[Wellsy]

Distinct as what. Race exists, but that doesn't mean that ant particular scheme of racial classification is not subjective and has some level of arbitrariness. But this actually true of many of the boundaries in the biological classification schema.Human races are not as distinct as dog sub species says the Liberal. Yes and so? Who ever said they were?

And even if the in-group variation is greater than the variations between the averages of the two groups, doesn't mean the variation between groups is not worthy of study. It does not mean that it could not have a profound effect on group development.

Yes, but the existence of such is precarious because we have many who are ardent on filling it with meaning well beyond what is deducible from such facts because of a history of scientific racism. It's a bit like framing everyone as so extreme that they deny there are physiological differences between men and women that warrant medical consideration (historically it has been ignored to the detriment of women's medical health), but many do not proclaim such an extreme position.
However, one doesn't have to also accept wholly that every distinction originates within the biological. The effort to crame everything to such a framework itself goes against our understanding of epigenetics.

And I accept that some concepts lend themselves to arbitrary distinction like how there exists a distinction between colors but we would be hard pressed to draw an exact line at which one color is red or orange. Such a difficulty doesn't render distinctions nonexistent. However the meaning of race has social significant from social relations and production far beyond any physiological fact and it is an ideological approach to abstract things from their real world embedness and simply insert an unexamined explanation of a possibly complex causality but only at a physical level.

So following your logic and other people here I assume you woukd say that black people were never enslaved and there was never a Holocaust of jews. Right? Because that would require that races exist...

This just sounds like a lack of ability to discern the reality or existence of things at a social constructivist level, where things have real world effects and aren't merely collective belief but aren't natural facts either.
That blackness doesn't exist as a natural category doesn't erase the existence of a designated group which is in fact socially recognized and treated by the fact of their physiological characteristics.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/wage-labour/ch05.htm

What is a Negro slave? A man of the black race. The one explanation is worthy of the other.

A Negro is a Negro. Only under certain conditions does he become a slave. A cotton-spinning machine is a machine for spinning cotton. Only under certain conditions does it become capital. Torn away from these conditions, it is as little capital as gold is itself money, or sugar is the price of sugar.

To lose sight of the social relations that engenders the actual social significance and meaning of a thing within those relations is to attempt to naturalize the social and ideological because it purports content of things while abstracting them entirely of the basis of that meaning.
To drive home this point that it is only the ecological perspective, the view of a thing in it's relations that gives it any sense, consider this.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/vygotsky/works/1930/psychological-systems.htm

I will give an example. Let us compare the direct image of a nine, for example, the figures on playing cards, and the number 9. The group of nine on playing cards is richer and more concrete than our concept “9,” but the concept “9” involves a number of judgments which are not in the nine on the playing card; “9” is not divisible by even numbers, is divisible by 3, is 32, and the square root of 81; we connect “9” with the series of whole numbers, etc. Hence it is clear that psychologically speaking the process of concept formation resides in the discovery of the connections of the given object with a number of others, in finding the real whole. That is why a mature concept involves the whole totality of its relations, its place in the world, so to speak. “9” is a specific point in the whole theory of numbers with the possibility of infinite development and infinite combination which are always subject to a general law. Two aspects draw our attention: first, the concept is not a collective photograph. It does not develop by rubbing out individual traits of the object. It is the knowledge of the object in its relations, in its connections. Second, the object in the concept is not a modified image but, as contemporary psychological investigations demonstrate, a predisposition for quite a number of judgments. “When a person says ‘mammal,’ asks one of the psychologists, what does it mean psychologically speaking?” It means that the person can develop an idea and in the final analysis that he has a world view, for to determine the place of a mammal in the animal world and the place of the animal world in nature means to have an integral world view.

We see that the concept is a system of judgments brought into a certain lawful connection: the whole essence is that when we operate with each separate concept, we are operating with the system as a whole.

