Is a religious group a 'race' or isn't it? Is someone 'racist' if they publicly state their dislike of a religious group? An Australian tribunal has answered this question by ruling that Muslim is not a race, and as such, a person who vilifies them in public, an act which is currently illegal in Australia, would not have broken the law.
In 2016 Sonia Kruger 'called for an end to migration from Islamic countries' saying that she wanted people to feel safe when going out to celebrate Australia day. Sam Ekermawi, a Muslim, filed a complaint to the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal claiming the comments were racial vilification.
The tribunal was unable to conclude Muslims living in Australia "are a 'race' by reason of a common ethnic or ethno-religious origin" and dismissed the application. This is an important milestone in the legal and cultural development of the ocean-bound nation which is still attempting to balance the melting pot of cultures and people who have migrated to the country from all over the world. This ruling may be a key threshold for defining what the word 'race' actually means in the legal and social and cultural context and how laws will be interpreted in the future.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by black6host on Saturday February 16 2019, @09:32AM (53 children)
Did a search for "how do you refine race" and the grandaddy fount of all knowledge showed up: Cliffnotes (:
https://www.cliffsnotes.com/study-guides/sociology/race-and-ethnicity/race-and-ethnicity-defined [cliffsnotes.com]
From that page:
Hmmm, biological traits. This definition is found frequently, not just Cliffnotes but I thought if funny/sad that Cliffnotes was the first entry that Google showed me.
Not content to only sample one of the returned entries I then checked out: The National Academies Press https://www.nap.edu/read/10887/chapter/5 [nap.edu]
Hmmm, social signification. Soooo, not biological. It would appear that we don't a solid agreement on what race is. I could become Muslim but I can't become black. (see Rachel Dolezal... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Dolezal [wikipedia.org] ) The physical traits are, I believe, what was focused on initially, and still are apparently.
Anyway, my point is that the question of what defines race is not quite as clear cut as some would like. I make no opinion in this post, my aim is not to troll but to bring forth discussion.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 16 2019, @09:34AM
Sorry, define not refine
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 16 2019, @10:54AM (3 children)
Hitler was a social constructionist too.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 16 2019, @11:36AM (1 child)
Not so much. More of a social destructionist, what with the Final Solution and all.
(Score: 2) by Bot on Sunday February 17 2019, @11:00AM
Technically speaking no evil leader, ever, failed to provide an Utopia.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Saturday February 16 2019, @02:41PM
FTFY
--
I am so glad I don't have to hunt for food.
I don't even know where spaghetti lives.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Nuke on Saturday February 16 2019, @10:57AM (5 children)
Black parents generally have black children, white parents white children, and one black parent with one white parent generally have brown-ish children. Clearly something biological is going on, although scientists these days seem to be too frightened say anything other than they "Cannot detect it".
Saying there is no such thing as race is like saying there is no such thing as musical notes (A, B, C, E# etc) because they are connected by a continuous scale of frequencies. In analogy, the SJWs would say that you must not refer to Middle C (262 Hz) or D (294 Hz) because they are both notes, and you could play a note of 280 Hz. Nevertheless those notes are different physical things, and the fact that certain frequencies are defined in music notation is analogous to the sociological recognition of race.
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 16 2019, @11:38AM (1 child)
Get a capo, you moron! And learn to play Alicia Keys, or I mean, in different keys. Any frequency can be your middle C, just tell me what you want.
(Score: 2) by Bot on Sunday February 17 2019, @11:02AM
Spotted the guy with no absolute pitch ear.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Arik on Saturday February 16 2019, @01:18PM (2 children)
All statistical generalizations that don't really tell you anything beyond themselves. The skin color (and other traits as well) of children *usually* appear similar to that of their parents. Usually, certainly not always. But what makes you think that color is anything more than color?
"scientists these days seem to be too frightened say anything other than they "Cannot detect it"."
That's utter nonsense, and shows you don't actually read science. Scientists are very much aware of genetics.
"In analogy, the SJWs would say that you must not refer to Middle C (262 Hz) or D (294 Hz) because they are both notes, and you could play a note of 280 Hz. Nevertheless those notes are different physical things, and the fact that certain frequencies are defined in music notation is analogous to the sociological recognition of race."
