Racism is a nonsense, malicious term

If you actually can't explain the REASON why you think that disliking someone for a personal opinion they happen have is better (or worse) 

You're doing that thing again where you ignore all refutation of your points - read - it'll do wonders for ya'

What skin color you're born with, isn't a choice. Religion, political party, etc., are choices.

The magnitude of difference should be self evident. 

In some of these examples I have ignored where you have misunderstood my words or simply said the opposite of what I said without much argument.

Intelligence itself is not a behavior, but it determines behavior. Sweating is literally surface-level and has no implications for behavior.

Then I would challenge you to provide the absolute criteria of the terms "hatred" and "racial hatred" .

This is a false dichotomy: either I make broad sweeping judgments about the comparative intelligence of different races, or I believe that all races have an exactly identical average IQ score. 

Then I don't understand why this argument would be important, unless it is being used to argue against things like affirmative action.

The first sentence of the wikipedia article on hatred uses the relative word "very" in the definition:

"Hatred is a very angry emotional response to certain people or ideas."

It would be up to interpretation whether someone is "very angry" at someone because of their race. ...

See the opening of post #2.

Secondly, it's super clear that I'm using a definition for behavior that differs from yours -- this is the crux of our disagreement on this point. I'm saying that I can use behavior to describe sweating because it's behavior, in a loose sense (sweating is an action). You argue that technically, behavior has a stricter definition. Unfortunately, Wikipedia doesn't define 'behavioral trait' and so I inferred that I could use this looser definition. About from you Reference.com citation, I couldn't find anything that states 'behavioral trait' is jargon with a strict meaning. **If** you could demonstrate to me that 'behavioral trait' is jargon, then I will concede this. 

Hatred based on racial animus. 

You didn't provide at least a third option to render this dichotomy false, hence it remains a valid dichotomy.

So for context, this is what I said to you: "Quote where I said or implied this or admit you're strawmanning."

The fact that you failed to provide any quotes proves that you have strawmanned me, intentionally or otherwise.

I don't know why you'd expect me to agree with another Wikipedia definition when I'm arguing one is nonsense.

False. Often individuals of the same race are more varied genetically than between races 

black people on the whole are the most genetically diverse group of people.

Any commonalities would therefore be a result of environmental conditions, if you were to say, begin selectively breeding humans then that environment would change drastically.

Ultimately, this would mean any studies or experiments conducted pre-natural selection to determine the strengths and weaknesses of races would not hold any water post, as any statistically major differences would likely be null and void. 

In fact, when it comes to humanity, natural selection would be very difficult to pull of at all. First of all - as Ragnar pointed out - any list of traits are going to be subjective to whatever you come up with,

even if your list is objective with a certain goal in mind - that goal is ultimately subjective.

Second, doing such a thing to human beings is begging to be fought back against, revolutions have been fought against for less buddy.

Finally, my point, most studies conducted in such an environment as the human one, abound with variables that one can simple not account for most of them when determining groups specialities, that it would most likely result in very slow, if any, results. 

So, yeah, no. That statement you so boldly proclaim is not correct. Please think through your positions more clearly. Your conclusion is reliant on assumptions and a lack of nuance in mind, more simply put, bullshit. 

When you say "racial differences" are you talking about "skin-tone differences" ?

...

OR someone might simply point out that while there may be some INCIDENTAL correlations between "skin-tone" and other human characteristics, "skin-tone" itself is not the most efficient indicator of individual fitness for any specific task.

It is impossible to discuss "I.Q." without mentioning the efficacy of the specific "I.Q." test used to make your hasty generalization.

For example, a native of Papua New Guinea might not score well on your SAT, but inversely, YOU probably wouldn't score well on their "hunting and survival" test.

