Mesmer

I did dismantle it, quite calmly and simply across the past posts I made that mentioned you.

There is no truth. Only better proven and worse proven.

Mesmer, I don't care about your threads nor proving to a seemingly devout right-wing racist the flaws in his/her own thinking. I pointed it out here referring to you in third person entirely intentionally. You are just a right-wing troll posting for sensationalism and attention, just like Wylted but less irrationally than him (you have some level of internal logic to your outlook).

I am not going to gain anything by giving you undue attention or helping your twisted threads stay active; neither is the website but others don't see that yet. I'll debate you here because I don't mind my own thread staying active but even here, my motive is to show others that your thinking is toxic and wrong, as opposed you your devout self (some of the things you post are so outlandish and offensive I sometimes hope it's just trolling, for my own sanity).

I'd back my definition any day but I'm not going to take the bait and argue against people who loathe racism, about racism. All anti-racists are closer to each other, in practise as opposed to theory, than all racists. Whether CRT or personal hate crime/bullying or affirmative action or anything else. I will not fight the others for your benefit. 

As I previously explained, much to your inabiltiy to listen, that's a stupid rebuke, it's a logical fallacy in every meaning of the word. 

First of all, whenever I say genetic diversity, I am talking on a scale of humanity, we can hone in on the specifics within human genes and talk about the difference there. Your comparison to chimpanzees is stupid, because comparitively the difference is night and day, we are talking about the distinction between humans. In other words, we are talking about the 1 to 4%, and the difference is minute.

Second, we are talking about a basis to claim that black or hispanic people are less intelligent or something of that measure based on genetics or inherently, if this was the case then we would see a collective difference between black and white people, which would cause this gap in intelligence, we can observe no such thing, any observation of differences in IQ cannot be acredited to genetics and have to be environmental in roots. 

In fact, you are highlighting a beautiful Kritik to Mesmer's absolutely nonsensical dismantling of 'racism' as a concept and term.

Racism, in fact, encompasses both the racial hatred (especially this) and racial bias in perhaps hiring or criminal investigating type things (though, when it comes to the detective side of crime, sometimes simply due to where and how the crime took place and who the victim was, sometimes yes race is something you can narrow down the scope of like gender and body height+weight, but on the further side of things, such as how they carry out the interrogation and how the courts handle proceedings, there should be no racial bias at all). Furthermore, there's levels/grades of racism within those two branches. I would say a third branch of racism lies in neither directly hating nor directly having bias but sadistically mocking and bullying a race, which my OP in fact focuses on.

Careful.

The RatMan will block you.

Depends on one's definition of racism, of which I, a new member, already see diverse examples. Settle on an agreeable definition, then proceed to banish if it is warranted.

The fact that racism existed BEFORE genetic markers were discovered eliminates the possibility that racism is caused by an awareness of genetic markers.

Nobody on the planet is disputing that HUMANS ARE DIVERSE AND INHERIT SOME CHARACTERISTICS FROM THEIR PARENTS.

You don't need a biopsy syringe to figure that one out.

What we seem to be disputing is that LUMPING RUSSIANS AND ITALIANS AND IRISH AND GREEKS AND ALGERIANS AND EGYPTIANS INTO A SINGLE GROUP, and calling this group, "WHITE AMERICANS" IS 100% ARBITRARY.

How do you explain this obvious intra-group genetic diversity ?

How do you explain HALF-BREEDS ?

This is a strawman argument. 99.9% of the genome is the same. Human genetic variation (save for weird things like trisomy) is going to be that last 0.01% of the genome. Certain parts of the genome (e.g. ancestral markers) are consistent within population groups. I'm imagining that these studies are simply focusing on things like that and aren't looking at the entire genome.

