Why do people get so triggered when you say that "race is a social construct"?
Papuans and Africans are the two least related groups of people on earth, yet they're virtually indistinguishable to the average American.
Obviously there's a lot of correlation between the "genetic" and the "social" constructs, but there are too many major exceptions (both real ones and theoretical ones through genome editing) to equate them.
Other urls found in this thread:
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
en.wikipedia.org
majorityrights.com
bbc.co.uk
bethematch.org
twitter.com
The one thing they're proud of is their skin color and if you take that away from them by making it a fake social construct they've got nothing.
Probably because it's not a social construct. Your example is retarded and only serves to demonstrate your own racism.
>b-but muh poop and and africans--
are different races, because each of these races has a certain set of physical and intellectual qualities that are unique to it.
Now please stop posting BLACKED.com images on Veeky Forums because you're salty that /pol/ mods banned you.
Usually it's because people assume that means more than it really does. Race is a social construct but that doesn't make it not real. The division between humans and dogs is a social construct too. We arbitrarily group things by common traits.Honestly it doesn't mean much at all.
>The division between humans and dogs is a social construct too.
Sure, but it's also backed up by genetics.
Contrast this to the social construct of "white" and "arab", where there are white-looking groups (the kalash, for example, who have skin, hair, and eye color allele frequencies closer to whites) who do not genetically group up with white Europeans.
In fact, the average Bedouin Arab is twice as related to Europeans as the average Kalasha, despite the latter having much lighter pigmentation (as confirmed by allele databases)
Now obviously, the "social" and the "genetic have a large degree of overlap, but there are major EXISTING exceptions which differentiate the two.
Another example would be early Indoeuropeans. Even the northernmost ones had skin color allele frequencies on par with modern day middle easterners, as recently as 5k years ago.
Now if you want to get into theoreticals, we can imagine people editing their genome to have blue eyes, blonde hair, white skin, etc., and the reverse (although the reverse would happen less often).
How many genetically "non-white" people would be perceived as "white" by the average American? Probably a lot, maybe even most of them.
How many genetically white people would be perceived to be white if they had their skin color edited? None of them would.
you, (as a white man) could breed with one of these "subhuman" niggers and produce a viable, fertile offspring
explain
>why do people get so triggered when you say race is a social construct
because they start with an emotional bias, and look for evidence that supports it, while ignoring evidence that goes against it.
Race is a social construct the inborn xenophobia isn't.
start with that bias from birth.
born this way bigot. get over it
so can vastly different dog breeds
explain
>inborn xenophobia
but there's no evidence that xenophobia is inborn.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
newborns don't show xenophobic preferences, while 3 months olds do. In other words, it's highly likely that the prejudice is learned, through exposure to the mother.
Most infants tend to share a certain appearance with their mother.
my point is you are just as human as the nigger. one singular species.
>Why do people get so triggered when you say that "race is a social construct"?
Because acceptance of said statement makes the world more complex to them. Race is simple, while something like haplogroups represents something much more complex.
Ironically enough we have far less push back from stating that math is a social construct than race despite math having way higher amounts of correlative load to real world phenomenons. This being even more so ironic since race in on itself is derived using mathematical models to derive separation and relational values between different sets.
So how is it exactly easier to say the "mathematical models" that are utilized to categorize race is a social construct but the not the subject matter in question for which requires those mathematical models to have any stable ground?
One could argue it is because race is supposedly founded within the study of biology. But biology merely observes and identifies different characteristics of a given genome in nature, the act of categorizing these characteristics in a given fashion comes from the need for human agency to identify and make easier a interpretation of chaotic system which has no self proclaimed reason to exist in the way it is.
Another argument is that race is correlative to regional locations, the distance between different regional locations and the traits unique to those regional locations. But again like biology, these regional locations and traits (aka geography) merely identifies the topological attributes and distances. It is human agency that once again requires the need to break it down further to social political differences.
So I would say that ultimately it has more to do with the rise of complexity. Because once you identify a subject is derived/ altered by human agency it becomes more harder to provide clear answers.