Yeah, that's a pretty awful analogy. Notes *are* set to frequencies arbitrarily - read up on the sharp wars or pitch inflation. A might be 440 or it might be 435 or even 420, depending on time and place. There is no essential character of e.g. your middle C, it's just an arbitrarily chosen pitch that relates systematically to other arbitrarily chosen pitches, out of which music can be created. The character of the middle C depends very much on the context in which it is presented, and very very little on the specific pitch assigned to it. If I play C/Bb/A/C the C has quite a different character than if I play Dm/C/Bb/Dm for instance, even though the pitches are the same and the context is also very very similar in some obvious ways.
But that's not why it's an awful analogy - that's actually why it almost works! But notes are not people. We aren't abusing or oppressing the sound waves when we create them, when we create music. It's no damage to them that we choose to use A440 instead of A418, or vice versa. They didn't exist until we created them, they cease to exist shortly afterwards, they're our creation.
Other people are NOT our creation! We each come in a specific 'pitch' so to speak, and we do suffer when we're forced sharp or flat to fit someone elses composition or their prejudice.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 3, Touché) by fustakrakich on Saturday February 16 2019, @05:12PM
Other people are NOT our creation!
Oof! Don't tell your mother...
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 4, Touché) by Bot on Sunday February 17 2019, @11:05AM
>We aren't abusing or oppressing the sound waves when we create them
I gather you are not familiar with the life and works of Justin Bieber.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 3, Disagree) by Arik on Saturday February 16 2019, @12:53PM (38 children)
Since there are no biological divisions between modern humans, it's inescapably true that we are all one race.
But the way it's used is not so simple, or so honest. The way it's used is to reify the social constructs you mention - to contribute to the illusion that those constructs are actual biological divisions that exist in reality and independent from social construction.
We don't have races - what we do have, unfortunately, are something much closer to caste divisions, which we're socially conditioned to pretend are races.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 16 2019, @06:57PM (20 children)
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 16 2019, @07:38PM (18 children)
So dog breeds are all separate species? Fuck off. There are plenty of animals with wide variation in appearance. There are plenty with almost no variation in appearance from other species, but very large differences aside from appearance.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 16 2019, @09:23PM (14 children)
Such as?
I think classifying all humans as the same species has been done for political reasons not scientific reasons.
Dogs are grey wolves and are closely related enough to smaller Canis species, such as the coyote and golden jackal to produce fertile hybrids. Are you saying gray wolves, coyotes, and jackals are the same species.
A species is often defined as the largest group of organisms in which any two individuals of the appropriate sexes or mating types can produce fertile offspring, typically by sexual reproduction. Other ways of defining species include their karyotype, DNA sequence, morphology, behaviour or ecological niche.
So there are obvious differences in: morphology, which you admit to, in response to drugs, in pain thresholds, in rate of Chronic disease, in lifespan, in impulsivity, in behavior including cultural behaviors such as: artistic diversity and sophistication, and tool creation and use. average IQ differences [viewoniq.org] what about differences in ecological niches? Do you think if someone from the Congo and an Inuit from the arctic circle switched places they would be just fine? No change in rate of certain diseases or getting sunburned, frostbite, heart attacks, anything? Differences in their thousands of generations of environmental and cultural adaptations are insignificant?
The real question, which you probably won't answer or just say "produce infertile offspring" which is a narrow definition of species, is:
What level of differences between different groups of humans would be enough for you to accept the existence of different human species?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by fido_dogstoyevsky on Saturday February 16 2019, @09:37PM (13 children)
Not being able to breed.
It's NOT a conspiracy... it's a plot.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 16 2019, @09:44PM (12 children)
Can you not read?
"Dogs/Grey wolves are closely related enough to different species, coyote, golden jackal to produce fertile hybrids."
Different species, can breed and produce fertile offspring, but they are still different species.
(Score: 2) by fido_dogstoyevsky on Saturday February 16 2019, @10:43PM (2 children)
I can, I'm just not taking you seriously because your argument seems to be heading in the direction of considering a single allele a sufficient factor in determining race.
Or did I misunderstand you and you are not suggesting that not all people belong to the species Homo sapiens?
