Genetics Changing Understanding Of 'Race'?

[JudoThrowFiasco]

A human geneticist with the last name Reich discussing racial differences.

No wonder he's worried about being vilified by the left and praised by the right

 

[Jack V Savage]

Soooo, a full page in and no one has reacted hostilely or indignantly, yet you had to get jump on this chance to whine. In the last month, we've literally had posters make threads based on racial slurs and on fantasies about killing Muslims and not even get a card, yet your "woe is me, everyone is too sensitive for the expansiveness of my intellectual acumen" belly aching persists.

Also, good job not making any actual contribution to the topic of race and biology, ironically while deriding everyone else's inability to do so. And, additionally, great job of making posters who defend you as being a productive poster (@Jack V Savage ) look like putzes.

I don't generally think much of these alt-right types, and I don't expect much. TGA is wrong about almost everything but is a better writer and more honest than most people who believe what he does.

 

[Rod1]

Don't expect there to be any sort of a reasonable discussion about the subject of "race" and biology on these forums. Anything remotely "controversial" gets deleted, and threatened with a ban.

Just say the token virtue-signaling stuff and move on.

What a load of BS, we had great discussions a few years back before Trumptards derailed the forum.

The subject of race is already defined, race as most people see it are XIX century classifications that vary greatly depending on cultural context and its nigh-worthless to discuss from a biologic POV since we already have far more specific and detailed genetic mapping of human groups.

 

[TheGreatA]

I have not personally seen any substantive posts unjustifiably deleted, except when they are adjacent to narrow(ly gross) topics like pedophilia.

Meanwhile, there are hundreds of posts every week from right-wingers moaning about the liberal bias of the moderators here, despite it being based on fuck-all evidence. Yet it just slowly becomes the narrative and is used to push out actual discourse just like the ridiculous "giant media corporations ran by rich white capitalists are actually leftist SJW communist propaganda machines" shit.

Well, I'm just speaking from my own (recent) experience. I was warned by the mods and had posts deleted, that I thought were reasonable and relatively non-controversial, compared to a lot of the bullshit that gets posted here.

The moderators made it very clear that they don't want the subject of "race" to be discussed here. So I'm just giving people a heads-up about that.

I'm fully willing to debate the topic, but if it's just going to lead to a ban and posts being deleted, I don't see it as being worth the effort.

 

[HomerThompson]

Soooo, a full page in and no one has reacted hostilely or indignantly, yet you had to get jump on this chance to whine. In the last month, we've literally had posters make threads based on racial slurs and on fantasies about killing Muslims and not even get a card, yet your "woe is me, everyone is too sensitive for the expansiveness of my intellectual acumen" belly aching persists.

Also, good job not making any actual contribution to the topic of race and biology, ironically while deriding everyone else's inability to do so. And, additionally, great job of making posters who defend you as being a productive poster (@Jack V Savage ) look like putzes.

+++WOW!!!+++ @Jack V Savage BTFO!!!

 

[WorldofWarcraft]

Are White people, like, totally the best yet?

No, Asians are.

 

[Rod1]

Well, I'm just speaking from my own (recent) experience. I was warned by the mods and had posts deleted, that I thought were reasonable and relatively non-controversial, compared to a lot of the bullshit that gets posted here.

The moderators made it very clear that they don't want the subject of "race" to be discussed here. So I'm just giving people a heads-up about that.

I'm fully willing to debate the topic, but if it's just going to lead to a ban and posts being deleted, I don't see it as being worth the effort.

Follow the example of the geneticist and simply call it ethnic group and then dont fall into the racial fatalism philosophical derailments and you can say pretty much what you want.

For example you can argue about the warrior gene and impulsive behaviour among poor people, you can talk about the warrior gene because its not specific to one group even if its overrepresented in certain groups.

Then you can talk about the enviromental influence on said genes.

 

[V-2]

I have not personally seen any substantive posts unjustifiably deleted, except when they are adjacent to narrow(ly gross) topics like pedophilia.

Meanwhile, there are hundreds of posts every week from right-wingers moaning about the liberal bias of the moderators here, despite it being based on fuck-all evidence. Yet it just slowly becomes the narrative and is used to push out actual discourse just like the ridiculous "giant media corporations ran by rich white capitalists are actually leftist SJW communist propaganda machines" shit.

HomerThompson seems to catch a particularly large amount of shit on here. I think he's alright, personally.