Focus on that 0.01% difference. There is a way to measure how much you have in common with another person genetically. Select a random white person, call him "W1". Select another white person, call him "W2". Select a random Asian person, call him "A1". Test them genetically to see if W1 is more closely related to W2 or A1. 38% of the time when you perform this test, you will find that W1 is more closely related to A1 than he is to W2. This is a different test than looking at only the parts of the genome which are consistent within population groups. That test focuses on what the races do not have in common. Further reading: https://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2017/science-genetics-reshaping-race-debate-21st-century/

BTW it is good to directly quote statements from source material when you claim that a source supports your position. When this is done iIt's a lot less work to verify that a source actually supports a position, and it is not much work for the source's proponent to present the supportive statements within the source (supposing the source actually does support him). People often make a claim, imply that some linked source supports their claim and try to leave it to other people to prove that the source does not support their position. I'm afraid my patience with that sort of thing has run out and I will disregard any implication that any source supports any claim unless this is done.

Eighty-five to ninety percent of neutral genetic variation in the human species is due to differences between individuals within populations (Lewontin 1972; Barbujani et al. 1997; Jorde et al. 2000). [**]

Gathering data to merely confirm a pre-existing perception is a perfect example of MOTIVATED-REASONING.

Among the "races", Africans have a much higher level of genetic diversity than the other "races" combined.

If there were meaningful human "races", most of them would be African.

Nope.

When K = 3 and at least 100 genetic markers are used, 'Africans' are genetically distinct from 'Asians' and 'Europeans' at 100% Human Population Genetic Structure and Inference of Group Membership (nih.gov) .

YOU'RE BASICALLY SAYING THAT IF YOU FACTOR-OUT THE KNOWN DIFFERENCES BETWEEN AFRICANS, THEN THEY MAGICALLY BECOME SIMILAR.

PERHAPS YOU ALSO SUBSCRIBE TO "SEXUAL-ORIENTATION-REALISM".

Notwithstanding that......Everyone is aware of perceivable differences and either does or doesn't discriminate....Therefore, race realism.

Race realism isn't built upon just "perceivable differences". It's built upon research and data that show "perceivable differences" are scientifically sound concepts (e.g. race).

A CLASSIC CASE OF A CONCLUSION SEARCHING DESPERATELY FOR A JUSTIFICATION.

Among the "races", Africans have a much higher level of genetic diversity than the other "races" combined.

If there were meaningful human "races", most of them would be African.

Dog breeds aren't particularly interesting biological entities, either. Many modern dog breeds claim to have ancient roots, but they are, for the most part, relatively recent (within the past few hundred years) reconstructions of purportedly ancient breeds. You can take this as a testament to how well selective breeding can effect great physical change in a very short time.

You might like this,

Stanford University's AI can tell if you're gay or straight from a photo

WHAT DO YOU CALL THE HALF-BREEDS ?

Would you call yourself an "asian-supremicist" ?

I disagree with that entire premise. The government every country deserves is one that allows the greatest degree of human freedom of thought and action.

Seems to me, race is an invented concept of convenience to segregate when all - black, white, asian, latino, etc, etc, if one wants to insist on those meaningless labels, are all considered by scientific classification as Homo sapiens, and not Homo sapiens nigreos, or Homo sapiens album, or whatever.

So, what's the point of further classification than for personal satisfaction of superiority, which is utter, complete, and absurd purpose? Thought and action demonstrate superiority, in its most altruistic sense, regardless of skin color, or any other natural, physical characteristics of which no one is personally responsible, or even capable. They were inherited, not manipulated by us, individually. And individually is ultimately the source of all racial discrimination.

The only criticality of CRT is that it is critically flawed since, as noted above, it is non-existent outside the mind, which can, at will, create fantasy as easily as fact.

You haven’t addressed a damn thing

Labrador and german shepherd are both breeds of the same species, dog.

Race is the term used for 'breed' specific for the human species. It's merely a semantic thing but race is indeed real, anyone who designs different medicines for different races regarding diabetes and blood pressure amongst other things knows that, as do foundation and lipstick makeup companies.

I agree with you in principle. However, most countries that create a refugee status leave little ability for refugees to fix their own problems. Those problems are mostly the responsibility of their governments, both in cause and solution. If countries were more generous to their citizens in allowing their peoples' rights to flourish, we would not have a worldwide refugee condition other than by natural disaster. Greed for power, unfortunately, is a greater temptation than to be of service to society.

