|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
Korea (South)227 Posts
Kwizach, my man-the youths of this country, black or white or whatever skin-colour/racial group they are in do not support Hillary. This is why despite the polls and despite your continued statements that HRC won the college student vote mean less and less.
And before you quote me as racist, it IS true that because Bernie Sanders is much less known to the overall black community he's suffering in polls. Im quite sure if the majority of the black population down in the South would be given the chance to fully hear him out before the Clinton machine forcibly made them into a firewall, grabbing the influence peddling she gained under Obama even after the racial slurs she used against him in the campaign against him that it would be a much more split vote.
All I hear from you is a continued barrage of shielding the fact that the Clinton machine is utilizing the influence she gained under Obama to grab black votes. She's using the fact the black vote united for Obama and is feeding off that influence just because she worked with him in his tenure. While I'm sure the black population can still make up their own minds, its tough to say no to someone supposedly more familiar and has stated (or lied, but they don't know that) that she has and will fight for them.
|
Well looks like Sanders raised a few million coming off of SC. Appears mission "end the race" has failed and this will be going to the convention.
|
United States42008 Posts
On February 29 2016 00:43 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On February 29 2016 00:28 KwarK wrote:On February 28 2016 19:01 kwizach wrote:On February 28 2016 14:36 Slaughter wrote:On February 28 2016 14:32 LegalLord wrote:On February 28 2016 11:46 puerk wrote:
it has nothing to do with race, the whole cultural concept of race is discredited junk Some people might argue that race isn't real genetically (I disagree and find the experiments used to test this to be very poorly designed). But the cultural concept being not real? That's just demonstrably wrong. There is a very instinctive difference in reaction to seeing a person with white skin vs black skin for anyone who has lived in the US for any amount of time. There are some cultural differences between the US and Germany in that regard (I know I had a very different perspective on this issue before living in the US), but to be blunt you are talking out of your ass when you say that race isn't culturally significant in US politics. You would be hard pressed to find scientists who study genetics or human biology that wouldn't say race is in outdated concept biologically speaking that overly simplifies the nature of human variation. It just has no use and is an inaccurate way to describe humanity. Race as a cultural construct though is very real because we have made it so. Exactly. Human variation exists, but race is a social construct. To quote a previous post of mine: + Show Spoiler +"Races are social constructs which are based on the delimitation of groups when those limits have no objective scientific basis. [...] The point is that on the genetic level the "human races" you referenced make little sense, and that the very traits and characteristics that are used to define "races" in reality exist in spectrums across humanity (or at the very least exist without obvious "breaks"), making any such delimitation arbitrary and socially constructed. You mention anthropology. Have you read the "Race Reconciled: How Biological Anthropologists View Human Variation" special issue of vol. 39, issue 1 of the American Journal of Physical Anthropology (May 2009)? The authors clearly and unambiguously demonstrate that "race is not an accurate or productive way to describe human biological variation" (Heather J.H. Edgar and Keith L. Hunley in the introduction of the special issue, p. 2). You can read a detailed summary of the findings here (this is the page where I initially learned about these papers - I "only" read three of the articles themselves). Here are a few quotes from that summary: In a discussion of Race and global patterns of phenotypic variation, John Relethford plots human skin color variation: "The result is a continuous straight line ranging from the darkest extremes to the lightest extremes in skin color. There are no identifiable clusters. . . . Researchers are of course free to subdivide this continuum into different groups, but such clustering would be arbitrary and subjective in terms of the number of groups and the cutoff points used to distinguish them. The lack of apparent clusters is a reflection of the fact that skin color shows a classic pattern of clinal variation." (2009:17) [...]
Unlike some textbooks and pronouncements which use this information to declare all physical variation is clinal, Relethford proceeds to consider craniometric or skull variation. [...] Relethford considers racial labels as “a culturally constructed label that crudely and imprecisely describes real variation” (2009:20). Variation is real, exists, and has been structured by geography and migration, but the labels we use are a “crude first-order approximation” (2009:21). Relethford uses the example of how we see height as short, medium, and tall: “We tend to use crude labels in everyday life with the realization that they are fuzzy and subjective. I doubt anyone thinks that terms such as ‘short,’ ‘medium,’ and ‘tall’ refer to discrete groups, or that humanity only comes in three values of height!” (2009:21). [...] Current scientific consensus is that craniometrics yields clustered geographic groupings, but those groupings are subjective and arbitrary. [...]
Skin color, like many other racial measures, is continuously variable. Crania may be structured geographically, but classifications based on geographic clusters would be arbitrary. But what about measuring all the bones? Television shows feature forensic anthropologists easily identifying race from skeletal remains. Does that mean race is real?[...] Sauer explains “the successful assignment of race to a skeletal specimen is not a vindication of the race concept, but rather a prediction that an individual, while alive was assigned to a particular socially constructed ‘racial’ category” (1992:107). Forensic anthropologists have samples of bones from many geographic areas, and can classify bones according to what race society has assigned to people with ancestry in those geographic areas. However, examining the bones provides a probability estimate of likely race assignment: “In ascribing a race name to a set of skeletonized remains, the anthropologist is actually translating information about biological traits to a culturally constructed labeling system that was likely to have been applied to a missing person” (1992:109).
Despite the provocative and sometimes misunderstood title, Sauer pleads for forensic anthropologists to better explain what it means to make racial classifications from skeletal remains. He begs forensic anthropologists not to “sail on” without making an effort to expose people “to the notion that perceived races are not reflections of biological reality” (1992:110). We should “not fall into the trap of accepting races as valid biologically discrete categories because we use them so often” (1992:110). [...] What actually happens is forensic anthropologists match bones probabilistically against known existing assortments. Those assortments can be anything socially relevant. Changing the context of bone discovery could lead to different predictive classification–of the same bones: “The use of different priors also shows the importance of prior information, as ‘Mr. Johnson’ would have been classified as a Pacific Islander had his remains been found on Hawaii and as an ‘American Black’ had his remains been found in Gary, Indiana” (Konigsberg et al. 2009:83). [...]
Even after proving the continuous variation of skin tones, and even after showing how bones and skulls do not confirm traditional race classifications, there is still the sense that genetics offers real proof of race. Genetic testing companies amplify this misconception in a rush to market ancestry, while pharmaceutical companies sell race-targeted medications.
[...] Genetic classifications of races outside of Sub-Saharan Africa are simply subsets of Sub-Saharan African diversity. Moreover, and perhaps most strangely, “a classification that takes into account evolutionary relationships and the nested pattern of diversity would require that Sub-Saharan Africans are not a race because the most exclusive group that includes all Sub-Saharan African populations also includes every non-Sub-Saharan African population” (Long et al. 2009:32).
[...] This evolutionary history is explained in the article The global pattern of gene identity variation reveals a history of long-range migrations, bottlenecks, and local mate exchange: Implications for biological race. Once again, sophisticated techniques reveal a “nested pattern of genetic structure that is inconsistent with the existence of independently evolving biological races” (Hunley et al. 2009:35). The authors confirm greater genetic variation within Sub-Saharan Africa, and all other humans are a sub-set of this variation. Taxonomic classifications of race cannot account for observed genetic diversity. [...]" In short, and as I said, variation among humans obviously exists (nobody is claiming otherwise), but races are social constructs." Anyway, amazing result from Clinton! I hope this will lead Sanders to concede sooner than later (hopefully after March 1st, but after March the 15th at the latest), and work with Clinton against the Republican nominee. On February 28 2016 09:32 KwarK wrote:
If that statistic is accurate it must be frustrating as hell for Sanders to win the socially conscious white college educated "we must do something to address the root causes of inequality and racism in our society" vote and then lose the black vote. Are you implying that the African Americans who voted for Clinton in SC are not socially conscious? Or educated? Or don't think we must "do something to address the root causes of inequality and racism in our society"? Also, Clinton won the "college graduate" and "postgraduate" demographics 70% to 30%. She also actually won the "white college graduate" demographic you're referring to, 52% to 48%. Yes, statistically the black southern population is less educated and less informed about national politics. 1. You wrote Sanders won the "socially conscious white college educated [...] vote". He didn't. Clinton did. 2. Clinton won the black college educated vote as well. 3. The "black vote" includes plenty of socially conscious, college educated voters. 4. Not being college educated doesn't make one not "socially conscious" and willing to "address the root causes of inequality and racism in our society". 5. You were clearly opposing the "socially conscious college educated vote", which you associated with "white", on the one hand, and the "black vote" on the other hand. Let's leave racist undertones to republicans, shall we?