Perhaps the entire debate is representory of a larger endeavor perpetrated by man to fight a chaotic system in hopes of finding self worth.
equally ""human""but different races (and some superior than others in aspects)
>all races being the same is more complex than the obvious truth that genetics play a large role in your behavior, intelligence, character, etc.
You have poor reading comprehension user, my post never insisted all races were the same. The first paragraph of my post positioned that the identification of race is far more simple than haplogroups which identifies differences in various populations by specific genetic clusters similar to a gradient (scalar if you will). Which bars blanket identification of various populations under a simple category as "black", "white", "asian" or etc.
>so can vastly different dog breeds
the average genetic distance between different dog breeds is 0.33
That number is likely much greater for very divergent breeds (eg: malamute versus saluki)
the average distance between different human populations is 0.15. The greatest genetic distance between any two human groups (coincidentally, the Africans and Papuans, which most people would assume are the same race) is 0.25.
the average distance between whites and non-white Caucasoids (eg: Arab, Indian) is 0.015. The average distance between whites and Levantines (eg: Syrian refugees) is probably going to be something like .009, or even less.
Except he never said that, you retarded nigger.
If it was just about the complexity, there wouldn't be anger fagainst it. They would simply nod "ok", move on, and ignore it, because 2complex4u.
I can tell people that "wetness is a social construct" and they will either debate me rationally if they're interested, or not care and agree with me so we can move on.
If I tell people that "whiteness is a social construct", half of them lose their fuckin' minds.
I think it's because a lot of people have their self-worth and identity wrapped up in political stuff. You get the same thing, perhaps even bigger, when you say quantifiable things about liberals/conservatives, from both parties.
that dude is a retard, but you're actually incorrect here.
Haplogroups just describe ancestral descent. If a black man fucks a bunch of white women and a bunch of Asian women, the progeny will all have the haplogroup of the black man.
Race can be a gradient, or it can not be. "Europeans" and "Japanese" are very discrete from each other.
"White Americans" and "African Americans" flow into a gradient due to admixture.
Our entire concept of race is based on whatever happened to exist in the year 1500 AD.
If it existed in 1500, it's a "pure race", if it didn't, it's "mixed".
Of course, the real truth is that every "pure race" has already been mixed many times in the past, often by very divergent founder peoples.
Example: White Europeans can be differentiated accurately based on their proportion of "hunter", "farmer", or "Indoeuropean" ancestry.
These proportions can vary enormously between individuals of the same nation, and between different European ethnicities.
Maybe because you're making a false claim, faggot. If you're unconvinced at this point that there are different races, let me offer you an example which may remedy this belief instilled in you by your shitty liberal university:
There are several types of apples.
Take red apples and green apples for example:
Red apples are of the color red (by definition) and green apples are of the color green (also by definition). Most red apples taste sweet, and most green apples taste sour. So stop spreading this lie that there are no races
because you sound like you have a extrem lack of intelligentsia.
taco/10 made me reply
because a lot people dont know what race means.
Poe's law tier
Here's an excellent analogy.
All races are mixed. However, racists think that certain races are "purer" because they were in existence earlier.
Europeans are a mixture of different races that mixed up 15,000 years ago, and then again 5,000 years ago.
Mexicans are a mixture of European and Native. However, because European is already mixed, that somehow makes Mexicans "more mixed".
If we use this same logic, then future generations are always more "degenerate" than past ones. Mom and dad mix genetic material to create kids. Those kids then mix with other kids to create grandkids.
The grandkid would be more "mixed" than the grandparents.
no one disagrees with that
it doesn't mean they aren't a different breed
brainlet tier
>Haplogroups just describe ancestral descent.
It is true that it describes ancestral descent but this is through identifing specific genes found within a given region.
>If a black man fucks a bunch of white women and a bunch of Asian women, the progeny will all have the haplogroup of the black man.
The progeny would receive haplotypes from both the black man and the white/ asian women. The progeny however would not necessarily find itself in the exact same haplogroup as the black by default.
