- Feb 27, 2018
- Chochenyo Territory, US
- nb; all pronouns fine
- Basic Beliefs
- Jedi Wayseeker
Who are you referring to by "they"? Trausti? Can you point out where he argued for biological racism?
In any event, even if biological racism is relevant to the topic of the thread, whether biological races exist is irrelevant to biological racism. Oh for the love of god, do you seriously imagine that the theory that mental attributes vary with ethnicity and that this makes it okay to discriminate against people based on ethnicity depends on the variation pattern being tree-structured as opposed to geographically clinal?!?
You aren't claiming Taiwanese are on average biologically just as tall as Germans, are you? Well, if non-existence of biological races doesn't imply that Germans aren't biologically any taller than Taiwanese, why the devil would it imply that Taiwanese aren't on average biologically any smarter than Germans? And if some racist believes Taiwanese are smarter than Germans and believes this makes it okay to discriminate against Germans, how the devil do you figure the lack of a sharp line between Asians and Whites would prove him wrong?
Did "they" imply genetics favors Whites and Asians for positions of wealth and authority? Or are you judging what we're "supposed to be inferring" based on ESP, or on what your own ideology tells you, or on "they" being heretics, or on "they" being outgroup, or what?We're supposed to be inferring that, just as they claim genetics favor Blacks at sports and similar positions of manual labor, they favor Whites and Asians for positions of wealth and authority, making seeming structural inequalities actually just expressions of biology, and CRT irrelevant to analyzing them.
No doubt some scientists did that. What are we supposed to be inferring from this?You know scientists used to argue that runaway African slaves were suffering from mental illness, since no rational being would want to "escape" the situation most likely to "improve" their essential quality of life and character?
So what is what anyone claims? Biological terminology is packed with infraspecific taxa. Does the way genetic inheritance works rule out subspecies and varieties as well, or just "Races"?This is not what anyone claims. Natural organisms do not generally fall into "Races" any more than people do; that just isn't how genetic inheritance works.Otherwise, you’d have to assume that evolution and natural selection inexplicably stop for humans 200k years ago. Which is nonsense.
What's your point? There's a reason we banned discrimination on "race, creed or color".... and external coloration is never a good predictor of degree of phylogenetic relationship.
Did Trausti peddle the claim that external coloration is a good predictor of degree of phylogenetic relationship?You're peddling pseudoscience
I can't save you from being purposefully obtuse. If I have mischaracterized Trausti's point, he's welcome to correct me himself.
There's no reason to bring up biology in this discussion at all, unless you believe it explains structural racial disparities absent the existence of structural racism, which is what Trusti was arguing against studying or acknowledging.