Racists standing up for accurate science

[untermensche]

So science is passing off wild guesses as facts?

Not so much a blind guess as a guess informed by a body of background knowledge. You seemed to depend on the opposite guess, as though Italians and Irish are 75% distinguishable, but i won't accuse you of ghastly science.

Everybody wants their wild guesses to count more than the next persons.

You are trying to pass off guesses as science and inserting "merely" into quotes to change their meaning.

I don't see what you're doing as honest.

 

[ApostateAbe]

Not so much a blind guess as a guess informed by a body of background knowledge. You seemed to depend on the opposite guess, as though Italians and Irish are 75% distinguishable, but i won't accuse you of ghastly science.

Everybody wants their wild guesses to count more than the next persons.

You are trying to pass off guesses as science and inserting "merely" into quotes to change their meaning.

I don't see what you're doing as honest.

Then this is a good place to stop.

 

[untermensche]

Everybody wants their wild guesses to count more than the next persons.

You are trying to pass off guesses as science and inserting "merely" into quotes to change their meaning.

I don't see what you're doing as honest.

Then this is a good place to stop.

It should have stopped before it began.

You admit there is no substantial difference between saying "race" and "subspecies" yet you defend and post the words of racists as if they are significant.

 

[ApostateAbe]

So, basically because we come in different shapes and colors we can't live in harmony together?

That would be David Duke's argument. He could have made a more relevant biological argument for that point: subspecies of any species very seldom share the same geography, as they almost always compete with each other. The pattern seems to extend to the human species, as significant racial tensions observably exist not just in America but in any multiracial nation, though some nations deal with it with greater effectiveness than others. It is typical around the world to criminalize expressions of racism.

 

[untermensche]

Quotes from David Duke.

White people don't need a law against rape, but if you fill this room up with your normal black bucks, you would, because niggers are basically primitive animals.

The Sun newspaper of Wichita, Kansas (23 April 1975)

What we really want to do is to be left alone. We don't want Negroes around. We don't need Negroes around. We're not asking— you know, we don't want to have them, you know, for our culture. We simply want our own country and our own society. That's in no way exploitive at all. We want our own society, our own nation….

Interview with Evelyn Rich (March 1985)

Our clear goal must be the advancement of the white race and separation of the white and black races. This goal must include freeing of the American media and government from subservient Jewish interests.

"Duke Speaks Out," in The Crusader, a Knights of the KKK newsletter (November 1978)

One's opinion on Duke depends on which Duke you pay attention to. The David Duke before he entered politics or the David Duke after.

 

[Shadowy Man]

So, basically because we come in different shapes and colors we can't live in harmony together?

That would be David Duke's argument. He could have made a more relevant biological argument for that point: subspecies of any species very seldom share the same geography, as they almost always compete with each other. The pattern seems to extend to the human species, as significant racial tensions observably exist not just in America but in any multiracial nation, though some nations deal with it with greater effectiveness than others. It is typical around the world to criminalize expressions of racism.

And, yes, historically this has been true. But we have a greater understanding now and I don't believe this need be true. I see no reason why different races can't co-exist in harmony. They may choose not to, but they can. In fact, I even know of a couple people of different races who have had children together!! How could those children possibly survive with all the intrinsic racial disharmony in our species???

 

[ApostateAbe]

That would be David Duke's argument. He could have made a more relevant biological argument for that point: subspecies of any species very seldom share the same geography, as they almost always compete with each other. The pattern seems to extend to the human species, as significant racial tensions observably exist not just in America but in any multiracial nation, though some nations deal with it with greater effectiveness than others. It is typical around the world to criminalize expressions of racism.

And, yes, historically this has been true. But we have a greater understanding now and I don't believe this need be true. I see no reason why different races can't co-exist in harmony. They may choose not to, but they can. In fact, I even know of a couple people of different races who have had children together!! How could those children possibly survive with all the intrinsic racial disharmony in our species???

I expect that the strong cultural forces to discourage racial hatred are required. Strong evolutionary arguments can be made that the behaviors of rape and murder are likewise largely innate.

 

[bigfield]

So, basically because we come in different shapes and colors we can't live in harmony together?

