Defining Racism

[Rhett]

These days i am seeing two poles, people that call any distinction regarding culture, religion or DNA as racist, if they so choose, and people that say there is no such thing as race and therefore no such thing as racism. I dont see value in either of these.

My personal view is that racism ought only relate to DNA, which is necessarily refering to generalised DNA groupings. Not only do i think this is the most valuable way to look at it, i think it is the core historical usage.

Historically, racism has related to negativity with respect to race. We dont generally have an issue with positivity towards a race unless it involves negativity towards another race. For example, if a person said a woman has "lovely satin black skin", we would generally see it as merely a positive reference, and not a criticism of other skin colours.

There is also the matter of truth and untruth. If a person says that "dark skinned people can cope with sun exposure better than lighter skin colours", or that "lighter skin coloured people cope better with low sun exposure", they are both true statements upheld by science and not regarded as racism. If, however, a person said that because any particular race generally has a low IQ that a specific individual of that race has a low IQ, then it would typically be an untrue statement, and if they intended to be negative towards that person then it could be seen as racism.

So, i just touched on another factor, above, that intention can also play a role in whether racism has occurred or not. If someone makes a mistake and has no intention of being negative, then while the comment or behaviour itself might be seen as racist due to being negative and untrue, that was not the intention of the person, and therefore they were not being racist.

Here is an example of what i regard as racism. If someone said that, "That person over there has white/black/coffee coloured/etc skin, therefore they are trash", they are typically fulfilling all of the conditions for racism. They have made a DNA distinction, its negative, its typically untrue even when said in a narrowed context, and they would typically be aware that any given individual can be of a wide variety of types and could easily not be "trash".

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Yes I agree. Racism should remain in the historical context of that particular theory of the origin of races and the proposed inherent differences, including the idea that mixing was a bad idea to allow outside some marginal flow. Sadly enough it got way more meanings over time.

But even a wider definition could be used to involve all differences in treatment based on someone having a particular trait which has no provable relation to the issue at hand, like some evaluation of rights, duties, suitability, security, potential based the size of the nose, color of hair, unrelated lifestyle or country of origin of some persons or their parents before the act of citizenship took pace.

With things like preferences of diet, religious backgrounds, loyalties to land of origin and gender will certainly influence evaluations and create profiling depending on what is being selected for in the context. It could be reasoned out that for example to select in various circumstances on IQ, cultural background, hormonal functioning, genetic defects, mental capacities (also when linked to genetics) or strength or quality of a personal network might be the smartest and most beneficial thing.

In the end, people should not become afraid to judge, to make distinctions, to allow for a strong preference and will to decide in a climate where fear for reputations is ruling. People don't need to be protected or liberated from such things (other people judging, seeing distinctions and rejecting perhaps on some false reason). The answer is always to work on ones own strength, own judgements, own preferences and will. This is the only thing that will battle any systematic ignorance, when quality is allowed to grow and I believe over time it always does.

[jupiviv]

Well this is a topic that does need a good thrashing out. Actually it's joined at the hip with Trumptopianism, since Trump is just a more sophisticated David Duke.

These days i am seeing two poles, people that call any distinction regarding culture, religion or DNA as racist, if they so choose, and people that say there is no such thing as race and therefore no such thing as racism. I dont see value in either of these.

There are no sane people who believe either of those things, because they are stupid and insane. The real conflict is between people who causally relate the real differences between what are called human races to imagined differences rooted in virtually immutable spiritual or material characteristics, and those who do not.

My personal view is that racism ought only relate to DNA, which is necessarily refering to generalised DNA groupings. Not only do i think this is the most valuable way to look at it, i think

No, racism ought not to relate to "generalised DNA groupings" because there is no reason why something like that should be applied to humans, in which vastly more genetic variance occurs within so-called human races than out. Only a racist would argue that an arbitrarily selected and overlapping physical characteristic e.g. skin/eye colour, nose shape etc. indicates a broader, perhaps metaphysical, covariance. It's like saying all red things can be eaten because strawberries and tomatoes are red. The 'race realist' position is only different to the extent it adds an extra layer of faux-rationality by adding qualifications (not all non-red things are unedible etc.) but anyone with 1/4th of a brain can see through it.

