Look it's not just gender that got fluid...

[Narz]

They have a thankless task met with big resistance to small asks, with no easy fix, so them going black and white about it seems like a reasonable response. Maybe you should figure out how to help them in their efforts so they can do it in a better way.

They are beyond help. Their approval rating among the minorities they claim to represent is even lower than their fellow whites/straights. Hopefully it's a phase & will go away on it's own.

 

[yung.carl.jung]

Isn't that a bit like asking why we might make a distinction between micrometeoroids and blue supergiant stars? Or a very short piece of string and a massive ball of string?

no, it's not like that at all. all those you mentioned are meaningful distinctions that exist for a good, often a very practical reason. what is the point in making a completely arbitrary distinction when there is no dividing line? distinctions are only necessary because they're meaningful, not arbitrary..

We're typing in English so thats the definition of 'race' I used. Now why is it dumb or idiotic? You're just repeating insults. I'll ask again:

Were we a distinct population within our genus and able to breed with our neighbors?

If you want to change 'genus' to species, what made us a different species if we could still interbreed with our neighbors 200,000 years ago? If we could interbreed with our African relatives, we were a race, true?

you're just really pissing me off with your (hopefully feigned) ignorance. the definition of race sure as **** is not "one human race", if that was the case then races (plural) wouldn't exist. do you follow? you either have races, or you have "one human race". obviously the word race is used today to distinguish between humans, not express our togetherness.

200,000 years ago there were no "african relatives" we could breed with, 200,000 ya (if you want to believe in out of Africa) we were all Africans. "we" were modern humans". our "neighbors" were modern humans. so I just have to assume (because you don't explain this at all) that in this context by "neighbor" you mean the neanderthals and denisovan? I already mentioned three times already that we could not interbreed with them without major problems, hence why the ****** distinction between those 3 species was drawn in the first place. homo sapiens + homo sapiens = unproblematic breeding. homo sapiens + neanderthal = problematic breeding. lion + lion = unproblematic breeding. lion + tiger = problematic breeding. by the way, lions and tiger are NOT two different races, as they are not part of the same species. (but they share the genus, at least I think they do..)

homo sapiens can be (arbitrarily) divided into a number of races. while those races might appear distinct, they are genetically extremely similiar. now the genetic difference between a homo sapiens and a neanderthal however is vast. it's huge. so huge, in fact, that they constitute a different species. neanderthals themselves you could probably (arbitrarily) divide into races. but neanderthals are not a human race, neither are homo sapiens. I hope that's clear now, because I genuinely cannot reply anymore without punching through my wall. I still will try to give you the most comprehensive answer I can since.. actually, I don't know why.

If we could interbreed with our African relatives, we were a race, true?

since we are talking about 200,000 ya the answer is absolutely no. you genuinely fail to understand that at some point homo sapiens population was so small and so similiar that there were no lines, and indeed no need, to distinguish between them, hence there were no races, there was just one population.

however if you are not talking about 200,000 ya then the answer is yes. because homo sapiens left africa and evolved, in some areas, relatively isolated, time had enough of an effect to significantly alter our genetic makeup, meaning different populations of homo sapiens emerged. these new population could still interbreed with the homo sapiens that remained in Africa, and had enough arbitrary differences, to constitute what we today call a race.

your language is so vague and willy-nilly it makes it excruciatingly hard to debate anything with you. what do you mean by neighbor, what do you mean by relative, why in the lord of god can't you use the appropriate terminology ever? there is a reason why we talk about haplogroups and mDNA and genus and species and taxonomy instead of "brother, neighbor, caucasoid, negroid, human """"race""""".

 

[Manfred Belheim]

no, it's not like that at all. all those you mentioned are meaningful distinctions that exist for a good, often a very practical reason. what is the point in making a completely arbitrary distinction when there is no dividing line? distinctions are only necessary because they're meaningful, not arbitrary..