The issue here lies in the black person (to a lesser extent the white and asian too). First we have to identify what region the said black man is native to. If they're from sub-sahara Africa than yes, the progreny will likely fall closer to his haplogroup. But if they're from America then the progreny may fall closer to the white woman's haplogroup due to the chance of the black man having a relatively high admixture of white (European genes) in him.
DELET THIS
>racists think that certain races are "purer" because they were in existence earlier.
How is it racist to think that? A black person whose ancestors bred among themselves for 15000 years up until now is a purer black than a black whose parents bred among themselves for 9000 up until now you fucking retard
>"racist"
take your shitty liberal rhetoric and shove it up your ass
That picture is retarded and proves nothing.
Humans have an Fst of about 0.15 overall, while almost all other apes are around 0.3-0.4. All other apes have about ten times as much genetic diversity as humans. All humans alive today are more genetically related to each other than two different troops of chimps are.
>genes found within a given region.
Learn the difference between gene and allele. All humans have the same genes.
Right, but none of that is actually relevant to race. In the past, "races" or "tribes" constantly mixed.
For example:
30,000 years ago, European hunter with haplogroup I fucks girl, has a son. The progeny continue having sons until today, and today's male child has haplogroup I, and is 99.99% European genetically.
Random Japanese person sails to Europe 30,000 years ago, fucks girl, has a son. Same thing happens, today's son has haplogroup D (typical of Japanese), and is 99.99% European genetically.
Haplogroups are based on SNPs in y-chromosome or mitochondrial DNA anyway.
They have zero relevance to genetic diversity or heridability anyway. Racists just latch on to the idea because to them it makes it appear that humans are different from one another, but they don't even understand what haplogroups are.
>Europeans" and "Japanese" are very discrete from each other.
Not genetically.
I don't know why this is such a hard lesson for racists.
It's kind of like some weird Freudian fixation. Maybe they have penis envy.
I know. I posted the map because it's relevant to what I said.
Human "races" are much closer to each other than "races" of other animals, what you said is true.
But EVEN if an alt-righter wants to discriminate based on that small difference, there still isn't a one-to-one correlation between "appearance" and the "genetic race".
So by shunning an Arab, and accepting a blue eyed Kalash, you'd actually be rejecting your own genetic kin. Because race is a social construct, and the Kalash are a more different race, that just happens to also have gone through high selection for light pigmentation.
Yes, they are. Biometrics companies can differentiate European genomes from Japanese ones with 100% accuracy.
Europeans and Syrians/Tunisians? Less so, because there's more admixture there.
Differentiation is not the same as saying two things are significantly different or that they are discrete things.
Remember that there is more genetic variation found within any divided population of humans than between them. If you were to pick a random European and a random Japanese, they are more likely to be genetically similar to one another than anyone in their group.
>are different races, because each of these races has a certain set of physical and intellectual qualities that are unique to it.
Not true. There are traits that are more common in some races that aren't common in other races, but all traits are encountered in every race.
source?
For the indoeuropean bit, source is pic related
For the Bedouin thing, just look up the frequency of the skin color and eye color alleles on ALFRED
where does this meme come from (the pic)
it's so uncomfortable and funny at the same time
>Why do people get so triggered when you say that "social constructs are a social construct"?
Social constructs are constructed by our society therefore they are not real, proove me wrong.
Pro tip: your proof is a social construct too and therefore not real.
Check mate leftists.
(btw. race can be objectively measured therefore it is not defined by society)
That pic is so uncomfortable desu
>muh races are different
So are individuals. And californians and new yorkers. And countries that start with different alphabets.
Do people really believe this race and gene nonsense? It makes no sense. A race has a distribution of genetic frequencies, which automatically makes it inaccurate.
>comparing California with New York
>literally comparing white liberals with the skypes
>claiming they are the same race
Oh user never change
...
>that pic
>whites having lower than average birthrates is genocide
What is it with politics and bending the meaning of words?
Thats why no white was in the last Olympics in the 100m dash finals. Because its a social contruct. Yes, thanks for ackknowledding the fact that whites are so much discriminated against, they are not able to train for sprints.
