread was more intended for people that believe that race is a social construct, but simultaneously believe that some people are racist or more racist than others.

[Hope Legacy]

Project 429

Children using buzzwords. The answer to this question is also the rebuttal to the original argument. Lots of things are social constructs. A chair is a social construct. A car is a social construct. Just because something is a social construct doesn't mean it can be disregarded.

Talking about race makes people spaz out really, really ******** hard.

you're talking about things vs ideas. kinda hard to compare the two.

[Hope Legacy]

Bogotanian

I've seen some threads about racism in the ED. In one I remember, people were talking about how "race" doesn't actually exist, but is a social construct (we're all a part of the human family and there's no scientific evidence to show that we are a different race).

dna can be traced to various ancestries. there is a biological basis for 'race,' however you are correct that the idea that it should matter is a social construct. the physical reality vs the mental reality of the situation are different.

Quote:

However, I've noticed that these same people will say that one race is racist towards another race in other conversations about racism.

some people believe that race is something that should matter in the social sphere. beliefs are not facts, but the belief existing is a fact.

Quote:

In the latter example people argue that people or groups of people are racists against other races, yet they don't say that race is a social construct in the same conversations. Thoughts?

some people aren't aware of the 'race mattering in the social sphere is a social construct' fact. perhaps bringing light to that fact could help dissuade people (that is, if they have any sort of logical faculties.)

[Project 429]

foxxykitty27

Project 429

foxxykitty27

Project 429

foxxykitty27

Oh hey there. You are right. It is not about opinion. I imagine the data you had detailed specific differences between races and I have no dispute with that. My only counter is that there are just as many differences between individuals of the same race and between races. We simply have chosen the most obvious difference that separates us and have categorized ourselves accordingly.

No, there's not. This is part of the problem. You can call the genetic differences whatever you want. You can call them races, subgroups, subspecies, breeds -- it doesn't matter. They do exist and the difference between these subgroups is greater than the differences within subgroups on the aggregate.

In other words if you use the same criteria, the differences between tulips and humans is greater within individuals than within species.

At 17:48 Bill ******** Nye participates in this.


Bill goddamn Nye. He holds his tongue - but there's a reason why there's so much disinformation about this topic.

Once again - the social implications of these genetic clusters is entirely up to you -- but these genetic clusters do exist.

Tell me something, Project. If we all had the same skin color and hair texture, would races/subgroups/whatever be the same as they are now? Every time I ask this no one answers and I'm really curious to see what people will say.

My answer is that it is highly doubtful. People were separated first by skin color and then studied as separate groups. In other words, the science that backs up separate races beyond the social name highlights the differences in order to validate what had already become a social division. Of course enetic clusters exist. However, it is what you decide to cluster that makes the subdivision of humans, which happens to follow skin color, make sense.

Yes because the genetic differences account for much more than skin tone and hair texture. It can be very difficult to determine someone's ancestry by looking at them but if you get them to give you a blood sample you can determine their ancestry in a very precise way.

Do you hear that, GSK? Do you hear that, other idiot I'm talking to?

Are you going to tell me these results are determined by some sort of magical scrying?

Please read this. I'd also like to point out that one's ethnic background may not match their perceived 'race.' That fact of the matter is, any differences we have between socially classified races is not nearly as significant as the differences we all have as individuals. Now, I've already had this same conversation like five times so I'm just going to drop it right here.

Actually before I do, I'll repeat what has become a favorite phrase of mine in these little race discussions: I am no more genetically similar to the black person down the street from me than the white person next door to me. Good day.

Both you and the article linked are using the same dysfunctional logic that I've already responded to in this thread. The article you linked even references the scientist who the fallacy is named after as a source.

Quote:

How do we measure genetic diversity? The basic concept is simple. Pick a few dozen or a few hundred genes and tally the differences in those genes in a sample of a few dozen or a few hundred people.

You can't do this. This doesn't work. The sample size is far, far too small!

[Roih Uvet]

foxxykitty27

Roih Uvet

foxxykitty27

The fact that race as we know it is entirely social makes racism all the more troubling because it is hatred/discrimination based on nothing at all except for social bias.

What are you even confused about?

Except it's not entirely social. There are different races of people objectively exist, irrespective of if we believe they do, or decide to describe them in any way. Pretending that something isn't there doesn't make it go away. Not noticing something doesn't mean it isn't there.

Yeah, too bad science actually goes against race as a biological classification.

How do you figure?

[foxxykitty27]

Roih Uvet

foxxykitty27

Roih Uvet

foxxykitty27

The fact that race as we know it is entirely social makes racism all the more troubling because it is hatred/discrimination based on nothing at all except for social bias.

What are you even confused about?

Except it's not entirely social. There are different races of people objectively exist, irrespective of if we believe they do, or decide to describe them in any way. Pretending that something isn't there doesn't make it go away. Not noticing something doesn't mean it isn't there.

Yeah, too bad science actually goes against race as a biological classification.

How do you figure?

Once again, I don't dispute that there are difference between races. The test he ran on the DNA specifically pinpointed these differences. The source I put up for Project even recognizes this.

This test only looks at 176 locations on the genome. I don't think I need to tell you how minuscule that is to the entire human genome. Even if you take out all of the noncoding genes, which makes up most of our DNA (about 98%), 176 is almost nothing compared to what's left over. Even within this 176, on a few of these might pertain to a specifc orgin. Even if I said "sure, maybe there are some more outside of those 176 locations," the total number would be incomparable with the amount of differences with have as individuals. So cool, I may share the same 100 sequences (I think I'm being generous with this number) with every black person. I may also share the same 100 sequences with 15 million black people, 20 million other white people and 12 million Asian people. Now you're probably thinking, "but those numbers are so small compared to the total amount of black people." But what if we were to draw racial lines based on those specific similarities? That would not be unlike drawing racial lines on the (extremely minute) specific similarities black people have.

We all share similarities with people within our socially classified races. We also share similarities with people from different socially classified races. These similarities we share as individuals with other races might not match up with others of our same races. Obviously. I'll say it again, it only depends on which differences we decide to pinpoint. The scientist in your article focused on the sequences that are common to people of African decent. But if he focused on the sequences that I used for my example earlier he would not have been able to tell.