That would be David Duke's argument. He could have made a more relevant biological argument for that point: subspecies of any species very seldom share the same geography, as they almost always compete with each other. The pattern seems to extend to the human species, as significant racial tensions observably exist not just in America but in any multiracial nation, though some nations deal with it with greater effectiveness than others. It is typical around the world to criminalize expressions of racism.

Human races generally live together peacefully, including intimate relationships, social circles and workplaces. It's too much of a stretch to equate that high level of cooperation with the competition between subspecies of other animals.

 

[ApostateAbe]

That would be David Duke's argument. He could have made a more relevant biological argument for that point: subspecies of any species very seldom share the same geography, as they almost always compete with each other. The pattern seems to extend to the human species, as significant racial tensions observably exist not just in America but in any multiracial nation, though some nations deal with it with greater effectiveness than others. It is typical around the world to criminalize expressions of racism.

Human races generally live together peacefully, including intimate relationships, social circles and workplaces. It's too much of a stretch to equate that high level of cooperation with the competition between subspecies of other animals.

Humans have functions of the higher brain that are often at odds with the functions of the lower brain. Us-vs-them mentality is something innate, moderated by the higher brain only in recent evolutionary history, and far from eliminated. Tribal differences among our ancestors would be displayed by only subtle cues, such as differences in language, clothing, hairstyle, jewelry, and weapons. Those differences would trigger an attitude of distrust and caution at best (appropriate for intertribal trading and alliances), or a fight-or-flight response at worst (to prepare for ambush), and, if you didn't stand entirely with your own tribe, you are likely to be killed or exiled from your own tribe. The diversity of coincident races today means that the cues distinguishing the races are drastically different, much more than subtly different. Not just drastically different skin color, but also drastically different dress, language, jewelry, and behavior. The innate behaviors that trigger the us-vs-them responses must be constantly held in check by the higher brain until habitualization. That is why expressions of racism are generally illegal in multiracial nations. Racial hatred would otherwise be largely spontaneous. Even in America, uniquely absolutist in freedom of expression, the anti-racist cultural forces are exceptionally strong, for good reason. Think of the denomination of Christianity that is LEAST likely to experience racial tensions within its own membership. You may have thought of the Unitarian Universalist church. That is the church I would have thought of. Even the UU church has experienced a drastic racial divide. Blacks fled the UU church en masse, after such things as white UU members mistaking black UU members as parking attendants in a parking garage. It is a situation that the UU church is taking great pains in an attempt to repair, bending over backwards to attract black members back in their church, and it is an unlikely goal. The vast majority of churches in America are almost completely racially uniform. People are most comfortable around people of their own race, and, because of the first amendment, the state has no power to try to diversify churches. The white members of the UU church could easily independently choose to attend black churches every other Sunday, but they generally don't.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

And, yes, historically this has been true. But we have a greater understanding now and I don't believe this need be true. I see no reason why different races can't co-exist in harmony. They may choose not to, but they can. In fact, I even know of a couple people of different races who have had children together!! How could those children possibly survive with all the intrinsic racial disharmony in our species???

I know dogs and cats that are best friends and sleep in the same bed on top of each other. Doesn't mean they are the same species.

 

[ApostateAbe]

So, basically because we come in different shapes and colors we can't live in harmony together?

Are you saying that if there was/is a genetic basis to "race" then that would justify racism? Are you looking to put that claim into somebody else's mouth? Why?

No need for the defensiveness. If the assumption is wrong, then just clarify.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

The vast majority of churches in America are almost completely racially uniform.

What about the largest church in the US (i.e., the Catholic Church)?

 

[ApostateAbe]

The vast majority of churches in America are almost completely racially uniform.

What about the largest church in the US (i.e., the Catholic Church)?

As you probably know, that would be a "church" in a different sense of the word as I used it. It is a denomination.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Why is this topic classed as pseudoscience? Can actual science not be done on this topic?

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Why is this topic classed as pseudoscience? Can actual science not be done on this topic?

Weren't you the one who said we need to shame people who "push race as important"?

 

[ApostateAbe]

Why is this topic classed as pseudoscience? Can actual science not be done on this topic?