Black and Hispanic or Latino students routinely score lower on the math section of the SAT — a likely result of generations of exclusionary housing, education, and economic policy — which too often means that, rather than reducing existing race gaps, using the test in college admissions reinforces them. [**] 

Wealth doesn’t just impact SAT scores. According to a recent report from the Georgetown Center on Education and the Workforce, “Born to Win, Schooled to Lose,” being born wealthy is actually a better indicator of adult success in the U.S. than academic performance. “To succeed in America, it’s better to be born rich than smart,” [**]

BUT LET'S GRANT YOUR PREMISE.  ARE YOU SUGGESTING WE SHOULD PRIMARILY SELECT JEWISH ASIANS FOR POSITIONS OF AUTHORITY ?

See the opening of post #2.

Yeah all I see is a concession.

Thanks for coming.

A HINDU is literally born into a CASTE based on your SKIN-TONE.

ANTI-PEER PRESSURE = ANTI-SOCIAL

Isn't an "enemy" simply a "rule breaker" at its core?

I mean, if you encountered a group of people who were technically strangers to you, but followed nearly all of your same beliefs and laws, would they be "friends" or "enemies"?

It seems obvious that strangers we disagree with are automatically going to be labeled as "enemies".

Distribution of SNPs: A total of 146 SNPs were found in the total sample; 53 of them were observed only once (i.e., singletons) and 22 only twice (doubletons). The number of variant sites found in the African sample was 118, of which 68 (36 singletons, 15 doubletons, and 17 others) were not found in the Eurasian sequences (i.e., they were unique). In contrast, in the Eurasian sample only 78 variant sites were found and only 28 of them (17 singletons, 4 doubletons, and 7 others) were unique, though the combined sample size was twice the African sample size. Thus, beyond the 50 variants already observed in the African sample, the combined Eurasian sample contains in addition only 17 singletons and 11 nonsingleton variants. The high frequencies of singletons in the African and Eurasian samples are similar to those observed in other studies (Kaessmannet al. 1999; Zhaoet al. 2000; Yuet al. 2001). Note that in a neutral Wright-Fisher population with θ, the expected number of mutations of size i in a random sample of n sequences is θ/i (Fu 1995). So the number of singletons should be twice the number of doubletons and thrice the number of tripletons. In our total sample we found 53 singletons, 22 doubletons, and 7 tripletons. Therefore, there is an excess of singletons, which suggests a population expansion in the recent past.

I'm curious. In your argument, where would you place exceptions to such a generalized claim? I believe attraction is contingent on time and place. I want to know where the exceptions lie in your argument. If I met a stranger in an unfamiliar environment, I am more likely to develop feelings of attraction toward him. Similarly, 2 travelling individuals have a better chance of developing a do-or-die romance together than 2 teachers living under the same school. I argue that this will happen irrespective of the target sample's genetic similarity (as you've mentioned).

Plus, I think infatuation is love and love requires a steady dose of pleasure.  What you're talking about in your reply to me sounds a lot like marriage. I believe that's completely different than infatuation.

I think my learned values could very well originate from my genes as is my decision to remain an apostate. But, I'm not an evolutionary psychologist. Again, you're talking about marriage. Marriage requires careful compromise and calm, small doses of romance to keep it afloat. It merely requires small embers of happiness to survive its grueling and punishing outbursts of disagreements. Again, I appreciate the source, but I want you to include what happens when an armenian fell in love with a turk? I'm pretty sure they have nothing in common and their parents would probably threaten them at gunpoint if they choose to love one another.

I think that counter-examples still run contrary to the study's results.

Im confused. What are those genes you speak of? Is there an actual gene that correlates to religiousness?
 
As far as I know, the studies themselves assume a situational disposition, not a genetic disposition.

For the record, I don't intend to disagree with how we're genetically built. What I want to know is where mathematicians or whatever you call them include extremely complicated phenomena like infatuation, altruism and trauma. Are they coded in our genes? Or are we built to have some sort of psychological resilience in which flexibility in attraction,friendship is encouraged?

I'm just not sure that "racism" is any more "evil" than hating and or discriminating against someone for their religion (and or non-religion) and or hating people because they believe the earth is flat and or because they don't want to be forced to accept a "vaccine".

