• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

Split Thread Racism and Mass shootings

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

Ok, fair enough, so do you think the categorisations in the following chart were social constructs? and who actually assembled the data to show the several differences in outcome?

I doubt it was Trausti.

NYC

[qimg]https://i.postimg.cc/3R7yhMD1/NYCcrime.jpg[/qimg][/QUOTE]
 
Who are these "Asians" - how do I identify them?

You've got a couple options, some of which may give different answers in some cases:

1) Ask them. Are you of asian descent?
2) Have them do Ancestry.com or 23andme and send you the results.
3) Look at them and make your best guess.

Here are an example for you to try:

- LeBron James
- Elizabeth Warren *
- Yoko Ono
- Taylor Swift

Can you find the asian?
 
Our ancestors? Do you mean Australopithecus? If more recent then perhaps Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Picts, Celts, Danes, Norse, Ordovices, Demetae, Silures, Deceangli or Gaels
Then in the last few hundred years it got far more complicated. I mean look at our royal family! I think scientists have shown that the only person in the UK who can trace all the way back to the first person to step on to English soil is Danny Dyer.

That doesn't mean there's not English Ancestory. When is the last time an Englishman and a Mongolian shared a common ancestor?
 
Source
What about the Welsh, the Scottish, the Irish are they also a nationality and an "ancestory"? Are they "racially" different to the English?

Do you really not think Welsh and Scottish have their own unique ancestories? It's one of those things we Yanks often confuse; that the UK does mean just England.

The-clustering-of-individuals-with-Irish-and-British-ancestry-based-solely-on-genetics.png


Source

 
Last edited:
Since race has no objective meaning in regards to humans of course people will decide what they consider a race is. What did you think they were doing - using science to come up with what they call a "race"?

You've seen it here with the photo of the British person I've used, according to Trausti that person isn't a member of the "English race" and they can tell simply by looking at them. It's apparently obvious who your "ancestry" is, it's probable that she has more of an "English ancestry" than I have - indeed as my ancestry of being English is only 2 generations as by my great parents none of my ancestors as far as can be traced back are of "English ancestry". But for a racist like Trausti if you look "Asian", "English" or "Black" to them then that's your race. It goes back to the "one drop rule" concept.

And it is important to tackle it in this thread because someone is trying to use their idea of "race" to explain why the USA has high levels of gun killings, whilst side stepping the blaringly obvious reason, which has nothing to do with race of any description.

ETA:
One English person
[qimg]https://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_165cb48e048b30.jpg[/qimg]


Another English person
[qimg]https://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_144f883075c0a9.jpg[/qimg]




Apparently the second one is of the "English race" despite only having at the most two generations of English ancestry, and you can tell that by just looking at their photos.

Elon Musk is an African.
 
That doesn't mean there's not English Ancestory. When is the last time an Englishman and a Mongolian shared a common ancestor?

There are 4000 Mongolians in the UK. Any that had a child in Mongolia and another in the UK would be a common ambassador. Same the other way with an English person in Mongolia. Not sure that your point is.
 
English is both a nationality and an ancestory. This is not hard.

Oh, my sides!

How do parse someone born in Wales of parents born in England, with ancestry including Irish, Scots, French, English, Scandiwegian various and a couple of other odds and sods? Who is married to someone with similar messiness, but including some east European Jewish ancestry?

Hint - aside from cricket I do not consider myself remotely English, aside from by residence.

"English" are mongrels.
 
There are 4000 Mongolians in the UK. Any that had a child in Mongolia and another in the UK would be a common ambassador. Same the other way with an English person in Mongolia. Not sure that your point is.

How about an English person who is not mixed. You knew that was the point, didn't you?
 
Oh, my sides!

How do parse someone born in Wales of parents born in England, with ancestry including Irish, Scots, French, English, Scandiwegian various and a couple of other odds and sods? Who is married to someone with similar messiness, but including some east European Jewish ancestry?

Well, it can be done. See post #2023.
 
I honestly don't believe you have one.

Humans are special. While Mr. Darwin posited that animals in their present form evolved due to varied and disparate ancestory, this does not apply to humans. Sure, organ donation is often depend on finding someone with similar ancestory. And, sure, you can search PubMed for "racial difference" in a whole host of categories. But that doesn't mean that God didn't make all humans the same. Surely, there's been no change between human population groups in the last 100K years. None. 23AndMe is all lies.
 
How about an English person who is not mixed. You knew that was the point, didn't you?
There are no English people who are not mixed, as anyone who knows the slightest thing about English history should know. The neolithic inhabitants were invaded by the Bell Beaker people, who were invaded by Celts, who were invaded by Romans, who were invaded by Angles, Saxons, and Jutes, who were invaded by Norman French, and that is just the starting point. Britain, more than anywhere else, has always been a melting pot of ancestries and cultures.

There are no "pure", unmixed English people. English cultural and genetic identity is - by definition - mixed.
 
