Question for social progressives about gender verse race social construct

[Greoric]

Only if the country counts it. Try and find an accurate count of how many homicides happened in North Korea last year.

Anyway, you still asserting that race is a social construct and disagreeing with the way medical science, for instance, is clinically practiced, or would you care to revise?

 

[BangersAndSmash]

Anyway, you still asserting that race is a social construct and disagreeing with the way medical science, for instance, is clinically practiced, or would you care to revise?

Medical science uses the genetic history of a patient in order to prescribe the correct course of treatment. It's not the race that the doctor is looking at but the likely genetic makeup of the patient. It's not the be all end of all of treatment plans either, the doctor is likely more worried about family medical history than anything.

When someone makes a racial determination about another person, they are likely basing off a person's appearance or family rather than pulling out a 23andme kit, swabbing them, and waiting for the results. It can be right, but it's not always, and what is considered white, black, Asian, or otherwise has changed a lot over time, it existed well before science had anything to say about it.

 

[Greoric]

Medical science uses the genetic history of a patient in order to prescribe the correct course of treatment.

No shit? Alright let me ask this more simply. Do you disagree that a congenital disorder like Cystic Fibrosis is more likely to be found with a Caucasian patient versus, an Asian, African, or Hispanic? Or how about Sickle cell? Do you disagree that's more likely among African populations than others? Maybe even you'd like to disagree that Brugada syndrome is most common among Asian males?

Or would you kindly like to revise your fantasy fucking position that race is "a social construct".

 

[MikeMcMann]

Despite those differences among whites, the only majority demographic that's still conveniently in favor of founding principles established by Caucasians (limited gov't providing fewer services, the 2A, and freedom of speech) is only preferred by Caucasians. Also conveniently, every other majority demographic votes against them.

So lets drill down here.

What are these founding principles established by Caucasians that are universal and the key to whites being able to live together within a countries borders?

As i know there is a massive difference in how typically someone in Portland wants the country governed as opposed to how a white person in rural Alabama or Texas does. Which was a key prior point of contention of your arguments as to why country wide governance could not work. So that would be part two of my question as to why that is surmountable amongst whites and is only not once you add in ethnics?

 

[Greoric]

So lets drill down here.

What are these founding principles established by Caucasians that are universal and the key to whites being able to live together within a countries borders?

I listed three - society changing- ones for you.

 

[MikeMcMann]

I guess if you want to look at how dependent a race is on circumstances and political systems you could look at Korea.
Both are the same ethnicity and culture but couldn't be further apart on the success scale.

Thinking about it are there any neighboring countries in the world that are on such a different economic level? And they are both among the most homogeneous countries in the world.

@Greoric please reply to this and explain how genetically identical people for the most part have such a wide divergence that seems simply based on geographic location and governance variation and why race is not the over riding factor here?

Do you think these people could all be crammed instantly again under one country roof and we would not for a long time see significant differences in the people despite them being a homogeneous race much like you did for a long time with East and West Germany (differing homicide rates, more predisposition to crime, etc). Would you maintain that is racial and not vocational and governance differences that cause the differences in Germans and Koreans?

@BangersAndSmash this should address some of the points you are trying to deal with, with him if he makes an honest attempt to answer.

 

[MikeMcMann]

I listed three - society changing- ones for you.

Ya but I pointed out to you that whites in rural Alabama or Texas compared to Portland have a vastly differing view on all three of those issues as well (limited gov't providing fewer services, the 2A, and freedom of speech) and yet those differences do not make them incompatible or unable to live or function under the same country roof. The 'losing' side in terms of who gets governance just has to deal with that.

So once again you point to things that are not endemic to ethnics and are true for all but you accept whites can deal with and get over it but a multicultural society cannot.

 

[Deleted member 457759]

TS don't try to rationalize with them, we're way past that.

 

[Greoric]

@Greoric please reply to this and explain how genetically identical people for the most part have such a wide divergence that seems simply based on geographic location and governance variation and why race is not the over riding factor here?

Do you think these people could all be crammed instantly again under one country roof and we would not for a long time see significant differences in the people despite them being a homogeneous race much like you did for a long time with East and West Germany (differing homicide rates, more predisposition to crime, etc). Would you maintain that is racial and not vocational and governance differences that cause the differences in Germans and Koreans?

@BangersAndSmash this should address some of the points you are trying to deal with, with him if he makes an honest attempt to answer.

Jesus dude. Look, people of a best fit genetic cluster are different and can be further divisible into more clusters that may have a conflict. Sure. That's also making my point. If they're immiscible cultures, you don't then force two groups of people with antithetical values to live under the same governance. That's fucking stupid.