It's NOT a conspiracy... it's a plot.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 16 2019, @11:12PM (1 child)
I agree a single allele a unlikely to be a sufficient factor in determining race/subspecies.
If DNA mutations occur in germ cells it is copied into every new cell of the embryo after fertilisation. Which is a way new DNA variants are passed on to the next generation. If the mutation affects a gene, it will result in a new allele. New allele are created all the time in species. One new allele is unlikely to produce a new species.
How many changes between populations is enough to declare they are different species? I can't find much information. It seems like many scientists declare a new species sometimes for real reasons sometimes for attention/funding. It seems like it's not always clear cut and up to interpretation.
I think their should be consistency and not declare humans unique or just throw out the whole concept of species and come up with something more concrete since different species and sub species can interbreed and produce fertile offspring.
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 17 2019, @02:58AM
Capitalism is a completely inadequate system for encouraging correct, verifiable science. Because of these inadequacies, it would be irresponsible to allow capitalist science to further any such racialist studies. It would only serve the interests of demagogues who seek to build artificial walls between arbitrary sections of the international working class. Whatever evidence of race may be found in genotyping at most looks to be a very small nudging of a median in a wide distribution within whatever arbiter of race may be popular from civilization to civilization. The theory of race itself must be abandoned, and it frankly has no use to a socialist culture. Therefore, even after a successful proletarian permanent revolution, it will remain abandonded.
Contrary to popular fiction, any civilizations from other stars will not simply be humans with pointy ears. So the concept of race can remain permanently relegated to the dustbin of ancient superstitions, perhaps only of interest within the cut-threat world of archaeology.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Saturday February 16 2019, @11:24PM (8 children)
I've already posted that I consider them to be the same species as a result, but legitimately separated as subspecies.
They're orders of magnitude more separated than any human populations you can cite. Let alone the sub-clades of USA population.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 16 2019, @11:52PM (7 children)
From wolf.org
Wolf-Dog Hybrids "Although hybrids can occur naturally in the wild, they are rare because the territorial nature of wolves leads them to protect their home ranges from intruding canines such as dogs, coyotes and other wolves." So human intervention is not "required" but it greatly increases the odds of a mating. The reason they don't mate very often in the wild is due to territorial behavioral differences (due to selective breeding) not because of basic biological reasons.
I agree wolves and dogs are distinct but enough to be different subspecies I don't know. After all red foxes were domesticated in a matter of decades, but all the diversity of genes is found in the wild population.
Are the domesticated ones a new subspecies or not? If so why? They can still breed with the wild red foxes.
Humans living in far flung regions of the world would not normally breed with each other in significant numbers due to distance and cultural differences without modern transportation yet they are not considered different subspecies, why not?
I just want consistency, and a better concrete definition of species, subspecies, etc. It's like the whole planet/dwarf planet thing.
I think it would be cooler to have multiple human species. Maybe people will eventually master genetic engineering and humans could live underwater, fly, live in space, etc. with many different variations.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Sunday February 17 2019, @12:25AM (6 children)
"Wolf-Dog Hybrids "Although hybrids can occur naturally in the wild, they are rare because the territorial nature of wolves leads them to protect their home ranges from intruding canines such as dogs, coyotes and other wolves.""
Rare? Rare?!? Cite me one case. One single case in the last 300, 400 years where this has been plausibly reported?
They're not rare they're impossible. Female wolf in heat will kill the male dog before he can mate with her, even if he were inclined to do so. Not possible. Male wolf will kill female dog, even if she's in heat. IT DOES NOT HAPPEN.
You want a wolf dog? You need to muzzle and bind the wolf. It's easier with a female wolf and a male dog, if you go the other way it's more complicated. YES, it can be done, either way. NO, it's not realistically going to happen more than once/millenia without human intervention.
The reason is because their sexual cues and other cues are very different. The female dog goes in heat regularly and all male dogs in the area go into rut in response to her scent. The male wolves are not affected.
The female wolf goes into heat once a year, the male wolves are deeply affected, male dogs in the area do not seem to care.
Again, even though they *can* produce fertile offspring this doesn't happen without intervention, so I consider them subspecies, and again, this separation is orders of magnitude greater than that between any two human populations.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 17 2019, @12:45AM (5 children)
I guess you are in a bad mood.
