Home
By:
Filters

Race is real versus race is a social construct.

roc_abilly

roc_abilly

Member
Clearly there is foundation for both claims at the same time.

Race is real:

There is a biological basis for race because there are some genetic variances between races.

However as Richard Dawkins is careful to point out, you find much greater genetic variances within the racial group itself than these cross racial variances.

So, it has biological reality, but at the same time these differences are insignificant compared to differences you find within each racial group themselves, again a scientific point that Dawkins emphasises to give the necessary context to his position that "race is real".

And certainly the reality of these differences is not in any degree approaching white supremacists claiming we can say we are in fact dealing with "sub species" and the like when we talk about races.

Race is a social construct.

Without doubt it is also true that 'whiteness' is related to imperialism/colonialism, slavery, and modern-day racism.

Our white ancestors participating in the humiliation of black people is admittedly an identifying marker of whiteness.

There has been in the past, and continues to be in the present a social importance attached to skin colour. From this it is plain to observe there is a system that confers privileges (and burdens) on people because of their colour.

Resolution of these two truths.

So what truth ought to have greater weight?

The truth that between races there are genomic differences? But remember that these genomic differences when put beside other categories of genomic differences are tiny and insignificant.

Or else the truth that thinking of race in terms of a social construct enables us to tackle the poisonous legacy of white on black racism, and do something about the system that conferred privileges on people because of their colour (or as some would prefer to put it, "race")?

The two camps.

On the whole, those who like to emphssise the truth that race is a social construct do so because they think it is justice and social progress to do away with the social meaning of skin colour, to prepare the ground for true equality and the real brotherhood of every person no matter their skin colour. They are attacking a system.

Whereas those who seek to emphasise the truth that "race is real" (and note in general they also seek to wildly exaggerate this truth, to the point of claiming races are "sub species"), do so in order to assuage their inferiority complex.

 
I suppose we could call this some sort of progress (following your disastrous backfire of introducing Dawkins, who's a biologist, to the debate).

I hate to shatter your ego but this isn't the first time I've had a gun pointed at me..



Ha, I'm always thinking of movies me, I'm like the Mowl Mowl with the ladies soccer, can't get enough of it

No, what I meant to say is, this isn't the first time I've encountered the argument, that of there being more genetic variation within a race than between them. In fact, I first encountered this argument from a fellow online years ago. He was much like you (except he was Canadian) - anti-white, a race denier and obsessed with the (imaginary) racism of whites against blacks in the US.

But I want to ask you, you say that because of this disparity, the difference between the races is (words like) insignificant?

Now, I'm not a geneticist (and neither are you) but how do you arrive at that conclusion, precisely? It seems to me that all you're saying is that because one thing is bigger than another, the other is insignificant.
 
Truth League said:
... But I want to ask you, you say that because of this disparity, the difference between the races is (words like) insignificant?

Now, I'm not a geneticist (and neither are you) but how do you arrive at that conclusion, precisely? It seems to me that all you're saying is that because one thing is bigger than another, the other is insignificant.
Click to expand...
Yes, because you always have to measure something against something else. You need a scale.

So from the perspective of a microbe, a pebble is like a mountain. From the perspective of an elephant, it is miniscule.

It is not my conclusion either. Again in the words of Dawkins, "... now what is true is that the variance between different races is much less than the variance within races...".

That scale is important. So what perspective and conclusion does Dawkins draw from it? He says he is a member of the human race (to mark down something else on the forms asking what race he is, is nonsense to him).

Because he is completely familiar with the scale involved in these respective variances, and therefore the significance and insignificance of the respective disparities.

This is Dawkin's conclusion, not mine, in this question of the genetics at issue, I am merely citing him, he is the expert.
 
roc_abilly said:
Yes, because you always have to measure something against something else. You need a scale.

So from the perspective of a microbe, a pebble is like a mountain. From the perspective of an elephant, it is miniscule.

It is not my conclusion either. Again in the words of Dawkins, "... now what is true is that the variance between different races is much less than the variance within races...".

That scale is important. So what perspective and conclusion does Dawkins draw from it? He says he is a member of the human race (to mark down something else on the forms asking what race he is, is nonsense to him).

Because he is completely familiar with the scale involved in these respective variances, and therefore the significance and insignificance of the respective disparities.

This is Dawkin's conclusion, not mine, in this question of the genetics at issue, I am merely citing him, he is the expert.
Click to expand...
Dawkins says that race is (biologically) real and not a "social construct".

You're not answering the question. How is the difference between the races insignificant because one thing is bigger than another?

I mean, in terms of genetics, you can have very small differences that result in two different species.
 
I did answer the question. And clearly. Read the post again.

And yes, again, he acknowledged they are biologically real because marked by genetic differences.

But scale is important. As I described above.

Truth League said:
I mean, in terms of genetics, you can have very small differences that result in two different species.
Click to expand...

You are talking 1-2 percent difference to have a different species. E.g. Between humans and chimpanzees.

Within the human species we are all 99.9% the same genetically.

The widest variance within this 0.1% is not cross racial, it is in how some are tall, others are short; some are stocky, others thin; some are gifted musically, others tone deaf; some are athletic, others awkward; some are outgoing, others introverted; some are intelligent, others stupid; some can write great poetry or music, most cannot.

There is thus absolutely zero basis for your cult to describe different races as "sub species".
 
roc_abilly said:
I did answer the question. And clearly. Read the post again.

And yes, again, he acknowledged they are biologically real because marked by genetic differences.

But scale is important. As I described above.



You are talking 1-2 percent difference to have a different species. E.g. Between humans and chimpanzees.

Within the human species we are all 99.9% the same genetically.