It's racist if the root cause of the racial trend identified is race. It's not racist if the root cause of the racial trend identified is a structural outcome of the way society approaches race. Saying "blacks are innately more criminal" is racist. Saying "blacks are more likely to be convicted of a crime" is not.
See the difference?
|
On February 29 2016 01:01 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 29 2016 00:43 kwizach wrote:On February 29 2016 00:28 KwarK wrote:On February 28 2016 19:01 kwizach wrote:On February 28 2016 14:36 Slaughter wrote:On February 28 2016 14:32 LegalLord wrote:On February 28 2016 11:46 puerk wrote:
it has nothing to do with race, the whole cultural concept of race is discredited junk Some people might argue that race isn't real genetically (I disagree and find the experiments used to test this to be very poorly designed). But the cultural concept being not real? That's just demonstrably wrong. There is a very instinctive difference in reaction to seeing a person with white skin vs black skin for anyone who has lived in the US for any amount of time. There are some cultural differences between the US and Germany in that regard (I know I had a very different perspective on this issue before living in the US), but to be blunt you are talking out of your ass when you say that race isn't culturally significant in US politics. You would be hard pressed to find scientists who study genetics or human biology that wouldn't say race is in outdated concept biologically speaking that overly simplifies the nature of human variation. It just has no use and is an inaccurate way to describe humanity. Race as a cultural construct though is very real because we have made it so. Exactly. Human variation exists, but race is a social construct. To quote a previous post of mine: + Show Spoiler +"Races are social constructs which are based on the delimitation of groups when those limits have no objective scientific basis. [...] The point is that on the genetic level the "human races" you referenced make little sense, and that the very traits and characteristics that are used to define "races" in reality exist in spectrums across humanity (or at the very least exist without obvious "breaks"), making any such delimitation arbitrary and socially constructed. You mention anthropology. Have you read the "Race Reconciled: How Biological Anthropologists View Human Variation" special issue of vol. 39, issue 1 of the American Journal of Physical Anthropology (May 2009)? The authors clearly and unambiguously demonstrate that "race is not an accurate or productive way to describe human biological variation" (Heather J.H. Edgar and Keith L. Hunley in the introduction of the special issue, p. 2). You can read a detailed summary of the findings here (this is the page where I initially learned about these papers - I "only" read three of the articles themselves). Here are a few quotes from that summary: In a discussion of Race and global patterns of phenotypic variation, John Relethford plots human skin color variation: "The result is a continuous straight line ranging from the darkest extremes to the lightest extremes in skin color. There are no identifiable clusters. . . . Researchers are of course free to subdivide this continuum into different groups, but such clustering would be arbitrary and subjective in terms of the number of groups and the cutoff points used to distinguish them. The lack of apparent clusters is a reflection of the fact that skin color shows a classic pattern of clinal variation." (2009:17) [...]
Unlike some textbooks and pronouncements which use this information to declare all physical variation is clinal, Relethford proceeds to consider craniometric or skull variation. [...] Relethford considers racial labels as “a culturally constructed label that crudely and imprecisely describes real variation” (2009:20). Variation is real, exists, and has been structured by geography and migration, but the labels we use are a “crude first-order approximation” (2009:21). Relethford uses the example of how we see height as short, medium, and tall: “We tend to use crude labels in everyday life with the realization that they are fuzzy and subjective. I doubt anyone thinks that terms such as ‘short,’ ‘medium,’ and ‘tall’ refer to discrete groups, or that humanity only comes in three values of height!” (2009:21). [...] Current scientific consensus is that craniometrics yields clustered geographic groupings, but those groupings are subjective and arbitrary. [...]
Skin color, like many other racial measures, is continuously variable. Crania may be structured geographically, but classifications based on geographic clusters would be arbitrary. But what about measuring all the bones? Television shows feature forensic anthropologists easily identifying race from skeletal remains. Does that mean race is real?[...] Sauer explains “the successful assignment of race to a skeletal specimen is not a vindication of the race concept, but rather a prediction that an individual, while alive was assigned to a particular socially constructed ‘racial’ category” (1992:107). Forensic anthropologists have samples of bones from many geographic areas, and can classify bones according to what race society has assigned to people with ancestry in those geographic areas. However, examining the bones provides a probability estimate of likely race assignment: “In ascribing a race name to a set of skeletonized remains, the anthropologist is actually translating information about biological traits to a culturally constructed labeling system that was likely to have been applied to a missing person” (1992:109).
Despite the provocative and sometimes misunderstood title, Sauer pleads for forensic anthropologists to better explain what it means to make racial classifications from skeletal remains. He begs forensic anthropologists not to “sail on” without making an effort to expose people “to the notion that perceived races are not reflections of biological reality” (1992:110). We should “not fall into the trap of accepting races as valid biologically discrete categories because we use them so often” (1992:110). [...] What actually happens is forensic anthropologists match bones probabilistically against known existing assortments. Those assortments can be anything socially relevant. Changing the context of bone discovery could lead to different predictive classification–of the same bones: “The use of different priors also shows the importance of prior information, as ‘Mr. Johnson’ would have been classified as a Pacific Islander had his remains been found on Hawaii and as an ‘American Black’ had his remains been found in Gary, Indiana” (Konigsberg et al. 2009:83). [...]
Even after proving the continuous variation of skin tones, and even after showing how bones and skulls do not confirm traditional race classifications, there is still the sense that genetics offers real proof of race. Genetic testing companies amplify this misconception in a rush to market ancestry, while pharmaceutical companies sell race-targeted medications.
[...] Genetic classifications of races outside of Sub-Saharan Africa are simply subsets of Sub-Saharan African diversity. Moreover, and perhaps most strangely, “a classification that takes into account evolutionary relationships and the nested pattern of diversity would require that Sub-Saharan Africans are not a race because the most exclusive group that includes all Sub-Saharan African populations also includes every non-Sub-Saharan African population” (Long et al. 2009:32).
