Can Racism be Based on Science?

submitted by MagicMike from self.debatealtright

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

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 4 fun1 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 4 fun -  (25 children)

The answer is literally: no.

[–]block_socks 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

'Abnormal person AMA', and general pseudointellectual lowlife who will get triggered hard by this response.

You have, of course, regurgitated the answer provided by the Marxist pseudoscience that you have thoroughly and irreversibly internalized. Your constant drivel about the 99%-1% (or 99.9%-0.01%!) comes from Occupy Wall Street—thanks for telling us that you were most likely involved with this gaggle of lumpen lowlives—and is simply the proletarian-bourgeois distinction put in more sanitized terms that do not remind people of the Holodomor, Killing Fields, Qay Shibir, etc. Of course, there is no such thing as the 99.9% or proletariat; for I have far more in common with a 0.01% brother than I do with you or the 99.9% when they do not look or sound like me, nor share my beliefs, nor speak my language, etc. Your Marxisant class reductionism is truly the stuff of fools—it is pathetic to make something as utterly useless as your own relations to the 'means of production' your primary identity. Unlike racial identity, class doesn't even tell one just whose histories one is a product of. And if the 99.9% consists solely of those even remotely as insufferable as you, long live the 0.01%!

Your answer is, of course, 100% ideological and 0% scientific. For example, if 'scientific neoracism' normalized 'racism' in the West, you would predictably continue to insist that it was merely 'disinformation', 'fake news', 'propaganda', etc. as you have been wont to do with absolutely anything that clashes with your preconceived and unquestionable assumptions, which are incidentally the same as your conclusions. Why continue to believe nonsense at odds with reality? It is because your 'reasoning' comes from Leftist pseudomorality which takes absolute precedence above all else. Your ideology has simply told you what to assume-conclude without giving you anything other than pathetic appeals to emotion.

Now, we live in an age where we can determine ancestry down to the percentage, something which would obviously be impossible without observable genetic differences between the races. Race denialism is simply pseudoscientific hokum. Chinese and Eastern European scientists overwhelmingly accept the existence of race. They will continue to do so. Your view is (thankfully) a minority outside of the West, and it is important that the West catches up with the rest of the world rather than fall behind as a result of extreme Leftist ideologies that postulate conclusions grossly at odds with non-Western science.

And all this coming from the same fool who has insisted that 'fascists' cannot be 'intellectual' because the belief that 'ends justify the means' is laughably at odds with (his conception of) intellectualism! This, of course, means that every single Marxist and utilitarian is no longer an intellectual! Now, when you see Marx or Engels, Gramsci, Bentham, Mill and Singer when you arrive down in the Hell in which they are surely dwelling, please be sure to tell them: 'Hey! Hey you! You are not intellectuals!'. I imagine that they will find your presence little more than a bit of comic relief.

The world has a dichotomous choice between what you call 'Fascism' and barbarism. Your way of life is thankfully coming to an end. You cannot even reproduce your numbers, the hilarious result of the grossly abnormal, immoral and truly twisted pseudo-society that you farcically consider 'progressive'; and it is not long before you will be no longer welcome in a majority non-white Democratic Party. You will be marginalized and replaced real good, and you deserve it. You're likely in your 60's, which means that you will live long enough to see the consequences of your actions unfold.

Now, don't you commit suicide or overdose any time soon. I want you to live long enough to see this unfold. Man's choice is between 'fascism' or barbarism, but there will be no 'liberalism' or 'socialism' ever again. I hope you live long enough, just to see your way of life end not with a bang, but with a whisper, nay, with a whimper, the result of a non-white's boot planted firmly on every Leftist's head. I for one will not mind if they treat you the way the Haitians treated the French.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 3 fun1 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 3 fun -  (1 child)

Perhaps I should be honored that you created this account a month ago mainly or initially in order to respond to my posts, at length. But seriously, everything you note not only drags the discourse down the POD in an uncilvil manner (not what Saidit is intended for), and you've spent so much time here parroting the lies that propaganda websites have been pushing, for the benefit of nothing. The gist of your posts is mainly to note the opposite of what I wrote, without any qualification or evidence. This pro-extremist right-wing pro-Big Corp attack is informative of the psychological difficulties faced by extremists. I don't say this lightly: get help.

[–][deleted] 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Smell the roses, socks. No one likes establishment shills except reddit-folk. You claim to hate the 1%? Learn how you are used by them, or, keep banging your head against a userbase that doesn't care.