But alas I am not one who denies evolution but at the same time I do not so crudely reduce man to being a mere ape, but note a discontinuity and qualitiative difference because man is not strictly a creature of instincts but one who develops within a humanized world.
https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/works/phylogeny.htm

The key concept which comes out of at the end of Donald’s enquiry is the concept of ‘extended mind’ – the combination of material artefacts and mnemonic and computational devices with the internal cognitive apparatus of human beings who have been raised in the practice of using them. Human physiology, behaviour and consciousness cannot be reproduced by individual human beings alone; we are reliant for our every action on the world of artefacts, with its own intricate inherent system of relations. Theory is the ideal form of the structure of material culture. Every thought, memory, problem solution or communication, is effected by the mobilisation of the internal mind of individuals, and the external mind contained within human culture. Taken together, the internal and external mind is called ‘extended mind’. This is what Hegel called Geist, an entity in which the division between subjectivity and objectivity is relative and not absolute.

Humans are animals which have learnt to build and mobilise an extended mind. This has proved to be a powerful adaption. Individuals in this species stand in quite a different relation to the world around them than the individuals of any other extant species. Understanding of the psyche of the modern individual depends on understanding the process of development of a human being growing up in such a culture...

We do not merely react to the world but enact control through signs and tools that mediate the selection of a trained reflex/respons such that we have an ability to direct ourselves and not merely be directed by the environment. This is what marks a cultured person from those who are perpetually stuck in repetitions and reactions. When it comes to the reality of race, and ethnicity and other markers, it relates to not merely a physical being, but one who acts within a material culture and set relations.
Humans are not so biologically different from even primitive man but instead are psychologically different due to their acculturation and social relations.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/vygotsky/works/1930/psychological-systems.htm

We have no reason to assume that the human brain underwent an essential biological evolution in the course of human history. We have no reason to assume that the brain of primitive man differed from our brain, was an inferior brain, or had a biological structure different from ours. All biological investigations lead us to assume that biologically speaking the most primitive man we know deserves the full title of man. The biological evolution of man was finished before the beginning of his historical development. And it would be a flagrant mixing up of the concepts of biological evolution and historical development to try to explain the difference between our thinking and the thinking of primitive man by claiming that primitive man stands on another level of biological development.

And I think we should look at those with such a fixation upon racial classification with suspicion and skepticism to the recklessness in which they deploy concepts given a history of 'scientific' racism because it is often crude hamfisted and presumes an outcome rather than a curious exploration lead by facts that are discovered/developed while also critically examining the concepts in which one interprets facts.
One can make a true claim while maintaining a false belief, and one must not confuse the fixation on a fact as a fact of the belief about the fact.
Just how a man's fixation on the thought of his wife cheating isn't dependent on the truth of whether she is cheating or not, but can remain pathological even though she is in fact cheating. The fixation, the psychological drive to want to believe such a thing brings up questions about one's psychology beyond the fact of the wife's behavior. The motivation itself being false and hence the derision given to an effort to present a mere neutral and rational approach to the issue as if one can ignore a possible fixation driving the repeated focus and concern with the issue.

One's character is more persuasive if there are other features that simply land one in the space of considering implications on the concept of racial classification amidst research, as opposed to the active seeking of creating such a taxonomy with an already asserted suspicion of such grand significance. How can one not be but suspicious given a history of such a drive to need to characterize races as inferior based not in any science and understanding but a ideology to justify power. Instead to be so supicious is instead seen as the status quo, hence the so call radical approach to suggest that no the mainstream is wrong and too sensitive around the issue, there is a conspiracy and as such there must be truth. It misrepresents the history and power dynamics to make oneself appear the udnerdog and the rational inquirer. More of a rhetorical appeal than substance.

[Tainari88]

Well, racism is a motivating factor for that El Paso Texas shooting. The Roof guy in that Black Church in South Carolina and etc. So yes, there are racist violent people and a lot of them are again, young radicalized white men who again are unmarried and disaffected. Many times losers.