As it is now. Africans, Asians, and Hispanics demonstrably have views that are antithetical to what the majority of Caucasians value in the US, which again was established by and for Caucasians.

 

[Greoric]

Ya but I pointed out to you that whites in rural Alabama or Texas compared to Portland have a vastly differing view on all three of those issues as well (limited gov't providing fewer services, the 2A, and freedom of speech) and yet those differences do not make them incompatible or unable to live or function under the same country roof. The 'losing' side in terms of who gets governance just has to deal with that.

So once again you point to things that are not endemic to ethnics and are true for all but you accept whites can deal with and get over it but a multicultural society cannot.

Sure and they probably shouldn't be presided over by the same set of laws either. Hence why we have States. Zoomed out, despite the gap among Caucasians they are still the only demographic that supports those founding values with a majority, shared by no other group.

 

[MikeMcMann]

Jesus dude. Look, people of a best fit genetic cluster are different and can be further divisible into more clusters. That may have a conflict. Sure. That's also making my point. If they're immiscible cultures, you don't then force two groups of people with antithetical values to live under the same governance. That's fucking stupid.

As it is now. Africans, Asians, and Hispanics demonstrably have views that are antithetical to what the majority of Caucasians value in the US, which again was established by and for Caucasians. Do you disagree?

No its impossible to follow you as you keep trying to shift your position as you get pinned in on it.

Your prior thesis = There are DIFFERENCES between Whites and ethnics therefore multiculturalism cannot work. those differences (how they want society organized, how they want to be governed, How they view larger V smaller gov't and how they vote) mean they cannot live under the same country roof.

When it is pointed out to you that those same differences exist and are more extreme amongst just whites across america from Portland to rural Alabama, and when you are asked if those things are really race/culture dependent and not dependent more on geographic locations, wealth disparity and such factors you try to suggest that no they are more isolated to race/ethnicity. You also point to crime stats and other as if that makes your point.

So then we go to examples of E/W Germany and N/S Korea that flies in the face of YOUR PRIOR ARGUMENT that race/ethnicity is the main determinant of sameness or difference. You had widely varying characteristics including crime prevalence amongst a genetically identical people when you simply changed the environmental factors. You somehow claim that is a victory for your argument, which is worthy of a WTF?

if identical whites in E/W Germany show the similar pattern in dispensation towards crime split, governance desires split, etc, then it IS NOT multiculturalism that causes it or is the problem. It is the wealth, opportunity and governance that cause it.

if that is the case then addressing the problem in multicultural societies is not a function of getting rid of multiculturalism, and is a function of getting rid of those other disparities. Because as shown, if you simply remove the multiculturalism and yet still have those other disparities, then even the homogeneous white population (E/W Germans) will have the same problems.

 

[MikeMcMann]

Sure and they probably shouldn't be presided over by the same set of laws either. Hence why we have States. Zoomed out, despite the gap among Caucasians they are still the only demographic that supports those founding values with a majority, shared by no other group.

Ok, so now we have some thing I would suggest offers some consistency if you truly stand by it.

So are you now suggesting that even with multiculturalism removed the United States would be a failed country that should be broken up into many regional state countries based on geographic similar regions (hillbillies with hillbillies, hippies with hippies, city folk with city folk, City folk with eastern leanings with city folk with eastern leanings, city folk with western leanings, with city fok with western leanings, ect) because you believe that if you have :

- differences between different cultures and predispositions for how they want society organized and how they want to be governed
- if they think and vote differently than one another... thus (on those grounds alone) they largely should not be presided over by the same governance
- they have different ideas of how the size and scope and role of gov't

That the State/Country cannot work?

Because it would not only need to be divided State by State but within the States region by region. A conservative hillbilly in rural Alabama has major differences with a liberal city slicker in Tuskegee Alabama.

Based on your new admission it basically seems you think no society can work, even though strangely you focus on Multicultural ones. is that fair? Do you consider yourself an anarchist?

 

[panamaican]

Should doctors categorize their differential diagnosis according to race given the same signs and symptoms? Why don't you ask your old man if medical science should be "blind to someone's race" or without "racial categorization" as if populations aren't biologically disparate of one another.

I don't know what that has to do with anything. I'm pretty sure I said regional differences. To make the obvious point -

Should doctors categorize their different diagnosis according to your family history, given the same signs and symptoms?

If I ask my old man, what he's going to say is that he's going to look at your family history, your age, your particular individual habits and lifestyle long before he starts worrying about your race. He's not going to rule out or rule in anything based on race because after enough years practicing medicine - you treat the patient in front of you.

