Why do people keep memeing this shit?

Why do people keep memeing this shit?
How does Veeky Forums feel when they hear it?

i feel about the same as when i hear people who believe the earth is flat, that the moon landing was a hoax, and that climate change is real

That's actually true, though.

t. genetics grad student.

Genes play no part in creating the physical differences between races?
Blacks have black skin and broad nostrils because society forces them to?

When people say race is a social construct they're not saying there is no difference between a White person and a Black person, they are saying that 'White' is an arbitrary category that is based on cultural and historical reasons, as opposed to a monophyletic clade. Hope that clears it up.

Personally, it makes me sick

We are all the same. That's why racially homogeneous populations do so well compared to diverse societies.

Islam is also a religion of peace, but christianity is bad, contd

Races are not real in biology .

>they're not saying there is no difference between a White person and a Black person
Have you been following politics for the past two decades? This is exactly what is said by NYT and their cohorts.

Your definition is elucidating, but it's hardly what is implied in this article

>Santa hat is not biological. It is a social construct.

Seems pretty self evidence To Be Fully And Directly Honest With You My Longtime Companion Ernesto

But blacks and whites come from different lineages.
Whites have neanderthal DNA, they evolved in a different part of the earth, etc.
The differences are deeper than just the historical and social, there is biological differences between them.

How so?

doctors treat different races differently when prescribing medication

What you, americans, call races, the civilised world call it ethnicity.

In biology, there is no race : pic related.

>Have you been following politics for the past two decades?
No I've been far too busy with my career.

Neither """Whites""" nor """Blacks""" are monophyletic clades. If you're trying to say that Blacks and Whites are different, then I agree with you, all I'm saying is that you shouldn't pretend that White and Black are legit subspecies like African and Indian elephants. Hell, just a hundred years ago they were arguing that Italians and Irish weren't white, but now they are? And people say that Turks aren't White but Greeks are? This is what people mean when they say it's a social construct, they mean that it's tainted by a bunch of political bullshit and thus has no place in real, objective science.

No they treat different ethnicity. There is no race in biology.

So it's literally just semantics?

Actually "white" refers to european and some middle-eastern peoples who share simmilar phenotypes such as light skin. That's how races are classified: by simmilar physical features wich are predetermined by genetics, it is not arbitrary. By saying that it makes no sense to group all white people into a category you are saying that physical resemblance is random and has no meaning in terms if genetics, wich in turn goes against darwinist evolution.
By the way gender is also predetermined at birth, and the only thing that happens to go against this statement is the resignification of the word "gender" by social scientists to fit their own claims, that today have become an ideology.

Everything is relative, and the past 2000+ years of continental differences in art and ways of seeing and experiencing the world no longer matter, because we're all the same now.

Don't study religion
Don't study art
Don't study philosophy

Because post-modern relativism, hedonism and post-irony have now become our cognitive modes. The height of individuation is now a localized hedonism, everything else is to be mocked.

Is everyone on this board entirely oblivious to politics and history? I love how people here bend over backwards to say we are all the same. The world is going to be a scary place after a few more decades of this shit. And many Europeans already know how bad it is.

No, in one hand, you use a wrong word and in the other you use a good word.

Doctors decided whether being gay was a mental illness in a committee meeting based largely on political correctness. I think we can safely discard their opinions when it comes to anything remotely nuanced or politically charged.

No one said otherwise. Learn to read.

>No I've been far too busy with my career.
That's an extremely telling remark.

Also
>on sci
>busy with career

Pick one faggot

But not only is race not based on mere appearance, but skin tone and facial features are some of the more plastic of human traits. I'm sorry, but if a hundred years ago Italians weren't white and now they are because they raised enough of a stink then that's pretty arbitrary. It's certainly not science, if that's what you want to claim.

>>on sci
>>busy with career
>Pick one faggot

I need to do something to pass the time while my Western is running.

>shouldn't pretend that White and Black are legit subspecies
That is not my intention.
But you agree that blacks and whites and others are different, then say those differences have no place in objective science, I don't see how this works.
I feel that the "race is a social construct" is also just political bullshit, to pretend that there is no differences between the races when there clearly is.

White and black are not well defined terms. Are the Italians white? Says who and why? Get the picture now?

NYT did.

Let me give one more shot at explaining what I'm saying, because it is a bit nuanced:

>But you agree that blacks and whites and others are different

>then say those differences have no place in objective science,
False, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that while differences between populations DO have a place in objective science, races, as construed by the average layman, do not map well enough onto actual well-defined populations to make it so race has a place in science as a legitimate clade.
>I don't see how this works.

What I am saying is that the racial categories are inexact, so even if there are differences between people in these categories, we need more clearly delineated categories if we want to do good science.

>I feel that the "race is a social construct" is also just political bullshit, to pretend that there is no differences between the races when there clearly is.

Yes, I agree with this. There are differences between the races, but races aren't valid scientific categories. There are also differences in intelligence and genetics between rich people and poor people, but that doesn't make 'pleb' a useful biological category.

Is Caucasoid and negroid better?

No, they didn't you dumb fuck. How many times does this need to be explained. Goddamn you people are dumb as rocks.

You mean the terminology developed from before they even sequenced the genome?

No, because there are still no clearly defined boundaries between them

Different races, or "subspecies" are indeed classified based on physical appearence more than any other aspect when dealing with macroscopical species such as certain plants or mammals. A major variation on coloration or proportions is enough to categorize a bird or an orchid species into subspecies, and it doesn't happen to humans because of the social consequences it would have. This idea that you need a deeper investigation into the DNA of certain species to make categorizations like this is not true at all, since taxonomy is mainly arbitrary and based on appearance, except when dealing with microscopic species or those with scientific interest.

>NYT: Race is not biological
>>there are biological differences between races
>>>no one said otherwise
>>>>NYT did
>>>>>No they didn't

???

Skull shapes don't count?
Physical features don't count?

What evidence is there that the difference in behaviour between different ethnic groups is a result of them being biologically different? Serious question btw

e.g. is there some biological reason black people commit so much crime?

There is a general principle that dialectic is useless with these people

Rhetoric all the way

People who point out and try to biological differences in IQ in academic contexts lose their jobs consistently.

What you are asking for is a little beyond what can be expected these days

We only use physical appearance and shit like skull shape because it's easier than doing full exome sequencing for thousands of individuals, but we have more human DNA information than we have information for any other species, so using skull shape and nose shape when we have far more sophisticated tools at our disposal is retarded.