[...] This evolutionary history is explained in the article The global pattern of gene identity variation reveals a history of long-range migrations, bottlenecks, and local mate exchange: Implications for biological race. Once again, sophisticated techniques reveal a “nested pattern of genetic structure that is inconsistent with the existence of independently evolving biological races” (Hunley et al. 2009:35). The authors confirm greater genetic variation within Sub-Saharan Africa, and all other humans are a sub-set of this variation. Taxonomic classifications of race cannot account for observed genetic diversity. [...]" In short, and as I said, variation among humans obviously exists (nobody is claiming otherwise), but races are social constructs." Anyway, amazing result from Clinton! I hope this will lead Sanders to concede sooner than later (hopefully after March 1st, but after March the 15th at the latest), and work with Clinton against the Republican nominee. On February 28 2016 09:32 KwarK wrote:
If that statistic is accurate it must be frustrating as hell for Sanders to win the socially conscious white college educated "we must do something to address the root causes of inequality and racism in our society" vote and then lose the black vote. Are you implying that the African Americans who voted for Clinton in SC are not socially conscious? Or educated? Or don't think we must "do something to address the root causes of inequality and racism in our society"? Also, Clinton won the "college graduate" and "postgraduate" demographics 70% to 30%. She also actually won the "white college graduate" demographic you're referring to, 52% to 48%. Yes, statistically the black southern population is less educated and less informed about national politics. 1. You wrote Sanders won the "socially conscious white college educated [...] vote". He didn't. Clinton did. 2. Clinton won the black college educated vote as well. 3. The "black vote" includes plenty of socially conscious, college educated voters. 4. Not being college educated doesn't make one not "socially conscious" and willing to "address the root causes of inequality and racism in our society". 5. You were clearly opposing the "socially conscious college educated vote", which you associated with "white", on the one hand, and the "black vote" on the other hand. Let's leave racist undertones to republicans, shall we? It's racist if the root cause of the racial trend identified is race. It's not racist if the root cause of the racial trend identified is a structural outcome of the way society approaches race. Saying "blacks are innately more criminal" is racist. Saying "blacks are more likely to be convicted of a crime" is not. See the difference?
I know the difference, and it doesn't change what I wrote. You were clearly opposing the "socially conscious college educated vote", which you associated with "white", on the one hand, and the "black vote" on the other hand. Like I said, the "black vote" includes plenty of socially conscious, college educated voters, and not being college educated doesn't make one not "socially conscious" or willing to "address the root causes of inequality and racism in our society". Also, it is Hillary who won the white college-educated vote.
On February 29 2016 00:57 Orlok wrote:+ Show Spoiler [Another rant] +Kwizach, my man-the youths of this country, black or white or whatever skin-colour/racial group they are in do not support Hillary. This is why despite the polls and despite your continued statements that HRC won the college student vote mean less and less.
And before you quote me as racist, it IS true that because Bernie Sanders is much less known to the overall black community he's suffering in polls. Im quite sure if the majority of the black population down in the South would be given the chance to fully hear him out before the Clinton machine forcibly made them into a firewall, grabbing the influence peddling she gained under Obama even after the racial slurs she used against him in the campaign against him that it would be a much more split vote.
All I hear from you is a continued barrage of shielding the fact that the Clinton machine is utilizing the influence she gained under Obama to grab black votes. She's using the fact the black vote united for Obama and is feeding off that influence just because she worked with him in his tenure. While I'm sure the black population can still make up their own minds, its tough to say no to someone supposedly more familiar and has stated (or lied, but they don't know that) that she has and will fight for them.
You seem quite ignorant of Hillary's record on civil rights. I suggest you go read the links I provided you with.
|
On February 29 2016 00:57 Orlok wrote:
Kwizach, my man-the youths of this country, black or white or whatever skin-colour/racial group they are in do not support Hillary. This is why despite the polls and despite your continued statements that HRC won the college student vote mean less and less.
And before you quote me as racist, it IS true that because Bernie Sanders is much less known to the overall black community he's suffering in polls. Im quite sure if the majority of the black population down in the South would be given the chance to fully hear him out before the Clinton machine forcibly made them into a firewall, grabbing the influence peddling she gained under Obama even after the racial slurs she used against him in the campaign against him that it would be a much more split vote.
All I hear from you is a continued barrage of shielding the fact that the Clinton machine is utilizing the influence she gained under Obama to grab black votes. While Im sure they can still make up their own minds, its tough to say no to someone supposedly more familiar and has stated (or lied, but they don't know that) that she has and will fight for them.
Hillary should be serving consecutive life sentences for even a fraction of what she has done. The people that are voting for her now in spite of her bullying Bill's rape victims, getting a 12 year olds rapist off the hook and laughing about it, weapon's smuggling out of the Libyan embassy and taking bribes from known terrorist and islamic fundamentalist organizations, keeping secret files on her home server which would get me and you in a federal prison for a long time and thats just off the top of my head... well she could sacrifice a baby in a satanic ritual on camera and those people will still vote for her.
But the GOP will destroy her during the election cycle for anyone that is on the ropes about her/undecided. There is enough material out there that no amount of apologetic propaganda spinning could save her from, and the Republicans are just waiting for her to be the nominee.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
i was talking about the attribution of chaebol formation or influence to free trade not the fact of their monopoly or behavior, things ive criticised elsewhere frequently
the u.s. is the only one pushing for antitrust at an intl level and the most u.s. influenced trade regime will be the toughest on monopoly worldwide. so yes, america is actually less 'neoliberal' (defined by the stuff leftists attribute to the term) than your average asian mercantilist state.
|
On February 29 2016 00:58 GreenHorizons wrote:
Well looks like Sanders raised a few million coming off of SC. Appears mission "end the race" has failed and this will be going to the convention.
Let's assume this bizarre fantasy where Sanders isn't dead in the water is true. What do you really see coming out of a convention?
|
On February 29 2016 01:14 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 29 2016 00:58 GreenHorizons wrote:
Well looks like Sanders raised a few million coming off of SC. Appears mission "end the race" has failed and this will be going to the convention. Let's assume this bizarre fantasy where Sanders isn't dead in the water is true. What do you really see coming out of a convention?
lol. A Sanders nomination and win in the general.
|
United States42008 Posts
On February 29 2016 01:06 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On February 29 2016 01:01 KwarK wrote:On February 29 2016 00:43 kwizach wrote:On February 29 2016 00:28 KwarK wrote:On February 28 2016 19:01 kwizach wrote:On February 28 2016 14:36 Slaughter wrote:On February 28 2016 14:32 LegalLord wrote:On February 28 2016 11:46 puerk wrote:
it has nothing to do with race, the whole cultural concept of race is discredited junk Some people might argue that race isn't real genetically (I disagree and find the experiments used to test this to be very poorly designed). But the cultural concept being not real? That's just demonstrably wrong. There is a very instinctive difference in reaction to seeing a person with white skin vs black skin for anyone who has lived in the US for any amount of time. There are some cultural differences between the US and Germany in that regard (I know I had a very different perspective on this issue before living in the US), but to be blunt you are talking out of your ass when you say that race isn't culturally significant in US politics. You would be hard pressed to find scientists who study genetics or human biology that wouldn't say race is in outdated concept biologically speaking that overly simplifies the nature of human variation. It just has no use and is an inaccurate way to describe humanity. Race as a cultural construct though is very real because we have made it so. Exactly. Human variation exists, but race is a social construct. To quote a previous post of mine: + Show Spoiler +"Races are social constructs which are based on the delimitation of groups when those limits have no objective scientific basis. [...] The point is that on the genetic level the "human races" you referenced make little sense, and that the very traits and characteristics that are used to define "races" in reality exist in spectrums across humanity (or at the very least exist without obvious "breaks"), making any such delimitation arbitrary and socially constructed. You mention anthropology. Have you read the "Race Reconciled: How Biological Anthropologists View Human Variation" special issue of vol. 39, issue 1 of the American Journal of Physical Anthropology (May 2009)? The authors clearly and unambiguously demonstrate that "race is not an accurate or productive way to describe human biological variation" (Heather J.H. Edgar and Keith L. Hunley in the introduction of the special issue, p. 2). You can read a detailed summary of the findings here (this is the page where I initially learned about these papers - I "only" read three of the articles themselves). Here are a few quotes from that summary: In a discussion of Race and global patterns of phenotypic variation, John Relethford plots human skin color variation: "The result is a continuous straight line ranging from the darkest extremes to the lightest extremes in skin color. There are no identifiable clusters. . . . Researchers are of course free to subdivide this continuum into different groups, but such clustering would be arbitrary and subjective in terms of the number of groups and the cutoff points used to distinguish them. The lack of apparent clusters is a reflection of the fact that skin color shows a classic pattern of clinal variation." (2009:17) [...]