The admins/moderators decided to limit all of my topics related to race to the Pseudoscience forum, presumably until I agree with them on the subject.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

What about the largest church in the US (i.e., the Catholic Church)?

As you probably know, that would be a "church" in a different sense of the word as I used it. It is a denomination.

First, no, I did not know, and the accusation (i.e., "As you probably know" is an accusation against me) is out of place.

Let me add context. You said:

Even in America, uniquely absolutist in freedom of expression, the anti-racist cultural forces are exceptionally strong, for good reason. Think of the denomination of Christianity that is LEAST likely to experience racial tensions within its own membership. You may have thought of the Unitarian Universalist church. That is the church I would have thought of. Even the UU church has experienced a drastic racial divide. Blacks fled the UU church en masse, after such things as white UU members mistaking black UU members as parking attendants in a parking garage. It is a situation that the UU church is taking great pains in an attempt to repair, bending over backwards to attract black members back in their church, and it is an unlikely goal. The vast majority of churches in America are almost completely racially uniform.

You said "Think of the denomination of Christianity that is LEAST likely to experience racial tensions within its own membership" (bold mine), followed by "You may have thought of the Unitarian Universalist church. That is the church I would have thought of. Even the UU church has experienced a drastic racial divide." ((bold mine)); clearly, in that context, "church"="denomination".
In the same paragraph, you keep talking about the UU church (=UU denomination), and after that (still the same paragraph), you said "The vast majority of churches in America are almost completely racially uniform." How am I supposed to know that you just changed the meaning of "church" in the middle of a paragraph?

Moreover, still in the same paragraph, you said "The white members of the UU church could easily independently choose to attend black churches every other Sunday, but they generally don't.". Again, here "church"="denomination".

So, it is apparent that in that paragraph, in all instances in which you used the word "church" before and after the sentence "The vast majority of churches in America are almost completely racially uniform.", by "church" you meant "denomination", and there is not even a hint that in that sentence, you changed the meaning of the word, only to go back to "denomination" right after that - which would make the paragraph weirdly disconnected. The epistemically proper interpretation is that in the sentence "The vast majority of churches in America are almost completely racially uniform.", you also meant "denomination".
If you meant something else in that particular sentence, the error is not on my side.


Second, even if you meant to say something else by "church" in that sentence (which is frankly puzzling, given context, but whatever), you still said "Think of the denomination of Christianity that is LEAST likely to experience racial tensions within its own membership. You may have thought of the Unitarian Universalist church.".
Well, I didn't. I don't know enough about the specific denominations to guess, but I'm suggesting the Catholic Church. How much racial tension is there, in that denomination of Christianity?

 

[ApostateAbe]

As you probably know, that would be a "church" in a different sense of the word as I used it. It is a denomination.

First, no, I did not know, and the accusation (i.e., "As you probably know" is an accusation against me) is out of place.

Let me add context. You said:

Even in America, uniquely absolutist in freedom of expression, the anti-racist cultural forces are exceptionally strong, for good reason. Think of the denomination of Christianity that is LEAST likely to experience racial tensions within its own membership. You may have thought of the Unitarian Universalist church. That is the church I would have thought of. Even the UU church has experienced a drastic racial divide. Blacks fled the UU church en masse, after such things as white UU members mistaking black UU members as parking attendants in a parking garage. It is a situation that the UU church is taking great pains in an attempt to repair, bending over backwards to attract black members back in their church, and it is an unlikely goal. The vast majority of churches in America are almost completely racially uniform.

You said "Think of the denomination of Christianity that is LEAST likely to experience racial tensions within its own membership" (bold mine), followed by "You may have thought of the Unitarian Universalist church. That is the church I would have thought of. Even the UU church has experienced a drastic racial divide." ((bold mine)); clearly, in that context, "church"="denomination".
In the same paragraph, you keep talking about the UU church (=UU denomination), and after that (still the same paragraph), you said "The vast majority of churches in America are almost completely racially uniform." How am I supposed to know that you just changed the meaning of "church" in the middle of a paragraph?

Moreover, still in the same paragraph, you said "The white members of the UU church could easily independently choose to attend black churches every other Sunday, but they generally don't.". Again, here "church"="denomination".