The widest variance within this 0.1% is not cross racial, it is in how some are tall, others are short; some are stocky, others thin; some are gifted musically, others tone deaf; some are athletic, others awkward; some are outgoing, others introverted; some are intelligent, others stupid; some can write great poetry or music, most cannot.
Click to expand...
As Dawkins says, most of the genetic variation of the human species is contained within a race, and there are also (genetic) differences between the races, ergo race is real, why are those differences insignificant?

roc_abilly said:
There is thus absolutely zero basis for your cult to describe different races as "sub species".
Click to expand...
A definition of subspecies is evolving in seperate geographical locations and capable of interbreeding, why do think that doesn't apply to humans?
 
Significant relative to what?

What is 1mm when you are fitting a piston in an engine cylinder, as against throwing up a firewood shelter from bits lying around?

You must have scale. How can you not grasp that?
 
roc_abilly said:
Significant relative to what?
Click to expand...
Insignificant. Is what I said, well you said it actually

roc_abilly said:
What is 1mm when you are fitting a piston in an engine cylinder, as against throwing up a firewood shelter from bits lying around?

You must have scale. How can you not grasp that?
Click to expand...
In genetics, very small differences can result in drastically different results (different species). How does that fit in to your "scale" argument? 🤔
 
You have basic comprehension issues. What can I say except watch Dawkin's presentation again and again until you understand how incredibly far away the genetic variances involved are from categories like species or "sub species", rather how there is more genetic sameness across the entire human race than between two chimpanzees from the same forest.

 
roc_abilly said:
You have basic comprehension issues. What can I say except watch Dawkin's presentation again and again until you understand how incredibly far away the genetic variances involved are from categories like species or "sub species", rather how there is more genetic sameness across the entire human race than between two chimpanzees from the same forest.

Click to expand...

No I don't, have comprehension issues, if anyone that's you that is and now you're just hail marying the "We are all Africans presentation" again without answering the questions
 
I don't "hate race realism". It's just a stupid concept. It was conceived from the basest of emotions. It's brand-like terminology, clearly aimed at a cynical marketing exercise of rebranding white supremacism.

The term has as much meaning for me as any other brand slogan.

Granted their is a sliver of substance that the slogan is based on, but as we previously found out on here through discussion, that's all it is, a tiny sliver.

I hate stupid marketing slogans, perhaps. That would be the extend of any "hate" I have towards the term.
 
Are the whites still having regular panics around the redneck states that the former slaves are running amok and coming for their women? :) That's what the KKK started out as, a militia to protect white farms and slave owners from marauding bands of slaves.

Regular hysteria in the redneck states at the beginning of the 19th century and onwards and it is still visible in 'white flight' to places like Florida. It is not a new story. Rome got pretty nervous when they realised that the slaves in the city outnumbered the citizens.

The United States of America is a colonialist construct and was never intended to include any citizen other than a white landowner. It started out as a sort of Orange Free State for religious nutters from Europe, a Europe that was quite frankly glad to see the back of them.

PJ O'Rourke: 'Never forget that the USA was founded by religious nuts with guns'.
 
I love the fact that fat Harvey and fat Mobilene see Florida as a place to hide out with the other whites. It will be the first state to disappear under rising sea levels. If you've ever flown along the Florida coastline on a clear day you'll see why.

I'm going to be up all night following it on all channels as the snakes and the alligators from the everglades invade the golf courses and start taking bites out of Harve and Mobilene and their fat kids. Alligators can really move in shallow water conditions and Harve, Mobe, Harvey Jr and lil' Sassafras can only hit 12 mph in short bursts.

Popcorn time on 24/7 all channel news. Fuck 'em. They weren't any use to anyone anyhow.
 
Electricity said:
WTF is this shit??
Click to expand...
Jambo, just so you're aware, even while you get ridiculed on Isle - placed in the stocks, pilloried, cabbages thrown at your turnip head - there is usually also a serious message waiting to ambush you.

Let me explain this one so even a child could understand it.

Any worthwhile Nationalism is about culture and heritage, including natural heritage.

Where does culture reside?

It does not lie either in the hue of one's skin, or in being a self-proclaimed mensatard.

It lies in one's feeling - for the culture, natural heritage, built environment, archeology, language, and other such artifacts.

The measure of a worthwhile nationalism is what it brings to the culture of a nation.

You claim to bring something to it by preventing the "replacement" of white skinned dutch gold drinking introverts from Coolock by dark gentlemen with bigger willies than you (not very hard).

But actually, if it wasn't obvious, you bring nothing to anything, apart from slogans and phrases you import from other small willied white men living in bastard lands across the waters. Do you.

So look at your personal contribution to the culture of this country as against say one of these dark skinned gentlemen who have fallen in love with say the trees and forests of this country, or our old language, and do something positive.

Are they not greater Irish Nationalists than you are?

Or not just the men, what about the dark skinned gentle women in this country, and the positive infusion of their individuality and energy and vitality drawing from their own culture, into this culture?



So you see. Now compare and contrast to your own "nationalism" and the quality and character of your own contribution to the life of this country.

Yep. That's the shit. No wonder you have such trouble understanding the very basics.
 
You might wonder though whether something in their history as the wealthiest colony in the Americas, the fact that in the second half of the eighteenth century they produced more wealth than any other colony in the world, had something to do with their abject state today. Noting we haven't exactly made anything of ourselves in this country since independence have we. Just the type of corruption we had in our new overlords, the new indigenous overlords, was of a different type. For our colonisation also left behind broad swathes of mass minded, cretinous, craven, childish, vicious, mean, and ignorant idiot gombeens. If it wasn't for joining the EU, and becoming a tax haven for multinationals, we'd probably be not far off Haiti today.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom