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.
On June 09 2016 19:43 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Humans are all the same species (homo sapiens), whereas birds are merely the same class (aves). Classes are split into orders, then families, then genera (plural of genus), then species... so there are many ways to differentiate and classify what we mean by "bird". "Bird" is on the same level as "Mammal", and there are many ways to classify and group different mammals based on traits.
The specificity of humans would be equivalent to organizing wood ducks. Not all birds, not all ducks, but specifically the "wood duck". So sure, we can organize them by color if we wanted, but we've done almost all of the biological/ "real scientific" grouping up to that point, where we've broken down mammals and birds over and over again to arrive at a specific species of mammal or bird.
And as ZeaL said, it comes down to basic reproductive compatibility. All humans can reproduce with each other, and all wood ducks can reproduce with each other, but not all mammals (and not all birds) can reproduce with each other. That's one of the main reasons why we end up as specific as we do with our classifications.
Therefore, when you ask this question about birds:
On June 09 2016 19:11 Simberto wrote: a) there is no scientific way to classify human beings, who are part of a big continous spectrum, into distinct different races, and
Just curious; can we scientifically clasiffy birds? I can see they all fall into the same line of logic you proposed so just extrapolating from that argument I would say that we can't.
That's akin to asking "Can we scientifically classify mammals".
On June 09 2016 19:43 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Humans are all the same species (homo sapiens), whereas birds are merely the same class (aves). Classes are split into orders, then families, then genera (plural of genus), then species... so there are many ways to differentiate and classify what we mean by "bird". "Bird" is on the same level as "Mammal", and there are many ways to classify and group different mammals based on traits.
The specificity of humans would be equivalent to organizing wood ducks. Not all birds, not all ducks, but specifically the "wood duck". So sure, we can organize them by color if we wanted, but we've done almost all of the biological/ "real scientific" grouping up to that point, where we've broken down mammals and birds over and over again to arrive at a specific species of mammal or bird.
And as ZeaL said, it comes down to basic reproductive compatibility. All humans can reproduce with each other, and all wood ducks can reproduce with each other, but not all mammals (and not all birds) can reproduce with each other. That's one of the main reasons why we end up as specific as we do with our classifications.
Therefore, when you ask this question about birds:
On June 09 2016 19:34 NukeD wrote:
On June 09 2016 19:11 Simberto wrote: a) there is no scientific way to classify human beings, who are part of a big continous spectrum, into distinct different races, and
Just curious; can we scientifically clasiffy birds? I can see they all fall into the same line of logic you proposed so just extrapolating from that argument I would say that we can't.
That's akin to asking "Can we scientifically classify mammals".
there are some minute differences between groups of people, some of which are medically important as wegandi notes (resistance to malaria, how well you can digest milk products) - none of them have anything to do with violent behaviour, or intelligence, or whatever other crap you want to pull out of your ass if you're a racist
On June 09 2016 15:25 WhiteDog wrote: About the specific violence of black kids, it has reasons, it's not in their genes I think we can agree with that. One of those reasons is their specificity as a group : the historical fact that they faced harder repression, harder living conditions, and more segregation than any other groups in the US for decades, effectively giving life to a specific "culture". One of the way out is also by destroying that specificity.
Why wouldnt it be genes? I think genes have a huge part to do with it.
Did you seriously just argue "black people are more violent, and it's because of their genes"?
On June 09 2016 20:00 Surth wrote: species are a fiction, theres only flows of genes
there are some minute differences between groups of people, some of which are medically important as wegandi notes (resistance to malaria, how well you can digest milk products) - none of them have anything to do with violent behaviour, or intelligence, or whatever other crap you want to pull out of your ass if you're a racist
Behaviors are nearly always associated with culture, values, nurture, etc. Too many people conflate the idea that I don't want to associate myself with X "group" of people racist, but it's really more a matter of culture. Just like secular people wouldn't want to live in a theocratic society, people who have liberal values (in its classical sense) don't want their society to be inundated with illiberal people, which comprises a good deal of the people associated with "illegal immigration" (even if I find this word association to be hilarious since the State to me anyways is an illegitimate actor, but I digress). There's also a huge amount of disingenuousness when it comes to this issue. The reason that the GOP are for the most part against them, and the DNC for them isn't primarily (or even tertiary really) from a moral standpoint, but from the purview of power. The DNC knows and the GOP know that the people that comprise themselves of this label would overwhelmingly vote (D) if they were given the vote. So, you have one party who wants to limit the voter pool of the other party, and one party who stands to benefit trying to occupy the moral high ground in an effort to obfuscate their real agenda.
