HTML banned?!?!

[Pestario]

haven't read the whole thread but I mostly agree with this^^

 

[tryptych]

I think there's a bit of misplaced nostalgia here for k-punk's cold rationalist polemics in the early days of this forum.

I miss Mark. And Droid.

 

[noel emits]

Droid was spotted very recently on the 'Are you psychotic?' thread. Hello droid.

Agreed though.

 

[zhao]

However problematic or taboo you find it there are in fact, statistically speaking, traits that can be attributed to populations based on DNA. I draw no conclusions from that whatsoever and realise that it would be extremely dangerous to do so but it's the bleeding truth so perhaps we can see why someone might hold that to be the case? You can't just sweep it under the rug. There's got to be a more coherent argument.

Just because a particular belief more often than not leads to unpleasant conclusions first of all doesn't necessarily make it incorrect, but it also doesn't mean that the holder of that belief has extrapolated it backwards from those hideous conclusions. Holding that all 'racists' are bad is prejudicial too in a way.

It seems inadequate to me to say that a belief in a biological basis for certain traits nearly always leads to evil actions and therefore must not be permitted. It must either be shown why this is incorrect or it must be shown why further conclusions based on that belief are illogical and potentially dangerous. If you just say 'racism' is off limits it will keep coming back.

of COURSE there are differences.

the thing is, THERE ARE MORE DIFFERENCES WITHIN PERCEIVED RACIAL GROUPS THAN BETWEEN THEM.

which makes our classification based on visual characteristics entirely arbitrary.

i think this is the first time i ever spelled arbitrary correctly.

 

[noel emits]

THERE ARE MORE DIFFERENCES WITHIN PERCEIVED RACIAL GROUPS THAN BETWEEN THEM.

So you're saying racial groups exist?

No, I think that's well put and makes it clear WHY it is so silly, rather than pretending that there are no differences or no biological basis for such, which as an argument isn't going to go across well with someone drawing conclusions from superficial observations. Which in the case of many with ill considered 'racist' attitudes is what you are up against.

 

[zhao]

So you're saying racial groups exist?

i know yer takin da good ol' piss but PERCEIVED, noel, PERCEIVED racial groups.

yeah you're right. "no differences" just does not go over well...

 

[nomadologist]

There are differences among people, period. There are trends among populations, yes. But the notion of race is socially constructed. If you want to put a lot of stock in socially constructed norms, well, that makes you just like a great majority of the world. It doesn't make you right about race being a biological fact, though.

 

[nomadologist]

Nonsense. People look at each other as inferior (or superior) for all sorts of reasons. People discriminate and are prejudicial for all sorts of reasons. Maybe I dislike Welsh people because a Welsh kid at school was an asshole. It doesn't mean I think there's a genetic basis for Welshness, and it would be an irrational dislike but that doesn't stop that kind of thing happening. Maybe groups of people are discriminated against because they are perceived as 'superior' and therefore a threat.

Sure, you dislike national and ethnic groups, then. This is just as stupid as disliking people on the basis of the "race" (i.e., skin color and facial features).

No one ever said that there aren't differences between people, and even biologically-based differences between everyone. But it does no one any good (and in fact a lot of conceptual and real damage in many cases) to appeal to the notion of "race" to talk about any one person's "inherent" anything. If you want to talk about identity construction and socially constructed notions of what it means to be "black" or "white" or "asian" or whatever, fine, I understand that sort of discussion and think it has perfectly rational and reasonable ground to stand on.

 

[nomadologist]

However problematic or taboo you find it there are in fact, statistically speaking, traits that can be attributed to populations based on DNA.

Pff. Oh there are? Which are these, then? It would be excellent if you could name a few. Biologists certainly haven't found many direct links between the way people look and specific genetic markers.

Which protein is it exactly on that is unique to, say, black people? What is the difference between nucleotides of a white person and those of an asian person?

In fact, the genetic/ genome structure of all humans is remarkably similar from a macroscopic or "macro" perspective, and entirely different from individual level on a microscopic level

 

[nomadologist]

Holding that all 'racists' are bad is prejudicial too in a way.

When did I say this? I think racism is bad, not all racists. Some are just a product of their environment.

 

[noel emits]

There are differences among people, period. There are trends among populations, yes. But the notion of race is socially constructed. If you want to put a lot of stock in socially constructed norms, well, that makes you just like a great majority of the world. It doesn't make you right about race being a biological fact, though.

It was just an argument about logic, not what I believe. I've never said race is a biological fact or any of that stuff.

 

[noel emits]

Sure, you dislike national and ethnic groups, then. This is just as stupid as disliking people on the basis of the "race" (i.e., skin color and facial features).

I was using Welsh people as a deliberately ludicrous example. I mean the example was ludicrous, not the Welsh.

 

[noel emits]

Pff. Oh there are? Which are these, then? It would be excellent if you could name a few. Biologists certainly haven't found many direct links between the way people look and specific genetic markers.

Which protein is it exactly on that is unique to, say, black people? What is the difference between nucleotides of a white person and those of an asian person?

In fact, the genetic/ genome structure of all humans is remarkably similar from a macroscopic or "macro" perspective, and entirely different from individual level on a microscopic level

Well I think this is where your logic falls down, and the only reason I'm contesting it is because I don't think it helps the counterblaste to racist notions to say this.