[–]cisheteroscumWhite Nationalist 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (21 children)

I invite you to explain your position

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 5 fun2 insightful - 4 fun3 insightful - 5 fun -  (20 children)

There is no scientific way of determining race or ethnicity. Assumptions about this scientific basis were debunked in the early 20th century, whereas journals on eugenics truly believed in this so-called science in the 19th century, some of which was called Social Darwinism toward the late 19th century, but even that was unrelated to Darwin's research. In short, it is not possible to scientifically determine a single race or ethnicity with the help of science or gene analysis, mainly because we're all mixed. Even those of us with ancestors known for consanguinity have mixed ethnic genes. There are no bundles of genes for only whites or blacks or whatever. One can find more by searching: scientific basis for race, or scientific basis for ethnicity (if searching respectable sources). This is a popular subject recently because extremist groups want to promote racism and division for political and financial gain (for the .01%). But there will never be a concensus among scientists on which genes constitute one race or another.

[–]cisheteroscumWhite Nationalist 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Textbook terrible justifications - but Ill pick this apart tomorrow, when i'm soberer. Bad time for race denialist post

[–]cisheteroscumWhite Nationalist 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I feel the need to preface this: Socks, i know we are not on the same team - but i really do appreciate you coming here and taking a swing. You dont look like a shill to me and you are actually willing to go to bat against White Nationalists and put yourself out there - which is more than can be said for 99.99% of our opponents. Your courage is commendable, i salute you for that

That being said, reading this again, it looks like some NPC fritzed out and vomited every MSM talking point on race they've ever heard of, with no regard to coherency or consequence. In fact, it is so incoherent and non-sequitor that I dont even really know how to respond to it. But i'll try

There is no scientific way of determining race or ethnicity.

Have you ever heard if 23&Me? How can there be "no scientific way" of knowing someone's ethnicity or race when a private company just needs you to spit in a tube and will do it for you for like, $50? That makes no sense

Assumptions about this scientific basis were debunked in the early 20th century

When/where was racialism "debunked?" This is literally just a thing "people say" but has no real backing to it. At least provide some kind of reference when making such a claim

whereas journals on eugenics truly believed in this so-called science in the 19th century, some of which was called Social Darwinism

Ignoring what "journals" at any given time "believed in" - this is a total non-sequitor. "Race" is just about classifying different groups of humans into "subspecies," basically. This has nothing to do with "social darwinism" since the objective acknowledgement of human "races" does not necessitate that certain races be better/worse than others or that public policues must reflect these. Races are just "different"

toward the late 19th century, but even that was unrelated to Darwin's research.

"Social Darwinism" wasnt related to Darwin's own research, per se - but its obvious (to us now and people at the time) that the same concepts of natural selection etc. that apply to animals also apply to humans, because we are also animals.

Saying that you know what "social darwinism" is or its history as a term is not a novel or interesting thing to say to anyone here. Whats more obvious is your (seemingly accidental) conflation of the idea of scientifically-recognized "race" and public policy. "Social darwinism" is just a term that people use to describe certain points of view or public policies (sp. eugenic policies) that were/could be enacted irrespective of "race." In theory, a society could practice "social darwinisim" but not even acknowledge the existence of something called "race" at all. Our society also actively practices eugenics (or "dysgenics", rather) when it comes to welfare, public healthcare, and other policies. So anyone who is a proponent of welfare or public healthcare in any way and does not also employ some kind of reproductive restrictions or eugenics (likley, "you") is engaging in a negative kind of "social darwinism" (dysgenics). But "social darwinism" has nothing to do with "race," necessarily

In short, it is not possible to scientifically determine a single race or ethnicity with the help of science or gene analysis, mainly because we're all mixed.

This is just totally false. Self-described "race" and genetic cluster corresponds basically 100% of the time. OP already mentioned the practical relevancy of race in medicine. So wtf are you trying to say?

Even those of us with ancestors known for consanguinity have mixed ethnic genes.

Even that is untrue, as this study shows even self-identified hispanics (very mixed) actually cluster very well (80%)

A lot of white americans also like to pretend they are part "native american" or something - but 23&Me invalidates even this. Using data from 23&me, researchers found that European-Americans had genomes that were on average 98.6 percent European, 0.19 percent African, and 0.18 Native American.. Especially when we consider people who dont know their ethnic background are more likely to take a 23&Me test, and that this study was done in the US and not Europe, we can conclude that the vast, vast majority of "whites" are only white and nothing else of practical consequence

There are no bundles of genes for only whites or blacks or whatever.

Yeah, no, we have the cluster analyses, this is just wrong, sorry

One can find more by searching:

No one cares what a bunch of psychologically-damaged cat ladies or malevolent jews in the MSM have to say. Make the arguments yourself here, where they can be responded to in context

This is a popular subject recently because extremist groups want to promote racism and division for political and financial gain (for the .01%).

