Simone Biles' withdrawal is more impressive than winning

submitted by [deleted] from (self.debatealtright)

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Not to drag out the discussion, but I'd like to respond to a couple of major issues:

Your claim was that negro was a bad word, but I have demonstrated to you that it isn't.

I did not see a reliable demonstration of this, whereas I offered a number of quotations from a search for 'negro' & 'definition', demonstrating that the word, negro, is indeed offensive in all definitions, given its previous use, and it's apparent that those who use the word, negro, hate blacks and/or people of color. (I'd be surprised if you claimed that you genuinely don't hate or dislike blacks.).

Whites are underrepresented in the US government. Whitest are marginalized by the majority in power (jews).

This is very difficult to discuss because the Jewish US politicians list themselves as 'white'. Moreover, there are pro-Israel US politicians who are 'white'. An impressive project at DAR, or which could be arranged by /u/Jesus would be a study of the number of Jewish and partialy Jewish members in the US government, while also studying pro-Israel politicians. A 'free speech' website like Saidit can do this rather well.

But technically, your comment is not correct for the US Congress:

https://www.statista.com/chart/18905/us-congress-by-race-ethnicity/

Or for the US population, which is 60.3% 'non-hispanic white'.

Interestingly, those most outspoken against Israel tend to me non-white.

[–]Jesus 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

/u/Dragonerne

Zionist owned wikipedia:

Negroid (less commonly called Congoid) is an obsolete racial grouping of various people indigenous to Africa south of the area which stretched from the southern Sahara desert in the west to the African Great Lakes in the southeast,[1] but also to isolated parts of South and Southeast Asia (Negritos).[2] The term is derived from a now-disproven theory of biological race.[3]

Follow-up archive of a anon who disagrees:

People when I studied in high school, in the biological textbook were counted Europeoid, Mongoloid, Negroid and Australoid races. If the term is obsolete in your country due to polit-correctness, please do not expand these feeling on other countries.--MathFacts (talk) 09:35, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Also it seems that the source that claims the term is obsolete aslo claims that there are no human races at all: a system for classifying people based on the false assumption that humans can be unambiguously placed into "races" on the basis of selected traits such as skin color, hair form, and body shape. Advocates of this approach incorrectly believe that there are more or less distinct populations of people from different geographic regions. Negroid, Mongoloid, and Caucasoid are examples of typological groupings. I think this is a very biased approach, if not fringe.

...the citation at the start DOES NOT suggest Negroid as an obsolete term, The opposite in fact: It's a list of terms that ARE used when describing human variation. Anyway, there is NO citation on the page that suggests the terms are obsolete, and in fact, the penultimate paragraph actually states the term IS still used, and merely suggests the PC brigade are against it. (I've also seen a recent programme in which Negroid and Caucasoid were used concerning Craniometry.) The page also states Mongoloid and Caucasoid are obsolete, their own pages don't even state such a thing. Seems suspect to me.

I think I detected bias against whites in the article Caucasian Race. Whereas in the articles about the mongoloid race, the negroid race and the australoid race the words "IS A GROUPING OF HUMANS", in the article about the caucasian race "IS" is substituted by "was": "was a grouping of humans".

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

the Negroid/Caucasoid/Mongoloid paradigm has fallen into near-total disfavor

The terms are OBSOLETE

Modern scholarship views racial categories as socially constructed [NOT scientific], that is, race is not intrinsic to human beings but rather an identity created, often by socially dominant groups, to establish meaning in a social context. Different cultures define different racial groups, often focused on the largest groups of social relevance, and these definitions can change over time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_categorization)

[–]Jesus 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I disagree.

Race is defined by proportions of ancestry (admixture) from specific genetic populations (races or ethnic groups), either ancient or modern, i.e., race = cumulative shared phenotypic characteristics.

For example, white people simply means descended almost (>95%, on average) from Western Hunter-Gatherers and Proto-Indo-Europeans. Compared to other races, the phenotypic characteristics of a white person such as Europid Caucasoid consist of skeletal morphology, pale skin, a greater propensity for lighter eye and hair pigmentation, etc.

https://thuletide.wordpress.com/2021/07/04/leading-harvard-geneticist-david-reich-confirms-the-biological-existence-of-race/

Quote:

“I have deep sympathy for the concern that genetic discoveries could be misused to justify racism. But as a geneticist I also know that it is simply no longer possible to ignore average genetic differences among “races.”

“Groundbreaking advances in DNA sequencing technology have been made over the last two decades. These advances enable us to measure with exquisite accuracy what fraction of an individual’s genetic ancestry traces back to, say, West Africa 500 years ago — before the mixing in the Americas of the West African and European gene pools that were almost completely isolated for the last 70,000 years. With the help of these tools, we are learning that while race may be a social construct, differences in genetic ancestry that happen to correlate to many of today’s racial constructs are real.

“Recent genetic studies have demonstrated differences across populations not just in the genetic determinants of simple traits such as skin color, but also in more complex traits like bodily dimensions and susceptibility to diseases. For example, we now know that genetic factors help explain why northern Europeans are taller on average than southern Europeans, why multiple sclerosis is more common in European-Americans than in African-Americans, and why the reverse is true for end-stage kidney disease.

“I am worried that well-meaning people who deny the possibility of substantial biological differences among human populations are digging themselves into an indefensible position, one that will not survive the onslaught of science. I am also worried that whatever discoveries are made — and we truly have no idea yet what they will be — will be cited as “scientific proof” that racist prejudices and agendas have been correct all along, and that those well-meaning people will not understand the science well enough to push back against these claims.

“You will sometimes hear that any biological differences among populations are likely to be small, because humans have diverged too recently from common ancestors for substantial differences to have arisen under the pressure of natural selection. This is not true. The ancestors of East Asians, Europeans, West Africans and Australians were, until recently, almost completely isolated from one another for 40,000 years or longer, which is more than sufficient time for the forces of evolution to work. Indeed, the study led by Dr. Kong showed that in Iceland, there has been measurable genetic selection against the genetic variations that predict more years of education in that population just within the last century.”