Okay, here's a clearer example then:

What's the point in making a distinction between the very first pre-amoeboid organic life that ever appeared in the oceans 4 billion years ago, and a modern human being? There's no clear dividing line between any of the intermediate forms that existed inbetween, so that must mean (by this logic) that there's no difference between them.

Basically it's a bit silly in general to say that there's no difference between any two points on some continuous spectrum, just because there's a continuous spectrum between them. Red is blue etc.

 

[yung.carl.jung]

I would argue that there are many clear dividing lines between the intermediate forms that existed, for example one being a monad and the other housing literally millions of different monads in his own, in-built ecosystem, but sure, I understand where you are coming from. I just don't agree. everything is a gradient, that's where we agree. but you deduce from that, that every distinction then is entirely arbitrary, while I would argue that some distinctions are more practical and sensical than others are.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

I would argue that there are many clear dividing lines between the intermediate forms that existed, for example one being a monad and the other housing literally millions of different monads in his own, in-built ecosystem, but sure, I understand where you are coming from. I just don't agree. everything is a gradient, that's where we agree. but you deduce from that, that every distinction then is entirely arbitrary, while I would argue that some distinctions are more practical and sensical than others are.

So if everything's a gradient, how can anything have clear dividing lines, which you've just said there are?

I never said every distinction is entirely arbitrary. I said the existence of a continuous spectrum of variations between two things, with no definite dividing line, doesn't mean the two things aren't distinct. I don't know how you're getting the former from the latter.

 

[yung.carl.jung]

So if everything's a gradient, how can anything have clear dividing lines, which you've just said there are?

I never said every distinction is entirely arbitrary. I said the existence of a continuous spectrum of variations between two things, with no definite dividing line, doesn't mean the two things aren't distinct. I don't know how you're getting the former from the latter.

in a gradient you can still make out white and black, no?

the existence of a continuous spectrum of variations between two things, with no definite dividing line, doesn't mean the two things aren't distinct.

I don't have a problem with that. we're talking past each other, clearly.

to get away from the generalities: what I'm proposing is that for "race" there are no distinct dividing lines, while for, say, haplogroups, there are meaningful dividing lines. making the latter a sound, coherent and meaningful scientific concept, while the former is not.

 

[Akka]

They are beyond help. Their approval rating among the minorities they claim to represent is even lower than their fellow whites/straights. Hopefully it's a phase & will go away on it's own.

I'd like to see sources on this. Because if it's actually a fact, it would lend statistical credence to the perception that it's basically a club all about trying to out-virtue one each other for improved social standing among peers.

 

[Narz]

I'd like to see sources on this. Because if it's actually a fact, it would lend statistical credence to the perception that it's basically a club all about trying to out-virtue one each other for improved social standing among peers.

I heard it on Bill Maher. Not sure where he got his stats. It makes intuitive sense, the more you go thru the less patience you have for phonies. Real peeps trying to achieve stuff in this world don't like people patronizing them or trying to make a victim/caricature out of them.

 

[Berzerker]

you're just really pissing me off with your (hopefully feigned) ignorance. the definition of race sure as **** is not "one human race", if that was the case then races (plural) wouldn't exist. do you follow? you either have races, or you have "one human race".

So if we didn't have races, we'd have one human race?

Here is what I said:

"200,000 years ago race might not have existed

well, one race did

correction, our race existed and so did our relatives"

Now what are you complaining about?

200,000 years ago there were no "african relatives" we could breed with, 200,000 ya (if you want to believe in out of Africa) we were all Africans. "we" were modern humans". our "neighbors" were modern humans. so I just have to assume (because you don't explain this at all) that in this context by "neighbor" you mean the neanderthals and denisovan?

Well, dont assume... I've been talking about Africa 200,000 years ago and you wandered off into Eurasia 30-40 kya. What happened to all the Africans who weren't in our tribe or 'race' 200,000 kya? Dont you think we lived alongside various Erectus-related clans and tribes (and races)?

homo sapiens can be (arbitrarily) divided into a number of races. while those races might appear distinct, they are genetically extremely similiar. now the genetic difference between a homo sapiens and a neanderthal however is vast. it's huge. so huge, in fact, that they constitute a different species. neanderthals themselves you could probably (arbitrarily) divide into races. but neanderthals are not a human race, neither are homo sapiens. I hope that's clear now, because I genuinely cannot reply anymore without punching through my wall. I still will try to give you the most comprehensive answer I can since.. actually, I don't know why.