 

[deviake]

Oh this is fantastic. I have a sherbro telling me to read the literature. But great we're off to a good start. You're acknowledging that races have different traits, Are you denying despite mean differences in traits they're not represented by mean differences in genetic clusters? How the fuck does that work exactly? Environment? White people are just a really good sun tan away from becoming black? Blacks as a population are just one good night of studying away from being as mathematically inclined as Asians?

Your sources range from Scientific American to PBS, National Geographic, etc. They're two clicks of a mouse away.

https://www.google.com/search?ei=EH...iz.......0i71j0i67j0i131j0i131i67.pCf-ckRDW3Q

Here, since you want to have an opinion and make assertions without having any idea of what you're talking about, I will cite you National Geographic as a source and even quote part of the article:

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/...s-science-africa/?user.testname=lazyloading:1

Of course, just because race is “made up” doesn’t make it any less powerful. To a disturbing extent, race still determines people’s perceptions, their opportunities, and their experiences. It is enshrined in the U.S. census, which last time it was taken, in 2010, asked Americans to choose their race from a list that reflects the history of the concept; choices included “White,” “Black,” “American Indian,” “Asian Indian,” “Chinese,” “Japanese,” and “Samoan.” Racial distinctions were written into the Jim Crow laws of the post-Reconstruction South and are now written into statutes like the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race or color. To the victims of racism, it’s small consolation to say that the category has no scientific basis.

As a bonus, here's a PBS article that is extremely short and concise since you can't be arsed to read anything before having an opinion:

https://www.pbs.org/race/001_WhatIsRace/001_00-home.htm

Lest you get confused, just click the numbers for the next slide (1, 2, 3, etc).

Any other uninformed commentary or have you embarrassed yourself enough?

 

[ocean size]

I got a question for any social progressives here. The Elizabeth Warren fiasco got me to thinking. Why are social progressives pushing the idea that gender is a social construct, but not race?

Let me expand a bit here. Gender as in X and Y chromosome, is science. There are 2 genders. Gender roles however, what it means to be a man, or women, that is a social construct.

Now, with race, the same can be said. There is genetic race, and their is racial identity. Most of the world genetically is a mutt, and yet we talk about race as if white has a definition. At what % from your DNA test, are you kicked out of team white people, or team black people?

See, in the way race and gender are usually talked about, they are social constructs, and not scientific definitions.

So why don't we hear the talk about race being a social construct?

Is the answer as simple as intersectionalism, or is it that racial intersectionalism isn't politically viable for dems, and yet gender is?

If that is the latter, I might have to think about becoming a white nationalist over being associated in any way with social progressives, and the DNC. That would be the definition of social corrosion for the sake of political gain.

Discuss.........

Race is a social construct.

 

[helltoupee]

Despite those differences among whites, the only majority demographic that's still conveniently in favor of founding principles established by Caucasians (limited gov't providing fewer services, the 2A, and freedom of speech) is only preferred by Caucasians. Also conveniently, every other majority demographic votes against them.

Wouldn't this imply that you are more aligned politically with someone from Somalia than Western Europe?

I could understand if your justification for a racially segregated America applied to American whites when referencing majority support for the principles you have listed, but I don't understand why you extend that invitation to Europeans, when their governing preferences seem to be in direct opposition to those very principles.

The funny thing about all of this is that you seem to have a preference for American Caucasians, because you insist that only they hold dear the values you cherish - which I think (correct me if I'm wrong) is loosely based on individual freedoms and lack of state intervention, but I think what you are missing is that if you've ever been to Latin America, or around a Hispanic community, you would find that the actual *people* have a much more live-and-let-live type of attitude (on a personal level) than the busybodies we have up here - and it certainly seems like the proportion is much higher than what Libertarians or Anarchists represent in American society (ie the subset you want to surround yourself with).

I'm sure you will counter with voting demographics, etc., but that kind of muddies the waters, as there are too many variables that go into why someone would be against free speech (ie., is the victim of hate crimes) or guns (comes from a crime ridden country) etc. What I am saying is that when you get past all of that, I find Latin Americans on average to be some pretty easy-going people which seems to represent much more of the "type" of person/mindset that you would want to be around.

 

[NoDak]

No it doesn't, cultural appropriation has nothing to do with race.

Are you sure you have the genetic material necessary to support free speech and the 2A?

 

[NoDak]

But I still don't really get your point or why this topic has you wanting to be a white nationalist.

Viva is an enigma.

 

[NoDak]

Underrated Album.

 

[NoDak]

Race is a social construct.