I didn't mean to piss you off.
Didn't you read the rest of the comment?
I agree they are distinct I just didn't know if it was enough to be considered a subspecies.
Wild red foxes and domesticated ones may attack each other too even though they "could" produce fertile offspring.
Like I said in that post. "Humans living in far flung regions of the world would not normally breed with each other in significant numbers due to distance and cultural differences without modern transportation yet they are not considered different subspecies, why not?"
I just want consistency, and a better concrete definition of species, subspecies, etc. or just refer to all by the genus.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Sunday February 17 2019, @12:58AM (4 children)
Subspecies. True "racial" distinction.
Now show me human populations that distant. I dare you.
"Like I said in that post. "Humans living in far flung regions of the world would not normally breed with each other in significant numbers due to distance and cultural differences without modern transportation yet they are not considered different subspecies, why not?""
The obvious answer is contained in your question. "Because modern transportation."
But that's a bad answer, because it implies this didn't happen before modern transportation. It did. For thousands and thousands of years, we had something called 'sailors.'
Also caravans.
Best I know the longest any human population has been effectively isolated is something like 50k. years for Australian aborigines between the sea drop and the arrival of the poms. And that separation clearly did not produce anything like the difference between wolves and dogs. Which was, of course, produced not just by time but by intense directed selection.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 17 2019, @01:45AM (3 children)
Most biologist think humans are a monotypic species, while a few think differently https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19695787. [nih.gov]
Maybe migration, caravans, and sailors were enough to keep humans together as one subspecies. From what i've read taxonomists decide whether to recognize a subspecies or not. Which seems pretty subjective. I'd rather it be less subjective and more definitive.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Sunday February 17 2019, @02:15AM (2 children)
I'll give you my first impressions, it's politically incorrect and I bet there was some resistance to publication. I'm 100% in favor of allowing it to be published.
That doesn't mean I agree with it though. From the abstract it appears to moreso argue for moving the goalposts in terms of redefining very specific terms that I don't actually use. That sort of paper can be very enlightening, good reading for those that are unaware of the more subtle elements involved in making such a judgement - but ultimately I wouldn't expect it to provoke any sort of a reconsideration of my fundamental position; that all human beings should be presumed equal, and judged only on performance or examination, and certainly not on skin color.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 17 2019, @02:34AM (1 child)
Yeah, I don't know if it's worth the trouble to read.
Maybe he really believes it, or maybe he's like some people that try to court controversy to get people to notice them.
Which makes sense when you have hordes of people all trying to be recognized.
Who knows.
Try not to let the trolls get to you,
later.
(Score: 1) by Arik on Sunday February 17 2019, @02:39AM
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 16 2019, @09:38PM
So, if the different species and subspecies of gorillas or chimps or orangutans can interbreed within their group (different gorilla species/subspecies with other gorillas for instance) and produce fertile offspring and so can humans then why are they classified as different species/subspecies and not humans? Even though they sure look very similar to each other than different human races do and appearance and producing fertile offspring doesn't matter. Then what does matter enough for them to be different species/subspecies?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 16 2019, @10:27PM
what determines species? Many species can interbreed and produce fertile hybrids including Ring Species in which some can interbreed with some but not others. So what the heck determines different species if not appearance, breeding, location or whatever. Is it just scientists wanting to say they discovered a new species or what?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 17 2019, @12:32AM
sorry about that last picture it was a bit of an ahole move. i'm a bit pissed off today. but i think there should be a clear definition of species and subspecies or just do away with them and refer to all groups of animals, etc. by the genus.
For instance the genus homo (including Neanderthals, Denisovans , etc. with a lot of diversity and sometimes difficulty in reproduction and fertile offspring between members.
I would be totally okay with that.
We would all just be homos and that's okay ;o) with me.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Saturday February 16 2019, @08:31PM
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 16 2019, @10:39PM
Since humans wiped out or outcompeted other hominids like the neanderthal, denisovan etc. its really lonely with just one human species. It'd be cooler to just think there are a bunch of different human species alive today that can all interbreed with each other. It would make the world more interesting.
