Pants-of-dog wrote:You can look it up.
You are deliberately ignoring history so that you can falsely claim that avowed bigots deserve the same protections as people who are actually targeted by bigotry and discrimination.
This not only ignores the historical reality if oppression, but also ignores the basic tenets of liberal democracy. And since YOUR (not our) country is a liberal democracy, then people who openly advocate for ideologies that go against the basic tenets of liberal democracy should not be treated as those who are consistent with these basic tenets.
I think that you will dispute any definition of bigotry that I provide.
How do you define bigotry? Do a little bit of effort for me as I make efforts for you.
Also... The United States lets people think and believe what they want, and does not discriminate based on someone's opinions before the law, right? We used to officially discriminate against people based on race, right? Up until 1967.
I am not sure why you are talking about my country as being "YOUR" liberal democracy?
No, we cannot. If you are going to define race as “the four main skin colours I see” then sure, but that is not something that makes sense in terms of discrete biological groups.
All you are doing is saying that you see four skin colours and then you are assuming that these skin colours have deeper meanings even though you have no scientific evidence.
Many Koreans are whiter than me. It's not actually about skin color but about a holistic difference between races that is clearly observable, and it just so happens that skin color clearly distinguishes this to a good degree...
But it is also true: some Indians are darker than Ilhan Omar.
Please provide scientific evidence that the races are distinct.
I would say that we can
clearly distinguish that there are different groups of humans, and we can divide them along different lines.
There is a social construct aspect to it -- for instance, is a Persian a "White" or an "Asian," or is there a distinctive Middle Eastern or Iranid race?
Is an Arab white?
What race are Indian people?
Etc.
There is something arbitrary about this because
it can be hard to draw the lines, and we can come up with arguments that there are plenty of
sub-racial categories. For instance, there could be the black race, and among them could be Khoisan, Congoloid & Ethiopid subraces, as we have seen it divided before.
But this is like when someone says "Slam metal is a genre," and another person says "No, it's either brutal death metal or grindcore," and another would even say "we shouldn't say brutal death metal because it is just grindcore in disguise..."
Even experts will argue these points.
No, not everything is a social construct.
Gender is; race is; nation-states are; ideologies are.
What is there, about humans, that isn't a social construct?
Yes, and since this shows how running abilities are specific to a certain tiny group in Kenya (as compared to all blacks), it cannot he seen as evidence that significant traits cleave along the “four skin colours you see” racial classification you are using.
Please post the numbers.
Aw, but you see: one group is 1 million, another is 5 million. These are not tiny. There is also a broader group mentioned -- Kenyans and Ethiopians, and not every single one of the winners was necessarily a member of those tribal groups.
Now it's time for you to do some more thinking...
You see, West African descent people tend to dominate sprinting, right? African-Americans, Jamaicans, Bajans, Bahamans, etc. all perform abnormally well in sprinting; East African people are abnormally great distance runners, with some specific sub-groups among them doing well...
Europeans tend to dominate powerlifting contests, with particularly Nordic & Baltic regions excelling.
Who tends to excel in basketball? Who tends to excell as wide receivers in American football?
Surely, we don't need to conjure up numbers.
There's some pretty logical conclusions to come to since we know that
(1) We inherit our physical traits from our parents, and
(2) Our physical traits are passed on by genes.
(3) The physical traits of people in the same family will be similar.
(4) The physical traits of people in the same tribe, which are an extended family, will be similar.
(5) The physical traits of people in the same ethnicity will be similar.
(6) The same ethnicites within the same race will be similar, with more closely related ethnicities being even more similar.
(7) People of the same ethnicity/race will tend to have more physiological similarites than people of other races.
etc.
Do you dispute any of this?