Thus, taken in itself, the concept of race as an objective distinction is 100% nonsense. Which is why it is also nonsensical and likely maliciously obtuse to limit racism to only that concept whilst rejecting all further discussion as "leftist" paranoia. The various direct and indirect forms of racism aren't founded on any coherent idea of race to begin with, let alone being "misguided" applications of such an idea. Race like most other human categories is meant to be a veil of "reason" over the complex and mostly irrational workings of civilisation. It doesn't need to be consistent because it is necessarily always expedient.

it is the core historical usage.

Wow.

[Rhett]

These days i am seeing two poles, people that call any distinction regarding culture, religion or DNA as racist, if they so choose, and people that say there is no such thing as race and therefore no such thing as racism. I dont see value in either of these.

There are no sane people who believe either of those things, because they are stupid and insane. The real conflict is between people who causally relate the real differences between what are called human races to imagined differences rooted in virtually immutable spiritual or material characteristics, and those who do not.

The views i referred to are the primary views i am coming across on social media right now. Its easy to justifiably label mainstream people as insane.

I am not sure how many racists believe that some races are inherently inferior versus actually having inferior qualities in certain areas on average. Most racists tend to consider there to be some basis to their views even if they dont have facts put together. Studies have shown for instance that different races can have widely different average IQ's, even when great length is taken to rule out nurturing, cultural, opportunity and socio economic influences. Exploring, being aware of and talking about differences isnt racism, but doing so for the wrong reason can easily be.

]My personal view is that racism ought only relate to DNA, which is necessarily refering to generalised DNA groupings. Not only do i think this is the most valuable way to look at it, i think

No, racism ought not to relate to "generalised DNA groupings" because there is no reason why something like that should be applied to humans, in which vastly more genetic variance occurs within so-called human races than out. Only a racist would argue that an arbitrarily selected and overlapping physical characteristic e.g. skin/eye colour, nose shape etc. indicates a broader, perhaps metaphysical, covariance. It's like saying all red things can be eaten because strawberries and tomatoes are red. The 'race realist' position is only different to the extent it adds an extra layer of faux-rationality by adding qualifications (not all non-red things are unedible etc.) but anyone with 1/4th of a brain can see through it.

Thus, taken in itself, the concept of race as an objective distinction is 100% nonsense. Which is why it is also nonsensical and likely maliciously obtuse to limit racism to only that concept whilst rejecting all further discussion as "leftist" paranoia. The various direct and indirect forms of racism aren't founded on any coherent idea of race to begin with, let alone being "misguided" applications of such an idea. Race like most other human categories is meant to be a veil of "reason" over the complex and mostly irrational workings of civilisation. It doesn't need to be consistent because it is necessarily always expedient.

This gives me the impression you dont agree with making generalised DNA groupings, you dont agree with making distinctions of race? Didnt you call such people insane, above?

[jupiviv]

The views i referred to are the primary views i am coming across on social media right now. Its easy to justifiably label mainstream people as insane.

False equivalency. Anti-racists reject the racialist definition of "race" but that isn't denial of the existence of racism or race classification.

I am not sure how many racists believe that some races are inherently inferior versus actually having inferior qualities in certain areas on average.

Lol, that's not what "inherent" means. An average inherent property is as illogical as one totally permeating the thing/category whereto ascribed. Like I said:

It's like saying all red things can be eaten because strawberries and tomatoes are red. The 'race realist' position is only different to the extent it adds an extra layer of faux-rationality by adding qualifications (not all non-red things are unedible etc.) but anyone with 1/4th of a brain can see through it.

Studies have shown for instance that different races can have widely different average IQ's, even when great length is taken to rule out nurturing, cultural, opportunity and socio economic influences.

Cite them then. I'm not really into such topics but I'm pretty sure the consensus is that a blend of genes and environment accounts for IQ differences between individuals. But heredity is irrelevant to differences between populations since testing it doesn't necessarily require controlling for non-genetic variance related to race/culture/etc.