(IFF) RACE IS REAL (THEN) RACISM IS REAL

People who hate and or have a strong preference against a realobjectiverace are objectivelyracists.

In other words,

(IFF) RACE IS REAL (THEN) RACISM IS REAL

You can't keep saying this and ALSO insisting that "racerealismisobjectivelytrue".

And you sound real edgy and creative with the ways you can avoid admitting racism is a real thing and that those that act on it, as well as advocate for it, are toxic to society.

does that make a racist feel better about themselves being racist?

Then I don't give the slightest shit.

As I stated to 3RU7AL....Race Realism is a truism....Doesn't take a lot of science to work it out.

Legal immigrants or refugees must be accepted by countries at each country's discretion, and more countries ought to be as generous as has been the United States.

Jews, middle-easterners, and north-africans are currently categorized as "white- (non-hispanic)" in the official united states census.

As I've said previously, there is more genetic diversity in people of the same skin color than between them.. this is a fact that has been known for a while

herefore, any noticable difference in outcome or performance, logically speaking, cannot be a result of genes. Otherwise such large disparations would not account for such a wide population of said group, it is therefore most likely the case that environment is the cause of said differences in outcomes. 

A "critical tenant".......Is someone that complains about the rent.

Notwithstanding that......Everyone is aware of perceivable differences and either does or doesn't discriminate....Therefore, race realism.

Though I would suggest that everyone will discriminate to a certain degree....Human nature.

Education and familiarity will increase tolerance and reduce discrimination....But it's a slow process.

Looks like I'm going to have to spell it out for you.

When a locus is tested, that is 'one time'. When 100 loci are tested, that is 100 times. When 5 of those 100 loci are more similar between than within groups, they are more similar 5% of the time (due to 5% of the loci tested). When you say "38% of the time" that means  "38% of the loci tested" because that's how you determine the percentage of time wherein there is similarity -- this is what your quoted study is talking about.

"of the time" is referring to genetic similarity between one random European and a random Asian. It is not referring to a genetic locus. You made that up and your interpretation is baseless.

Well map every single gene on the genome and figure out what all of it does, come back with a list of impacts and figure out which loci are important and which are not. Assign them a significance value, say 1-10. Then you can say "this gene matters, this gene doesn't matter" etc. Let me guess: You're going to select the ancestral markers as the only important loci.

I managed to read your referenced ideas and Data WordPress.

As I understand it, the Catholic church had been discouraging cousin marriages since medieval times. I observed that the blog makes a claim that IQs are generally higher in Catholics due to the 92% reduction in cousin marriages. I agree that Islam's support for cousin marriages inevitably lowers the IQ of Arabs as seen through the "gaps"(whatever they may be) in the studies. Im still confused, the blog makes a big deal of people preferring extended kin, but then references the Catholic church's longstanding crusade against marriages between relatives. Relatives are similar; if the claim is that people prefer similar values, then it would follow that they'd still marry their relatives in spite of the Church's directive.

I'm guessing for the Catholic church, genetic dispositions matter little in the grand scheme of things. After all, they're told to avoid 4th cousins. I think the argument that we prefer similarities seems to shift from the naturalistic claim that instead of marrying genetically similar individuals, people will be more predisposed to context-dependent cues. I think the latter is more sensible than the former.

The possibilities of language are infinite. The possibilities of experience are infinite. It thus follows that people marry not according to similarities, but rather their collected perception of their spouses at any given time. I mean, cosmetically, people rank races and consider some race more attractive than others. For example, Indonesians consider Chinese to be more attractive than their own Buginese counterparts. I maintain that these are context dependent. I'm pretty sure the Arabs have their own context-dependent preferences that exempts Yellow,Black and White people. 

HUMANS WERE CATEGORIZED BY PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS LONG BEFORE "GENETIC MARKERS" WERE EVER PROPOSED

"RACE" HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH "GENETICS"

No, you do not understand. Let me put it another way.

