Split Thread: "White Supremacist" really has no meaning anymore.

[Venom]

Originally Posted by lomiller

The differences between human population groups are insignificant when compared to other large mammals.

Craniofacial criteria in the skeletal attribution of race

Originally Posted by lomiller

That isn't how it works. Alleles radiate outwards from where they first arise and eventually find their way into the entire population. There are no barriers to gene flow between Africa and the rest of the world. Even skin tone exists on a cline with far more correlation to local UV conditions than anything else.

Human line 'nearly split in two'

This is within Africa. And barriers for gene flow don't have to be impenetrable, just very inconvenient for early man.

[Brainster]

Originally Posted by sir drinks-a-lot

This editorial is nothing short of comedy gold. Nowhere is the phrase "white supremacy" mentioned, but it's all about racism (as indicated in the passage on "end of race-based affirmative action". I think it's what joe Morgue would call a "dog whistle".

Pretty amazing; I especially thought this passage was revealing:

Quote:

Take one of the new prompts: “Briefly describe an intellectual experience that was important to you.” This question seemingly privileges applicants from well-resourced backgrounds for whom additional academic opportunities were plentiful in high school.

Seriously? Poor kids never have an important intellectual experience?

[jt512]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

what kind of biologists are those?

Evolutionary biologists.

Quote:

And what kind of Race or Species definition do they use?

I already stated how biologists define a race within a species.

[lomiller]

Originally Posted by jt512

I already stated how biologists define a race within a species.

Race isn't a taxonomical concept and doesn't exist within any standardized taxonomical ranking. Species are not, nor have they ever been divided into "race".

Originally Posted by Venom

This is within Africa.

Of course it's within Africa, almost all human variation is within Africa. All the supposed "races" are just insignificant offshoots of 1 African population. When you divide humanity into base population groups using genetic data all such groups are almost exclusively Black and African.

[mumblethrax]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

No idea why you're limiting the phenomenon under discussion to the 21st century context; that seems arbitrary at best.

Because we happen to live in the 21st century. That's where the phenomenon is phenomenoning.

Quote:

I also disagree that understaning the "sins of Ham" justification tells us nothing of interest here.

I didn't say it tells us nothing of interest. I said it's a fallacy of relevance to claim that we need to understand the origin of a phenomenon to understand the phenomenon. Because it is.

[Trausti]

Originally Posted by lomiller

Did you seriously just suggest race is a factor in blood transfusions and organ donations?

“MIXED MATCH” FOCUSES ON NEED FOR MULTIRACIAL BONE MARROW DONORS

Quote:

For a person battling blood cancer, a bone marrow transplant is a new chance at life. The best odds of finding a match are among donors of similar genetic background, which means patients of mixed-race ancestry have much lower chances of finding a donor.

[Trausti]

Originally Posted by lomiller

The differences between human population groups are insignificant when compared to other large mammals.



That isn't how it works. Alleles radiate outwards from where they first arise and eventually find their way into the entire population. There are no barriers to gene flow between Africa and the rest of the world. Even skin tone exists on a cline with far more correlation to local UV conditions than anything else.

How much gene flow do you think there was between Europe/Asia/Africa and the Americas pre-1492? And, clearly, the gene flow between Sub-Saharan Africa and the rest of the world was near nothing then, too, as, again, that genetic difference is greater than as between a dog and a wolf.

[Trausti]

Originally Posted by lomiller

Race isn't a taxonomical concept and doesn't exist within any standardized taxonomical ranking. Species are not, nor have they ever been divided into "race".



Of course it's within Africa, almost all human variation is within Africa. All the supposed "races" are just insignificant offshoots of 1 African population. When you divide humanity into base population groups using genetic data all such groups are almost exclusively Black and African.

Well, okay.

Artificial intelligence predicts patients’ race from their medical images

Quote:

Using both private and public datasets, the team found that AI can accurately predict self-reported race of patients from medical images alone.

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by Trausti

Agreed. No person should be treated differently due to their race. No advantage or disadvantage. That used to be the liberal position. What the hell happened?