Unlike some textbooks and pronouncements which use this information to declare all physical variation is clinal, Relethford proceeds to consider craniometric or skull variation. [...] Relethford considers racial labels as “a culturally constructed label that crudely and imprecisely describes real variation” (2009:20). Variation is real, exists, and has been structured by geography and migration, but the labels we use are a “crude first-order approximation” (2009:21). Relethford uses the example of how we see height as short, medium, and tall: “We tend to use crude labels in everyday life with the realization that they are fuzzy and subjective. I doubt anyone thinks that terms such as ‘short,’ ‘medium,’ and ‘tall’ refer to discrete groups, or that humanity only comes in three values of height!” (2009:21). [...] Current scientific consensus is that craniometrics yields clustered geographic groupings, but those groupings are subjective and arbitrary. [...]
Skin color, like many other racial measures, is continuously variable. Crania may be structured geographically, but classifications based on geographic clusters would be arbitrary. But what about measuring all the bones? Television shows feature forensic anthropologists easily identifying race from skeletal remains. Does that mean race is real?[...] Sauer explains “the successful assignment of race to a skeletal specimen is not a vindication of the race concept, but rather a prediction that an individual, while alive was assigned to a particular socially constructed ‘racial’ category” (1992:107). Forensic anthropologists have samples of bones from many geographic areas, and can classify bones according to what race society has assigned to people with ancestry in those geographic areas. However, examining the bones provides a probability estimate of likely race assignment: “In ascribing a race name to a set of skeletonized remains, the anthropologist is actually translating information about biological traits to a culturally constructed labeling system that was likely to have been applied to a missing person” (1992:109).
Despite the provocative and sometimes misunderstood title, Sauer pleads for forensic anthropologists to better explain what it means to make racial classifications from skeletal remains. He begs forensic anthropologists not to “sail on” without making an effort to expose people “to the notion that perceived races are not reflections of biological reality” (1992:110). We should “not fall into the trap of accepting races as valid biologically discrete categories because we use them so often” (1992:110). [...] What actually happens is forensic anthropologists match bones probabilistically against known existing assortments. Those assortments can be anything socially relevant. Changing the context of bone discovery could lead to different predictive classification–of the same bones: “The use of different priors also shows the importance of prior information, as ‘Mr. Johnson’ would have been classified as a Pacific Islander had his remains been found on Hawaii and as an ‘American Black’ had his remains been found in Gary, Indiana” (Konigsberg et al. 2009:83). [...]
Even after proving the continuous variation of skin tones, and even after showing how bones and skulls do not confirm traditional race classifications, there is still the sense that genetics offers real proof of race. Genetic testing companies amplify this misconception in a rush to market ancestry, while pharmaceutical companies sell race-targeted medications.
[...] Genetic classifications of races outside of Sub-Saharan Africa are simply subsets of Sub-Saharan African diversity. Moreover, and perhaps most strangely, “a classification that takes into account evolutionary relationships and the nested pattern of diversity would require that Sub-Saharan Africans are not a race because the most exclusive group that includes all Sub-Saharan African populations also includes every non-Sub-Saharan African population” (Long et al. 2009:32).
[...] This evolutionary history is explained in the article The global pattern of gene identity variation reveals a history of long-range migrations, bottlenecks, and local mate exchange: Implications for biological race. Once again, sophisticated techniques reveal a “nested pattern of genetic structure that is inconsistent with the existence of independently evolving biological races” (Hunley et al. 2009:35). The authors confirm greater genetic variation within Sub-Saharan Africa, and all other humans are a sub-set of this variation. Taxonomic classifications of race cannot account for observed genetic diversity. [...]" In short, and as I said, variation among humans obviously exists (nobody is claiming otherwise), but races are social constructs." Anyway, amazing result from Clinton! I hope this will lead Sanders to concede sooner than later (hopefully after March 1st, but after March the 15th at the latest), and work with Clinton against the Republican nominee. On February 28 2016 09:32 KwarK wrote:
If that statistic is accurate it must be frustrating as hell for Sanders to win the socially conscious white college educated "we must do something to address the root causes of inequality and racism in our society" vote and then lose the black vote. Are you implying that the African Americans who voted for Clinton in SC are not socially conscious? Or educated? Or don't think we must "do something to address the root causes of inequality and racism in our society"? Also, Clinton won the "college graduate" and "postgraduate" demographics 70% to 30%. She also actually won the "white college graduate" demographic you're referring to, 52% to 48%. Yes, statistically the black southern population is less educated and less informed about national politics. 1. You wrote Sanders won the "socially conscious white college educated [...] vote". He didn't. Clinton did. 2. Clinton won the black college educated vote as well. 3. The "black vote" includes plenty of socially conscious, college educated voters. 4. Not being college educated doesn't make one not "socially conscious" and willing to "address the root causes of inequality and racism in our society". 5. You were clearly opposing the "socially conscious college educated vote", which you associated with "white", on the one hand, and the "black vote" on the other hand. Let's leave racist undertones to republicans, shall we? It's racist if the root cause of the racial trend identified is race. It's not racist if the root cause of the racial trend identified is a structural outcome of the way society approaches race. Saying "blacks are innately more criminal" is racist. Saying "blacks are more likely to be convicted of a crime" is not. See the difference? I know the difference, and it doesn't change what I wrote. You were clearly opposing the "socially conscious college educated vote", which you associated with "white", on the one hand, and the "black vote" on the other hand. Like I said, the "black vote" includes plenty of socially conscious, college educated voters, and not being college educated doesn't make one not "socially conscious" or willing to "address the root causes of inequality and racism in our society". Also, it is Hillary who won the white college-educated vote. Show nested quote +On February 29 2016 00:57 Orlok wrote:+ Show Spoiler [Another rant] +Kwizach, my man-the youths of this country, black or white or whatever skin-colour/racial group they are in do not support Hillary. This is why despite the polls and despite your continued statements that HRC won the college student vote mean less and less.
And before you quote me as racist, it IS true that because Bernie Sanders is much less known to the overall black community he's suffering in polls. Im quite sure if the majority of the black population down in the South would be given the chance to fully hear him out before the Clinton machine forcibly made them into a firewall, grabbing the influence peddling she gained under Obama even after the racial slurs she used against him in the campaign against him that it would be a much more split vote.
All I hear from you is a continued barrage of shielding the fact that the Clinton machine is utilizing the influence she gained under Obama to grab black votes. She's using the fact the black vote united for Obama and is feeding off that influence just because she worked with him in his tenure. While I'm sure the black population can still make up their own minds, its tough to say no to someone supposedly more familiar and has stated (or lied, but they don't know that) that she has and will fight for them. You seem quite ignorant of Hillary's record on civil rights. I suggest you go read the links I provided you with.
You're projecting really hard here. I didn't associate educated with white, I literally said white to specifically refer to the subgroup of educated that was also white. The reason I contrasted the two groups was because there aren't any white people in the black group due to how it's one or the other. I didn't imply that the college educated group were all white in order to contrast them with blacks who by implication would be not college educated. I included white in the description I used.
Swing and a miss by you. You say you understand the difference but if you did I wouldn't have to painstakingly explain the difference to you whenever you cry out "racism!!!" at something that was in no way racist.
|
On February 29 2016 01:22 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 29 2016 01:14 Mohdoo wrote:On February 29 2016 00:58 GreenHorizons wrote:
Well looks like Sanders raised a few million coming off of SC. Appears mission "end the race" has failed and this will be going to the convention. Let's assume this bizarre fantasy where Sanders isn't dead in the water is true. What do you really see coming out of a convention? lol. A Sanders nomination and win in the general.