Imagine 2 fictitious genomes - 1 is the average white person's genome (Call it John Doe) and 2 is the average east asian genome (Call it Ching Chong). OK. Now, select a random white person from the human population. Look at this random white person's genome. Compare it to the John Doe genome and the Ching Chong genome. You will find that 38% of the random white people you select will be closely related to the Ching Chong genome than the John Doe genome.

I'm not trying to convince them. I'm trying to convince you. A lot of what you wrote doesn't have much weight argumentatively.

Focus on what's more significant. You don't see something when I show it to you in a lot of different ways. Well, I will try showing it to you in another way because it did not work. You should not conflate that with a concession.

Mesmer, do you know what a standard is? I mean I know that I just explained it, but do you understand it? How else can I explain it?

[rhetoric about standards]

I’m sorry if you find this conversation so difficult that only big brained people would talk about it, but every decision you make and every position you take stems from your core beliefs. We seem to have fundamental disagreements here, so if our conversation is going to get anywhere then we have to start at the beginning, to me there is nothing more telling than someone who refuses to do that. It strongly suggests that you really don’t want your core positions to be understood, I just can’t tell whether it’s me you are trying to shield them from or yourself.

It’s as if you’ve forgotten the point of your own thread.

Again, all you talk about is how absurdly people use this term, and conclude that this term has no sensible meaning and is thus nonsense. You talk about that it is used in a harmful way thus it is malicious.

None of the following definitions agree with this view, yet this is apparently a "racist" definition. This definition isn't consistent with Wikipedia that believes "racism" is about "the scientifically false belief that groups of humans possess different behavioral traits corresponding to physical appearance and can be divided based on the superiority of one race over another"

See? That is a misuse. Let's give another example of a misusage of the term.

You think White people should not be denied rights of normal religion practices, you are literally a Fascist!

I bet $1,000 that someone on twitter said something like this at least once in the entire history of mankind, assuming society has objective existence.

This is a misusage of the term "fascist", and while a fascist is indeed harmful in view of the average human being, this usage is simply being harmful in another way: One that simply uses it as an insult that doesn't correlate with whether someone supports nationalistic policies or not. All your examples showing why "Racism" is nonsense and malicious is about how people uses it incorrectly, in according to the existing definitions. 

Way to invalidate the structure of organized language that has been built around the past millennium or so. Racism has a definition. You are just not accepting it. Unless you are of enough authority to redefine how "racism" works or how language works in general, Racism is racism and people use its definition(correctly, that is, people often use it incorrectly according to the definition). Racism, according to what You agree with, is a noun. A noun is used to refer to something, an idea, even. How could a noun be nonsense when its job is to refer to something? Even in those misusages, the misusers are not treating the term as nonsense: They may refer it to something else, something that isn't racism, by definition. Just because there are confusing definitions for a term doesn't mean the term is nonsensical.

Racism is a term and it has a definition, and it has to refer to an idea based on that it is a noun. Misusage according to the definition is possible.

So you DO recognize that this idea exists, and just have another term to refer to it. I don't oppose that idea, but invalidating the usage of a valid idea just because people misuse it all the time doesn't sound rational.

...Do I really have to prove to you that other than we cannot be sure of anything, no other statement can be surely proven to be a fact?

Let us assume that all the facts we consider facts are factual. The facts do not express racial hate: Could you really establish a fact that says "Jews should be killed!" and be accepted by the scientific community? NO! The facts that have been established are not trying to assume race constitutes whether if one is superior or inferior: You know it is a false belief. If the people are offended because they think it expresses racial hate: It is only subjectively racist: because the self finds the 'fact" of racial hate. To be fair, some of your examples are just subjectively using the terms. You just don't understand how these people find whatever they are looking at racist. It is a subjective matter.

How about I challenge you to a debate to the same issue? I feel like ping-ponging back and forth is more meaningless than debate it all out.

Well just pick whatever loci you want instead of looking at the entire genome. No, you should be looking at the entire genome when you're talking about how closely related one organism is to another.