No, racism ought not to relate to "generalised DNA groupings" because there is no reason why something like that should be applied to humans, in which vastly more genetic variance occurs within so-called human races than out. Only a racist would argue that an arbitrarily selected and overlapping physical characteristic e.g. skin/eye colour, nose shape etc. indicates a broader, perhaps metaphysical, covariance. It's like saying all red things can be eaten because strawberries and tomatoes are red. The 'race realist' position is only different to the extent it adds an extra layer of faux-rationality by adding qualifications (not all non-red things are unedible etc.) but anyone with 1/4th of a brain can see through it.

Thus, taken in itself, the concept of race as an objective distinction is 100% nonsense. Which is why it is also nonsensical and likely maliciously obtuse to limit racism to only that concept whilst rejecting all further discussion as "leftist" paranoia. The various direct and indirect forms of racism aren't founded on any coherent idea of race to begin with, let alone being "misguided" applications of such an idea. Race like most other human categories is meant to be a veil of "reason" over the complex and mostly irrational workings of civilisation. It doesn't need to be consistent because it is necessarily always expedient.

This gives me the impression you dont agree with making generalised DNA groupings, you dont agree with making distinctions of race? Didnt you call such people insane, above?

See above.

[Rhett]

Jupiviv, responding to you is hard work because you keep creating and attacking strawman's. Your responses generally arent a response to what i have written.

Are you proposing that all humans alive today have essentially the same DNA architecture, that even though groups have differences in the way they look and behave, differences in quantifiable and measurable scientific parameters, it has nothing to do with DNA? What evidence do you have to substantiate that? Are you saying that we all pop out of the womb the same, and from then we are shaped by the environment to look a certain way, think a certain way, behave a certain way? Do you accept that this is a pretty wild proposition? We accept DNA based variety in all other animals, why would humans be different?

[Diebert van Rhijn]

No, racism ought not to relate to "generalised DNA groupings" because there is no reason why something like that should be applied to humans, in which vastly more genetic variance occurs within so-called human races than out.

But 85% of genetic variations exists within local populations. That's what variance means: it mostly happens within a particular grouping, not between. It's interesting that the highest variation can be found in (Sub-Saharan) Africa and variation decreases when moving further away from the "cradle". Diversity then born in Africa and other groups "undiversified" probably because of migration, further isolation, selecting processes?

A population is a difficult entity and does not map very well to pure DNA in any recent times. In any case the worst aspect of racist theory is are the segregation and genocidal outcropping, that is: to label particular genes or other origination as bad or weakening the group structure.

[Rhett]

Doing the science, reading the science, accepting the science, working with what the science says, is the best way to help disadvantaged groups. If policymakers and voters dont understand generalised racial groupings, if they dont understand the why and how of any disadvantage, they are disrespecting them, not doing the best for them. Lefties are often the worst enemies of disadvantaged racial groupings.

For example, in Australia, Aboriginals have a DNA heritage of living in very tough circumstances, with low technology, low water availability, limited nutritious vegetation, harsh sun, etc, resulting in a live fast and die young approach to life, inter tribal violence, patriarchal violence towards women, elder rape of girls when they come of age, very low life expectancy, superstition, etc. Science has come to the conclusion that their average IQ was around 65. A lot of effort by european settlers has raised these indices, improving their lives, but they still have issues, the primary one being small groups living in very remote areas with limited access to healthcare and jobs. The more they are supported to remain in these places, with sit down money, the longer they will have issues of boredom and low self esteem leading to alchoholism, violence, and sexual abuse. Lefties are generally uninformed on these issues and are perpetuating these problems. There are leading Aboriginal voices on these issues but lefties either ignore or silence them, or dont even know they exist.