Just because genetecists have not yet identified the exact mechanisms by which certain characteristics are determined does not mean that it is not generally reckoned that such characteristics are genetically determined. You do not fully understand the human genome, and neither does anyone else at this stage.

 

[noel emits]

When did I say this? I think racism is bad, not all racists. Some are just a product of their environment.

So it's helpful to have a readily comprehensible counter argument to unexamined racist notions. Unless they are proud and avowed, in which case it's fair enough, calling someone a racist is always going to sound like an accusation of moral decrepitude isn't it?

 

[nomadologist]

So it's helpful to have a readily comprehensible counter argument to unexamined racist notions. Unless they are proud and avowed, in which case it's fair enough, calling someone a racist is always going to sound like an accusation of moral decrepitude isn't it?

In my experience, one of the number one reasons racists feel justified in their beliefs is based on some half-baked notion that cultural identity (i.e. socially constructed "race" norms/stereotypes) is somehow overdetermined by biological factors--that "blackness" is a sign or byproduct of the inherent biological or genetic "inferiority" of black people. Hence my disgust for all Bell Curve-type fallacious hateful ideology masquerading as "science."

These ideas about the inherent nature of racial identity go all the way back in the West to the story of Canaan [edited this for accuracy], one of the sons of Noah who was cursed for having exposed his drunk-and-passed out nude father and subjected him to ridicule. The curse sentenced his ancestors to a life of abject poverty and suffering. Caanan is thought to be the son of Noah who migrated to Africa after the flood and started repopulating there.

Some Southern racists I have heard speak still cite this passage of the Bible. The implication is that the "evil" of Caanan has been passed down to his ancestors, who continue to suffer (i.e. they haven't fully Western- or Christianized yet) for these sins.

I do believe that using science and reason, you can get through to some racists who have simply been indoctrinated by their parents or spiritual/local communities in this way of thinking from a young age, and have never been exposed to education in biology, anthropolgy, sociology, etc. I don't think all racists are hopeless, and I do think reason should be employed to the fullest extent that we can use it to explain things like the human genome in the fight against racism.

Call me crazy...

 

[nomadologist]

Just because genetecists have not yet identified the exact mechanisms by which certain characteristics are determined does not mean that it is not generally reckoned that such characteristics are genetically determined. You do not fully understand the human genome, and neither does anyone else at this stage.

Are you joking? It may be "generally reckoned" by your average Joe 6-pack, but among scientists it is NOT generally reckoned that wearing baggy pants and sagging then far down your backside, talking in ebonics, being more likely to go to prison from a younger age, having more melanin in your skin, having a nose that has a flatter bridge, and coarse hair are "genetically determined" as some sort of package deal that all amounts to "blackness." The problem with everyone "reckoning" that genes determine race is that they CAN'T because no set of human characteristics, even when they are common to a certain population at a given time, is a STATIC, cultural identity-determining biological certainty. What people think of as "blackness" ends up having very little to do with black skin and certain common-looking features, and everything to do with CULTURAL attitudes and poses.

Humans are always evolving--nowadays, in NYC, you have people with what would be called a "black-looking" nose or mouth who are, as far as they know, 100% ethnic Dominican or Puerto Rican. Or who are even less than 1/16th "black." The idea that race is some sort of static human genetic condition is patently absurd.

 

[crackerjack]

These ideas about the inherent nature of racial identity go all the way back in the West to the story of Cain, one of the sons of Noah who was cursed for having exposed his drunk-and-passed out nude father and subjected him to ridicule.

Back to Bible class with you. You're thinking of Canaan. Cain was the son of Adam & Eve who murdered is brother Abel.

 

[Eric]

wearing baggy pants and sagging then far down your backside, talking in ebonics, being more likely to go to prison from a younger age, having more melanin in your skin, having a nose that has a flatter bridge, and coarse hair are "genetically determined" as some sort of package deal that all amounts to "blackness." The problem with everyone "reckoning" that genes determine race is that they CAN'T because no set of human characteristics, even when they are common to a certain population at a given time, is a STATIC, cultural identity-determining biological certainty. What people think of as "blackness" ends up having very little to do with black skin and certain common-looking features, and everything to do with CULTURAL attitudes and poses.

Now I'm confused. I thought the argument was about whether there were `racial' characteristics that are genetically determined. Patently wearing baggy pants or whatever is not, but does that mean that nothing is? Surely one can draw a line b/t your first three examples and your second three. This argument looks a bit absurd to me.

Also, a random question: what does it mean to be 100% ethnically Dominican or PR? It seems obvious that these groups are `mixed-race' anyway, if you accept this terminology. Why would it be surprising that someone might have a flat nose or whatever in this case?

 

[Mr. Tea]

Pff. Oh there are? Which are these, then? It would be excellent if you could name a few. Biologists certainly haven't found many direct links between the way people look and specific genetic markers.

Umm, dark skin? Or light skin?

You keep saying "Which protein?" or "which gene?" or "which gene cluster?", which is a complete red herring since you know as well as I do, or better, that physical appearance is determined by a huge collection of genes.

The fact biologists haven't found many "direct links" probably has more to do with the almost inconceivable complexity of huiman genetics than anything else.

 

[nomadologist]

Back to Bible class with you. You're thinking of Canaan. Cain was the son of Adam & Eve who murdered is brother Abel.

Urite, my bad.