This is America: three mass shootings in less than a week. Just days after a 19-year-old gunman killed three people at a Gilroy, California, garlic festival, a 21-year-old in Texas opened fire at a mall on Saturday, murdering at least 20 people. The next day in Dayton, Ohio, a 24-year-old killed nine people. All of the shooters were young white men.

Minutes before the El Paso attack, the shooter released a screed saying it was “a response to the Hispanic invasion of Texas,” echoing racist statements made by the president and referencing the “cultural and ethnic replacement” of white people. Similarly, before the teenage shooter in California went on his rampage, he published a post on Instagram recommending a novel popular with white supremacists. A motive has yet to be identified in the Ohio shooting, but the killer’s former classmates note he was suspended once for writing a list of girls he wanted to rape.

These shootings are just the latest in what has become a horrific American trend of mass murders motivated by racism and misogyny. Think of the Isla Vista mass shooting in 2014 (committed by a young man who left behind a 140-page document railing against women), the 2015 white supremacist shooting in a black church in Charleston, and the Poway synagogue murders in April — the young white men committing these crimes are not anomalies or “lone wolves.” They are terrorists: disaffected, radicalized online, seeped in racial and gendered resentment, and hoping for lasting glory.

This is a national emergency, and if any other demographic were so wholly responsible for mass murders in the United States, we would be talking about it every single day.

But right now, even daring to mention the connection between these shootings draws ire. Last month, for example, Rep. Ilhan Omar was blasted for pointing out that the biggest domestic terrorist threat in the United States is white men, despite the fact that the FBI director had recently said the same.

Continuing to ignore what is happening in this…

[Unthinking Majority]

Opinions are different than truth, which would explain why a lot of people disagree with you, since people disagree about a lot of things. Also, there's other forms of nationalism besides racial nationalism, like language, religion etc.

[Tainari88]

Opinions are different than truth, which would explain why a lot of people disagree with you, since people disagree about a lot of things. Also, there's other forms of nationalism besides racial nationalism, like language, religion etc.

Who are you talking to Unthinking?

[FiveofSwords]

Yes they are.

Lol. You might think they do not exist. But it is nice to think that you are in denial and it will be good for you to stick to writing paranoia on the internet.

Let people who actually know what they ard doing with the violent ones do their job eh?

BTW, how many mass shootings have happened in the USA over the last five years? A lot.

How many were about homegrown extremist people? The majority.

How many were unmarried young men who had anti social behavior? A lot.

How many write about threats from other ethnic groups? Quite a few.

https://www.splcenter.org/20220216/freq ... ent-groups

From that same website this is a part of the description:

https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch

Why is a proud boy using your vocab phrasing so much FiveofSwords? They bandy about white genocide all the time.

Is that the way they train you to speak? Why?

You are insane. There are hundreds of mass shootings every year and the vast majority are just black people. Politically motivated mass shootings? Maybe there have been about 30...and more of them are motivated by anti white politics than pro white.

[Tainari88]

You are insane. There are hundreds of mass shootings every year and the vast majority are just black people. Politically motivated mass shootings? Maybe there have been about 30...and more of them are motivated by anti white politics than pro white.

What are just black people?

Oh so now they are motivated by anti white politics? The mass shootings? How does that work eh?

I am not insane. You can repeat that fucking lie till the cows come home. You are the newbie in this place not me.

So far, you use a playing card as your screenname which those Proud Boys and Oathkeeper pendejos say they use to help recruit more right wing extremists from the US military ranks.

And you use white genocide which they also bandy about.

I really think the one on the edge of reality is you....

But you can deny it.

Here is another video to disclaim your absurdity about violence and extremist views not being linked.

