NYT's horrifying video of hateful Trump rally attendees

That’s your argument? Race exists because it’s helpful to professionals? You seem to misunderstand me. Race as a concept, useful or otherwise, exists. Biological differences between ethnic groups profound enough to warrant the distinction as a separate type of human do not.

You believe that ‘white’ which includes hundreds of random groups of Europeans and Asians (and others from all over the world), and whose only requirement is appearing to have white skin, is a distinct physical group from ‘black’, which also includes hundreds of ethnic groups from all over the world; these are distinct biological categories?

I can show you a textbook that says God made the planet 5000 years ago, or that blacks are by nature rapists. So, yeah, you need to read more about this from people who know what they are talking about. You also ignored my questions about Communism, btw.


And yet I demand we do this from now on.


There’s economic growth - and then there’s the completely different kind espoused by a different set of economists.

Economic growth presented as the amount of money in circulation multiplied by the purchasing power of a money unit is common but useless. If the peasants had a GDP of 50 copper groats last year and 50 groats this year, but the landlord had an income of 50000 silver ecus last year and 55000 this, that’s an economic growth of 10% but the peasant didn’t notice. Whereas if the peasants had an income of 50 groats last year and 50 ecus this year, and the landlord had 50000 last year and 49950 this year there would be zero growth - but the peasants would be celebrating.

Economic growth can only continue if it becomes ever more about IP and extracting maximum value from dwindling resources, because whatever libertarians think the Earth is finite. What matters is how the assets are shared out, which has been increasingly skewed to the rich.

The problem for the Democrats is the one identified years ago - that many relatively poor Americans think they are temporarily skint millionaires, so they vote Republican so that when they come into the money it won’t go in taxes. Their level of economic illiteracy is astounding but the Dunning-Krueger effect means they don’t notice. Supporting a system in which more and more money goes to the rich - basically what you advocate - just creates more resentment for the less rich.
Real economic growth for most Americans, and most Europeans, would need radical redistribution of assets. The apparent size of the economy would most likely shrink, because the activity in the financial sector would shrink dramatically once the billionaires were no longer playing in the casino - for instance, social media valuations and large amounts of real estate would fall greatly, though a dramatic fall in real estate prices would actually benefit a lot of poorer people in the longer term.


I really am not trying to troll anyone. I was trying to be literal, and I am sorry if anything I might have wrote appears to support racism. I am pretty sure that supporting the idea that races exist is not a form of racism. My comments on the existence of race in this thread were in response to a post that stated flatly that race does not exist, and a profanity laced post directed at me for disagreeing. I honestly think that people are no longer able to cope with the idea that someone might disagree with them, so the response becomes outrage rather than civil discourse. It would probably be a form of trolling to go on some kind of religious BBS and make snarky arguments about God not existing, because you cannot use logic to argue against a belief that the other person did not adopt logically. I honestly did not know that the “race does not exist” view had reached the point of becoming a dogmatic belief.

It exists in society and our legal system reflects this. You should ask a biologist what they think of race and you would receive a different answer.

Your dogmatism is better than our reality, because of reasons.

1 Like

I was not trying to dodge the Communism questions, I just thought that it was becoming an unproductive conversation. And i do not think the forensic quote was making the point that you got from it.

One of the issues here is that “race” ≠ “ethnicity”, despite the two being used interchangeably in common language.

“Race” is a social construct that is subject to social interpretation and alteration over time, and is very situational, often based on misleading phenotype cues.

“Ethnicity”, in contrast, is a “what regional population(s) are your ancestors from?”, which does have biological considerations for bone structure, disease resistance/susceptibility, genetic disorders, and other issues.

So, yes, if you asked a biologist what they think of “race”, and they’ll say that it’s bunk, but if you asked them about ethnicity, you’ll get interesting (and occasionally horrifying) data points about diseases, mutations, and population divergence over time.

Like, for example, did you know that about 10% of Northern Europeans are essentially immune to HIV, due to a mutation (CCR5-Ä32) that was selected for during the Black Death? Or that the reason that Sickle Cell Anemia in Sub-Saharan Africa is still around–despite killing its carriers in horrific ways–is because while having two copies of the gene will kill the carrier, one copy gives resistance to malaria? Or that all of the various Jewish sub-ethnicities, despite varying widely in “racial” appearance, all carry genetic markers that show that they’re related?

/teacher-hat :slight_smile:


Dang liberal media, only reporting on the ugly acts of racism and sexism they actually witness instead of the hypothetical ones.


It won’t be very long now until the world’s capitalist countries are asked to send massive amounts of food aid to the starving victims of late stage socialism in Venezuela.

"Hunger haunts Venezuela, especially its children"

And they’ll do it, too.

All this in response to

Marxism also offers a marvelous opportunity for a thug regime to conceal itself behind a veneer of happy talk about equality and social progress

Which is a perfectly adequate representation of Western non-socialist governments as well. Or perhaps you’re not famialiar with the indigenous population of the Americas pre- and post- colonialism? Or the actions of the East India company? Or our current policies in the Middle East?