So, it is apparent that in that paragraph, in all instances in which you used the word "church" before and after the sentence "The vast majority of churches in America are almost completely racially uniform.", by "church" you meant "denomination", and there is not even a hint that in that sentence, you changed the meaning of the word, only to go back to "denomination" right after that - which would make the paragraph weirdly disconnected. The epistemically proper interpretation is that in the sentence "The vast majority of churches in America are almost completely racially uniform.", you also meant "denomination".
If you meant something else in that particular sentence, the error is not on my side.


Second, even if you meant to say something else by "church" in that sentence (which is frankly puzzling, given context, but whatever), you still said "Think of the denomination of Christianity that is LEAST likely to experience racial tensions within its own membership. You may have thought of the Unitarian Universalist church.".
Well, I didn't. I don't know enough about the specific denominations to guess, but I'm suggesting the Catholic Church. How much racial tension is there, in that denomination of Christianity?

I am sorry for the implicit accusation. "Church" has two English meanings, and I used both. When I said, "The vast majority of churches in America are almost completely racially uniform," I meant a single meeting place for Christians, not a denomination

 

[Angra Mainyu]

I am sorry for the implicit accusation. "Church" has two English meanings, and I used both. When I said, "The vast majority of churches in America are almost completely racially uniform," I meant a single meeting place for Christians, not a denomination

Okay, apology accepted (I know it has two meanings; I had reckoned you meant "denomination" in all instances in that paragraph).

Misunderstandings aside, the question about racial tensions within the membership of a denomination remains. Do you think there is a lot of racial tension within the Catholic Church?
(if anything, my impression is that the religious in-group/out-group identification might reduce the impact the racial in-group/out-group identification to some extent, though that would have to be tested).

 

[Angra Mainyu]

On the issue of evidence, the following papers argue that race - unlike sex and age - is only used as a cue to track alliances, and race categorization is signficantly reduced when political allegiances cut accross races:

http://www.cep.ucsb.edu/papers/2015Pietraszewski_Constituents of political cognition_Cognition.pdf
http://www.cep.ucsb.edu/papers/eraserace.pdf
http://www.cep.ucsb.edu/papers/Alliance detection and Race 2014 +SI.pdf

I haven't yet studied them; I have other priorities, but given that you clearly are very interested in race, I'd like to ask you whether you've read them, and what you think of their interpretation of the evidence?

By the way, it seems to me that many people categorize "race" in a way that does not match at all the distinction that you are making. For example, many people seem to consider Whites, Arabs, Persians and Indians (from India) as different races, or Han Chinese and Amerindians as different races. While they are also basis for such distinctions, they do not seem to match race, and for that matter, one might as well distinguish between different people classified as "White".

ETA:

Humans have functions of the higher brain that are often at odds with the functions of the lower brain. Us-vs-them mentality is something innate, moderated by the higher brain only in recent evolutionary history, and far from eliminated. Tribal differences among our ancestors would be displayed by only subtle cues, such as differences in language, clothing, hairstyle, jewelry, and weapons. Those differences would trigger an attitude of distrust and caution at best (appropriate for intertribal trading and alliances), or a fight-or-flight response at worst (to prepare for ambush), and, if you didn't stand entirely with your own tribe, you are likely to be killed or exiled from your own tribe. The diversity of coincident races today means that the cues distinguishing the races are drastically different, much more than subtly different. Not just drastically different skin color, but also drastically different dress, language, jewelry, and behavior. The innate behaviors that trigger the us-vs-them responses must be constantly held in check by the higher brain until habitualization. That is why expressions of racism are generally illegal in multiracial nations. Racial hatred would otherwise be largely spontaneous.

A couple of points:

1. The differences aren't only between races, but also within the same race. People with ancestries from different parts of the world often look different from each other in characteristic ways, even if they are the same race. People might use some of those distinctions to instinctively pick up coalitions even more than importantly than race, depending on the social environment.

2. In any case, those cues seem to depend on the social environment: for example, if different way of dressing fails to predict coalition/tribe, people are going to stop regarding different ways of dressing as a cue. On the other hand, sometimes certain ways of dressing are excellent predictors of coalition/tribe, and people will take them as relevant over other features; an obvious example are visual cues in military uniforms.