If there was any serious moral compunction on this issue we could find a middle-ground quite easily: 1) That there will be no border security and America will have open borders and 2) Residing in the territory known as the USA does not confer voting privileges. This is one thing ancient republican Rome had right. People should be free to come here for better opportunity, more freedom than where they came from, etc. but just being here shouldn't be linked to voting privileges, which is the real meat and potatoes that is at issue.
It's even more pressing considering that many of the border states tilt Republican, so of course there will be more Republican opposition to any immigration reforms which lead to "illegals" being granted voting privileges. How about we divorce the idea of voting and immigration? Maybe we'd get somewhere at that point instead of people pointing fingers at each other yelling you're a bad person, no you're a bad person, ad infinitum.
Disclosure: Are there the devotees on either side, sure, but that's not what is propelling this issue.
Same shit as slave state vs free state from the 1850s. More about power than any moral principles.
On June 09 2016 15:09 SK.Testie wrote: What should the %'s look like? The %'s seem fine. How are you to balance 63% of the population with 17 / 13% of the population better than that?
No, I think that's forcing integration on people who do not want to integrate with each other. Which I think is wrong. Here's Howard Stern talking about his experience in black school that he wanted to get the hell away from. I could link countless videos on this but since he's not random no-name guy who's daughter killed himself because of bullying here's what he had to say. Basically, he gets his ass kicked all the time. And he'd tell his parents and they wouldn't do anything about it. Black youth is far more violent than their other races counterparts. FBI table 43 can show you this over and over again. In this instance, black people didn't want to live with him and he didn't want to live with them. Awkward moment for his assistant here who clearly feels uncomfortable with his message.
So, should more white families have jumped onto the bomb in Howard Stern's neighbourhood here and gotten some ass whoopings? Or should everyone just beat on each other til it's all out of their system and they realize they're not so different after all!?
You can't force people to like each other. That doesn't all of them hate each other, but that doesn't mean you should stamp on their right to prefer being around people they identify more with. If you consider this simple fact you'll realize that those %'s are actually amazingly good in the chart. There's a rough mix in almost every school on average with the exception of white schools, but again, they are the majority. So people are integrating. But there's plenty of towns that are mostly white and some smaller ones that are even mostly black iirc in Maryland.
Let the people who like each other like each other. There will be natural mixing always eventually. But even in cities, generally white people live in X district, Chinese in X district, blacks in X district etc. There's a tonne of crossover, but usually if you check the demographics people tend to be with their own race. And you can see that in every major city that ever exists.
I know where to go for greektown, the russian district, the brown town, the chinese part of town, the white part of town.. but I'll still see every race pretty much in every part of town. Just at different levels. Saying "omg people are self segregating it's wrong!" Just let nature take its course.
Hell, I know a short Asian girl who dislikes being in crowds with a lot of tall people. Should I force her to go to the Netherlands where the tallest people in the world are in their most crowded city? (To elaborate, she feels more comfortable in an Asian market than a crowded multicultural market). lol
segregation is not primarily about choice but the forces behind choice (prices and in some cases government housing provision) when it comes to racial groups already in the society.
immigrants see higher mobility but that has also declined in recent decades
On June 09 2016 20:14 Wegandi wrote: (even if I find this word association to be hilarious since the State to me anyways is an illegitimate actor, but I digress)
A hardcore libertarian? Legitimacy is a fiction my friend
On June 09 2016 20:00 Surth wrote: species are a fiction, theres only flows of genes
there are some minute differences between groups of people, some of which are medically important as wegandi notes (resistance to malaria, how well you can digest milk products) - none of them have anything to do with violent behaviour, or intelligence, or whatever other crap you want to pull out of your ass if you're a racist
Behaviors are nearly always associated with culture, values, nurture, etc. Too many people conflate the idea that I don't want to associate myself with X "group" of people racist, but it's really more a matter of culture. Just like secular people wouldn't want to live in a theocratic society, people who have liberal values (in its classical sense) don't want their society to be inundated with illiberal people, which comprises a good deal of the people associated with "illegal immigration" (even if I find this word association to be hilarious since the State to me anyways is an illegitimate actor, but I digress). There's also a huge amount of disingenuousness when it comes to this issue. The reason that the GOP are for the most part against them, and the DNC for them isn't primarily (or even tertiary really) from a moral standpoint, but from the purview of power. The DNC knows and the GOP know that the people that comprise themselves of this label would overwhelmingly vote (D) if they were given the vote. So, you have one party who wants to limit the voter pool of the other party, and one party who stands to benefit trying to occupy the moral high ground in an effort to obfuscate their real agenda.