There are no English people who are not mixed, as anyone who knows the slightest thing about English history should know. The neolithic inhabitants were invaded by the Bell Beaker people, who were invaded by Celts, who were invaded by Romans, who were invaded by Angles, Saxons, and Jutes, who were invaded by Norman French, and that is just the starting point. Britain, more than anywhere else, has always been a melting pot of ancestries and cultures.

There are no "pure", unmixed English people. English cultural and genetic identity is - by definition - mixed.

You really don't think that English people have shared ancestory? That if you took a DNA sample that they're not going to have a nearly zero Fst when compared to someone from India?
 
Yeah, but, white people tear down streetlamps and set cars on fire after their team wins.
 
Yeah, but, white people tear down streetlamps and set cars on fire after their team wins.

Hmm?

Can't say I've done such things. Burned an old outhouse as a Halloween prank when I was in HS (the last outhouse in town). That's pretty much it. I rather doubt we had much of anything like that in KC, in any case. That's more of a coastal thing.

Where'd that come from, anyway?

I have seen the goalposts get torn down once or twice at college games, but that's about it.
 
Last edited:
A white guy wouldn't have picked a football parade, teaming with cops, to do a mass shooting.

Well, we sort of know that it wasn't just one guy involved, here. No clue on skin color, but I wouldn't be interested in speculating, anyway. WTF does that have to do with it?

I suspect if you've heard the other weird news from KC recently (people froze to death during/after a party, also related to football fans), some might have speculated that differently if they hadn't seen pictures (all white). But why does it matter enough to speculate, anyway?
 
Last edited:
Hmm?

Where'd that come from, anyway?


It's from an older era here at JREF/ISF. Way back when, if it was noticed that a riot involved mainly black people the "skeptics" would dredge the internet for pictures and examples of when mainly white people would riot after their favorite team won or lost a game. It was their way of saying "see, white people do it too" and pretending that the two had any sort of equivalence.
 
You really don't think that English people have shared ancestory? That if you took a DNA sample that they're not going to have a nearly zero Fst when compared to someone from India?
Inasmuch as the entirity of Europe has a shared ancestry, I guess. Because that's where English DNA came from. Depends on how absurdum you want to take this reductio. Ultimately, all humans have shared ancestry.
 
Inasmuch as the entirity of Europe has a shared ancestry, I guess. Because that's where English DNA came from. Depends on how absurdum you want to take this reductio. Ultimately, all humans have shared ancestry.

Yes, all humans have shared ancestry. All mammals have shared ancestry, too. But, obviously, an Englishman is closer in relation to another Englishman than he is to a Sentinelese.
 
Last edited:
It'll take the poor guy a week to clean out this thread. :boggled:

I did suggest to Darat that he should stop the discussion as being off topic but he considered it to be on topic; - not sure if the rest of the mod team would agree though.
 
Interesting new split thread title. Is it supposed to refer to mass shooting because the mass shooters are racists or suggest anyone who brings race into the explanation for mass shootings is racist? An alternative would have been to ban any discussion of race from the mass shooting thread. Or the title could be changed to "Race and mass shootings?

Or should I be asking in FM?
 
Why?

Why is the rate disproportionately high?

They are not interested in "why", the racists think they have got something they think that gives them a "scientific" reason for thinking black people aren't as civilised as white people. Because they were only looking for an "acceptable"
reason to use at the dinner table why questions don't interest them at all.

The way to look at it is to understand that what they are "proposing" is like saying the rate of sickle cell amenia is higher in their "black" race compared to their "white race" therefore more gun crime.

It's nonsensical.
 
Inasmuch as the entirity of Europe has a shared ancestry, I guess. Because that's where English DNA came from. Depends on how absurdum you want to take this reductio. Ultimately, all humans have shared ancestry.

My ancestry is not English, but I am, like the person I provided the photo of, English.

Let's not let them get away with these weaselly labels that mean nothing.
 
That doesn't mean there's not English Ancestory. When is the last time an Englishman and a Mongolian shared a common ancestor?

There are a few thousand people who were born in Mongolia living in England, so I'd say, pretty recently.
 
Yes, all humans have shared ancestry. All mammals have shared ancestry, too. But, obviously, an Englishman is closer in relation to another Englishman than he is to a Sentinelese.

Can't argue with that, in general. It's the unsupported several hundred steps you take beyond that which are the problem.
 
You really don't think that English people have shared ancestory? That if you took a DNA sample that they're not going to have a nearly zero Fst when compared to someone from India?

Fst?

Populations that have been isolated from each other, to some degree, will certainly have some divergence in DNA variation across the population. That is not any support for the idea of distinct 'races' where there are genetically identifiable differences which lead to significantly different and measurable traits in the in the individuals in each group. And it also suggests you are not fully au fait with the history of the UK in India; there is probably a bit more of an overlap than you think.
 
I'm a little confused about the thread title/topic, and thought an in-thread clarification might benefit others too.

If it was Race and Mass Shootings, I'd get it. But Racism? Are we supposed to restrict the subject to acknowledged racist opinions, or comment with the assumption that participants are racist? What is considered on-topic with the intersectionality of Racism and Mass Shootings?Not trying to be pedantic, but I feel like this is asking for trouble, topic-wise.
 

Back
Top Bottom