Why would Sanders be nominated by a brokered convention?
|
On February 29 2016 01:24 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 29 2016 01:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 29 2016 01:14 Mohdoo wrote:On February 29 2016 00:58 GreenHorizons wrote:
Well looks like Sanders raised a few million coming off of SC. Appears mission "end the race" has failed and this will be going to the convention. Let's assume this bizarre fantasy where Sanders isn't dead in the water is true. What do you really see coming out of a convention? lol. A Sanders nomination and win in the general. Why would Sanders be nominated by a brokered convention?
Who said anything about brokered?
EDIT: Tell me folks see the irony in writing off Sanders while pretending the R's have a race.
|
On February 28 2016 21:24 Orlok wrote:
Man, I wish, truly wish, that I could support HRC. However, I just can't believe that she'll pull off anything meaningful in terms of change due to her ever-changing opinions on various hot-potato topics like gay marriage, the consequences of the Iraq War being deemed as a simple "mistake", The beat-downs on the ladies who filed lawsuits against Bill and just so many layers of political mistakes, problems and dishonesty that I guess has become the norm for all politicians, regardless of party.
I would like any HRC follower/supporter to just answer this; do you honestly believe, after looking at her track record so far which from a objective point of view most people would say isn't anything close to progressive and seeking true change, that she WILL bring about the various changes she has proposed? The various scandals and problems she has, such as her massive ties to Wall street show me a person who is a self proclaimed progressive who promises change whilst trying as best as she can to sever any and all attention away from her actual resume, which suggests a neo-liberal supporter (which is a system that is destined to finally stop due to the continued inequality in the countries that push for it) and a very aggressive war-hawk foreign policy(just look at how aggressively she pushed the wrong way in Iraq, Syria and Lybia to name a few) and a typical politician who changes their views because its the opinion of the general populace and not something that they truly believe in? Just look at the definitive view she had against gay marriage all the way back in 08, and with the swathes of LGBT movements and the general shift of view how she also decided to jump on the tide to salvage a career.
Im just a person living in South Korea, so I can't actually vote or do anything meaningful in the polls right now and forever. However, as a person who is notoriously fed up with the KR political system which is basically a copy paste of the US system with a double party rigged election-choose the lesser evil type, I wish to see a Bernie Sanders win send a true message to all countries who currently suffer under the supposed democracy put forth by the corrupt government system and the ruling elites; the actual owners of the country under democracy are the people, and don't you forget it.
I am not going to say that people who vote for Hillary are completely idiotic to make that choice, but just from a logical standpoint I can't see where you are getting the faith to support her from. I have read plenty of books and articles about her and her career, and its plain to me that she is just a typical politican, not necessarily corrupt in the sense like Trump, or morally corrupt, but corrupt in the sense that she cares more for her legacy and gain than the people. Where does that belief come from? If you argue that its for a feminist movement by the way, HRC isn't going to be, with her extremely problematic resume a very good role model as a feminist. It just shows right now that the gender cloud surrounding her makes it easier to get away with terrible deeds. If HRC was a man, without any help from the Clinton legacy she would basically be the O'Mally of today; no chance in hell to win.
Again, I just want to hear a truly logical argument where HRC supporters get their faith from. We vote for a president because we believe they can bring about good change to the current status quo and that they will truly represent OUR best interests. Her record clearly shows she cares a great deal more about her own interest than ours. Please show me some good evidence of WHY its plausible to believe her. Please dont answer this post with swearing and saying im a Bernie Bro or some other demeaning method HRC has put towards Bernie Sanders and their supporters. I just want to know, despite all the facts I have stated above, why people still feel its the LOGICAL decision to vote for her. Please don't say reasons such as I think shes more experienced or things like that; state logical reasons such as she has fought hard consistently on this issue, so she has my respect or something along the lines like that.
Rolled out of bed for this... Hillary is very, very progressive. Let's look at the very beginning. She started off at Wesleyan and as student body president organized 2 days of protests after the assassination of MLK. Later, after Yale, she went on to work for the Children's Defense Fund (instead of corporate law), then went undercover in the South to research racial discrimination. This is all prior to even touching politics.
Later on as First Lady, she pushed for healthcare reform, got SCHIP passed (insurance for 6M children), pushed for VAWA and women's rights (around the world, including pissing off China) and more.
With further regards to foreign policy: you are highlighting her failures and nothing else. As SoS, Hillary worked very, very hard to rehabilitate the US's image abroad after the dumpster fire left by the Bush administration. She negotiated a reduction in nuclear arsenals with Russia. She traveled to many allied nations we'd alienated and held town halls with citizens. She pushed for the close of iotmo from early on, even providing Obama with various potential ways to achieve it. She helped lay the framework for the Iran nuclear agreement. She's the most widely traveled SoS despite only holding the position for 4 years and visited 112 countries.
On the issues, let's take LGBT rights as an example. DOMA sucked, and Bill signed it reluctantly. DADT was a compromise that basically stopped an inquisition of all LGBT service members. However, the Clinton administration was also the first to fund AIDS research, appoint openly LGBT individuals to positions and participate in a gay rights parade. While SoS, Hillary provided LGBT couples with equal protections and made "gay rights are human rights" a central tenet of US foreign policy. She made a speech to the UN about it, and the released emails showed that she pushed for equal treatment of LGBT individuals in Africa (this was before she publicly came out in support/ flip flopped even).
|
On February 29 2016 01:27 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 29 2016 01:24 Mohdoo wrote:On February 29 2016 01:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 29 2016 01:14 Mohdoo wrote:On February 29 2016 00:58 GreenHorizons wrote:
Well looks like Sanders raised a few million coming off of SC. Appears mission "end the race" has failed and this will be going to the convention. Let's assume this bizarre fantasy where Sanders isn't dead in the water is true. What do you really see coming out of a convention? lol. A Sanders nomination and win in the general. Why would Sanders be nominated by a brokered convention? Who said anything about brokered? EDIT: Tell me folks see the irony in writing off Sanders while pretending the R's have a race.
The republicans have a race because the establishment candidate is the one losing. Making a comeback as an establishment candidate is a lot easier than what Sanders has to make happen at this point. Rubio can still make something happen Tuesday. Things only get worse from here for Sanders unless your prophesized revolution happens some time soon.
edit: I think I misunderstood what you meant by convention. What did you mean going to the convention earlier?
|
Korea (South)227 Posts
On February 29 2016 01:08 oneofthem wrote:
i was talking about the attribution of chaebol formation or influence to free trade not the fact of their monopoly or behavior, things ive criticised elsewhere frequently
the u.s. is the only one pushing for antitrust at an intl level and the most u.s. influenced trade regime will be the toughest on monopoly worldwide. so yes, america is actually less 'neoliberal' (defined by the stuff leftists attribute to the term) than your average asian mercantilist state.
The US will be toughest on monopoly worldwide....are you joking? Because if not, its proof that youre very much uninformed about the current fact of economic life in the country you live in; the US is a monopoly holder in many industries.