Why is it ok to make fun of people for one thing and NOT ok to make fun of them for some other thing??

Just pointing out that you stopped responding just when I challenged you to provide an absolute criteria for "racial hatred". If you could not provide such a definition then your case really doesn't make much sense.

I am Caucasian by definition, but sweat freely.  Does that make me a racist?

Though, am I racist because I am not Korean.

No.

Racism is about unreasonably discriminating on the basis of perceivable difference, and not about ones particular propensity to perspire.

Everyone discriminates internally but not everyone allows their internal judgements to manifest externally.

For sure, there is currently a whole lot of malicious PC racism going on....But that's largely  based upon the possibility of a cash reward.....Fraud.

Interestingly my wife sweats very little....So does that suggest that she is Korean?

If you're not a just a cowardly forum troll who doesn't believe their own words, issue the debate challenge.

The form of your argument implies that, in order for a term to be meaningful, it must apply strictly under the most liberal use possible according to documented definitions of the term.

My argument is that the definition of almost any term can be applied in such a loose way that would contradict common usage - especially in e.g. social sciences.

In other words, in my view it is impossible to constrain usage of these kind of terms by a strict jargon which would make their usage uniform. To rebut me on this, you could provide such a definition of "racial hatred".

Animus is a synomym for hatred, so you have restated the term in its own definition.

Also, hatred is an emotion. What if we imagine a cold and calculating serial killer, who only kills victims of a certain race, but without any emotion? What if Hitler was such a psychopath, who did not feel any personal feelings of animus toward Jews? Then by your terms we would have no language to condemn such actions.

Further, this term does not apply to an insitution such as slavery, ethnic cleansing, or any other societal racial injustice. We would constantly need to be tying such institutions back to some theoretical emotion felt by the people responsible for them. Do you believe that such societal-level injustices are unimaginable, or that we should not need language to condemn them?

I can reject the entire construct, or even accepting it I can suspend judgment on what any group's IQ is.

It follows by implication, that if you think the behaviors of groups innately tend to be different, then their roles in society will naturally be different.

You argued that the term itself is nonsense on the basis of the first sentence of its Wikipedia article.

The first sentence of the Wikipedia article on X isn't a valid definition -> X is nonsense

I don't have the time for responding to all your bullshit,

while you are correct to say that that is the "origin" it is not the only source that comes to this conclusion.

Also... what? No, we are talking about genetic diversity, not difference - they are not "sub-species" they are varied humans - the only difference genetically speaking is a level of melatin.

Your racist is showing. 

What I'm saying is that typically, white and black people are more genetically similar than black people are to other black people.

So most differences you view today, are indeed due to environmental changes. Have fun being a racist. 

I don't agree with this framing of "most liberal". It's more liberal than having one definition, but, again, you haven't provided any objectivity as to your definition being must-use jargon. I literally told you what was required to make your case ("**If** you could demonstrate to me that 'behavioral trait' is jargon, then I will concede this"). Instead, you've decided to dance around with framing that doesn't have objectivity.

You're close but not quite right. Hatred is something within the realm of intense disliking, whilst animus veers towards a personal grudge. That's why Merriam-Webster lists animosity (synonym for animus) as being only related to hatred

Still, I'll respond in good faith to what you meant. I think race-based attacks are all spawned by this animus. That's why some write 1000 page manifestos of why they're about to attack a certain race. Serial killers tend to be indifferent to who they kill, and do so sometimes for the thrill of killing, or sometimes to get back at society. I've never heard of a serial killer killing a certain race of people without having hatred of said race -- that doesn't add up.

The term shouldn't apply to slavery because that's not what slavery was about. Slaves were (sadly) functionally productions tools that produced value. In other words, instead of having a cotton-picking machine, you could get a human to do it. You weren't financially incentivized to racially abuse your slaves (although some slave owners would). Slavery was a business decision, not an attack on any race due to their race.

I think you need to re-think "ethnic cleansing" in terms of racial animus. It's very clearly designed to remove a particular race. If you had a liking or indifference towards a race, why would you want to mass remove it?