There’s nothing “marxist” about those identical veneers.


Americans prefer it when socialists starve to help their “virtue” develop through suffering.


Government IS inequality. It is the process of declaring some people to be More Special and putting them in charge.

Communism is pretty much the opposite. Instead of an elite government running the politics and economy of a region, the people do so. The main difference being that they do so collectively instead of privately.

And no, there are no countries I can list like that. Because the modern nation-state model is based upon the idea of centralized control of people.


Do you accept the public expenditure quota as rating? If so Finland would be a good example - the quota is near 60 % (about 10 % up from 2003) and the country has one of the more prosper and equal societies. Nearly as high is Denmark’s quota, another successful country.


This was YOUR evidence, that you presented in rebuttal to my claim that ‘race’ is a fabrication. What point were you trying to make then by posting this?

I’m quite certain that a forensic examiner could infer a lot of shared traits between countless arbitrary distinctions of human beings, e.g. vegans, bodybuilders, football players, poor people, wealthy people, etc. That does not make them fundamentally different types of human beings, especially when we are talking about groups so absurdly broad as ‘white’ and ‘black’. Check out Nell Irvin Painter’s The History of White People for some perspective.


I guess we are speaking different languages. I appreciate you referring me to Neil Irvin Painter, but she is a historian. The table I presented was from a book by an Osteologist and Paleoanthropologist. I asked my wife (a physician) about how race applies to her assessing risk for disease, and she referred me here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15257843
I really am not talking about “whiteness” or "blackness’ in the same cultural terms that you seem to be. And I accept that many people are not easily classified by race. But if your doctor speaks to you about race and heart disease, he or she is not trying to oppress you. It may simply be that they are trying to use best practices to assess your risk for disease. Here is a statement from the American Heart Association:
“Many racial/ethnic minority populations have higher rates of CVD and related risk factors. The statistics are stark testimony to that fact.•CVD age-adjusted death rates are 33% higher for blacks than for the overall population in the U.S. •Blacks are nearly twice as likely to have a first stroke and much more likely to die from one than whites.1•American Indians/Alaska Natives die from heart disease much earlier than expected – 36% are under 65 compared with only 17% for the U.S. population overall.”

So people who take the political position that race does not exist, especially those who exhibit rage towards those who believe differently, put scientists and physicians in a difficult position. A physician who ignores race as a factor in determining risk of disease is putting their patients in danger. A forensic examiner who does not take into account racial characteristics of the remains that they are tasked with identifying is performing their job negligently. A Hematologist who decides to focus a large percentage of their research budget on studying Sickle cell disease among Nordic peoples, because they believe race is a construct, is wasting money and effort that could be saving lives. It is very strange to me that we are coming into an age where political expediency has begun to compromise data driven science. It is similar to a geologist or physicist who has to interact with or work for Fundamentalist Christians. Geology as a predictive science, such as oil exploration, requires the understanding that the earth is more than 6,000 years old, so does the study of light and radiation. When those hard scientists have to interact with people who are convinced of biblical literalism, they have to tread very lightly to avoid conflict. I find it very depressing.


But you continue to neglect to take into account the cultural designation that lead to such biological categorizations.

It is tempting to just say “I give up, you win”. But I think that is the purpose behind such tactics. It is good to oppose racism, but the tactic of fighting racism just by arguing " not only is racism wrong, but lets say from now on that race itself is an imaginary construct, and scream profanities at anyone who disagrees". It does not solve the problem of racism, just like Screaming that there is no famine does not keep anyone from starving. It is an ugly, Stalinesque tactic.
You may personally believe that there is no such thing as race, or that the universe is 6000 years old, or any number of other faith based beliefs. I have no issue with that. But I don’t have to agree with you, and I don’t want you editing science textbooks to conform with your beliefs.
Even if your tactics succeed, and it goes so far that all those chapters mentioning race are torn from the textbooks and forgotten, there will still be people doing the tedious work of observable and predictive science. Eventually, one of those osteologists will discover that the height of a human being can be determined with reasonable accuracy from just the measurable characteristics of a femur. But only when one includes a numeric factor for the person’s race and sex.
So even if I don’t see the point of continuing this discussion endlessly, I do not just give up. I have had history discussions with people who honestly do not believe that there is such a thing as an objective fact. I disagree. And in the long run, you have to lose. Because even thousands of years from now, when apes rule the earth, Dr. Zaius will discover that he can determine with reasonable accuracy the height of a human from only a fossilized femur, as long as he factors in you-know-what.


What on earth are you arguing with? There are genetic markers for specific native persons, certain “eastern” trends, but that does not make race as seen and assigned much less arbitrary.

You are intentionally conflating science with very specific applications of of science and it is particularly odd how you can not tell the difference between commonplace definitions of race and where actual markers lie. What your son is being taught in school is not what you are arguing forth here.

1 Like

Here is a Pikachu Kitten.


This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.