—I hate what Fox News has done to almost everyone in my family

[rah]

Hell, give us another 100 years to interbreed and it may become impossible to guess based on looks alone.

 

[H4run]

people still discriminates base on language, thought, culture and ideology, etc. I think people must escape the bliss of generalization, and humanized human, recognized both their social side and a unique individual side.

 

[red_elk]

This is crazy, what Italian think and look in general? and how the Italian line of thought that is distinguishable than Russian?

I don't know what's special about Italian "line of thought", I'm just able to distinguish black and white people by their appearance. As well as Italians and Russians, though not always.
Does it make me a Nazi?

 

[Hehehe]

Race exists the same way microaggressions exist. If you can model one, you can model the other.

Of course race exists, it is what causes racism. People wouldn't treat each other differently based on race otherwise.

Race is a confounding factor in outcomes. Because people can perceive race, it affects outcomes.

The thing is, race is real. We can derive blind experiments where people can, with better than random degree of reliability, tell people of different races apart.

Interesting, and it certianly does indicate there is more correlation that I had assumed. This is not without criticism though, see Spencer 2015 for a pretty good refutation of certain conclusions from that paper.

Have you read that paper? If not, why should I? If you have, could you quote or briefly summarize the relevant parts? It's from the department of philosophy?

Race is a reality is not a legitimate conclusion, you keep using yourself as a measurement of truth, giving yourselves pat in the back (I Win!) you cannot do that, your premise that called race as reality because it can help you to distinguish between asian and not an asian from the color of their hair is silly, it is actually pretty much tells your oversimplify tendencies on viewing people reality, even though you refuses to be called racist but your world view and argument speak loud toward it.

A lot of people I debate with will simply declare categories useless, because they disagree with them, with no supporting arguments given. To me, it always seemed like useless word games.

If we really want to discuss whether or not a category is useful, we have to discuss what it means for a category to be useful. My view is that a category is useful if it says something about the things that are being categorized. I chose the hair color as an example because it is, in my opinion, an undeniable example. Of course, racial categories tell far more about people than just that (but the other stuff is more disputed, which is why I stuck to an easy example).

You think race is base on biological reality while it is not, that is why your premise is silly. Many proud Turkish who boast themselves to be a real Turk, later on feeling ashamed of themselves finding that their dna results that they are genetically closer to Armenian than that of Turk.

Is that an argument against genetics? It seems that, thanks to genetics, the Turks learned something they wouldn't have otherwise known. They may not like it, but such is reality.

While you might consider yourselves to be the "Statistically low crime suspects" white, while in reality there can be a reality that you share an African dna within your dna. Joe Rogan share African dna in his dna structure, so is he white? Or almost white? That's why Lexicus calls you stupid.

There are mixed race people. This is not controversial. Nor is it an argument against the existence of races (in fact, it's an argument in favor of it, but that's a whole another can of worms).

Fascinating how the Irish evolved from being non-white to being white in less than 100 years. I guess they must have all been exposed to some weird radiation to make their genes change so quickly.

This is a common talking point, but completely false. I already addressed it in this thread previously (page 4, post 66)

I want to comment on this briefly because it demonstrates so well the ignorance of people claiming that race is a biological reality. Real geneticists are actually not big fans of these commercial DNA tests like 23andme for precisely the reason that they simplify the picture of ancestry and genetics in a way that makes clear division between human populations seem real and sensible.

Some "real" geneticists do hate these tests for ideological reasons. That doesn't mean they aren't useful.

Is E Warren an Indian?

I heard that the Cherokee nation disowned Elizabeth Warren. With her DNA test, maybe she should try the Aryan nation

take simple example, how Indonesian think? a nation that consist of 700 languages and more than 300 different cultures and 17000 island, they are even too huge and diversed to be categorize a single race, not to mention if they are reduced to be simply Asian, lol, packed together with China, South Korean, North Korean, Singapore, Thailand like sardinise hahaha

Is every chair exactly the same? If not, does that mean that "chair" as a category is useless? Members of a category do not have to be identical (in fact, how could they be?). Like I said, the category simply needs to be useful.