Races are groups of people who are more genetically similar than average. They exist. Your ideology may say otherwise but reality is no bed of roses.
You don't know much. Mass immigration from third world countries will eventually lead to the replacement of whites and the inevitable result will be the same as that of genocide. Therefore, genocide is the word best describing the phenomenon. You can argue semantics all day, but its pointless in any case.
Same between apes and cats.
wow the 3 month old cant even speak but should be able to have a self-identity to differentiate his own family and other families aka races? Fucking babies are babies. They are not grown up. Only after you are an adult you are a full grown up human being with hopefully every feature.
Babies have no self-awareness or self-identity. They even have no ability to fucking run. Your argument is that if they are able to run instantly running is a social contruct the same as "xenophobia". WoW i hope you are just brainwashed.
Families are a biological reality, races are a biological reality. Children grow up and start to act on their genetical code. They start to differentiate between their own family and LOVE their own family more than others. Its human nature. But you invent some fancy political correct labels to cloud real facts and reality.
Sad!
In 1994 the Hutus seized power in Rwanda and the army began slaughtering Tutsis. Roadblocks were set up at key exits leaving the country and anyone passing them identified as a Tutsi was taken away and executed. Within the borders, soldiers were given orders to find and kill any Tutsi. In the first week, 800,000 Tutsis died.
This is genocide you retarded redneck. What is scientifically a slight shift in halpgroup frequency of a population over the next hundred years is not. It'd be more accurate to say McDonald's is committing genocide.
...
I'm not sure if there's a constant influx of new polacks or the old ones don't remember because me and many other biologists have explained this many times
First, race is not a classification in taxonomy. The classifications are kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus and species.
Second, there are two criteria for what goes where. The first is that any two subgroups that have the same preceding group share an ancestor. For example, orang utans and humans are both family hominidae because we share the same ancestors as orang utans and other of the family hominidae like chimpanzees.
Second is classifying by a number of factors, including ecological niche, habitat, behavior, physiology and predators/prey. Humans are special in that we occupy and can live in almost every habitat, and we have extremely migratory habits. Yes, you could say that general variations in the bone structure and skin means we should be a separate subspecies, but this would be very new in taxonomy. What you posted, the crows, life in habitats over many countries and have very different diets. Humans are already a subspecies, homo homo sapiens, separate from the extinct homo sapiens idaltu.
Now assuming we create a sub sub species of races, which would be the first of its kind, there's only vague ways to do it. As pointed out the skin color race defintion which most people use doesn't stand up to scrutiny. The only consistent way to do it is with haplogroups, which are slight and almost definitely inconsequential mutations to humans. This would be contrary to almost every taxonomic rule.
So what's the correct name for the classification we usually refer to as "breed"? Because dog breeds also have the same diets and can live in the same habitats.
Taxonomically all breeds are canine lupus familiaris. Breed is not a formal, scientific term. There's some dog organization that officially decides what breeds exist and how to identify them.
>speed determines whether something is a genocide or not
I guess jews were never genocided after all then.
Nobody is killing you or preventing you to have children.
...but niggers though...
Genocide is a systematic execution of a certain group carried out by another group. Not a decline in birthrate - which by the way happens to any race once they're rich - when compared to other races.
I wish the mods would just start banning these threads.
No one on /pol/ has any education, nor do they want to learn anything. They just come here to try to deny science. All the race threads and climate change denial threads are getting out of hand.
>implying they would consider mostly liberal universities to be an education and not illuminati goyim brainwashing schools
they probably actually believe that
>you're not allowed to talk about x because it makes me uncomfortable
>somehow I'm intellectually superior because of this
Not even from /pol/ but this is just sad. If you don't like talking about this you're free to leave and hide the thread you know.
>the inevitable result will be the same as that of genocide.
>Therefore, genocide is the word best describing the phenomenon.
Not him but no it is not the best word to describe it. Genocide requires coordinated intent, the situation occurring right now lack this. The phenomenon in question is not only occurring in white countries but in a number of asian countries as well. This is a result of being a highly developed nation where everything including time and space itself is at a premium, accruement of debt in some capacity is almost required and reducing any and all individual living expenses is seen as virtue.