Worse, lefties are playing a major role in what could be seen as reverse racism. Government spends twice as much per capita on benefits to Aboriginals, who are having a baby boom, while the rate of non Aboriginal births is a long way below replacement rate and at risk of serious further decline, due to excessive taxes (partly to pay Aboriginal benefits), high housing costs (partly due to chinese investment), and stagnant wages and conditions due to excessive immigration and government attacks on unionism. There is a vicious cycle going on, whereby political decisions are making it tougher for young people to buy a house and have a family, so some dont, so politicians fill the gap and much more with excessive immigration, which further erodes conditions for Australians who then have even less children, etc, and the cycle seems set to continue.

[jupiviv]

No, racism ought not to relate to "generalised DNA groupings" because there is no reason why something like that should be applied to humans, in which vastly more genetic variance occurs within so-called human races than out.

But 85% of genetic variations exists within local populations. That's what variance means: it mostly happens within a particular grouping, not between.

WTF you just repeated what I said you wooden shoe up your ass having jerkdick! For the cranially challenged - the fact that variance is greater *within* than *between* races is precisely why the properties asserted by racists to be indicative of broader differences are in fact not so.

LITERALLY TEN SECOND GOOGLE SEARCH:

image

It's interesting that the highest variation can be found in (Sub-Saharan) Africa and variation decreases when moving further away from the "cradle". Diversity then born in Africa and other groups "undiversified" probably because of migration, further isolation, selecting processes?

Wouldn't less diversification outside Africa strongly challenge distance from Africa=more selection pressure? The straightforward conclusion is that we're all Africans save for a handful of expected differences related to food, pathogens and climate. Even those differences may not require strong selection mechanisms separable from fluid gene expression over time. Like less melanin in the retina causing more wavelengths of light to scatter, hence creating blue/green eyed mutants (many of whom change back to normal later on).

For did not Athena herself, in blessing Odysseus with a godly appearance, turn him black?

LITERALLY TEN SECOND GOOGLE SEARCH:

...a difference in polygenic score—though possibly a genuine reflection of underlying genetic propensities—might be incorrectly inferred to represent an unchangeable genetic difference among populations rather than one that can be altered by an environmental change (Fig. 1D). Instead, the potential for significant modification of the environmental contribution renders polygenic score differences between populations largely unconnected to population differences in phenotype distributions.

...Genotypic effects estimated only in one population might not apply to other populations for a number of reasons. Effect estimates might rely on sites that were ascertained for variability in one set of populations and whose systematic differences in allele frequencies between populations contribute to systematic biases in polygenic score estimates in other populations [31]. These estimates might also fail to consider many sites variable only in those other populations.

...analogous measures of population differences in quantitative phenotypic traits and genetic loci—termed QST and FST, respectively—are approximately equal in neutral evolutionary models that include genetic drift but not natural selection. Because many loci contribute to a quantitative trait, and each locus experiences the same random process of genetic drift independent of the size and direction of its trait contribution, phenotypic differences among populations are predicted under neutrality to be similar in magnitude to typical genetic differences among populations.

...The genetic apportionment computation shows that genetic differences among populations, as measured by FST, are small in comparison with variation within populations [45–47]. Although the among-population variation suffices to infer ancestral populations from individual genomes, analysis of models for the genetic basis of phenotypes finds that under neutrality, the magnitude of phenotypic differences connects to the apportionment computation rather than the ancestry computation [42, 44].

...only with strong directional selection on a trait in one population, or strong directional selection in opposite directions in a population pair, is a phenotypic difference between populations attributable largely to natural selection. In other words, because of environmental effects, the difference in phenotype distributions in Fig. 1A–C need not reflect a parallel difference in genetic propensities as in Fig. 1A, but rather no difference as in Fig. 1B or a difference opposite in direction as in Fig. 1C; even a parallel difference as in Fig. 1A might reflect a neutral expectation rather than natural selection, possibly amplified by environmental effects.

...Recent studies of height have suggested that polygenic adaptation tests are sensitive to the choice of GWAS data that provide the effect sizes: even if two sets of effect sizes produce correlated polygenic scores, effect sizes estimated from one study can generate erroneously exaggerated signatures of polygenic adaptation when assessing polygenic adaptation in a second dataset [34, 35]. This result, which arises from subtle population differences between study samples, calls into question claims about polygenic adaptation even of traits for which it has been most extensively investigated.