The wall's gonna win, stick to punching strawmen.

since we are talking about 200,000 ya the answer is absolutely no. you genuinely fail to understand that at some point homo sapiens population was so small and so similiar that there were no lines, and indeed no need, to distinguish between them, hence there were no races, there was just one population.

Where have I failed to understand we were a small group? Thats been my argument all along... Now you just said we started small but had no African neighbors we could interbreed with 200,000 years ago. Apparently not even the Erectus populations living around our valley? Is that what you believe? If we could still interbreed with Neandertals and Denisovans 30-40kya even though their ancestors left Africa long before we appeared 200,000 years ago, wouldn't we be able to breed with the Erectus peoples living next door?

however if you are not talking about 200,000 ya then the answer is yes. because homo sapiens left africa and evolved, in some areas, relatively isolated, time had enough of an effect to significantly alter our genetic makeup, meaning different populations of homo sapiens emerged. these new population could still interbreed with the homo sapiens that remained in Africa, and had enough arbitrary differences, to constitute what we today call a race.

Wouldn't that happen for other peoples who had even longer to evolve? Do you believe there was one race of Erectus or several or many? Wouldn't it be logical for us to evolve from one specific Erectus population or race surrounded by slightly more distant relatives?

your language is so vague and willy-nilly it makes it excruciatingly hard to debate anything with you. what do you mean by neighbor, what do you mean by relative, why in the lord of god can't you use the appropriate terminology ever? there is a reason why we talk about haplogroups and mDNA and genus and species and taxonomy instead of "brother, neighbor, caucasoid, negroid, human """"race""""".

Neighbor - the Erectus populations living in our vicinity 200,000 years ago in Africa. Relative - the Erectus populations living in our vicinity 200,000 years ago in Africa.

 

[Kyriakos]

I think that race is ussually meant as a largely intuitive distinction and not one really proceeding from dna comparing; ie supposedly herman hesse was of the same race as the monkeys who write for bild.
Even looks-wise there are vast differences between supposed members of the same "race".

 

[Akka]

I heard it on Bill Maher. Not sure where he got his stats. It makes intuitive sense, the more you go thru the less patience you have for phonies. Real peeps trying to achieve stuff in this world don't like people patronizing them or trying to make a victim/caricature out of them.

I agree on the principle, but as much as I would like that, I stay wary of any claim without substantiated sources. It's too easy to claim something without backing it up ^^

 

[Manfred Belheim]

in a gradient you can still make out white and black, no?

Well yes... but that's exactly my point, and you seemed to be disagreeing with me so I was asking you how you believe that's not the case. But it seems you do so... well that's good then.

to get away from the generalities: what I'm proposing is that for "race" there are no distinct dividing lines, while for, say, haplogroups, there are meaningful dividing lines. making the latter a sound, coherent and meaningful scientific concept, while the former is not.

I was referring to the claim that, because there's no specific point between Brittany and the tip of India that you can point to as where one race of people begins and another ends, that this means there is no difference between the people at those two extremes. But as I pointed out that was a bad case to choose anyway because that's a contiguous block of land with a rather intermingled history. But even so, the average/typical person in those two regions are physically and genetically different in a way that can be objectively measured, so...

 

[Senethro]

So what? Go on.

 

[innonimatu]

Because it was mentioned here also, that dutch court rejected the request by a man who wanted to be considered 20 years younger.

 

[Senethro]

This thread again?

Eh, something that came to me subsequently was that if you think race is a biological reality due to being able to identify skin pigmentation genes in an individual, then what you're doing is essentially the paper bag test, but against their genes instead of their skin.

Flimsy.