What you're supporting/ insinuating here is the equivalent of some grand conspiracy theory that would have required +1000 years of planing. Due in part to the fact that mass immigration to satisfy excessive need to develop national infrastructure is a old concept human civilization. And that said conspiracy would require prophetic knowledge of nations that have yet to even exist to plan against.
As a matter of fact the only country that explicitly utilizes immigration to such an intent where genocide of it's citizens through said method is even remotely feasible is Qatar. Where only roughly 300,000 of it's 2.3 million citizens are native born.
Ironically enough Qatar is a middle eastern country.
Everyone's questions answered here. Great, simple explanation about genetics, clusters of people etc.
Tldr ; humans don't really have different 'races' in a biological sense. Cabbages do. It's more about specific groups of people. Skin colour is also one of the most misleading ways to detect genetic difference between clusters.
Good listen, hope you enjoy.
>>you're not allowed to talk about x because it makes me uncomfortable
You can talk about it. But you don't need to make 3 threads for it every day in which you just ignore any counter-arguments.
It's not that no one isn't "allowed" to talk about it. It's just that there is nothing here to be said. The threads are always the same. They make scientifically false assertions, we tell them why they are wrong, and they claim it's all a conspiracy then come back and repost the same garbage the next time.
>not even form /pol/
yeah you are or you would never defend spamming of easily falsifiable garbage like this, and yes, it's spamming if you don't even care about the answers given to you by people more educated than you on the subject, ignore them and keep posting the same stupid questions every day. "race" is a social construct and if you've ever talked to any taxonomist, or hell, taken a uni-level biology class, you'd be able to explain it to all of your autistic /pol/ shitposters why they're such idiots.
You mean come here expecting science to confirm their views then calling everything Jews and liberals when it doesn't
Then they just go right back to pol and forgot anything we said, this is the tenth race thread this week
>completely ignoring what he said
>somehow reading /pol/ doesn't want to debate as I'm uncomfortable with what /pol/ says
It's retarded how these people always think they are good at lying or pretending to be people they are not.
>i'm totally not from /pol/ guys, but why are black people all dumb!? I'm really a black liberal! Also Hitler did nothing wrong!
I know you're trying to be sarcastic and think that black people and white people are as close as apes and cats, but science knows that's just not true. You should just stopping trying to differentiate yourself so much from "subhuman niggers" because your race shares every trait with them. It's just that such traits appear in different frequencies amongst the populations.
>inb4 but blacks can't be blonde or blue eyed
Ever heard of albinos? They aren't exactly caucasian but they share those characteristics with europeans. Obviously there aren't subsaharan africans exactly equal as europeans, but all european characteristics are distributed along that population (in a different frequency, I should repeat).
I really am not from /pol/ though. Again, feel free to leave and hide the thread if you don't like it. You're not forced to be here.
>Its human nature.
You seem to know very little about human nature.
Part of the human nature is actually being able to be shaped by the environment and by itself. If humans were able to only follow their "genetic code" (the quotes are here because humans are actually only able to follow their genetic code, but that doesn't mean what you think that means), there wouldn't be any race mixing throughout history. We wouldn't even be able to mix with neanderthals, given that they were an actual subspecies, which was very distinct from us.
>Criticized for just ignoring any points made
>Replies in a post where every point made is ignored
Well, except the /pol/ part. Where it's just "but I'm really not /pol/!".
i'm not even a /pol/back but y'all are bitchass retarded
I wasn't even involved in this thread retard. I scrolled past it and came across yet another whiner, posting about how he doesn't like what's being discussed in the thread. That's what I called you out for, I don't care about the discussion in this thread so I won't engage with it. You should do the same from the tone of your comments.
It's inherent to the scientific community to be active, open, and always questioning things, and people like you simply take advantage of that by arguing your idiotic topics (flat earth, global warming, race) because you know the scientific community is actually held to a standard and would be hypocritical to ignore idiots like you. You're abusing an altruistic system.