...In a study of African Americans and European Americans (treated as socially rather than genetically defined populations), among 36 physiologically diverse causes of death, adjusting for other factors, African Americans lost more years of life than European Americans in 28 of the 36 [49]. In the simplest null model in which many genes contribute to a trait chosen at random, with no directional selection, each of a pair of groups has probability 0.5 of having the larger mean value for the trait. In this model, systematic health disparities are unlikely: assuming that no genetic correlation exists between phenotypic outcomes, the binomial probability that the trait value is larger in one of a pair of populations for at least 28 of 36 independent phenotypes is 0.0012 [42].

...a related computation of the overall influence of natural selection in human history, relying on measures of selection against deleterious variants rather than directional selection of favorable variants, does not suggest strong systematic differences in the magnitude of selection among different continental population groups [50–52]; indeed, some researchers have argued for a greater level of deleterious variation in non-Africans rather than in Africans [50, 52], a pattern opposite to what might be expected given the direction of health disparities.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Jupiviv, you might have missed the implication of your own views. That's why I rephrased it a bit more correctly for you. Googling will not help you understand meanings, it helps you just replicate some endlessly, without effect.

Let me explain again, slowly this time. Genetic variance is no good argument against grouping as it actually defines the groups, since the variance occurs inside them. By stating that genetic changes inside a group could be counted as higher is meaningless. You forget this already suggested "groups" in the first place. And how would we compare which changes are relevant? For example men are genetically more different from male chimpanzees than women from female chimps, but it really depends on the context, which material is valued in what way.

Now read on my earlier post, which continued "population is a difficult entity and does not map very well to pure DNA" which is what you tried to repeat rather needlessly by copying and pasting as if you run out of ability to explain your self, old chimp!

[Pam Seeback]

Rhett: These days i am seeing two poles, people that call any distinction regarding culture, religion or DNA as racist, if they so choose, and people that say there is no such thing as race and therefore no such thing as racism. I dont see value in either of these.

Philosophically speaking (this may not be your position), the truth that both views appear IS their value with the first view being the unenlightened view that distinctions are separations of minds or bodies or selves (perception of Other, therefore are to be feared) with the second view being the enlightened view that distinctions are not separations, at least not in the sense of the existence of inherently existing things.

So, i just touched on another factor, above, that intention can also play a role in whether racism has occurred or not. If someone makes a mistake and has no intention of being negative, then while the comment or behaviour itself might be seen as racist due to being negative and untrue, that was not the intention of the person, and therefore they were not being racist.

Here is an example of what i regard as racism. If someone said that, "That person over there has white/black/coffee coloured/etc skin, therefore they are trash", they are typically fulfilling all of the conditions for racism. They have made a DNA distinction, its negative, its typically untrue even when said in a narrowed context, and they would typically be aware that any given individual can be of a wide variety of types and could easily not be "trash".

Based on wisdom of causality, intention is an illusion. Instead, one is either caused to be ignorant of how distinctions become separation of things or they are caused to have wisdom of how distinctions become separation of things. And of course, the causality of ignorance/wisdom is a fluid causality of unconsciousness becoming conscious.

Ultimately, because racism is a question of wisdom in contrast to ignorance re distinctions of consciousness, in order to end ignorance, it is unnecessary (perhaps even a hindrance?) o trace the biological, historical or cultural roots of racist thought.

[jupiviv]

Googling will not help you understand meanings, it helps you just replicate some endlessly, without effect.

Google helps me not to make up my own meanings, then make up academic meanings the former correspond to, then proclaim the differences between the two don't really matter because "everything" is some combination of vague, uncertain and non-existence.

Genetic variance is no good argument against grouping as it actually defines the groups, since the variance occurs inside them.

Irrelevant because you just rephrased the racist argument for arbitrarily selected traits determining races, and I've already explained why its wrong.

By stating that genetic changes inside a group could be counted as higher is meaningless.