I think the problem with it begins when people take that to imply there isn't human genetic variation, as in tangible molecular genetic differences between populations and that they - including subgroups to a large extent - can be discerned when the analysis is based on the correlated structure of multiple genetic loci. Discussing even that requires walking on egg shells in today's sociopolitical climate.

Of course, the truth is far less sinister. The variation is largely geographically structured and the clustering (including mixed membership) of individuals is correlated with geographic origin and/or ancestry. It's just simply the result of evolutionary processes and the adaptation to different climatic environments which took place from being comparatively isolated for tens of thousands of years.

"Roberts" (an anthropologist I presume?) should know the geographic distribution and associated distinctions made by molecular geneticists aren't preconceived or artificially constructed so much as they are self-revealing when a sufficient number of markers are used. It is populations that evolve after all, not individuals.

Yes, but that's genetics, but it's not really race. Race is how members of society group other people usually based on skin color, but sometimes based on culture.

It's downright archaic.

And that as the core basis falls apart immediately considering how genetically distinct Sub-Saharan Africans are from Melanesians. At the same time, a lot of people take Europeans and 'white people' to be synonymous and interchangeable but we share DNA in far more ways than the particular gene variants that control for mere skin tone; Europeans used to be brown 8,000+ years ago. You could take or leave skin color, but without such macroscopic optics the majority of this 'racial' baggage would be rendered meaningless in a sociocultural context.

Most of the time a person's race is a combination of what they self-identify with based on their culture, and how other members of society view them. They aren't required to go and take a 23andme before they're allowed to check a box on a form.

On another note, I mentioned in the Elizabeth Warren thread how underrated 23&Me actually is these days. A genome-wide analysis that calls over 550,000 SNP's is nothing to sneeze at and is actually far more than often analyzed in actual peer-reviewed academic studies in genetics and genomics.

The algorithms are starting to get a lot sharper as microarray and SVM technology improves by orders of magnitude at break-neck pace. The reference population data sets are also increasingly drawn from collaborative international research projects such as 1000 Genomes, HGDP and HapMap. They just upgraded to Illumina Inc's GSA (global screening array) late last year which has broad utilization in areas of population genetics and precision medicine research.

You don't do shoddy work and still publish regularly in Nature Genetics.

https://www.23andme.com/publications/for-scientists/

Your sources range from Scientific American to PBS, National Geographic, etc. They're two clicks of a mouse away.

https://www.google.com/search?ei=EH...iz.......0i71j0i67j0i131j0i131i67.pCf-ckRDW3Q

Here, since you want to have an opinion and make assertions without having any idea of what you're talking about, I will cite you National Geographic as a source and even quote part of the article:

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/...s-science-africa/?user.testname=lazyloading:1

Of course, just because race is “made up” doesn’t make it any less powerful. To a disturbing extent, race still determines people’s perceptions, their opportunities, and their experiences. It is enshrined in the U.S. census, which last time it was taken, in 2010, asked Americans to choose their race from a list that reflects the history of the concept; choices included “White,” “Black,” “American Indian,” “Asian Indian,” “Chinese,” “Japanese,” and “Samoan.” Racial distinctions were written into the Jim Crow laws of the post-Reconstruction South and are now written into statutes like the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race or color. To the victims of racism, it’s small consolation to say that the category has no scientific basis.

As a bonus, here's a PBS article that is extremely short and concise since you can't be arsed to read anything before having an opinion:

https://www.pbs.org/race/001_WhatIsRace/001_00-home.htm

Lest you get confused, just click the numbers for the next slide (1, 2, 3, etc).

Any other uninformed commentary or have you embarrassed yourself enough?

It's kind of weird that NatGeo was quoting David Reich in that article considering how upset a lot of people were with him over a New York Times Op-Ed he wrote earlier this year that violated unwritten rules in population genetics but it's difficult to undermine the credibility of a scientist whose Harvard laboratory has published damn near half of the world’s genome-wide human ancient DNA, much less to suggest a Jewish man is attempting to enable white nationalism but that does make @Greoric a curious case. In reality, he's trying to do the opposite.

https://genetics.hms.harvard.edu/person/faculty/david-reich

There are some other interesting things in the NatGeo piece. The rs1426654 (A;A) variant of SLC24A5 is indeed very useful as an ancestry informative marker because of the allele frequency - damn near 100% - in European (including descendants, same thing) populations but it isn't the only one, as rs16891982 (G;G) of SLC45A2 and rs7495174 (A;A) of OCA2 are quite prominent as well. What it also doesn't mention from the paper being referenced is that mutations to the MFSD12 gene in East Africans not present in Europeans are inferred to have canceled out the effect of the aformentioned. A very good piece on the whole though, better than most pop science.

Eds: late nite errorz