You live in the Gilded age sir. Open your eyes. ill reference one article because just talking seems to not help you take the step to see reality.
http://www.alternet.org/economy/us-economy-increasingly-dominated-monopolies-2015-corporate-mergers-continue
|
|
|
On February 29 2016 01:33 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 29 2016 01:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 29 2016 01:24 Mohdoo wrote:On February 29 2016 01:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 29 2016 01:14 Mohdoo wrote:On February 29 2016 00:58 GreenHorizons wrote:
Well looks like Sanders raised a few million coming off of SC. Appears mission "end the race" has failed and this will be going to the convention. Let's assume this bizarre fantasy where Sanders isn't dead in the water is true. What do you really see coming out of a convention? lol. A Sanders nomination and win in the general. Why would Sanders be nominated by a brokered convention? Who said anything about brokered? EDIT: Tell me folks see the irony in writing off Sanders while pretending the R's have a race. The republicans have a race because the establishment candidate is the one losing. Making a comeback as an establishment candidate is a lot easier than what Sanders has to make happen at this point. Rubio can still make something happen Tuesday. Things only get worse from here for Sanders unless your prophesized revolution happens some time soon. edit: I think I misunderstood what you meant by convention. What did you mean going to the convention earlier?
Meaning Bernie will have enough delegates for the nomination come the convention.
|
Korea (South)227 Posts
On February 29 2016 01:32 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2016 21:24 Orlok wrote:
Man, I wish, truly wish, that I could support HRC. However, I just can't believe that she'll pull off anything meaningful in terms of change due to her ever-changing opinions on various hot-potato topics like gay marriage, the consequences of the Iraq War being deemed as a simple "mistake", The beat-downs on the ladies who filed lawsuits against Bill and just so many layers of political mistakes, problems and dishonesty that I guess has become the norm for all politicians, regardless of party.
I would like any HRC follower/supporter to just answer this; do you honestly believe, after looking at her track record so far which from a objective point of view most people would say isn't anything close to progressive and seeking true change, that she WILL bring about the various changes she has proposed? The various scandals and problems she has, such as her massive ties to Wall street show me a person who is a self proclaimed progressive who promises change whilst trying as best as she can to sever any and all attention away from her actual resume, which suggests a neo-liberal supporter (which is a system that is destined to finally stop due to the continued inequality in the countries that push for it) and a very aggressive war-hawk foreign policy(just look at how aggressively she pushed the wrong way in Iraq, Syria and Lybia to name a few) and a typical politician who changes their views because its the opinion of the general populace and not something that they truly believe in? Just look at the definitive view she had against gay marriage all the way back in 08, and with the swathes of LGBT movements and the general shift of view how she also decided to jump on the tide to salvage a career.
Im just a person living in South Korea, so I can't actually vote or do anything meaningful in the polls right now and forever. However, as a person who is notoriously fed up with the KR political system which is basically a copy paste of the US system with a double party rigged election-choose the lesser evil type, I wish to see a Bernie Sanders win send a true message to all countries who currently suffer under the supposed democracy put forth by the corrupt government system and the ruling elites; the actual owners of the country under democracy are the people, and don't you forget it.
I am not going to say that people who vote for Hillary are completely idiotic to make that choice, but just from a logical standpoint I can't see where you are getting the faith to support her from. I have read plenty of books and articles about her and her career, and its plain to me that she is just a typical politican, not necessarily corrupt in the sense like Trump, or morally corrupt, but corrupt in the sense that she cares more for her legacy and gain than the people. Where does that belief come from? If you argue that its for a feminist movement by the way, HRC isn't going to be, with her extremely problematic resume a very good role model as a feminist. It just shows right now that the gender cloud surrounding her makes it easier to get away with terrible deeds. If HRC was a man, without any help from the Clinton legacy she would basically be the O'Mally of today; no chance in hell to win.
Again, I just want to hear a truly logical argument where HRC supporters get their faith from. We vote for a president because we believe they can bring about good change to the current status quo and that they will truly represent OUR best interests. Her record clearly shows she cares a great deal more about her own interest than ours. Please show me some good evidence of WHY its plausible to believe her. Please dont answer this post with swearing and saying im a Bernie Bro or some other demeaning method HRC has put towards Bernie Sanders and their supporters. I just want to know, despite all the facts I have stated above, why people still feel its the LOGICAL decision to vote for her. Please don't say reasons such as I think shes more experienced or things like that; state logical reasons such as she has fought hard consistently on this issue, so she has my respect or something along the lines like that. Rolled out of bed for this... Hillary is very, very progressive. Let's look at the very beginning. She started off at Wesleyan and as student body president organized 2 days of protests after the assassination of MLK. Later, after Yale, she went on to work for the Children's Defense Fund (instead of corporate law), then went undercover in the South to research racial discrimination. This is all prior to even touching politics. Later on as First Lady, she pushed for healthcare reform, got SCHIP passed (insurance for 6M children), pushed for VAWA and women's rights (around the world, including pissing off China) and more. With further regards to foreign policy: you are highlighting her failures and nothing else. As SoS, Hillary worked very, very hard to rehabilitate the US's image abroad after the dumpster fire left by the Bush administration. She negotiated a reduction in nuclear arsenals with Russia. She traveled to many allied nations we'd alienated and held town halls with citizens. She pushed for the close of iotmo from early on, even providing Obama with various potential ways to achieve it. She helped lay the framework for the Iran nuclear agreement. She's the most widely traveled SoS despite only holding the position for 4 years and visited 112 countries. On the issues, let's take LGBT rights as an example. DOMA sucked, and Bill signed it reluctantly. DADT was a compromise that protected basically an inquisition of all LGBT service members. However, the Clinton administration was also the first to fund AIDS research, appoint openly LGBT individuals to positions and participate in a gay rights parade. While SoS, Hillary provided LGBT couples with equal protections and made "gay rights are human rights" a central tenet of US foreign policy. She made a speech to the UN about it, and the released emails showed that she pushed for equal treatment of LGBT individuals in Africa (this was before she publicly came out in support/ flip flopped even).
Nice to see all the quotations. Would you like to actually adress my question about her corruption, lies and deceitful politics she has also undergone with the above statements and tell me how the dirt is less heavier of a burden on her honesty and integrity as a candidate who says she will bring much needed change? No HRC supporter gives me logical counter arguments about the integrity of the candidate they support. I just want to hear more about why you trust her with her criminally long political mess resume more than other smaller/bigger names out there.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On February 29 2016 01:37 Orlok wrote:Show nested quote +On February 29 2016 01:08 oneofthem wrote:
i was talking about the attribution of chaebol formation or influence to free trade not the fact of their monopoly or behavior, things ive criticised elsewhere frequently
the u.s. is the only one pushing for antitrust at an intl level and the most u.s. influenced trade regime will be the toughest on monopoly worldwide. so yes, america is actually less 'neoliberal' (defined by the stuff leftists attribute to the term) than your average asian mercantilist state. The US will be toughest on monopoly worldwide....are you joking? Because if not, its proof that youre very much uninformed about the current fact of economic life in the country you live in; the US is a monopoly holder in many industries. You live in the Gilded age sir. Open your eyes. ill reference one article because just talking seems to not help you take the step to see reality. http://www.alternet.org/economy/us-economy-increasingly-dominated-monopolies-2015-corporate-mergers-continue
unlike you i don't get my international trade law understanding from alternet. let's try again.
https://www.justice.gov/atr/speech/internationalization-antitrust-law-options-future
even the o so liberal europe had to be pushed and shoved by the u.s. to even have their domestic anti-trust laws, which were never enforced until the european union got together to have more trade power.
|
Korea (South)227 Posts
On February 29 2016 01:40 Orlok wrote:Show nested quote +On February 29 2016 01:32 ticklishmusic wrote:On February 28 2016 21:24 Orlok wrote:
Man, I wish, truly wish, that I could support HRC. However, I just can't believe that she'll pull off anything meaningful in terms of change due to her ever-changing opinions on various hot-potato topics like gay marriage, the consequences of the Iraq War being deemed as a simple "mistake", The beat-downs on the ladies who filed lawsuits against Bill and just so many layers of political mistakes, problems and dishonesty that I guess has become the norm for all politicians, regardless of party.