What happened is that it was discovered that this was sometimes simply not enough. Sometimes you have to give marginalised populations more just to bring them up to equity with others. Hence, affirmative action.

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by jt512

I already stated how biologists define a race within a species.

Do they actually use the word "race" in their publications? For domesticated animals we refer to them as "breeds" but I don't know if this holds to sub-species level groupings in the wild.

[Trausti]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

What happened is that it was discovered that this was sometimes simply not enough. Sometimes you have to give marginalised populations more just to bring them up to equity with others. Hence, affirmative action.

Do explain why Sasha and Malia Obama are disadvantaged while the White child of a West Virginia coal miner is advantaged.

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by Trausti

Do explain why Sasha and Malia Obama are disadvantaged while the White child of a West Virginia coal miner is advantaged.

I will not, because that is not a claim that I have made.

[jt512]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

Do they actually use the word "race" in their publications?

Yes, they do:

"Some differences in appearance or measurements are more significant. Those that line up with geography-such that birds breeding in one area differ consistently from those in another-are recognized as marking different subspecies, or races." — Wright, Rick, "The Junco Called Cassiar" (2013). Nebraska Bird Review. 1324.

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by jt512

Yes, they do:

"Some differences in appearance or measurements are more significant. Those that line up with geography-such that birds breeding in one area differ consistently from those in another-are recognized as marking different subspecies, or races." — Wright, Rick, "The Junco Called Cassiar" (2013). Nebraska Bird Review. 1324.

I note that the word "race" is added as a possible synonym for "subspecies". Also, you're referring to one person using a plural pronoun, and that this paper is ten years old.

Anyway, thanks for that example.

[Trausti]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

I will not, because that is not a claim that I have made.

Well, of course it is. Affirmative action is based on racial hierarchy. If we can agree that racial caste systems are wrong, that'd be good.

[jt512]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

I note that the word "race" is added as a possible synonym for "subspecies". Also, you're referring to one person using a plural pronoun, and that this paper is ten years old.

And thus the goalposts are moved.

But that said, use of the term by biologists does appear to be on the decline, I presume, because it has become stigmatized. Only a few years ago, my bird identification app, a Cornell University product, referred to the "dark-eyed junco, Oregon race." The current version refers to the same bird as "dark-eyed junco (Oregon)."

But the word is not the thing. The concept—a population within a species that has developed phenotypically distinctly as a result of geographic separation—is real, whether we call it a race or a subspecies. When applied to humans, which term is the less offensive is obvious. Could you imagine referring to races of human beings as "subspecies"?

[The Great Zaganza]

Originally Posted by Trausti

Well, of course it is. Affirmative action is based on racial hierarchy. If we can agree that racial caste systems are wrong, that'd be good.

nope, it's based on economic status, which in the US follows very closely to some ethic backgrounds (but not others).

That is because the REASON for the lower economic status of most Blacks in the US is an active racist policy of disenfranchisement and enforced poverty.

Blacks are assisted by AA not because they are Black, but because they have to start life with a huge disadvantage caused by past (and current) racist US policies.

It's really hard to undo extremely racists polices without referring to race (because that was the definition used for enslavement, i.e. One Drop).
It would be like talking about restitution for nazi persecution without talking about Jews.

Race for humans is a Political, not a biological term.

[The Great Zaganza]

About jt512's biologists:

we know for a fact that Homo Sapiens and other species of Homo interbred and had fertile offspring.
So the standard definition of Species for Humans (as for plenty other mammals) is wrong.

[jt512]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

About jt512's biologists:

we know for a fact that Homo Sapiens and other species of Homo interbred and had fertile offspring.
So the standard definition of Species for Humans (as for plenty other mammals) is wrong.

??

[The Great Zaganza]

Originally Posted by jt512

??

if you don't get it, it suggests you don't know the definition of Species.

[jt512]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

if you don't get it, it suggests you don't know the definition of Species.

Not only do I know the definition of "species," I know it isn't written with a capital S.

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by Trausti

Well, of course it is. Affirmative action is based on racial hierarchy. If we can agree that racial caste systems are wrong, that'd be good.