[FiveofSwords]

Yes, but the existence of such is precarious because we have many who are ardent on filling it with meaning well beyond what is deducible from such facts because of a history of scientific racism. It's a bit like framing everyone as so extreme that they deny there are physiological differences between men and women that warrant medical consideration (historically it has been ignored to the detriment of women's medical health), but many do not proclaim such an extreme position.
However, one doesn't have to also accept wholly that every distinction originates within the biological. The effort to crame everything to such a framework itself goes against our understanding of epigenetics.

And I accept that some concepts lend themselves to arbitrary distinction like how there exists a distinction between colors but we would be hard pressed to draw an exact line at which one color is red or orange. Such a difficulty doesn't render distinctions nonexistent. However the meaning of race has social significant from social relations and production far beyond any physiological fact and it is an ideological approach to abstract things from their real world embedness and simply insert an unexamined explanation of a possibly complex causality but only at a physical level.


This just sounds like a lack of ability to discern the reality or existence of things at a social constructivist level, where things have real world effects and aren't merely collective belief but aren't natural facts either.
That blackness doesn't exist as a natural category doesn't erase the existence of a designated group which is in fact socially recognized and treated by the fact of their physiological characteristics.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/wage-labour/ch05.htm


To lose sight of the social relations that engenders the actual social significance and meaning of a thing within those relations is to attempt to naturalize the social and ideological because it purports content of things while abstracting them entirely of the basis of that meaning.
To drive home this point that it is only the ecological perspective, the view of a thing in it's relations that gives it any sense, consider this.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/vygotsky/works/1930/psychological-systems.htm


But alas I am not one who denies evolution but at the same time I do not so crudely reduce man to being a mere ape, but note a discontinuity and qualitiative difference because man is not strictly a creature of instincts but one who develops within a humanized world.
https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/works/phylogeny.htm

We do not merely react to the world but enact control through signs and tools that mediate the selection of a trained reflex/respons such that we have an ability to direct ourselves and not merely be directed by the environment. This is what marks a cultured person from those who are perpetually stuck in repetitions and reactions. When it comes to the reality of race, and ethnicity and other markers, it relates to not merely a physical being, but one who acts within a material culture and set relations.
Humans are not so biologically different from even primitive man but instead are psychologically different due to their acculturation and social relations.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/vygotsky/works/1930/psychological-systems.htm


And I think we should look at those with such a fixation upon racial classification with suspicion and skepticism to the recklessness in which they deploy concepts given a history of 'scientific' racism because it is often crude hamfisted and presumes an outcome rather than a curious exploration lead by facts that are discovered/developed while also critically examining the concepts in which one interprets facts.
One can make a true claim while maintaining a false belief, and one must not confuse the fixation on a fact as a fact of the belief about the fact.
Just how a man's fixation on the thought of his wife cheating isn't dependent on the truth of whether she is cheating or not, but can remain pathological even though she is in fact cheating. The fixation, the psychological drive to want to believe such a thing brings up questions about one's psychology beyond the fact of the wife's behavior. The motivation itself being false and hence the derision given to an effort to present a mere neutral and rational approach to the issue as if one can ignore a possible fixation driving the repeated focus and concern with the issue.

One's character is more persuasive if there are other features that simply land one in the space of considering implications on the concept of racial classification amidst research, as opposed to the active seeking of creating such a taxonomy with an already asserted suspicion of such grand significance. How can one not be but suspicious given a history of such a drive to need to characterize races as inferior based not in any science and understanding but a ideology to justify power. Instead to be so supicious is instead seen as the status quo, hence the so call radical approach to suggest that no the mainstream is wrong and too sensitive around the issue, there is a conspiracy and as such there must be truth. It misrepresents the history and power dynamics to make oneself appear the udnerdog and the rational inquirer. More of a rhetorical appeal than substance.

Dude, race either exists or it does not. It is not complicated.

[Pants-of-dog]

Dude, race either exists or it does not. It is not complicated.

Does money exist?

Do nations exist?

Do rights exist?

[Deutschmania]

Lol.