I'm not talking about this thread. I'm talking about the posts you replied to. They gave perfectly valid reasons as to why one would want threads like these to be banned.
You called them a whiner and put words in their mouth, saying they said they were uncomfortable with what was being talked about, so you're literally openly lying right now in front of everyone because you're an idiot. If you're going to ask questions, accept the answers or don't post here and waste peoples time. You don't get to choose what to believe.
I'll just post this again because people are still arguing (mostly pol guy) about things they don't really understand.
Then again, as other posters have pointed out, this of course will be fake / jew / liberal 'science'.
No one is claiming that there aren't traits that differentiate one race from the other. What /pol/tards don't get is that the traits that distinguish one race from all others are ultimately found in all of them.
Just because blacks are muscular it doesn't mean that there aren't eurasians who are muscular. The same goes with intelligence (which I think is the whole point of this discussion; just a bunch of autistic /pol/tards trying to prove that blacks are all intellectually inferior and should be enslaved again): asians and jews are the smartest races, but you can find smart people among africans, europeans and australoids too.
>What /pol/tards don't get is that the traits that distinguish one race from all others are ultimately found in all of them.
Who here has claimed otherwise?
no that's just one idiot in this thread. you bait them out by making generalized, fucking retarded thread topics like this. /pol/ is actually a hugely diverse population & the racism is largely satire
/pol/doesn't say that. a couple flaming autists say that. & AMAZINGLY they all happen to show up if you say things like, "why does X behavior arise in this scenario, people whom i know populate this site & ravage decent conversation with guttural abandon?"
these threads always get the same response because you people always ask the same question in a wat perfectly calculated to attract the most violently idiotic alternative point of view
you invite this upon yourselves
>i'm not even a /pol/back but y'all\
>y'all
yeah you are
Because banning perfectly valid threads is alright just because it questions the established narrative huh? How scientific of you.
>You called them a whiner and put words in their mouth, saying they said they were uncomfortable with what was being talked about
They are, why else would they like to shun others that do want to talk about it? Let them talk about it and hide the thread if you don't. You must have a very thick skull to claim everyone has to be silenced just because (You) don't like it.
>If you're going to ask questions, accept the answers or don't post here and waste peoples time
Learn to read, toddler. I never cared about this thread. Also, your time is worthless, you do realize where you are right?
>You don't get to choose what to believe.
Nice autism.
>why else would they like to shun others that do want to talk about it?
>silenced
You not accepting the answers by people more intelligent than you is a good reason because you waste peoples time.
This was already said, but predictably, you ignored it.
>>Learn to read, toddler. I never cared about this thread. Also, your time is worthless, you do realize where you are right?
>Papuans and Africans are the two least related groups of people on earth
Only ameridumbs would consider those people the same race.
You're attacking people who are actually knowledgeable on a topic that you asked about yourself, because you don't even care about the answer. You just want blacks to be enslaved or something because jamal beat you up in elementary school or whatever other reason you're so fucked up and incapable of accepting what we know. This isn't /pol/ and these threads shouldn't be allowed because they are malicious.
It makes me laugh how many racists, particularly in the USA, are also climate change deniers
Well, I'm sorry to tell you this, but climate change is very real indeed, and one effect of it is that your descendants will almost certainly have darker skin than you
Have a nice day
Hahah wtf
Its brainwashing, through simple repetition
Would have thought Veeky Forums could figure this out
Maybe all the anti-psychology shitposting also worked
lol this poster is literally schizophrenic holy shit
>thinking the modern human has anything close to the selective pressures our ancient ancestors had
Idiots who don't understand evolution make me laugh
> the we're-special meme
>> Idiots who don't understand evolution make me laugh
ikr
Not even the same guy, but we don't suffer the selection that our ancestors did. Many people who are alive today wouldn't have made it through infancy if they were born in the middle ages.
>If you were to pick a random European and a random Japanese, they are more likely to be genetically similar to one another than anyone in their group.
You're doing the science a big disservice by completely misunderstanding the statement you're parroting.