Stating they could be lower is also meaningless, and so is your dumbfuck argument.

You forget this already suggested "groups" in the first place.

Irrelevant. All qualities suggest groups of things having them.

And how would we compare which changes are relevant?

Whether different distributions of specific traits among populations justify race classification, which they don't.

"population is a difficult entity and does not map very well to pure DNA"

Population is a statistical category and "pure DNA" is not a thing. But please continue.

[Rhett]

.... - the fact that variance is greater *within* than *between* races is precisely why the properties asserted by racists to be indicative of broader differences are in fact not so.

It seems to me that you are equating all variations as having equal magnitude or effect, which is extremely unlikely.

I think racial grouping can have value. The human genome project you quoted uses them a lot.

[jupiviv]

It seems to me that you are equating all variations as having equal magnitude or effect, which is extremely unlikely.

The surest sign of dipshit alt-right text-chat crusaders is this utter inability to distinguish between generic syllogisms/categories and actual claims. In this case - little thing make big thing. Not only is that fact alone totally irrelevant to racist conceptions of race, it actually *debunks* them because of the exact same reason they seize upon the potential disproportionate significance of small differences. Any difference may be causing large effects even if the quantity of *instances* of difference may be small, thus, any difference/similarity between A and B can demarcate/cluster them race-wise irrespective of large/small quantity of differences.

I think racial grouping can have value. The human genome project you quoted uses them a lot.

No.

[Rhett]

It seems to me that you are equating all variations as having equal magnitude or effect, which is extremely unlikely.

The surest sign of dipshit alt-right text-chat crusaders is this utter inability to distinguish between generic syllogisms/categories and actual claims. In this case - little thing make big thing. Not only is that fact alone totally irrelevant to racist conceptions of race, it actually *debunks* them because of the exact same reason they seize upon the potential disproportionate significance of small differences. Any difference may be causing large effects even if the quantity of *instances* of difference may be small, thus, any difference/similarity between A and B can demarcate/cluster them race-wise irrespective of large/small quantity of differences.

I think racial grouping can have value. The human genome project you quoted uses them a lot.

No.

I think you are lost in it all. Can you locate for me the place where your link says what you are claiming?

When people make racial groupings, they are doing it on the basis of observable DNA based characteristics. If people make claims beyond that, that are not supported by evidence, then there is an area of contention.

The link you gave made distinctions of "African", "European", "Asian", etc. They didnt make these distinctions on the basis of everyone living in those localities. If a person of African descent was living in Asia, they presumably didnt test them as part of this project, as it would invalidate the results.

The whole project is based around racial, DNA based groupings.

[jupiviv]

I think you are lost in it all. Can you locate for me the place where your link says what you are claiming?

It's an article about human genetic variance not the validity of racial groupings.

When people make racial groupings, they are doing it on the basis of observable DNA based characteristics.

All characteristics of life are DNA based.

The link you gave made distinctions of "African", "European", "Asian", etc. They didnt make these distinctions on the basis of everyone living in those localities. If a person of African descent was living in Asia, they presumably didnt test them as part of this project, as it would invalidate the results.

That is so fucking stupid it physically hurts. Just stop already.

[jupiviv]

Also @Diebert why did you remove my image bro? It was obviously making a point directly relevant to the discussion. So if I upload like an image from a non-OCR'd pdf you'd delete that too? Is this bot-like modding policy really called for?

[Rhett]

Rhett: When people make racial groupings, they are doing it on the basis of observable DNA based characteristics.

Jupiviv: All characteristics of life are DNA based.

So, you acknowledge that when we make racial groupings, when we say that, for instance, 'Those people over there are African', there is a DNA component responsible for making them "African".

So, i refer you back to my original post on this topic.

If you accept what i have written, but want to make an independent contribution on this topic, then i welcome you to express yourself. Please be clear about what you think any contribution you make means to the topic and to my posts.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Also @Diebert why did you remove my image bro? It was obviously making a point directly relevant to the discussion. So if I upload like an image from a non-OCR'd pdf you'd delete that too? Is this bot-like modding policy really called for?