What if I want to unify my race in some artificial construct like Sword wants to?

I pull out some humorous stuff.

A professor at American University in Berkeley says the perfect human is: (drum roll)

https://www.medicaldaily.com/biologist- ... try-313956

https://liorpachter.wordpress.com/2014/ ... rto-rican/

if you are a racist looking for being validated? You can always invent things to favor you. Lol.

But this scientist only took the argument of germ engineering to its logical conclusion.

Hee hee.

Perfection does not exist. What exists is that if you can take the best advantages of each phenotype and mix it? You get the best of all worlds. Sort of like bluebloods from Europe's Royal families having a lot of inbreeding and it caused defects like hemophilia....and voila....too much purity does not a strong gene make. I smile.

But there is tons of evidence that does support your view Ingliz.

The idea of genetic engineering was actually the premise for the television series "Dark Angel" , the main character was played by a Latina actress , Jessica Alba . And as such , she has a very ethnically diverse DNA , including a small amount of Sephardic Jewish genetics , as is true of a great many of Spanish descent , whether or not they have been previously aware. As @wat0n pointed out , there is less genetic variation among humans than among canine beings . So dog DNA tests might be more accurate . However , with that being said , there have been a number of women whom have gotten back results alleging that they are canine .

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/playing-with-dna-is-larry_b_402795

https://globalnews.ca/news/10359199/dna-my-dog-testing-human-swab-id/

And like with humans , one cannot with complete accuracy determine what the exact make up of a mixed dog's breeding is , just by appearance alone . A DNA test would be required .

[Dr House]

So, what are the races of the world?

Caucasoid, Mongoloid, Negroid, and Australoid. Man has known these categories, which are plainly distinguishable to the naked eye, for a hundred years.

Claiming that they're not very historically relevant relative to the likes of ethnicity (which is cultural) is fine, claiming race doesn't exist as a genetic categorization is stupid. In fact the main reason ethnicity has relatively little to do with race is the high degree of natural segregation between races through most of history (which is also the reason racism triggers disgust sensitivity). The disease profiles each race was adapted to were deadly to every other, which is why 95% of Indians died when the Spanish set foot in the Americas and 70% of Conquistadors who settled south of the 36th parallel died as well.

Multiculturalism is an artifact of modern medicine, along with things like the Scramble for Africa.

[Wellsy]

Dude, race either exists or it does not. It is not complicated.

That’s a basic but not very detailed answer of ontology but not an interesting one. Perhaps I’m just an egg head or you’re just a lazy thinker.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/race/#DoRacExiConPhiDeb

Ron Mallon (2004, 2006, 2007) provides a nice sketch of the contemporary philosophical terrain regarding the status of the concept of race, dividing it into three valid competing schools of thought regarding the ontological status of race, along with the discarded biological conception. Racial naturalism signifies the old, biological conception of race, which depicts races as bearing “biobehavioral essences: underlying natural (and perhaps genetic) properties that (1) are heritable, biological features, (2) are shared by all and only the members of a race, and (3) explain behavioral, characterological, and cultural predispositions of individual persons and racial groups” (2006, 528–529). While philosophers and scientists have reached the consensus against racial naturalism, philosophers nevertheless disagree on the possible ontological status of a different conception of race. Mallon divides such disagreements into three metaphysical camps (racial skepticism, racial constructivism, and racial population naturalism) and two normative camps (eliminativism and conservationism). We have used ‘constructivism’ throughout for the sake of consistency but it should be read as interchangeable with ‘constructionism.’

Without going into detail then you make no significant distinction to make your own position clear and thus compelling. You speculated my denial of any victims of a harm based on grouping presumably because I argue a distinction of race’s ontology not being strictly biological.
But now you foreclose such considerations and nuance with a flattening of yes or no.