It would Be better if we bred dwarfs, elves, giants, etc. ☺ would probably take a while though or genetic engineering.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 16 2019, @10:51PM (6 children)
What kind of divisions?
If neanderthals and denisovans were a different subspecies from modern homo sapiens sapiens then since europeans and asians have some of their dna aren't eurasians some kind of hybrid subspecies different from the baseline humans in subsaharan africa?
(Score: 2) by Arik on Saturday February 16 2019, @11:20PM (5 children)
*Biological* divisions.
"If neanderthals and denisovans were a different subspecies from modern homo sapiens sapiens then since europeans and asians have some of their dna aren't eurasians some kind of hybrid subspecies different from the baseline humans in subsaharan africa?"
That's an enormous "if." As in, I don't believe it for a minute. With all due respect to Pääbo, I think he's chasing something that isn't there. I'm glad he's motivated, he's brought in some great finds and tested them for the record, but his conclusions? Far beyond the evidence, as far as I have seen so far. There are a lot of similarities that can easily be explained by parallel selection from extremely similar populations descended from a fairly recent common ancestor.
Little if anything that cannot.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 17 2019, @12:18AM (4 children)
So you think neanderthals, denisovans, etc. are just human and paleontologist just want to separate them into different groups?
Since many homo species could interbreed apparently we might as well just stop calling different groups species and subspecies and just refer to all as members of the genus homo which has a lot of diversity and cut out the whole homo sapiens sapiens, homo sapiens neanderthalis, etc.
Probably should refer to all groups of animals by the genus name and just drop subspecies and maybe drop species too (since many species and subspecies can interbreed)
I'd be okay with that. We're all just homo's ;o)
(Score: 2) by Arik on Sunday February 17 2019, @12:29AM (3 children)
No.
Did you even read before commenting?
They are human but they are not modern human, they were a genuine *other* human race. Pääbo believes we interbred, a significant number of times. I don't believe we ever did that, not a significant number of times, quite possibly not ever.
The rest of your comment was obviously an attempt to be funny - and it failed.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 17 2019, @12:57AM (2 children)
Okay. I didn't fully understand what you were trying to say.
I read more about Pääbo he seems to like a lot of attention.
You may be right, the seeming genetic closeness could be from a common ancestor and not from interbreeding, especially since the mitochondrial DNA doesn't change as much as the genes in the nucleus.
And really all the genes would be expected to be similar due to a common ancestor.
Sorry for pissing you off.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Sunday February 17 2019, @01:32AM (1 child)
"I read more about Pääbo he seems to like a lot of attention."
I don't know much about him personally. If you came across something particularly juicy please post it.
But in general, when I studied anthropology, that was what I wanted to find. Proof of neanderthalis and sapiens interbreeding. That would have been sexy.
I only spent a few years on that before personal issues took me out of the field, I've done at least some work to keep up. People say how dare you question a world-renown expert? Well I studied the field, I'm not entirely ignorant of it, and I'm not the only person to be skeptical. His own coworkers are a bit skeptical and one in particular attached some extremely intelligent caveats to her name in some of the papers they appear as co-authors on. Go read them, I'm not saying he isn't worth reading, far from it!
But I just haven't found any solid link between H.S.S and H.S.N yet. The most dispositive results, to my mind, appear to indicate a genuine reproductive incompatibility. Something similar to the way grey wolves and dogs can't really mate.
I've read a couple of his papers, I've read innumerable summaries of others, I've yet to see any mention of any genuine proof of interbreeding. A lot of data we wouldn't have thanks to his grants(!), a lot of overlap in the genomes - but we expect overlap in the genomes. Neanderthals had only left Africa a few tens of millenium earlier - they were very, very close cousins to H.S.S. either way.
So in terms of interbreeding, it's really just "Pääbo says this." Based on his authority as *the* expert on what he does. Isn't argument by authority a fallacy?
Conclusive results would be definitively Neanderthalis and non H.S.S. Y chromosome or MTDNA showing up in a modern population. Maybe it's been found, but I sure haven't seen it. Without that, it does boil down to a guesstimate. No one can ever prove that a single neanderthal, or more likely let's say 3 or 4, to include at least 1 or 2 denisovans, somehow managed to interbreed with H.S.S. and produce fertile offspring whose offspring survive to this day. But extraordinary claims require evidence. I just don't see *any* unequivocal evidence that this is the case.