The greatest gap in terms of genetic distance between one human and the next is 0.1% of the genome. Humans and chimps share 98.8% of DNA. The variation between average human and chimp is 100% - 98.8% = 1.2% of the genome. That is the genetic variation between human and chimp. This is 12 times larger than the greatest genetic distance from one person to the next. (The most extreme distance)

Not really sure what you're getting at.

 Appeal to snobbery is a common fallacy. Come up with something better.

Are you genetically closer to the average Asian than you are European? 38% of Europeans are. The Asians could be your people. Rank every white American and Han Chinese in terms of how different from you they are genetically. You will get a list of ~1.5 billion people. If you look at the top ~100 million people on that list, you will find more Han Chinese up there than white people.

I suppose I don't immediately see a responsibility to move them 'specifically to the United States,

But the Invasion and War in Afghanistan,

'Still implies to me, a responsibility to do 'something.

And by 'something, I mean more than our prayers are with you,

Or here are some boxes of MREs we didn't use,

Though I don't think those are the actions you are suggesting.

Because of the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan, people are now clamoring to bring Afghan translators and others who assisted the US military during the war back to the states. But why? I would agree that these people should not be left to die, but there is a sensible middle ground everyone seems to be ignoring, which is to resettle them in countries more culturally compatible with their values. There are certainly Islamic countries willing to take them in, especially if the United States greases the skids for a tiny portion of the overall cost of this suicidal war.

Really the issue exposes the hubris of the secular, Western mind that believes everyone in the world would be just like us, if only they were enlightened enough! Even the Afghans willing to work with the United States are not compatible with the country at all. According to Pew, 99% of people in Afghanistan want Sharia law to be the law of the land. 61% say this should also apply to non-Muslims. 85% want to implement stoning as a punishment for adultery, and 79% support the death penalty for apostasy. There is absolutely no reason they should be brought here instead of settled in countries more compatible to their values. If they are brought here the culture shock will be a bad thing for both sides.

https://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-beliefs-about-sharia/

People debate all the time about whether Taiwan is a sovereign nation, despite Taiwan is a defined piece of land, and Nation is a defined concept. The reason here is that there are factors that make this incident both racist and non-racist, which doesn’t make the term racist any poorly-defined.

Rather, not everything is a false dichotomy. One thing can be of more racist element than another, but not a lot of things can be purely racist.

Blame it’s misusage. The real term has a definition and when one feels discriminated due to being a certain race, it is technically racist according to definition.

Normal and “objective” people from all races accept something as true and they accept it as non-discriminate. I mean, why would a fact discriminate? When it discriminates and offends people, it is no longer what they perceive as a fact.

All the examples below are strawmen: they are about how people misuse the term, and not the term actually is. The term has a meaning and it can be used in an objective manner: about something that exists and is objectively recognized as something that is harmful to an ethnic group of people. 

Not really.

If you want to use genetics as the basis of group identity, then use genetics as the basis for group identity. You go where evidence of genetic relatedness takes you. Lets look at it again -

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bf/Genetic_similarities_between_51_worldwide_human_populations_%28Euclidean_genetic_distance_using_289%2C160_SNPs%29.png

There are 3 big clusters, like you say, among Africans, Europeans, and East Asians. So, what about the Persians, Arabs and Palestinians? They're not white, but they are Caucasian genetically.

The only reason they're fitting in to distinct groups is because these studies start out with self identified race and then assign the results in to those groups. That's putting the cart before the horse. You must do things in the correct order. If your focus is genetic relatedness, then you map the genetic relatedness of respective populations and you go where the evidence takes you. Lock the ball and chain around your leg, throw it off the side of the boat because that's where it's going.

You do not see how disconnected group identities are from genetic relatedness. Consider the one-drop rule; People who are more white than black genetically are nonetheless considered to be black. Was Prince Harry's marriage a "cuck move" ? Consider how closely related the Chinese are to the Japanese, the Jews to the Palestinians, the Germans to the Russians. Much more closely related than European populations. Compare that to history and present day. The identities are rather fluid.