If there was any serious moral compunction on this issue we could find a middle-ground quite easily: 1) That there will be no border security and America will have open borders and 2) Residing in the territory known as the USA does not confer voting privileges. This is one thing ancient republican Rome had right. People should be free to come here for better opportunity, more freedom than where they came from, etc. but just being here shouldn't be linked to voting privileges, which is the real meat and potatoes that is at issue.
It's even more pressing considering that many of the border states tilt Republican, so of course there will be more Republican opposition to any immigration reforms which lead to "illegals" being granted voting privileges. How about we divorce the idea of voting and immigration? Maybe we'd get somewhere at that point instead of people pointing fingers at each other yelling you're a bad person, no you're a bad person, ad infinitum.
Disclosure: Are there the devotees on either side, sure, but that's not what is propelling this issue.
Same shit as slave state vs free state from the 1850s. More about power than any moral principles.
lol romans had it right? dem germans wanted to be romans but were treated like shit and not given real say in society. like do you even history
On June 09 2016 15:25 WhiteDog wrote: About the specific violence of black kids, it has reasons, it's not in their genes I think we can agree with that. One of those reasons is their specificity as a group : the historical fact that they faced harder repression, harder living conditions, and more segregation than any other groups in the US for decades, effectively giving life to a specific "culture". One of the way out is also by destroying that specificity.
Why wouldnt it be genes? I think genes have a huge part to do with it.
Did you seriously just argue "black people are more violent, and it's because of their genes"?
No, I just didnt exclude genes from the equation.
Science has come down on the side that you should exclude them, just an FYI.
Rome existed for several centuries, ye know, and went through several very different phases, so both of y'all might have to be more specific as to what exactly you're talking about.
On June 09 2016 15:25 WhiteDog wrote: About the specific violence of black kids, it has reasons, it's not in their genes I think we can agree with that. One of those reasons is their specificity as a group : the historical fact that they faced harder repression, harder living conditions, and more segregation than any other groups in the US for decades, effectively giving life to a specific "culture". One of the way out is also by destroying that specificity.
Why wouldnt it be genes? I think genes have a huge part to do with it.
Did you seriously just argue "black people are more violent, and it's because of their genes"?
No, I just didnt exclude genes from the equation.
Science has come down on the side that you should exclude them, just an FYI.
Agreed. Pretty sure that there are so many environmental/ nurtural/ human-driven factors that affect/ correlate with violent behavior (e.g., inequity, poverty, ideology, lack of trust) that even if there was a tiny genetic component it would be comparatively irrelevant for all intents and purposes.
On June 09 2016 20:27 Surth wrote: Rome existed for several centuries, ye know, and went through several very different phases, so both of y'all might have to be more specific as to what exactly you're talking about.
I was all ready specific. Why should people from other cultures who want to come here be given the vote to change our institutions and values? If people want to come here, A-men to them, but that should have nothing to do with voting. Oneofthem seems to be under the impression that anyone who wants to come here should be entitled not only to that, but given authority to change the existing cultures institutions, values, etc. that are conferred via the vote. That's what was meant by saying republican Rome had it right. That the existing culture and its people should be the ones to have the say, not those who want to live here from other cultures and societies (which everyone should be free to do who wants to).
On June 09 2016 20:27 Surth wrote: Rome existed for several centuries, ye know, and went through several very different phases, so both of y'all might have to be more specific as to what exactly you're talking about.
I was all ready specific. Why should people from other cultures who want to come here be given the vote to change our institutions and values? If people want to come here, A-men to them, but that should have nothing to do with voting. Oneofthem seems to be under the impression that anyone who wants to come here should be entitled not only to that, but given authority to change the existing cultures institutions, values, etc. that are conferred via the vote. That's what was meant by saying republican Rome had it right. That the existing culture and its people should be the ones to have the say, not those who want to live here from other cultures and societies (which everyone should be free to do who wants to).
Because the US culture is defined by assimilating cultures and changing based on on that.
The question is when they should get the right to vote. Never? After 10 years? After aquiring citizenship in some way? Do their children get the right to vote?
In fact, how do voting rights currently work in the US? I was under the assumption that citizens get to vote, while non-citizens do not. And that it is possible to aquire citizenship in some way in the US. What Wegandi writes makes the impression that you only need to be around when there is an election and you are allowed to vote? Would someone mind explaining to me how exactly it currently works in the US?
On June 09 2016 15:25 WhiteDog wrote: About the specific violence of black kids, it has reasons, it's not in their genes I think we can agree with that. One of those reasons is their specificity as a group : the historical fact that they faced harder repression, harder living conditions, and more segregation than any other groups in the US for decades, effectively giving life to a specific "culture". One of the way out is also by destroying that specificity.
