Originally posted by Premolar
Putinbot posted lots of links. Is Dadudeman your hero?
Oh, that's all you need? He's mad because of our convo from yesterday.
See below:
Originally posted by dadudemon
"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
Originally posted by dadudemon
How is that strawman working out for you?You do understand you're arguing "the genes of race" vs. my point which is "the genes of racism" right?
Let me know how your alleles discussion works with infants when you yell at them to stop being racist. 🙂
Originally posted by SamZED
Can somebody dumb this down for a non-native speaker?
How can race be a social construct when there are visible physiological traits to each individual race? Or are we talking about persived differences in behaivour of different races?
Yes.
Humans are racist.
That's the crux of it. It boils down to, "If this person looks different than I do, I am afraid of that person."
Speaking of ancestry:
Originally posted by Surtur
SJW Shocked Over Ancestry DNA TestLOL!
Black chick mad she's European. Owned.
https://www.humanrights.gov.au/resources/what-you-say-matters/why-are-people-racist
Interesting The Australian Goverment agree with me.
Shit lonks DDM "parents.com"
My links are better
https://www.the-scientist.com/readi...henomenon-64266
https://news.nationalgeographic.com...hal-rutherford/
http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2...e-21st-century/
http://sciencenetlinks.com/lessons/race-and-genes/
You also don't seem to get even amongst geographical areas phenotype vareis.
In the Stanford study, over 92% of alleles were found in two or more regions, and almost half of the alleles studied were present in all seven major geographical regions. The observation that the vast majority of the alleles were shared over multiple regions, or even throughout the entire world, points to the fundamental similarity of all people around the world—an idea that has been supported by many other studies (Figure 1B).
If separate racial or ethnic groups actually existed, we would expect to find “trademark” alleles and other genetic features that are characteristic of a single group but not present in any others. However, the 2002 Stanford study found that only 7.4% of over 4000 alleles were specific to one geographical region. Furthermore, even when region-specific alleles did appear, they only occurred in about 1% of the people from that region—hardly enough to be any kind of trademark. Thus, there is no evidence that the groups we commonly call “races” have distinct, unifying genetic identities. In fact, there is ample variation within races (Figure 1B).
Ultimately, there is so much ambiguity between the races, and so much variation within them, that two people of European descent may be more genetically similar to an Asian person than they are to each other.
Your confusing Phenotypical preferences to the Genotype.
This subject actually comes up from time-to-time, most recently in the discussion of Rachel Dolezal. She highlights that there is no biological basis for the concept of race, and that racial categorization is socially constructed. It raises important questions about race as a meaningful category. What does it mean to be of a particular race, and who gets to decide, etc.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Is this what a Whirly meltdown looks like?Socking and constant repetition of the same strawman?
It's sad you had to create an account to cheer-lead yourself. 🙁
Did you realize your mistake and instead of admitting you were wrong, you doubled down?
He legit used his sock to make a thread about "future proofing" and then responded to it as PB.
It's hilarious, was this supposed to make people believe it wasn't really him? Adorable.
Originally posted by Surtur
He legit used his sock to make a thread about "future proofing" and then responded to it as PB.It's hilarious, was this supposed to make people believe it wasn't really him? Adorable.
I don't think he realizes that his posting style is quite iconic and legendary on KMC. His sock account sticks out as "Whirly" far too much to get away with it.
Maybe he does and just wants to have a laugh with us?
Originally posted by dadudemon
I don't think he realizes that his posting style is quite iconic and legendary on KMC. His sock account sticks out as "Whirly" far too much to get away with it.
And "future proofing" is such an easy thing to google, it's blatantly obvious he's trying to make us think he's someone else.
Remember: this sock of his has been responding to my posts lol. He's supposed to be ignoring me.
Maybe he does and just wants to have a laugh with us?
Maybe, but it's guaranteed this will be the excuse he uses. It's the excuse he used last time when he forgot to hide his IP.
Originally posted by Putinbot1
Well I'm out of this thread, facts are facts and Race is not used by credible biologists anymore. If race isn't used why should racism be?
You do know the Europeans enslaved the Blacks because they saw them as inferiors right? Same thing with the Native.
So how can it be a social construct when race on race wars began even before science came into being in the minds of man?
Right now with all of our science do ickies, what do you call the Muslims that enslaves Blacks in this day and age?
Originally posted by Adam_PoEAbsolutly and scientists are in total agreement except for mavericks. DDM can keep posting but facts are facts.
This subject actually comes up from time-to-time, most recently in the discussion of Rachel Dolezal. She highlights that there is no biological basis for the concept of race, and that racial categorization is socially constructed. It raises important questions about race as a meaningful category. What does it mean to be of a particular race, and who gets to decide, etc.