I would like any HRC follower/supporter to just answer this; do you honestly believe, after looking at her track record so far which from a objective point of view most people would say isn't anything close to progressive and seeking true change, that she WILL bring about the various changes she has proposed? The various scandals and problems she has, such as her massive ties to Wall street show me a person who is a self proclaimed progressive who promises change whilst trying as best as she can to sever any and all attention away from her actual resume, which suggests a neo-liberal supporter (which is a system that is destined to finally stop due to the continued inequality in the countries that push for it) and a very aggressive war-hawk foreign policy(just look at how aggressively she pushed the wrong way in Iraq, Syria and Lybia to name a few) and a typical politician who changes their views because its the opinion of the general populace and not something that they truly believe in? Just look at the definitive view she had against gay marriage all the way back in 08, and with the swathes of LGBT movements and the general shift of view how she also decided to jump on the tide to salvage a career.
Im just a person living in South Korea, so I can't actually vote or do anything meaningful in the polls right now and forever. However, as a person who is notoriously fed up with the KR political system which is basically a copy paste of the US system with a double party rigged election-choose the lesser evil type, I wish to see a Bernie Sanders win send a true message to all countries who currently suffer under the supposed democracy put forth by the corrupt government system and the ruling elites; the actual owners of the country under democracy are the people, and don't you forget it.
I am not going to say that people who vote for Hillary are completely idiotic to make that choice, but just from a logical standpoint I can't see where you are getting the faith to support her from. I have read plenty of books and articles about her and her career, and its plain to me that she is just a typical politican, not necessarily corrupt in the sense like Trump, or morally corrupt, but corrupt in the sense that she cares more for her legacy and gain than the people. Where does that belief come from? If you argue that its for a feminist movement by the way, HRC isn't going to be, with her extremely problematic resume a very good role model as a feminist. It just shows right now that the gender cloud surrounding her makes it easier to get away with terrible deeds. If HRC was a man, without any help from the Clinton legacy she would basically be the O'Mally of today; no chance in hell to win.
Again, I just want to hear a truly logical argument where HRC supporters get their faith from. We vote for a president because we believe they can bring about good change to the current status quo and that they will truly represent OUR best interests. Her record clearly shows she cares a great deal more about her own interest than ours. Please show me some good evidence of WHY its plausible to believe her. Please dont answer this post with swearing and saying im a Bernie Bro or some other demeaning method HRC has put towards Bernie Sanders and their supporters. I just want to know, despite all the facts I have stated above, why people still feel its the LOGICAL decision to vote for her. Please don't say reasons such as I think shes more experienced or things like that; state logical reasons such as she has fought hard consistently on this issue, so she has my respect or something along the lines like that. Rolled out of bed for this... Hillary is very, very progressive. Let's look at the very beginning. She started off at Wesleyan and as student body president organized 2 days of protests after the assassination of MLK. Later, after Yale, she went on to work for the Children's Defense Fund (instead of corporate law), then went undercover in the South to research racial discrimination. This is all prior to even touching politics. Later on as First Lady, she pushed for healthcare reform, got SCHIP passed (insurance for 6M children), pushed for VAWA and women's rights (around the world, including pissing off China) and more. With further regards to foreign policy: you are highlighting her failures and nothing else. As SoS, Hillary worked very, very hard to rehabilitate the US's image abroad after the dumpster fire left by the Bush administration. She negotiated a reduction in nuclear arsenals with Russia. She traveled to many allied nations we'd alienated and held town halls with citizens. She pushed for the close of iotmo from early on, even providing Obama with various potential ways to achieve it. She helped lay the framework for the Iran nuclear agreement. She's the most widely traveled SoS despite only holding the position for 4 years and visited 112 countries. On the issues, let's take LGBT rights as an example. DOMA sucked, and Bill signed it reluctantly. DADT was a compromise that protected basically an inquisition of all LGBT service members. However, the Clinton administration was also the first to fund AIDS research, appoint openly LGBT individuals to positions and participate in a gay rights parade. While SoS, Hillary provided LGBT couples with equal protections and made "gay rights are human rights" a central tenet of US foreign policy. She made a speech to the UN about it, and the released emails showed that she pushed for equal treatment of LGBT individuals in Africa (this was before she publicly came out in support/ flip flopped even). Nice to see all the quotations. Would you like to actually adress my question about her corruption, lies and deceitful politics she has also undergone with the above statements and tell me how the dirt is less heavier of a burden on her honesty and integrity as a candidate who says she will bring much needed change? No HRC supporter gives me logical counter arguments about the integrity of the candidate they support. I just want to hear more about why you trust her with her criminally long political mess resume more than other smaller/bigger names out there. As a non US citizen thats what I want to know. What shes done good bears not much rleevance to me personally; she''ll win or lose without my personal input. I just want to hear the counter arguments that due to her ties and statements before and now how she'll really bring change. Talk about her problems first before fawning she did this, that, and something else, because integrity and honesty are two qualities I look for in a presidential candidate, or at least hope to see in my country.
|
On February 29 2016 01:24 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 29 2016 01:06 kwizach wrote:On February 29 2016 01:01 KwarK wrote:On February 29 2016 00:43 kwizach wrote:On February 29 2016 00:28 KwarK wrote:On February 28 2016 19:01 kwizach wrote:On February 28 2016 14:36 Slaughter wrote:On February 28 2016 14:32 LegalLord wrote:On February 28 2016 11:46 puerk wrote:
it has nothing to do with race, the whole cultural concept of race is discredited junk Some people might argue that race isn't real genetically (I disagree and find the experiments used to test this to be very poorly designed). But the cultural concept being not real? That's just demonstrably wrong. There is a very instinctive difference in reaction to seeing a person with white skin vs black skin for anyone who has lived in the US for any amount of time. There are some cultural differences between the US and Germany in that regard (I know I had a very different perspective on this issue before living in the US), but to be blunt you are talking out of your ass when you say that race isn't culturally significant in US politics. You would be hard pressed to find scientists who study genetics or human biology that wouldn't say race is in outdated concept biologically speaking that overly simplifies the nature of human variation. It just has no use and is an inaccurate way to describe humanity. Race as a cultural construct though is very real because we have made it so. Exactly. Human variation exists, but race is a social construct. To quote a previous post of mine: + Show Spoiler +"Races are social constructs which are based on the delimitation of groups when those limits have no objective scientific basis. [...] The point is that on the genetic level the "human races" you referenced make little sense, and that the very traits and characteristics that are used to define "races" in reality exist in spectrums across humanity (or at the very least exist without obvious "breaks"), making any such delimitation arbitrary and socially constructed. You mention anthropology. Have you read the "Race Reconciled: How Biological Anthropologists View Human Variation" special issue of vol. 39, issue 1 of the American Journal of Physical Anthropology (May 2009)? The authors clearly and unambiguously demonstrate that "race is not an accurate or productive way to describe human biological variation" (Heather J.H. Edgar and Keith L. Hunley in the introduction of the special issue, p. 2). You can read a detailed summary of the findings here (this is the page where I initially learned about these papers - I "only" read three of the articles themselves). Here are a few quotes from that summary: In a discussion of Race and global patterns of phenotypic variation, John Relethford plots human skin color variation: "The result is a continuous straight line ranging from the darkest extremes to the lightest extremes in skin color. There are no identifiable clusters. . . . Researchers are of course free to subdivide this continuum into different groups, but such clustering would be arbitrary and subjective in terms of the number of groups and the cutoff points used to distinguish them. The lack of apparent clusters is a reflection of the fact that skin color shows a classic pattern of clinal variation." (2009:17) [...]