Nothing was removed, the large image was turned into a nice clickable link. Please refer to the Board Conduct and Usage rules and feel free to discuss this further in the Helpdesk thread.

Please don't tell me you're going to pull some Alex and squeal about being repressed and bullied by a power hungry moderator because you were not able to make your point in plain text and linking to sources.

[jupiviv]

Rhett: When people make racial groupings, they are doing it on the basis of observable DNA based characteristics.

Jupiviv: All characteristics of life are DNA based.

So, you acknowledge that when we make racial groupings, when we say that, for instance, 'Those people over there are African', there is a DNA component responsible for making them "African".

"African" doesn't refer to any DNA component, idiot. Human characteristics being 'DNA-based', and the possibility of making groups out of same, has nothing to do with the validity or appropriateness of racism or race concepts.

Please don't tell me you're going to pull some Alex and squeal about being repressed and bullied by a power hungry moderator because you were not able to make your point in plain text and linking to sources.

Must have glossed over the link. Mea culpa. Mea maxima culpa. You've won this round.

[Rhett]

Rhett: When people make racial groupings, they are doing it on the basis of observable DNA based characteristics.

Jupiviv: All characteristics of life are DNA based.

Rhett: So, you acknowledge that when we make racial groupings, when we say that, for instance, 'Those people over there are African', there is a DNA component responsible for making them "African".

Jupiviv: "African" doesn't refer to any DNA component, idiot. Human characteristics being 'DNA-based', and the possibility of making groups out of same, has nothing to do with the validity or appropriateness of racism or race concepts.

"African", is human characteristics, is DNA based, is a group, is a race concept. It is not "racist" to make these distinctions, to conduct studies, or to talk about such differences in an appropriate manner and context.

Anyone that thinks that any characteristic, whether race based or not, whether human or other animal, is inherently better than any other characteristic, is typically in error. In scientific terms they refer to fitness within the given environment. For example, we might consider humans to be very fit, but if you put us in the jurassic period before we evolved much technology, i think it is considered that we would not have survived against dinosaurs. And if you put a human at the bottom of the ocean, they would very quickly die, where some fish can survive and thrive.

Definitely, some animals have characteristics that could be seen as a better design than others. For example, some animals have rudimentary eyes, and others have more complex eyes that give better vision. Can we say that the better design is inherently better? Probably not, because it could always be that the eye that is simpler or is a less evolved design has advantages that we do or dont know about, that confer it an advantage in certain contexts. It might require less energy and nutrients or specific nutrients to grow, to maintain, to process the outputs, etc, which might win the day in given environments. Indeed, creatures with rudimentary eyes are alive today, which means those animals are fit to survive against all local competition. If a similar species with more evolved eyes were introduced to that environment it may or may not partially or fully displace those existing species, and even if they did, it would still only mean they are fitter for that particular environment.

[jupiviv]

"African", is human characteristics, is DNA based, is a group, is a race concept. It is not "racist" to make these distinctions, to conduct studies, or to talk about such differences in an appropriate manner and context.

Ah yes the old define "African" in a racist way and then proclaim it isn't racist to define it that way because it can be studied defense. This jackassery transcends DNA.

Anyone that thinks that any characteristic, whether race based or not, whether human or other animal, is inherently better than any other characteristic, is typically in error. In scientific terms they refer to fitness within the given environment. For example, we might consider humans to be very fit, but if you put us in the jurassic period before we evolved much technology, i think it is considered that we would not have survived against dinosaurs. And if you put a human at the bottom of the ocean, they would very quickly die, where some fish can survive and thrive.

Fitness refers to persistence of characteristics over time not the "fitness" of the characteristics themselves. To put it in terms you'd understand - thing stay for time.

In any case this is just more of the same bullshit about inherent qualities not being inherent if you just add a bunch of qualifiers. Lack of omnipotence != not inherent. After all your inherent stupidity hasn't stopped you breathing, to the great detriment of humanity.