[FiveofSwords]

That’s a basic but not very detailed answer of ontology but not an interesting one. Perhaps I’m just an egg head or you’re just a lazy thinker.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/race/#DoRacExiConPhiDeb


Without going into detail then you make no significant distinction to make your own position clear and thus compelling. You speculated my denial of any victims of a harm based on grouping presumably because I argue a distinction of race’s ontology not being strictly biological.
But now you foreclose such considerations and nuance with a flattening of yes or no.

No. Lol. People are just afraid of saying yes while knowing the answer no is just stupid. It's only cowardice that names the question difficult to answer.

[Wellsy]

No. Lol. People are just afraid of saying yes while knowing the answer no is just stupid. It's only cowardice that names the question difficult to answer.

For your gotcha then, race exists today but it hasn’t existed as a substantive social reality for most of human history beyond some idea of an ethnic group based in a common way of life or the human race as a whole.
So yes and no.

[Unthinking Majority]

Who are you talking to Unthinking?

The OP.

[Unthinking Majority]

But right now, even daring to mention the connection between these shootings draws ire. Last month, for example, Rep. Ilhan Omar was blasted for pointing out that the biggest domestic terrorist threat in the United States is white men, despite the fact that the FBI director had recently said the same.

The problem with saying "white men" as you wrote it is that it's vague and therefore racist and stereotyping. It's like saying "Muslim men are the biggest domestic terror threat", when they should say "radical jihadist Muslim males". It would be more accurate to say "far-right white men" or "incel white males" et al.

It is a problem, and probably doesn't get enough attention. There's some similarity between the far-right violence men and radical Muslim terrorists. Both are far-right, for one.

[Tainari88]

The problem with saying "white men" as you wrote it is that it's vague and therefore racist and stereotyping. It's like saying "Muslim men are the biggest domestic terror threat", when they should say "radical jihadist Muslim males". It would be more accurate to say "far-right white men" or "incel white males" et al.

It is a problem, and probably doesn't get enough attention. There's some similarity between the far-right violence men and radical Muslim terrorists. Both are far-right, for one.

I did not write that. I pulled it out of the article that wrote it.

[Unthinking Majority]

I did not write that. I pulled it out of the article that wrote it.

Oh ok. I'd suggest quoting articles you cite.

[Unthinking Majority]

For most people, race is either real or not real depending on the political agenda they're trying to push that moment.

[Fasces]

Caucasoid, Mongoloid, Negroid, and Australoid. Man has known these categories, which are plainly distinguishable to the naked eye, for a hundred years.

They've known them for a hundred years. And they're supposed to be plainly distinguishable?

claiming race doesn't exist as a genetic categorization is stupid.

Race is an arbitrary grouping of disparate peoples and genetic heritages. There are ways to identify the ancestry or heritage of groups of people - there is no way to identify their race, without first knowing what 'race' the genetic cluster you can identify are 'supposed' to belong too, and each culture and generation has differing definitions for that.

Here's an excerpt from a British scientific magazine (Knowledge) from the 1960s depciting the races:



So off the bat, we have 3 racial groups - not 4. Australians are the same race as the Congolese, apparently. And Ethiopians/Somalis are actually white!

The categories are made up. They're useless at best, and worse than useless when used to try to predict individual behavior or outcome.

[Unthinking Majority]

And you use white genocide which they also bandy about.

There's no white genocide. It's more of demographic decline due to willing personal choices like use of technology (birth control). People are simply choosing not to have kids, or fewer kids, with the help of birth control. If anything it would be called suicide, not genocide. "Genocide" denotes some kind of victimhood, when it's clearly much more of a self-imposed demographic trend.

Even if white nationalists were to stop all immigration, causasians would still go extinct if current trends continue.

In fact, if birth control becomes so popular across the entire world eventually, then human extinction is an eventual possibility. I think before that point, advancing AI will mean we'll likely have technology to extend our lives indefinitely, so procreation wouldn't really be needed so much. The future is unknown, I don't think any of this will actually matter in 50 years due to technology.