Thank you, The Great Zaganza, for answering this question in pretty much exactly the same way I would have.

[The Great Zaganza]

Originally Posted by jt512

Not only do I know the definition of "species," I know it isn't written with a capital S.

okay, let's take a step back here.

Could it be that you and your biologists mean SUBspecies when they say species?

[jt512]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

okay, let's take a step back here.

Could it be that you and your biologists mean SUBspecies when they say species?

I don't know who you mean by "your [i.e. my] biologists." If you mean the two biologists I referred to earlier, one of them wrote the first comprehensive textbook on speciation, which is the process by which subpecies evolve into separate species. So he is literally one of the world's foremost experts on the difference between the two.

[The Great Zaganza]

Originally Posted by jt512

I don't know who you mean by "your [i.e. my] biologists." If you mean the two biologists I referred to earlier, one of them wrote the first comprehensive textbook on speciation, which is the process by which subpecies evolve into separate species. So he is literally one of the world's foremost experts on the difference between the two.

Ah, I think I see where the problem is.

many animals we thought to be separate species turned out to be just subspecies.
That incudes many species of Homo, such as neanderthalensis or heidelbergensis.

and we have discovered that hybridization is way more common in the wild than we thought (as with ursids), making their classification as separate species dubious.

In short, the textbooks written about species and race are not the final word on the subject, as research shows how inadequate the original definitions are.

I, personally, have looked through a number of Ariernachweise, which with the very best scientific authority of the time proclaimed one person to be of one race to various degrees of pureness.

[jt512]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

Ah, I think I see where the problem is.

many animals we thought to be separate species turned out to be just subspecies.
That incudes many species of Homo, such as neanderthalensis or heidelbergensis.

and we have discovered that hybridization is way more common in the wild than we thought (as with ursids), making their classification as separate species dubious.

In short, the textbooks written about species and race are not the final word on the subject, as research shows how inadequate the original definitions are.

I, personally, have looked through a number of Ariernachweise, which with the very best scientific authority of the time proclaimed one person to be of one race to various degrees of pureness.

I have no idea what you have been going about. You have yet to post a coherent thought in at least your last three posts. But at least you have stopped capitalizing "species."

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Trausti

Well, okay.



Artificial intelligence predicts patients’ race from their medical images

One suspects you don't understand the point of that article and certainly not the paper itself.

[The Great Zaganza]

Originally Posted by jt512

I have no idea what you have been going about. You have yet to post a coherent thought in at least your last three posts. But at least you have stopped capitalizing "species."

if you have a question, just ask.

[Gulliver Foyle]

Originally Posted by jt512

********. You know what I mean by "woke," as does everybody else pretending they don't.

In the 30's it used be called Judeo-Bolshevism.

[Gulliver Foyle]

Originally Posted by jt512

.

Sorry, “LSSBB,” whoever you are IRL, but no.

That said, the pertinent articles are open source.

So you have no evidence for your claims. Thanks for, eventually, admitting that you've pulled them from where the sun shineth not.

[The_Animus]

Originally Posted by jt512

I have no idea what you have been going about. You have yet to post a coherent thought in at least your last three posts. But at least you have stopped capitalizing "species."

It made sense to me. What are you having difficulty with?

[jt512]

Originally Posted by The_Animus

It made sense to me.

Good. You can have a discussion with him, then.

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

I don't think it is wise to start labeling fellow posters as racists/

Yes and now a bunch of concern trolling treating that as somehow worse then ACTUALLY BEING racist will now occur, as is tradition from people who aren't racist but in every discussion about race only exist to keep non-racists from going to far.

But let's us not interrupt "19th century phrenology level racism happy fun hour" by throwing words like "racist" around. Wouldn't want the discussion to get "uncivil" or anything.

Like people here aren't even being racist. They are being vaudeville show cartoonish racist.

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by mumblethrax

I said it's a fallacy of relevance to claim that we need to understand the origin of a phenomenon to understand the phenomenon.