Now look, I'm not a world-renown expert on ancient DNA, and he is. But that's just how I see it. I think he's leaned into his hypothesis a bit too heavily. I think he's a great fund-raiser for scientific endeavors but not such a great scientist.
That's just my opinion, I could always be wrong.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 17 2019, @02:22AM
Nothing really juicy about Pääbo.
It's just all the articles written about him, interviews, awards, etc.
I'm not saying he's not smart, maybe you're right and it's all for grants.
It just seems like a scientist should ideally let the evidence speak for itself and do less interpreting and try to focus on the science not publicity.
It would be have been interesting if all those other species hadn't went extinct.
Well that's about it,
Have a good night.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday February 17 2019, @02:58AM (8 children)
Beg to differ. There are notable though largely trivial biological differences between what we currently call races. Enough so that we would likely consider birds sharing only similar coloring differences to be of different species; though you can have absurd differences in say canis domesticus and still be the same species even though canis lupus are considered a separate one. That's without even considering that most of us carry 1-5% DNA from one or two entirely separate species around with us.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Sunday February 17 2019, @03:15AM (7 children)
LARGELY TRIVIAL. Yep.
"Enough so that we would likely consider birds sharing only similar coloring differences to be of different species"
NOPE.
"though you can have absurd differences in say canis domesticus and still be the same species even though canis lupus are considered a separate one."
Please see my other posts on this thread. This is a good subspecies case. The DNA is oompatible but the behaviour is not at all.
"That's without even considering that most of us carry 1-5% DNA from one or two entirely separate species around with us."
Pääbo's line, again please see my other posts in this thread. I do not believe that's true, nor do I believe that if it were true it would matter much.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday February 17 2019, @03:57AM (6 children)
The neanderthal thing at least is all but proven fact. There is DNA found in them that is not found in homo sapiens before they came up out of Africa and is still not found at all in the humans who remained in sub-saharan Africa unless they got some imported ancestry. It's technically possible that we mutated the exact same mutations they did but you'd need to consult a geneticist and a mathematician to find out how astronomical the odds against acquiring up to 150 million or so identical mutations are.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Sunday February 17 2019, @12:34PM (5 children)
Not only is it entirely possible for the same mutation to occur more than once, there's another possibility you're leaving out entirely - the gene may have been present in Africa at that time and was only lost later.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday February 17 2019, @03:09PM (4 children)
No, it's not proof. It's simply got the odds overwhelmingly in its favor.
One mutation, yes. One hundred and fifty million identical mutations, a bit less so. The latter is also a possibility but several orders of magnitude less likely as genes tended to spread as widely as the male carrying them could figure out how to spread them back in the day. Hell, they still do in the US to this day in some subcultures.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Sunday February 17 2019, @11:41PM (3 children)
Remember mutations happen all the time, and disappear again. It's the useful ones that are selected for. Neanderthals likely adapted to the cooler darker climate by developing lighter skin for instance - and there aren't a whole lot of different ways to do that. So we'd expect to see similar mutations in those genes, because selection would preserve and spread them preferentially. This is why you can't really trace deep ancestry using the whole genome - only the Y DNA and MTDNA can be presumed to reflect that accurately when many generations of distance are involved. The rest? You get 23andme type nonsense analyzing the rest that way.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday February 18 2019, @12:45AM (2 children)
And why would none of the mutations show up in humans who never left sub saharan Africa? We're not talking just skin color here and southern Africa is hardly the same climate as the middle bits. It's just far more likely that human males would fuck anything female shaped than that even one coincidental mutation occurred.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Monday February 18 2019, @02:18AM (1 child)
All I can add is that the disagreement is at the level of a subjective judgement of what we think is most probable. We agree it's not proven.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday February 18 2019, @03:34AM
Yup. I don't have issue with you not holding the same assessment as me and neither of us are claiming proof, so there's no need for pistols at dawn or anything.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 16 2019, @02:08PM
so in a sense, makes sense. but that court basically used the "No True Scotsman" line of reasoning. the intent of the law was probably meant to lump all those from 'Middle Eaatern' descent, and thus steteotypically fundamentalist Muslim faith. But only from that atereotype, what about Nigerians? Malasians or Indonesians? Coptic Christian Egyptians?
