quote:

Originally posted by Akridrot When people say “racist,” should they actually say “bigot”?

Xenophobia & bias.

___________________
"All revolutions are the sheerest fantasies until they happen; then they become historical inevitabilities."

Race exists only as a very generic and often incorrect way to catalogue humans.

Racism exists, it's very real and can harm people in really bad ways, however the backlash against racism in the last bunch of decades has forced the society to adopt some retarded overly-PC actions. This is more evident in the countries where there has been big problems with racism in the past.

___________________
sempre contra a corrente do jogo

The between 'race' variation is negligible in humans. There are some 'major' issues in what regards reactions to certain substances and proneness to certain diseases. As far as the general mechanics of human beings (brain functioning, circulatory system functioning, etc..) there isn't any real difference. Considering that 'brain functioning' would be the more relevant aspect in any distinction between human 'races', and considering there is no real difference in functioning, the term 'race' serves for little more than to appropriately medicate (in very particular cases) and diet. So, do human subgroups exist? Yes. Would I say they are separate races? No.

Does racism exist? Yes, and it has real effects. The stress generated from real or perceived racism can lead to immunocompromise, identity and self esteem issues, depression, anxiety, and a host of other situations.

___________________
Poetry>Byron//Blog>TheMean

quote:

Orbax At that point you kind of crossed the rubicon and you might as well lay siege to Rome

Relatively distinct human ancestral lines exist (e.g. North / West Euros, South / East Euros, East Asians, South Asians, West Africans, etc. etc.) due to geographical distance. Those groups, which "cluster" in certain genetic ways, don't necessarily correlate well with the popular concept of "race." And there are some physiological differences which go beyond the superficial, like higher average testosterone in "African-Americans." Whether those mean anything outside of medical situations is doubtful.

Human ancestral groups are becoming less and less distinct over time as countries assimilate to "mass" culture and become more economically interdependent.

And of course "racism" still exists.

I think that race as a biological concept is, at best, taxonomically irresponsible. It is certainly true that some phenotypic characteristics are present at a higher rate in those descended from certain human populations, but I don't think that fact is sufficient for the classification of human beings into races or subspecies.

Neither a visual, nor genetic, nor indeed any other sort of analysis can identify objectively and reliably what "race" an individual belongs to. This is, in my mind, sufficient to dismiss race as a justified biological concept, since being able to objectively and reliably identify members of a subspecies as separate from the species as a whole is perhaps the most important criterion for such classification. For example, while sickle-cell anemia is more prevalent among individuals descended from a particular population, the presence or absence of the sickle-cell carrier gene, or the disease itself, would not be sufficient grounds to reliably determine whether the individual is, in fact, descended from that population (and even if it were, it's doubtful that such a trait would justify subspecies classification). Indeed, the phenotypic variations usually used to support the notion of a biological race are characterized by this sort of probabilistic reasoning.

This "unreliability," however, is generally not characteristic of phenotypic variation between properly categorized subspecies (improper categorizations on the other hand are actually fairly prevalent for several reasons, but an extended discussion of that would be inappropriate here). Rather, it is very much characteristic of expected genetic variation between isolated populations of species which are generally not, and should not be, further subdivided into subspecies.

Furthermore, the concept of "multiracial" individuals which is now common in discussions of race as a social or anthropological phenomenon is not compatible with race in taxonomy. One or the other must be mistaken, and the "continuum" of phenotypes that is observable in those descended from more than "race" provides much stronger support for the former than the latter.

Racism, on the other hand, I think unquestionably exists, but it is based on the social conception of race, which is an entirely different beast.

it all starts with a label. if humans did not insist on labelling everything and realised that we are all the same and connected then we'd be in a different situation.

___________________
This is trance...
Jose Amnesia - The Eternal (Pulser Remix) / Chicane - Saltwater / Photon Project - Illumination / Gouryella - Tenshi / Altitude - Altitude (SHOKK Remix) / Rank 1 - Airwave / The Thrillseekers - Synaesthesia (En Motion Mix)

But humans aren't all the same. Racism is dumb, but that doesn't mean we have to stop drawing distinctions altogether...

I dont like subdivisions in one species.

As far as I'm concerned, if we can breed the fuck out of each other, we're one. I mean we're not hybrids.

Furthermore, with the ever shrinking world, race would probably be a non-issue in like 100-200 years.

ethnicism exists.

race is an invented term, like love (as a concept) - look it up.



people will always try to distinguish themselves from others using broad terms, ideas, concepts.

but to be honest nobody is all that different. the ethnicities and cultures that we grow up in conjure and exact the differences. there ARE differences, but the popularly held beliefs are generally false.

nationalism and pride have more to do with how we feel about others not of our own life experience|

___________________
'That's like telling a Kodiak bear to stop fcking older men.'

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter I think that race as a biological concept is, at best, taxonomically irresponsible. It is certainly true that some phenotypic characteristics are present at a higher rate in those descended from certain human populations, but I don't think that fact is sufficient for the classification of human beings into races or subspecies. Neither a visual, nor genetic, nor indeed any other sort of analysis can identify objectively and reliably what "race" an individual belongs to. This is, in my mind, sufficient to dismiss race as a justified biological concept, since being able to objectively and reliably identify members of a subspecies as separate from the species as a whole is perhaps the most important criterion for such classification. For example, while sickle-cell anemia is more prevalent among individuals descended from a particular population, the presence or absence of the sickle-cell carrier gene, or the disease itself, would not be sufficient grounds to reliably determine whether the individual is, in fact, descended from that population (and even if it were, it's doubtful that such a trait would justify subspecies classification). Indeed, the phenotypic variations usually used to support the notion of a biological race are characterized by this sort of probabilistic reasoning. This "unreliability," however, is generally not characteristic of phenotypic variation between properly categorized subspecies (improper categorizations on the other hand are actually fairly prevalent for several reasons, but an extended discussion of that would be inappropriate here). Rather, it is very much characteristic of expected genetic variation between isolated populations of species which are generally not, and should not be, further subdivided into subspecies. Furthermore, the concept of "multiracial" individuals which is now common in discussions of race as a social or anthropological phenomenon is not compatible with race in taxonomy. One or the other must be mistaken, and the "continuum" of phenotypes that is observable in those descended from more than "race" provides much stronger support for the former than the latter. Racism, on the other hand, I think unquestionably exists, but it is based on the social conception of race, which is an entirely different beast.

good to see you, wondered where you went to! quite verbose, but what's to be expected?

cheers|

___________________
'That's like telling a Kodiak bear to stop fcking older men.'

visually categorizing things quickly has helped humans survive over the years. so it is no wonder we still do it. plus racism has been very beneficial to our survival in the past, so it is no wonder that it is so hard to shake no-a-days when we don't need it.


but yea, the biological basis for race is super weak, flawed and super pointless. Besides its being replaced by the word ethnicity