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 -  (4 children)

The idea that "science" is responsible for classifications of people is the height of arrogance and presumption. People, naturally, categorize others differently from themselves where they feel it relevant. It cannot be denied that morphological trends and differences exist due to local adaptations and population drifts, and the fact these are fuzzy categories subject to different levels of specificity is not an argument for their invalidity. If I want to describe someone I do not know, their appearance is of utmost importance, and my being able to describe them as "East Asian" or "West Asian", or "Black", or "Latino", is useful.

You will note in this same opinion piece they endeavor to suggest that, because the categories are fuzzy, they somehow don't truly exist. However, this is not relevant. Species do not truly exist, they're an abstraction created by human delineation, but nobody is seeking to eliminate species classification. The question is how useful those categories are, to us, to ourselves, exclusively, and that they describe something about reality to be useful. The fact is race, at least in the United States, is exactly just that useful broad geographic correlation to morphology and ancestry, and is in no way "not real" simply because the categories are fuzzy due to population admixture.

I am wholly opposed to this elitist top-down reformation attempt to eliminate utility in language, simply because people in ivory towers have "concerns". That's really what this is. Elitist moral fragility over "concerns" of what you, the poor uneducated masses, would do given the freedom to think the "bad things" they don't like. What next? I cannot describe people as "tall" or "short" because there are gradients of tallness and shortness?

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

Fine. But you're not addressing the underlying issue the author discusses.

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

What do you think I did not address? I am directly rejecting their rejection of classification and their elitist sense of morality driving it. I couldn't care less what anthropologists incorrectly think. A morphological correlation to ancestry is biology. That 80 or 90% of a bunch of educated ignorant pearl clutchers think otherwise is not an "underlying issue".

[–]sproketboy[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Look I get it that we got the enlightenment and we also got eugenics from people like you. It's always a trade-off.

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

The fuck does this have to do with eugenics? Did I even imply it? You don't actually seem to be reading what I write, you're just poisoning the well.