 

[Berzerker]

If I'm going to treat everyone equal, I want to stop seeing those differences as differences. That's the only way to stop discrimination.

You cant, evolution designed you to see them

Hell, give us another 100 years to interbreed and it may become impossible to guess based on looks alone.

We'll still see differences, race is one of many categories our brains use to tidy up existence

 

[Cutlass]

Fifty years of progressive policies have failed to close any of the achievement gaps that exist in Western societies. It seems like it's going to exist in perpetuity regardless. Is it possible that some of the fundamental assumptions you're making might be wrong? And do keep in mind, there is no evidence for the existence of "systematic racism". There are gaps in life outcomes, but little proof as to what causes them.

When were there 50 years of progressive policies? That certainly never did happen in the United States.

I don't want to oppress anyone, never have.

No. You just want policies that have that affect.

 

[Hehehe]

When were there 50 years of progressive policies? That certainly never did happen in the United States.

The concept of affirmative action was introduced in the early 1960s in the United States, as a way to combat racial discrimination in the hiring process, with the concept later expanded to address gender discrimination.[12] Affirmative action was first created from Executive Order 10925, which was signed by President John F. Kennedy on 6 March 1961 and required that government employers "not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, creed, color, or national origin" and "take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin".[75][76]

On 24 September 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed Executive Order 11246, thereby replacing Executive Order 10925 and affirming Federal Government's commitment "to promote the full realization of equal employment opportunity through a positive, continuing program in each executive department and agency".[4] Affirmative action was extended to women by Executive Order 11375 which amended Executive Order 11246 on 13 October 1967, by adding "sex" to the list of protected categories. In the U.S. affirmative action's original purpose was to pressure institutions into compliance with the nondiscrimination mandate of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.[16][77] The Civil Rights Acts do not cover veterans, people with disabilities, or people over 40. These groups are protected from discrimination under different laws.[78]

No. You just want policies that have that affect.

Every policy seems to have that effect

 

[Berzerker]

No, 20-fold difference in melanoma prevalence is not crackpot nonsense from 19-th century.

"Melanoma is far more common among Caucasians than African–Americans (AA), with incidence rates of 33.0 per 100,000 men and 20.2 per 100,000 women among Caucasians compared with 1.2 per 100,000 men and 1.0 per 100,000 women among AAs."

Bob Marley died from melanoma and I thought it was because of his white ancestry but there is a kind of melanoma that hits black(ish) people too. Apparently the melanoma associated with fair skin originates on skin where hair normally grows while the kind that did in Bob is associated with hairless skin, under the toe nail in his case.

 

[Cutlass]

Every policy seems to have that effect

And those policies you quoted were all gutted by the middle 1980s. You are pointing at something which was not done and claiming that it did not work. Well duh. But at the same time many implicitly racist policies came into force, such as mass incarceration, war on drugs, heavier sentencing, obstruction of construction of low income housing, privatization of government jobs, weakening of unions, school privatization, weakening of minimum wage laws, and 1000s of other things, which were designed to lock in poverty and prevent economic mobility.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

scientific racism isn't a belief that race exists, its a belief in racial inferiority/superiority

edit: and a malicious one, a 'justification' for mistreatment.

Or is it racist to say 'white men cant jump'?

Shouldn't that be called "unscientific racism" then?

 

[El_Machinae]

The thing is, race is real. We can derive blind experiments where people can, with better than random degree of reliability, tell people of different races apart.

Of course you can. People can also identify microaggressions.

 

[Hehehe]

And those policies you quoted were all gutted by the middle 1980s.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action_in_the_United_States#Legal_history

You are pointing at something which was not done and claiming that it did not work. Well duh.