Unlike some textbooks and pronouncements which use this information to declare all physical variation is clinal, Relethford proceeds to consider craniometric or skull variation. [...] Relethford considers racial labels as “a culturally constructed label that crudely and imprecisely describes real variation” (2009:20). Variation is real, exists, and has been structured by geography and migration, but the labels we use are a “crude first-order approximation” (2009:21). Relethford uses the example of how we see height as short, medium, and tall: “We tend to use crude labels in everyday life with the realization that they are fuzzy and subjective. I doubt anyone thinks that terms such as ‘short,’ ‘medium,’ and ‘tall’ refer to discrete groups, or that humanity only comes in three values of height!” (2009:21). [...] Current scientific consensus is that craniometrics yields clustered geographic groupings, but those groupings are subjective and arbitrary. [...]
Skin color, like many other racial measures, is continuously variable. Crania may be structured geographically, but classifications based on geographic clusters would be arbitrary. But what about measuring all the bones? Television shows feature forensic anthropologists easily identifying race from skeletal remains. Does that mean race is real?[...] Sauer explains “the successful assignment of race to a skeletal specimen is not a vindication of the race concept, but rather a prediction that an individual, while alive was assigned to a particular socially constructed ‘racial’ category” (1992:107). Forensic anthropologists have samples of bones from many geographic areas, and can classify bones according to what race society has assigned to people with ancestry in those geographic areas. However, examining the bones provides a probability estimate of likely race assignment: “In ascribing a race name to a set of skeletonized remains, the anthropologist is actually translating information about biological traits to a culturally constructed labeling system that was likely to have been applied to a missing person” (1992:109).
Despite the provocative and sometimes misunderstood title, Sauer pleads for forensic anthropologists to better explain what it means to make racial classifications from skeletal remains. He begs forensic anthropologists not to “sail on” without making an effort to expose people “to the notion that perceived races are not reflections of biological reality” (1992:110). We should “not fall into the trap of accepting races as valid biologically discrete categories because we use them so often” (1992:110). [...] What actually happens is forensic anthropologists match bones probabilistically against known existing assortments. Those assortments can be anything socially relevant. Changing the context of bone discovery could lead to different predictive classification–of the same bones: “The use of different priors also shows the importance of prior information, as ‘Mr. Johnson’ would have been classified as a Pacific Islander had his remains been found on Hawaii and as an ‘American Black’ had his remains been found in Gary, Indiana” (Konigsberg et al. 2009:83). [...]
Even after proving the continuous variation of skin tones, and even after showing how bones and skulls do not confirm traditional race classifications, there is still the sense that genetics offers real proof of race. Genetic testing companies amplify this misconception in a rush to market ancestry, while pharmaceutical companies sell race-targeted medications.
[...] Genetic classifications of races outside of Sub-Saharan Africa are simply subsets of Sub-Saharan African diversity. Moreover, and perhaps most strangely, “a classification that takes into account evolutionary relationships and the nested pattern of diversity would require that Sub-Saharan Africans are not a race because the most exclusive group that includes all Sub-Saharan African populations also includes every non-Sub-Saharan African population” (Long et al. 2009:32).
[...] This evolutionary history is explained in the article The global pattern of gene identity variation reveals a history of long-range migrations, bottlenecks, and local mate exchange: Implications for biological race. Once again, sophisticated techniques reveal a “nested pattern of genetic structure that is inconsistent with the existence of independently evolving biological races” (Hunley et al. 2009:35). The authors confirm greater genetic variation within Sub-Saharan Africa, and all other humans are a sub-set of this variation. Taxonomic classifications of race cannot account for observed genetic diversity. [...]" In short, and as I said, variation among humans obviously exists (nobody is claiming otherwise), but races are social constructs." Anyway, amazing result from Clinton! I hope this will lead Sanders to concede sooner than later (hopefully after March 1st, but after March the 15th at the latest), and work with Clinton against the Republican nominee. On February 28 2016 09:32 KwarK wrote:
If that statistic is accurate it must be frustrating as hell for Sanders to win the socially conscious white college educated "we must do something to address the root causes of inequality and racism in our society" vote and then lose the black vote. Are you implying that the African Americans who voted for Clinton in SC are not socially conscious? Or educated? Or don't think we must "do something to address the root causes of inequality and racism in our society"? Also, Clinton won the "college graduate" and "postgraduate" demographics 70% to 30%. She also actually won the "white college graduate" demographic you're referring to, 52% to 48%. Yes, statistically the black southern population is less educated and less informed about national politics. 1. You wrote Sanders won the "socially conscious white college educated [...] vote". He didn't. Clinton did. 2. Clinton won the black college educated vote as well. 3. The "black vote" includes plenty of socially conscious, college educated voters. 4. Not being college educated doesn't make one not "socially conscious" and willing to "address the root causes of inequality and racism in our society". 5. You were clearly opposing the "socially conscious college educated vote", which you associated with "white", on the one hand, and the "black vote" on the other hand. Let's leave racist undertones to republicans, shall we? It's racist if the root cause of the racial trend identified is race. It's not racist if the root cause of the racial trend identified is a structural outcome of the way society approaches race. Saying "blacks are innately more criminal" is racist. Saying "blacks are more likely to be convicted of a crime" is not. See the difference? I know the difference, and it doesn't change what I wrote. You were clearly opposing the "socially conscious college educated vote", which you associated with "white", on the one hand, and the "black vote" on the other hand. Like I said, the "black vote" includes plenty of socially conscious, college educated voters, and not being college educated doesn't make one not "socially conscious" or willing to "address the root causes of inequality and racism in our society". Also, it is Hillary who won the white college-educated vote. On February 29 2016 00:57 Orlok wrote:+ Show Spoiler [Another rant] +Kwizach, my man-the youths of this country, black or white or whatever skin-colour/racial group they are in do not support Hillary. This is why despite the polls and despite your continued statements that HRC won the college student vote mean less and less.
And before you quote me as racist, it IS true that because Bernie Sanders is much less known to the overall black community he's suffering in polls. Im quite sure if the majority of the black population down in the South would be given the chance to fully hear him out before the Clinton machine forcibly made them into a firewall, grabbing the influence peddling she gained under Obama even after the racial slurs she used against him in the campaign against him that it would be a much more split vote.
All I hear from you is a continued barrage of shielding the fact that the Clinton machine is utilizing the influence she gained under Obama to grab black votes. She's using the fact the black vote united for Obama and is feeding off that influence just because she worked with him in his tenure. While I'm sure the black population can still make up their own minds, its tough to say no to someone supposedly more familiar and has stated (or lied, but they don't know that) that she has and will fight for them. You seem quite ignorant of Hillary's record on civil rights. I suggest you go read the links I provided you with. You're projecting really hard here. I didn't associate educated with white, I literally said white. The reason I contrasted the two groups was because there aren't any white people in the black group due to how it's one or the other. I didn't imply that the college educated group were all white in order to contrast them with blacks who by implication would be not college educated. I included white in the description I used. Swing and a miss by you. You say you understand the difference but if you did I wouldn't have to painstakingly explain the difference to you whenever you cry out "racism!!!" at something that was in no way racist.
I'm not projecting at all. Your initial post clearly had the "socially conscious white college educated "we must do something to address the root causes of inequality and racism in our society" vote" on one side, and the "black vote" on the other side. If the only marker you wanted to use to differentiate the two was the color of their skin, why would you add those qualifying adjectives for the first group and not for the second? The second group included "socially conscious college educated "we must do something to address the root causes of inequality and racism in our society" people as well.
You didn't have to explain the difference you're referring to to me because 1) I already knew it 2) it was irrelevant to why I made my comment. Anyway, I know you are not racist, I was simply pointing out the problematic undertones of your sentence (which also happened to be factually false).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