If you think race is real due to paying a few hundred bucks and giving a sample to a website to tell you how celtic/slavic you are, what its actually doing is comparing for similarity with other peoples self-submitted paper bag tests.

TBH I suspect you mostly know this already and were just being contrary - as if choosing to avoid defining race wasn't proof enough.

 

[Berzerker]

I saw a recent article claiming our ethnicity can be identified by the bacteria in our guts. I dont know if thats genetic or cultural or a combination, diet plays such an important role for the bugs living inside of us but I suspect 5,000 years of diet will result in changes to our genes too.

 

[Silurian]

I saw a recent article claiming our ethnicity can be identified by the bacteria in our guts. I dont know if thats genetic or cultural or a combination, diet plays such an important role for the bugs living inside of us but I suspect 5,000 years of diet will result in changes to our genes too.

The bacteria in your gut is effected to quite a large extent by your diet so testing bacteria types may be detecting your food rather than you.

 

[Berzerker]

That would make sense, but the study I saw argued ethnicity could be ID'd by our gut bacteria and I presume that held true for different 'races' eating the same basic diets like in a multi-cultural society with a common food source.

On a sidenote to my sidenote, I saw another study the other day detailing the impact of antibiotics on our gut bacteria. Apparently some people supply their poop before antibiotics and then the fecal matter is somehow re-introduced into the gut after the antibiotics are done. These people's guts recovered in ~8 days as opposed to other subjects who took 21 days (or more).

That got me thinking because I recently had antibiotics, I should use that opportunity to repopulate my gut with 'good' bacteria, but the researchers admitted we dont really know what is good or bad bacteria. But they did say fiber is good, fiber can survive the stomach and small intestine and get further down into our system where it ferments and becomes a source for good bacteria. The article was investigating the effects of probiotics and gut biome modifications to combat disease, we dont really know much about it but holds promise.

 

[Silurian]

Fecal Transplants are also by donor when a person has something bad in their gut and they want to kill it off.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fecal_microbiota_transplant

There has been speculation that one of the function of the appendix is to provide a home for gut bacteria and allow them to recolonise the gut. This would have been particularly useful for isolated groups who all got ill at the same time so otherwise would have had no source from which to reintroduce the bacteria.

 

[yung.carl.jung]

I saw a recent article claiming our ethnicity can be identified by the bacteria in our guts. I dont know if thats genetic or cultural or a combination, diet plays such an important role for the bugs living inside of us but I suspect 5,000 years of diet will result in changes to our genes too.

highly interesting, can you dig up the source?

That would make sense, but the study I saw argued ethnicity could be ID'd by our gut bacteria and I presume that held true for different 'races' eating the same basic diets like in a multi-cultural society with a common food source.

On a sidenote to my sidenote, I saw another study the other day detailing the impact of antibiotics on our gut bacteria. Apparently some people supply their poop before antibiotics and then the fecal matter is somehow re-introduced into the gut after the antibiotics are done. These people's guts recovered in ~8 days as opposed to other subjects who took 21 days (or more).

That got me thinking because I recently had antibiotics, I should use that opportunity to repopulate my gut with 'good' bacteria, but the researchers admitted we dont really know what is good or bad bacteria. But they did say fiber is good, fiber can survive the stomach and small intestine and get further down into our system where it ferments and becomes a source for good bacteria. The article was investigating the effects of probiotics and gut biome modifications to combat disease, we dont really know much about it but holds promise.

if you want good gut bacteria just eat fermented foods and a decent amount of fiber. and don't do antibiotics.

yoghurt, sourdough, kimchi, pickles, lacto-fermented hot sauce, sauerkraut, whatever, it's all different

literally never taken antibiotics in almost 26 years. never had food poisoning in my life, never had a stomach ache or anything of that sort in years. I ate from 3rd world street vendors, dirty restaurants, I ate things that smelled rotten, I lived in India for weeks without getting diarrhea even once, while the other 16 out of 17 people who came along all got it. anecdotal evidence, sure, but you don't need me to tell you that healthy gut bacteria is one of the biggest QoL features there are. do the update!