All we know for sure is that so far, nothing has worked

But at the same time many implicitly racist policies came into force, such as mass incarceration, war on drugs, heavier sentencing, obstruction of construction of low income housing, privatization of government jobs, weakening of unions, school privatization, weakening of minimum wage laws, and 1000s of other things, which were designed to lock in poverty and prevent economic mobility.

First of all, are you arguing that those are specifically targeting minorities? Please, do demonstrate that, and show the impact they have had.

Second, these differences seem to exist even in countries where they do not do all of the above. Take, for example, Finland, which has a comprehensive welfare state. We still see much of the same crime gaps for example, and the same achievement gaps (latter being arguable though)

Of course you can. People can also identify microaggressions.

Could you do a test setup that can verify the existence and impact of microaggressions? Some kind of a blind test?

 

[Manfred Belheim]

This is wrong! Its just literally not true! You really are talking about Fire and Earth instead of Technetium and Lanthanum

I have no idea how you can say an opinion is "not true". All I said what there was this thing that definitely exists, and some particular word is as good as any to label that thing with. You might not personally like to use that word as a label for whatever reason, but you can't just say it's "not true". That doesn't even make sense.

You once tried to make a joke of something obviously stupid affecting skin colour, (soil pH) but that was actually true! You just give the impression of being really ignorant about any facts in this area.

Yeah exposure to sunlight can affect skin colour as well. Or being set on fire. It's also rather obviously affected by genetics.

 

[Cutlass]

All we know for sure is that so far, nothing has worked been tried.

Are you fake newsing us here because you are ignorant of the subject, or just because you approve of the racism?

 

[Senethro]

I have no idea how you can say an opinion is "not true". All I said what there was this thing that definitely exists, and some particular word is as good as any to label that thing with. You might not personally like to use that word as a label for whatever reason, but you can't just say it's "not true". That doesn't even make sense.



Yeah exposure to sunlight can affect skin colour as well. Or being set on fire. It's also rather obviously affected by genetics.

Oh, well if its just your "opinion" that races exist and you don't feel the need to actually justify it or quantify/define it in a useful manner, then your opinion is a stupid one.

 

[Hehehe]

Are you fake newsing us here because you are ignorant of the subject, or just because you approve of the racism?

Like I said, none of these policies have ever worked. And when they inevitably fail, the defenders simply retreat to "we need to do more". It's like when communists argued that communism failed because they weren't communist enough.

 

[Cutlass]

Like I said, none of these policies have ever worked. And when they inevitably fail, the defenders simply retreat to "we need to do more". It's like when communists argued that communism failed because they weren't communist enough.

They didn't work only to the extent that they were never actually tied. You just keep going around in circles saying that making no effort has no effect, so clearly we need to continue making no effort. You're doing a great job of making the case for the active, but concealed, racism of the more sophisticated racists. But it is still racism.

And trying to pretend that it is not isn't working.

 

[Senethro]

While it is despicable that evidence of racism is used as justification for racism, its kind of a neat rhetorical trick. Y'know, in an awful way.

 

[Light Cleric]

And those policies you quoted were all gutted by the middle 1980s. You are pointing at something which was not done and claiming that it did not work. Well duh. But at the same time many implicitly racist policies came into force, such as mass incarceration, war on drugs, heavier sentencing, obstruction of construction of low income housing, privatization of government jobs, weakening of unions, school privatization, weakening of minimum wage laws, and 1000s of other things, which were designed to lock in poverty and prevent economic mobility.

One of the quotes that really opened my eyes on this stuff is relevant here from Lee Atwater literally admitting the party's policies screwed minorities (he says the actual word but I replaced it to be PG)

Atwater: Y'all don't quote me on this. You start out in 1954 by saying, "n-word, n-word, n-word". By 1968 you can't say "n-word"—that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me—because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this", is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "n-word, n-word". So, any way you look at it, race is coming on the backbone.

 

[Senethro]

Also wow is it corkscrew "logic" to adopt the position of "I don't self describe as a racist, I in fact publicly deny that racism has ever existed, and yet I think it should be implemented post haste!"