The political motivation was to do something legal about something "everybody knows to be true" and placate some feelings. If there was some intention for surviving court challenges, trying to be vague or generalized, but not too much! but also teying to not be very specific, either. Still didnt take too much nuanced thinking from a judge to get him to hit the kibosh button.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Saturday February 16 2019, @05:40PM (1 child)
You say you can't become black, but a bit of genetic surgery could possibly fix that. It probably wouldn't even need to be systematic. If the viral approach gets developed well enough, a cream should do the job.
Race is essentially a social construct. It has no definable genetic meaning. Most attempts to even specify markers fail. (E.g., the skin color marker I implied in the first paragraph wouldn't actually work. This has been demonstrated with photographs.)
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by maxwell demon on Saturday February 16 2019, @08:18PM
If it is a social construct, then why would you need genetic surgery? Shouldn't it be enough to declare that you feel black?
Yes, racism is a real problem. And people have made many stupid claims about different races. And there probably have also been some misconceptions how races work.
But then, the same can be said about genders. And I don't see anyone claiming that there do not exist different genders, just because the situation with genders is more complex than we thought for centuries. (And no, there's not a genetic marker for gender either, as far as we know, except that there is a high — but by no means perfect — correlation with the biological sex; and in addition, biological sex itself is more complicated than we used to think).
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Nuke on Saturday February 16 2019, @09:33AM (19 children)
I had a very black African GF who was a Muslim, and at another time a Malay GF ditto. Clearly neither were of the same race as Bin Laden.
Of course, the snowflakes will say there is no such thing as race, in which case all race laws are void anyway.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 16 2019, @09:48AM (17 children)
I've been laughing at the DNA test ads like the one where this one dude says something like "wow, i didn't know i'm 5% jewish".
And when someone says something not glorifying about religion, the SJWs start calling you racist.
People don't even know the terminology of discrimination (or anything else for that matter) and are yelling crap all over the place. I just can't do much, but shake my head. So many idiots.
(Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 16 2019, @10:00AM (14 children)
I posted links to a discussion about halal certification in a web forum. The response from the forum was that I was a racist.
Have the SJW won?
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 16 2019, @10:24AM (7 children)
SJW's are a lower life form that don't have a personality. Basically... drones.
(Score: 2, Touché) by Runaway1956 on Saturday February 16 2019, @10:41AM (5 children)
But - DAS RACISSSS!!!
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 16 2019, @11:40AM (4 children)
Runaway is racist, the worst kind of racist: Archie Bunker West Pennsylvania Polack Racist. Nobody's coming back from that kinda racist.
(Score: 3, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 16 2019, @12:31PM (3 children)
Nothing like derogatory racial slurs to drive home the point that the other guy's a racist.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 16 2019, @01:14PM (2 children)
Not really sure why people view it as a slur. A male pole is a polak, a female one is polka. It's like calling a jew, a jew, and people getting offended. I think it would be more offensive calling someone jewish. Like you're not really a jew, you're just jewish. Like calling someone christianish.
(Score: 3, Touché) by Runaway1956 on Saturday February 16 2019, @01:40PM (1 child)
FFS, a polka is a god-damned DANCE, and a style of MUSIC. But you knew that, right, Ari?
For those who are not familiar with polka, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polka [wikipedia.org]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7u_Fg6BzPsU [youtube.com]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIfHTXVNoDU [youtube.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 16 2019, @10:35PM
Rubbish links Have this [youtube.com]
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Saturday February 16 2019, @05:18PM
Then call the FAA
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 16 2019, @11:38AM (3 children)
You are racist. Deal with it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 16 2019, @11:53AM (1 child)
If a SJW speaks up against racists, doesn't that make them racists themselves?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 16 2019, @02:57PM
If a SJW refuses to drink the coolaid and just once defends the right, does that make them a racist?
(Score: 3, Funny) by Bot on Sunday February 17 2019, @11:12AM
What are you, some kind of racistophobe?