You are once again asserting irrelevance rather than showing it to be true, and I am once again disagreeing with your assertion. You will find no textbook of informal logical fallacies which says we can understand a cultural phenomenon without understanding its historical roots, and there are aspects of white supremacy which simply cannot be explained without understanding of the more general phenomenon of in-group and out-group^WP thinking which has deep roots in human psychology and neurology.

...to understand the roots of prejudice and discrimination requires first of all a better understanding of the functions that ingroup formation and identification serve for human beings.

- Marilynn B. Brewer

The more general phenomenon provides us with countless historical examples antecedent to the invention of whiteness as a means of identifying the favored in-group (people of European ancestry) a few of which I've already mentioned upthread. White supremacy^WP isn't a particularly unique or standalone phenomenon, it is the usual ingroup/outgroup dichotomy drawn along historically unusual lines, with the intensity of out-group othering turned up to eleven (i.e. dehumanization) in certain times and places.

By attempting to treat white supremacy as something which can be discussed without looking further back than the 21st c. you are unduly narrowing the scope of inquiry to the parts of history which we happen to have actually lived through, decades after the civil rights movements and largely after the debut of Barack Obama on the national stage. This isn't merely an intellectual lazy approach to the topic, it also skews our perspective by leaving off the openly white supremacist policies which were bog standard in American law and policy for generations prior to our current century, the effects of which remain with us in all manner of statistical disparities.

It is admittedly a bit pointless to argue about the scope of a split thread unintentionally kicked off by a yellow card infraction, but it strikes me as well beyond pointless to try to discuss systemic inequities without considering how the inequitable systems came about in the first place.

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Yes and now a bunch of concern trolling treating that as somehow worse then ACTUALLY BEING racist will now occur...

If you see someone relying on racist ideas, they should be fairly easy to refute without going to the man instead of the argument.

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

If you see someone relying on racist ideas, they should be fairly easy to refute without going to the man instead of the argument.

Thank you for demonstrating concern trolling for the class.

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

You are once again asserting irrelevance rather than showing it to be true, and I am once again disagreeing with your assertion. You will find no textbook of informal logical fallacies which says we can understand a cultural phenomenon without understanding its historical roots, and there are aspects of white supremacy which simply cannot be explained without understanding of the more general phenomenon of in-group and out-group^WP thinking which has deep roots in human psychology and neurology.

...to understand the roots of prejudice and discrimination requires first of all a better understanding of the functions that ingroup formation and identification serve for human beings.

- Marilynn B. Brewer

The more general phenomenon provides us with countless historical examples antecedent to the invention of whiteness as a means of identifying the favored in-group (people of European ancestry) a few of which I've already mentioned upthread. White supremacy^WP isn't a particularly unique or standalone phenomenon, it is the usual ingroup/outgroup dichotomy drawn along historically unusual lines, with the intensity of out-group othering turned up to eleven (i.e. dehumanization) in certain times and places.

By attempting to treat white supremacy as something which can be discussed without looking further back than the 21st c. you are unduly narrowing the scope of inquiry to the parts of history which we happen to have actually lived through, decades after the civil rights movements and largely after the debut of Barack Obama on the national stage. This isn't merely an intellectual lazy approach to the topic, it also skews our perspective by leaving off the openly white supremacist policies which were bog standard in American law and policy for generations prior to our current century, the effects of which remain with us in all manner of statistical disparities.

It is admittedly a bit pointless to argue about the scope of a split thread unintentionally kicked off by a yellow card infraction, but it strikes me as well beyond pointless to try to discuss systemic inequities without considering how the inequitable systems came about in the first place.

Do we really have to go all Chesterton's Fence over white supremacy? The historical roots might be academically interesting, but I don't think anything would justify considering if that fence is worth salvaging.

[JoeMorgue]

Yeah there's no baby in this bathwater.

[The Great Zaganza]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Yeah there's no baby in this bathwater.

why waste good bathwater if you can just chuck the baby out of the window directly from the crib ?

[The_Animus]

Originally Posted by jt512

Good. You can have a discussion with him, then.

I don't need to because I already get it. Maybe one day you will too.