Thats dumb since we (DAR) have no obvious way to make money out of our beliefs and are censored/suppressed relentlessly by the elite, and the idea of "race" is just manifestly obvious to anyone who has lived to see other races. Studying race should be of legitimate scholarly interest and is of consequence to a mutliracial society. Instead, the establishment devotes a ton of resources and money into propaganda saying "race isnt even reall!!1!" so they can continue to import cheap labor and ruin white countries and make them easier to control. The evidence for this is ubiquitous - in education, in media, etc. You are the one doing the bidding of the establishment, not us. And you are doing it for free. Go to a BLM protest and tell them "race isnt real" and let us know how that goes

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

Thank you for this detailed assessment. It would seem that part of the misunderstanding is that facts are sometimes conflated with opinion. My responses in this thread have focused on the history of scientific racism (eugenics, which I note was debunked) and the prevailing scientific view of the past century about the impossibility of getting scientists to agree on specific genetic categories of ethnicities. For example, you can indeed use genetic clusters to determine the percentage of caucasian or african, but this isn't the problem. The problem is working with the social construct of race. For example, who will arrange the agreement on the specific genetic percentages of caucasian or other supposedly "white" ethnicities that would determine a person is "white"? Scientists do not agree on how this could be done. See for example the links I posted in this thread:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1738862/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26270337/

https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=98485&page=1

These are not my opinions. I am merely noting what's in the scientific research. DAR (and right-wing propagandists) can take up their interests in re-starting scientific racism with the scientific research papers.

My view is that we should understand the limitations of science for determining ethnicities and of social constructs like racism. My personal opinion is that we should not work so hard to try to put people in categories, especially because of the ways in which those categories are inevitably misused for unethical purposes. If one wants to argue for the scientific foundation of racism, the responsibility is on that person to provide facts for that argument (rather than opinions), and where possible, note the purpose of the necessity of re-starting eugenics (which was appropriately abandoned in the early 20th century).

One of the reasons I return to Saidit is to see if there are any interesting debates, especialy regarding factual errors. If there are no debates I won't return. On some days it's rather quiet.

[–]raven9 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Tell that to the forensic anthropologists that routinely identify the race of skeletal human remains for law enforcement.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 3 fun1 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

So you've read about this, have you? Perhaps you've read:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1738862/

It is maintained in this paper that 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. A specimen may display features that point to African ancestry. In this country that person is likely to have been labeled Black regardless of whether or not such a race actually exists in nature.

Or perhaps you've read this:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26270337/

Accuracy for these techniques varies from 57% to 95%, depending on the sample and technique used.

Or this:

https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=98485&page=1

He says it is the complexity of human variation and its geographical ties that make archaeological finds like the Kennewick Man important to study.

As you will have seen in these and all other articles on the subject:

...there will never be a concensus among scientists on which genes constitute one race or another. (There is too much variation. Anyone who would try to catagorize people into races will have to develop a system that determines which percentages of each potential ethnicity or geographic origin would apply, and in any event, this the data is far too complex to make any sense, and the categories would remain social categorizations, not reliably scientific.)

[–]Richard_Parker 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

That is absolute bullshit.

[–][deleted]  (12 children)

[deleted]

    [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 3 fun1 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 3 fun -  (11 children)

    If you have an an arguement, try to make one here, provided by evidence. Merely dragging down the discussion with an attack is pathetic, and not what Saidit is for.

    [–][deleted]  (10 children)

    [deleted]

      [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 3 fun1 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 3 fun -  (9 children)

      At least you're making an effort here, but you've not properly addressed the OP's argument and my response to it (regarding science), which if you'll remember was not dragging down the discussion, whereas you want the social construct of race to be treated as though it were a science, and people treated as though they're breeds of dogs. The concept is obviously untenable, on several levels.

      [–]Yin 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

      whereas you want the social construct of race to be treated as though it were a science,

      Genetics is real. It is science. Biology is science. Humans are the product of genes, hence the "social construct" of observable "races" is genetic.

      This is obvious to everyone whose goal isn't to mislead.

      and people treated as though they're breeds of dogs.

      Races ("breeds") of dogs is an accurate analogy to races of humans. Your use of the word "treated" in that sentence is subtly attempting to falsely portray what I said as the equivalent of implying that my intent is to "treat humans as though they're dogs" in general, which is not the case.

      The concept is untenable, on several levels.

      No it isn't. Humans are animals. If you don't understand that and can't comprehend the fact that biology is scientifically measurable (often science lagging behind in what it's able to measure physically), then you're engaging in political deception.

      Your propaganda tactics fail.

      [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 3 fun1 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 3 fun -  (7 children)

      Your still avoiding the facts regarding the science of genetics and assessments of ethnicity. (Scientists could never agree on this kind of data, because everyone is somewhat mixed.) Read the rest of the thread and stop this nonsense.

      [–][deleted]  (6 children)

      [deleted]

        [–]AidsVictim69 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

        mainly because we're all mixed.

        You really believe this discredits the idea of race. Just stupid as hell lmao.