[Rhett]

Rhett: "African", is human characteristics, is DNA based, is a group, is a race concept. It is not "racist" to make these distinctions, to conduct studies, or to talk about such differences in an appropriate manner and context.

Jupiviv: Ah yes the old define "African" in a racist way and then proclaim it isn't racist to define it that way because it can be studied defense. This jackassery transcends DNA.

So according to you, its okay for the study you linked us to to use the term "African", but its not okay for anyone else. Thats non sensical.

Rhett: Anyone that thinks that any characteristic, whether race based or not, whether human or other animal, is inherently better than any other characteristic, is typically in error. In scientific terms they refer to fitness within the given environment. For example, we might consider humans to be very fit, but if you put us in the jurassic period before we evolved much technology, i think it is considered that we would not have survived against dinosaurs. And if you put a human at the bottom of the ocean, they would very quickly die, where some fish can survive and thrive.

Jupiviv: Fitness refers to persistence of characteristics over time not the "fitness" of the characteristics themselves. To put it in terms you'd understand - thing stay for time.

In any case this is just more of the same bullshit about inherent qualities not being inherent if you just add a bunch of qualifiers. Lack of omnipotence != not inherent. After all your inherent stupidity hasn't stopped you breathing, to the great detriment of humanity.

If the conditions in which an organism exist change, then the fittest animal is the one that adapts the quickest. Not the one that stays the same the longest, as you suggest. Fitness is indeed judged relative to the environment, not to time.

Some animals have existed for much longer than humans, but have died out or been killed off, where humans have not. Which can suggest that humans are fitter than those animals.

[jupiviv]

Rhett: "African", is human characteristics, is DNA based, is a group, is a race concept. It is not "racist" to make these distinctions, to conduct studies, or to talk about such differences in an appropriate manner and context.

Jupiviv: Ah yes the old define "African" in a racist way and then proclaim it isn't racist to define it that way because it can be studied defense. This jackassery transcends DNA.

So according to you, its okay for the study you linked us to to use the term "African", but its not okay for anyone else. Thats non sensical.

WTF is this feeble shit - writing "African" means you believe in an African race? Africa has the highest human genetic diversity of all continents. So no, since the authors of that study aren't sisterfucking white trash retards they don't see the point of identifying a continent with a "race".

Rhett: Anyone that thinks that any characteristic, whether race based or not, whether human or other animal, is inherently better than any other characteristic, is typically in error. In scientific terms they refer to fitness within the given environment. For example, we might consider humans to be very fit, but if you put us in the jurassic period before we evolved much technology, i think it is considered that we would not have survived against dinosaurs. And if you put a human at the bottom of the ocean, they would very quickly die, where some fish can survive and thrive.

Jupiviv: Fitness refers to persistence of characteristics over time not the "fitness" of the characteristics themselves. To put it in terms you'd understand - thing stay for time.

In any case this is just more of the same bullshit about inherent qualities not being inherent if you just add a bunch of qualifiers. Lack of omnipotence != not inherent. After all your inherent stupidity hasn't stopped you breathing, to the great detriment of humanity.

If the conditions in which an organism exist change, then the fittest animal is the one that adapts the quickest. Not the one that stays the same the longest, as you suggest. Fitness is indeed judged relative to the environment, not to time.

Some animals have existed for much longer than humans, but have died out or been killed off, where humans have not. Which can suggest that humans are fitter than those animals.

No.

[SkipRusssell]

The racial reality is this:

Black, ethnically sub Saharan Africans function in their bodies lower than the other races. Their fully diaphragm is functional which distributes blood flow directly into the hips and legs and away from the brain.

Native north, central, and south Americans use less of their diaphragm and breath at a higher range, but is still relatively low compared to the other races, feeling their breath mainly in the lower abdomen.

Ethnic Europeans, Arabs and Indians use still less diaphragm and can breath in either more the stomach and the chest area, distributing more blood to the brain.

Asians are the fastest thinkers getting the most brain blood flow and do not feel much of their body very strongly at all relative to the other races, breathing mostly into their upper chest.