You can't reject it lol. It's either: (1) racial I.Qs can differ, or (2) racial I.Qs cannot differ -- there is no third option.

Nope. That's faulty logic on your end. I've only argued that racial I.Qs differ. That is it. You're the one supplying anything further than that. Stop doubling down and just admit that you strawmanned me.

...becomes the mode for any group of people

Just to be clear, I'm talking about a general coming together as a result of similarity, which sometimes applies to romantic interests, but not always (e.g. friends, acquaintances). I'm in no way claiming that I know every exception to this rule.

Yes, the studies I found on sexual relationships were about marriage, hence the marriage slant.

 

I'd even go so far as to say that it's possible to have hot sex with someone and not like them at all (beyond their face/body). Hate sex is also a thing. I'd guess they're behaviors men are more likely to engaged in, though. I'm guessing these are some exceptions to the rule you asked me about before.

They might be more similar than we think. They might not be similar at all. It's an anecdote. Who knows?

Yes but they're exceptions to the rule, it seems. Hard to say without studies on the exceptions.

...there are no studies that have 'found the gene' in regards to religiosity, but there has certainly been a truckload of inductive research that can measure the impact of genetics on religiosity (and vice versa because environment and genes play into each other). This article discusses the genetic impact the Catholic Church had on Western Civilization: The Catholic Church and Western Genetics | Ideas and Data (wordpress.com) . It also mentions Eastern Church and Islamic faith, too.

So this "situational disposition", over time, becomes a "genetic disposition" because the environment (which is influenced by religion) starts selecting for people who have more 'religious genes', and thus more religious genes are creat

this is deeply conservative.

Black race of USA tends to be more conservtive

...a tight knit sense of community with at least a certain set of values which are held in common. This predicts that these groups will be more religious and conservative....

...will be a high reliance on social integration of that group - a tight knit sense of community with at least a certain set of values which are held in common. This predicts that these groups will be more religious and conservative.

A typical use of the word behavior is in relation to "the way in which someone conducts oneself," i.e. directed human action. To say that defining racism in terms of beliefs about differences in behavior is "nonsense" because of differences in sweating-rates, is in my view a fringe application of the concept of behavior. Likewise, if we said that two people were "behaving differently" although their intentional actions were identical, because their hair grew differently, or because their hearts beat at different speeds, this could be seen as a fringe use of the term also. Therefore, if someone called a psychological theory about behavior nonsense because it did not capture differences in hair growth or heart rates, this would not be a valid objection.

If I were to list various instances of "racism" / "racial hatred" and asked whether these constituted a "personal grudge against a race" it would surely come down to your own opinion which instances you would deem appropriate and which not. Many leftists would claim that Charles Murray's motivation for writing his books was a personal racial animus, while those on the right will say that Critical Race Theory advocates have a personal grudge against the white race. How do we determine who is right?

[...]

But this is the problem as I laid out above: your attribution of "racial animus" depends totally on your own personal opinion. If we asked advocates of ethnic cleansing throughout history, they would say that they were not acting out of emotion, but that their policies were totally necessary and unavoidable. Who should we believe? Will we need to administer psychological tests to determine people's emotional state before we can condemn any of these policies?

It seems that by your standard, the only racial disparity we should have tools to condemn, are examples involving people being murdered, purely and explicitly for the reason of an emotional reaction to their race, and anything short of this is deemed trivial nonsense.

Yet slavery in the US was racialized. What should we call that? Of course, many slave owners did harbour deep racial resentment, but what if they had been cold and calculating? Your argument seems to be that we should not use critical language to describe the racial dimension of this at all.

I agree that average racial IQ scores likely are not identical down to the last decimal. 

I will decline that because I do think your arguments have conservative implications. You basically seem to be stripping away any language we could use to criticize racial imbalances or injustices beyond the most extreme examples of explicitly racially motivated hate crimes. You prefer personal criticism of the motivations of individuals over broad social critiques - this is deeply conservative.