Islamophobia has 'seeped into the public consciousness' as British Far-Right movement

Started by jaden_2.02 pages

The cognitive dissonance required by the UK right wing press to print anti-islamic headlines for the last 17+ years and then complain about islamophobia and far right "seeping" into the mainstream.

Bonkers, mate.

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
The cognitive dissonance required by the UK right wing press to print anti-islamic headlines for the last 17+ years and then complain about islamophobia and far right "seeping" into the mainstream.

Bonkers, mate.

I honestly don't disagree. The Telegraph is takingna bit of a stand on it at the moment, which I applaud.

I remember when I would post the telegraph and it would be discounted as alt right. Oh my how the times have changed, PB is doing it to now.

Originally posted by BrolyBlack
I remember when I would post the telegraph, and it would be discounted as alt right. Oh my how the times have changed, PB is doing it too now.
The Telegraph is a strange paper; it's like the Guardian of the right. For its direction, it can be too progressive, but sometimes it gets it right. It's certainly no Daily Mail or Breitbart.

Cant't believe I posted some total and not sum total and I said genetic potential was mostly germline, when of course it can only be germline. Haha, senior moments.

"Racism is not genetic" is also false. A sweeping dismissal of the statement is also not academically sound.

Babies start to show "likeness affiliation/preference" at very young ages.[1] This is definitely racist. It is far more innocent than the right wing racism we see. It is a self-preservation that has roots directly in tribal preservation and our violent human evolution.[2]

What does this all mean? It means, for example, white babies show a preference for white people. And this comes from self-preservation evolution, not racism. [3]

In early human history, tribal warfare was common enough that it shaped our evolution. Humans are incredibly altruistic but also incredibly violent. [4]

[1]https://nypost.com/2017/04/13/your-baby-is-a-little-bit-racist-science-says/

[2]https://www.livescience.com/640-peace-war-early-humans-behaved.html

[3]https://www.parents.com/baby/all-about-babies/science-says-everyones-a-little-bit-racist-even-babies/

[4]https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/ancient-brutal-massacre-may-be-earliest-evidence-war-180957884/

Things like the species genocide of other Hominids are not racism. A scientific underpinning for racism is laughable though. You are arguing something different. Phenotypical preference exists, however, it is something that may well cross racial boundaries and certainly has a strong non genetic component.

As for race as anything but a phenotype...

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2018/04/race-genetics-science-africa/

There’s No Scientific Basis for Race—It's a Made-Up Label.

And any credible geneticist will tell you the same.

The genome project hammered the point home btw.

when scientists set out to assemble the first complete human genome, which was a composite of several individuals, they deliberately gathered samples from people who self-identified as members of different races. In June 2000, when the results were announced at a White House ceremony, Craig Venter, a pioneer of DNA sequencing, observed, “The concept of race has no genetic or scientific basis.”

I pretty much see race and phenotype as visible expression qualifiers. As they should be.