Trausti
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2023
- Messages
- 1,768
Oh look a decade old rehash of the MAO-A nonsense.
![]()
There is no God. And He created everyone equally. Odd religion you got there.
Oh look a decade old rehash of the MAO-A nonsense.
![]()
This merely demonstrates your ignorance. The nonsensical rubbish you posted is merely a newer version of the 'XYY' drivel of the '70s.
![]()
Next thing you know he'll be quoting The Bell Curve.
Yeah, yeah, we already got that - which is why i was referring to cultural differences - or do you think that cultural differences are because of genetics? Personally I don't.
Please elaborate on how "selection and ancestry" explain why different groups of people are treated differently.Dude, dogs are not different because of socioeconomic factors. They're different because of selection and ancestry. Just like all other life on this planet. It's never been explained why those forces that affect all other life don't apply to humans.
Yes. Yes they are. Asian-Americans behave like East Asians. Americans of Nordic descent behavior like European Nordics. And so on. It's gene-culture coevolution.
That's not the purpose for mentioning Fst. It's to show that humans are biodiverse. The genetic difference between an English and Bantu person is 0.23. Between dogs and wolves Fst=0.165. So how far away you are from any nationality has nothing to do with it. It's just that there's this pattern that keeps occuring.
NYC
[qimg]https://i.postimg.cc/3R7yhMD1/NYCcrime.jpg[/qimg]
Nah, that's culture. There's nothing in the genes of (eg) asians that makes them behave as you think Asians would behave. Asians behave as asians because their culture developed that way in Asia and that culture follows their move to the USA. If the asians had developed in Nordic countires they might well behave the way you think Nordics behave.
And of course these “races” are completely arbitrary, we can’t even agree which of “them” are which “race”.
English is a nationality not a race/ethnicity, but whatever.
Yes but Trausti's successive charts have been posted to try to explain how his original one, which contained nationalities was relevant
English is a nationality not a race/ethnicity, but whatever.
If there's no way to define race, there's no way to define racism.
Ok, though Darat might have been better to have quoted the original chart to make his comment more relevant. Still, as I said, whatever.
The post I was replying to said "The genetic difference between an English and Bantu person is 0.23."
What a silly thing to say since it doesn't follow from my post, i.e. a non sequitur.
And of course these “races” are completely arbitrary, we can’t even agree which of “them” are which “race”.
Fair point.
I think it does, since you were stating
I note you don't actually disagree, you just say it's silly because it doesn't refer to your post....
Sorry didn't realise you were adding a new strand to the discussion, thought it was something to do with the part of my post you had quoted before your new strand.
To address that you'll have to expand on your reasoning as I don't understand why "races" have to be real for racism to exist?
Racism is not a biological phenomenon, but it is a sociological phenomenon.If there's no way to define race, there's no way to define racism.
Dude, dogs are not different because of socioeconomic factors. They're different because of selection and ancestry. Just like all other life on this planet. It's never been explained why those forces that affect all other life don't apply to humans.
Nah, that's culture. There's nothing in the genes of (eg) asians that makes them behave as you think Asians would behave. Asians behave as asians because their culture developed that way in Asia and that culture follows their move to the USA. If the asians had developed in Nordic countires they might well behave the way you think Nordics behave.
The difference between dogs and humans, and I can't believe this has to be spelled out, is COMMUNICATION. We can talk to humans. We can't talk to dogs. We can explain to humans how what they did was wrong, they can tell us how well they understand, what they will do to indicate they've changed. We have none of that with dogs.
And of course these “races” are completely arbitrary, we can’t even agree which of “them” are which “race”.
Yes but Trausti's successive charts have been posted to try to explain how his original one, which contained nationalities was relevant
Our ancestors? Do you mean Australopithecus? If more recent then perhaps Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Picts, Celts, Danes, Norse, Ordovices, Demetae, Silures, Deceangli or GaelsEnglish is both a nationality and an ancestory. This is not hard.
Racism is not a biological phenomenon, but it is a sociological phenomenon.
And of course these “races” are completely arbitrary, we can’t even agree which of “them” are which “race”.
If culture was just some practice anyone could do, and not in some way tied to ancestory and genes, then there's no reason why all people can't behave like Asians - don't commit crime, do well in school, respect your parents. But that's not what we see.
English is both a nationality and an ancestory. This is not hard.
Talk to Darat, he's the one who said
Perhaps you can help him with some definitions...
...snip...
Fair enough, that's one of the problems with responding to multiple posts in one post.
As to expanding it, the (very) short answer would be if something isn't real, it's quite difficult to criticise someone for dissing something that doesn't exist.
Not sure it's something that is on topic for this thread though.
If culture was just some practice anyone could do, and not in some way tied to ancestory and genes, then there's no reason why all people can't behave like Asians - don't commit crime, do well in school, respect your parents. But that's not what we see.
Who are these "Asians" - how do I identify them?
You've not explained why racism requires races to objectively exist to be a phenomenon.
"races aren't real but if they were you'd be a racist" isn't the killer putdown you seem to think it is.
"races aren't real but if they were you'd be a racist" isn't the killer putdown you seem to think it is.
Any chance you can explain why you think races not being real means someone couldn't be a racist?
You seem to be missing a link in your reasoning.
I'll try
Racism to me involves assigning certain attributes, usually derogatory, to an individual or group of individuals purely on the basis of their being members of [a group I define], as opposed to there being any indications that they themselves exhibit those attributes. Those attributes being supposedly typical of the [group I define] they belong to.
...snip...
So each individual can choose what each race is and who they include in a race? So could a Xenophobe, or even a tribalist, with the same result. Not convinced in the slightest, fractal racism seems far to esoteric to be any use as a definition.As you can see with the alteration I made above it doesn't require a group that you define to be real, simply that you define a group and decide who belongs to that group.
Racism is real whether or not specific human races objectively exist or not.
ETA: Since you consider race to be real which race does this British person belong to:[qimg]https://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_165cb48e048b30.jpg[/qimg]
Lplus, you're right. We could really use a thread in Sci/Med about race and racial distinctions in humans. I don't know how long a thread it'd be, but it would certainly be useful -- and maybe revealing.
And you, old poster, could in the meantime hop over to Wikipedia and read the article on race as a human distinction. It's old stuff to many people, but that's their problem, not, apparently, yours.
...snip...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_genetics
Researchers have investigated the relationship between race and genetics as part of efforts to understand how biology may or may not contribute to human racial categorization. Today, the consensus among scientists is that race is a social construct, and that using it as a proxy for genetic differences among populations is misleading.[1][2]
It's on-topic here because two racists are trying to use their grouping of humans by "race" to "explain" why the real problem is with the "race" they label as "blacks", and one at least is trying to use pseudoscience as the reason for their racism. They can tart it up as much as they like but that is their position.
My position is the current scientific one:
Also see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_categorization)#Modern_scholarship
So each individual can choose what each race is and who they include in a race? So could a Xenophobe, or even a tribalist, with the same result. Not convinced in the slightest, fractal racism seems far to esoteric to be any use as a definition.