What a load of BS, we had great discussions a few years back before Trumptards derailed the forum.

The subject of race is already defined, race as most people see it are XIX century classifications that vary greatly depending on cultural context and its nigh-worthless to discuss from a biologic POV since we already have far more specific and detailed genetic mapping of human groups.

There's tangible, molecular genetic variation among humans such as the aforementioned Y-haplogroups that don't account for autosomal DNA but from which one can very loosely albeit dangerously make an inference to 'ethnicity' based on the predominance in specific geographic regions but as said it isn't uniform enough to cite as a rule, and almost completely implausible to divide countries and societies on the basis of. I mean, (literally) Hitler's Y-DNA group is more common among North Africans and Ashkenazi Jews than Germans and Austrians FFS.

 

[TheGreatA]

Follow the example of the geneticist and simply call it ethnic group and then dont fall into the racial fatalism philosophical derailments and you can say pretty much what you want.

For example you can argue about the warrior gene and impulsive behaviour among poor people, you can talk about the warrior gene because its not specific to one group even if its overrepresented in certain groups.

Then you can talk about the enviromental influence on said genes.

Except you can't. I was specifically told that trying to "dress up" racial debate under such terminology, is not going to be allowed here.

 

[Lord Commander Palis]

Are White people, like, totally the best yet?

Not you, your genome is mixed with too much mud people. It might be why you have a derpy autist school shooter face.

 

[Lord Commander Palis]

Don't expect there to be any sort of a reasonable discussion about the subject of "race" and biology on these forums. Anything remotely "controversial" gets deleted, and threatened with a ban.

Just say the token virtue-signaling stuff and move on.

 

[Satsui Ryu]

No, Asians are.

White people would say differently about your breed of Asian.

 

[FierceRedBelt]

No, Asians womenz are.

 

[The ScorpioN]

edit: didn't read far enough

 

[BJ@LW&WW]

if a media article doesnt directly cite a link to the article, or at least the abstracts of the scientific articles its supposedly about, im not fuckin reading it.

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

I had no idea people didn't know that genetic markers differ among racial / ethnic groups. It's been studied deeply from areas regarding physical traits, to health concerns to aggression traits.

 

[V-2]

if a media article doesnt directly cite a link to the article, or at least the abstracts of the scientific articles its supposedly about, im not fuckin reading it.

It isn't exactly a "media article" nor would I post such a thing in regards to this topic and the author is a (esteemed) professor of genetics by trade, not a journalist or columnist. It's simply a more digestable format for the WR. He references quite a bit including some of his own research, but population genetics on the whole has no shortage of scientific papers anyhow.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3042601/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1196372/
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13524-013-0242-0#page-1

I had no idea people didn't know that genetic markers differ among racial / ethnic groups. It's been studied deeply from areas regarding physical traits, to health concerns to aggression traits.

They really don't and you might be surprised how thorny it is even in academic circles. There are mainly people who either 1) ignorantly buy into mainstream society's maddeningly basic and rather outdated racial classifications or 2) take those outdated classifications to mean there's no tangible genetic variation among groups, i.e. citing humans as 99.9% identical (true) without regard to the 0.1% constituting roughly three million differences.

 

[VivaRevolution]

I so want to do a genetics test, but I don't trust that my information would be protected.

I think most people finding out they are a mut, would change the conversation a bit.

 

[Fawlty]

I so want to do a genetics test, but I don't trust that my information would be protected.

I think most people finding out they are a mut, would change the conversation a bit.

Can't believe I never thought of that- the benefit of everybody getting DNA tested might be seriously great.

I wouldn't worry too much about my genetic info getting out yet. That will be more of a worry in the future when insurance companies start rating people based on their genes.

 

[Rod1]

It isn't exactly a "media article" nor would I post such a thing in regards to this topic and the author is a (esteemed) professor of genetics by trade, not a journalist or columnist. It's simply a more digestable format for the WR. He references quite a bit including some of his own research, but population genetics on the whole has no shortage of scientific papers anyhow.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3042601/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1196372/
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13524-013-0242-0#page-1



They really don't and you might be surprised how thorny it is even in academic circles. There are mainly people who either 1) ignorantly buy into mainstream society's maddeningly basic and rather outdated racial classifications or 2) take those outdated classifications to mean there's no tangible genetic variation among groups, i.e. citing humans as 99.9% identical (true) without regard to the 0.1% constituting roughly three million differences.

Boom.gif