Why wouldnt it be genes? I think genes have a huge part to do with it.
Did you seriously just argue "black people are more violent, and it's because of their genes"?
No, I just didnt exclude genes from the equation.
Science has come down on the side that you should exclude them, just an FYI.
Well alright then. Anyway, just to return to my original point, I just wanted to say that on my experience black people are more impulsive, not violent. I even sound racist to myself for how that sounds when I read it but I am not trying to be. It think there is a problem where I feel like a racist for only typing out the words "black people". Doesnt that sound just ugly, this post of mine? I feel brainwashed.
On June 09 2016 20:27 Surth wrote: Rome existed for several centuries, ye know, and went through several very different phases, so both of y'all might have to be more specific as to what exactly you're talking about.
I was all ready specific. Why should people from other cultures who want to come here be given the vote to change our institutions and values? If people want to come here, A-men to them, but that should have nothing to do with voting. Oneofthem seems to be under the impression that anyone who wants to come here should be entitled not only to that, but given authority to change the existing cultures institutions, values, etc. that are conferred via the vote. That's what was meant by saying republican Rome had it right. That the existing culture and its people should be the ones to have the say, not those who want to live here from other cultures and societies (which everyone should be free to do who wants to).
rome going through the phases is supportive of what i said. eastern roman empire flourished for quite a while by giving greeks citizenship participation and later on anatolya and balkans. limiting yourself to some sort of original racial stock would just destroy any diverse society.
On the topic of race and the scientific consensus, it's generally acknowledged that it's impossible to actually come to any kind of scientific conclusion. There's a ton of evidence that *points* to it not mattering: very little genetic variation is associated with race (from a genetic perspective humans are pretty much all the same, with huge amounts of gene flow between most groups both historically and contemporarily), and once you "control" for things like income, geographic location, education, etc., less than 1% of the variation in IQ is explained by race (it's like a single IQ point difference iirc, can't remember if it's within error margins or not but basically not meaningful).
Of course, there are always rebuttals to these points that racists like to make: "but those small amount of genes MIGHT matter and make a huge impact" (I guess, but show me some studies?), things like income education are inherently correlated with intelligence so they are inherently conflated, etc. Non-racists typically revert to the argument that culture is confounded with race, and affects things like SES and education (which I tend to see as a pretty reasonable argument) but that blade cuts both ways.
So it basically comes down to this: some correlative evidence exists that race doesn't mean jack shit, but it's not definitive. However, racists cannot prove that race matters, either; to do so would require actually raising human beings under controlled experimental conditions, something we generally think is wrong to do (with good cause). So most of their evidence is unscientific anecdotal bullshit that they mask using pseudo-scientific language.
As with most things associated with human behaviour, it's basically impossible to prove scientifically one way or the other (culture vs. race), due to our cultural reluctance to engage in human experimentation (which, you know, is a pretty good thing overall). So my take is to basically just say fuck it, who cares. This is an entirely unknowable concept from a scientific perspective so why bother trying to argue one way or the other about something that is fundamentally unprovable. We should all just give everyone the benefit of the doubt and try to treat each other like decent human beings, because while you might think one way based entirely off anecdotal experience and pseudoscientific bullshit you read on the internet, chances are you're probably just fucking wrong because (famous quote inc.) the plural of anecdote is not data.
On June 09 2016 15:25 WhiteDog wrote: About the specific violence of black kids, it has reasons, it's not in their genes I think we can agree with that. One of those reasons is their specificity as a group : the historical fact that they faced harder repression, harder living conditions, and more segregation than any other groups in the US for decades, effectively giving life to a specific "culture". One of the way out is also by destroying that specificity.
Why wouldnt it be genes? I think genes have a huge part to do with it.
Did you seriously just argue "black people are more violent, and it's because of their genes"?
No, I just didnt exclude genes from the equation.
Science has come down on the side that you should exclude them, just an FYI.
Well alright then. Anyway, just to return to my original point, I just wanted to say that on my experience black people are more impulsive, not violent. I even sound racist to myself for how that sounds when I read it but I am not trying to be. It think there is a problem where I feel like a racist for only typing out the words "black people". Doesnt that sound just ugly, this post of mine? I feel brainwashed.
The key is that you preface that statement by admitting that your experience is based on limited interactions with blacks. Observations are fine as long as you don’t pass them off as prescriptive for an entire race of people or demographic. Just frame the observation in a way that doesn’t imply you are assuming that all blacks are impulsive.
The default response to someone misunderstanding what you are saying should always be “maybe I messed that up.”
EPT