Account abandoned.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by HiThere on Saturday February 16 2019, @05:46PM (1 child)
FWIW, I've never been certain what halal meant, except safe for Muslims to eat. I got an idea that Kosher means it doesn't have blood or pork, it's been slaughtered "humanely", and it's been blessed by a rabbi, but I haven't got much of a clue what halal means. From what I can tell there's no central Muslim authority certifying people to bless food, and I don't know what other attributes it's supposed to have.
("Humanely" was in quotes, because it really refers to what was considered humane practice in the middle ages. Otherwise they'd insist on something like killing it with nitrogen [i.e. no oxygen, but also no CO2].)
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Saturday February 16 2019, @11:11PM
Islam and Judaism are waaaaaaaay closer together than either one wants to admit :) And closer to one another than either is to Christianity. Ironic, no?
Halal is more or less "permitted, sanctioned," and "haraam" is "forbidden, set apart, under protection/separation." And yes, the word "harem" shares the same root, and incidentally so does the ancient Jewish practice of "herem." Which is when an entire city of enemies was designated "herem," or set aside/"dedicated to YHWH" and utterly destroyed, no plunder allowed.
Semitic languages commonly have these triple-consonant bases for words with the varying vowel sounds in the middle giving them meaning. One reason ancient Hebrew is so incredibly hard to read is it's pretty much *just* the consonants with no vowels and no spacing...
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 17 2019, @11:41AM (1 child)
How is what i said a flamebait?
People are saying you are racists, when it has nothing to do with race, people don't even know the terminology. If that isn't stupid, i don't know what is.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday February 17 2019, @03:11PM
Bad mods happen. Good mods correct them. Don't sweat it.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by zocalo on Saturday February 16 2019, @12:51PM
Still, to play devil's advocate, if you're going to accept something you can change like religion as a person's race, rather than some other factor like being - say - of a major demographic within that specific religion, then you logically of have to accept flexibility in some other related things as well. For instance; Rachel Dolezal's claims to be black, Elizabeth Warren's claims to be Native American, or any claims of "cultural appropriation" for that matter. Who's to say that person with the "culturally appropriated" whatever hadn't decided to become a more culturally appropriate race for a while? Maybe they're just "racially fluid".
Come to think of it, with that line of reasoning, it should actually get some of the more inane arguments around this kind of crap to go away, which maybe isn't such a bad thing. Not that those who tend to get their panties in bunch over such things will let it, of course.
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
(Score: 0, Troll) by realDonaldTrump on Saturday February 16 2019, @11:51AM (14 children)
It is about keeping bad people (with bad intentions) out of country. Need PHYSICAL BARRIER!
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 16 2019, @12:15PM (5 children)
Maybe we should just build "the wall" around the oval office. It would only have to be tall enough to keep someone in your physical condition out, so say 3 feet tall?
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 16 2019, @12:28PM (2 children)
That's fucked up. Midgets are people too.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 16 2019, @05:03PM
Off by one foot. Maybe relevant?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pUWDwyRl0cM [youtube.com]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-Rqv_Bg0pc [youtube.com]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1RHo__k2mw [youtube.com]
(Score: 2) by fido_dogstoyevsky on Saturday February 16 2019, @09:42PM
Yeah, we don't need apart-height [wikipedia.org].
It's NOT a conspiracy... it's a plot.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by fustakrakich on Saturday February 16 2019, @05:24PM
Nah, just turn off the lights and cameras and walk away (don't leave the equipment). That'll hurt more than anything.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 16 2019, @09:21PM
If it's only three feet then filling it full of water wouldn't help the situation.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday February 16 2019, @01:00PM (4 children)
Oz has a physical barrier, dummy.
(Score: 1, Redundant) by realDonaldTrump on Saturday February 16 2019, @02:32PM
Many countries have walls -- or, in many cases, fences. We made the list and it's 77 countries. A lot of countries, because WALLS WORK. And you know about Austria. Good for you. Good for you. They did Fence. Not as good as Wall. But it's a BARRIER -- it gives them control over their Border. So they can keep out the Radical Muslim Terrorists. Or they can argue about, "oh, is Terrorist a race, can we call that it a race?" That's a LUXURY. And they don't know what a luxury it is. They're deciding what to call that one. While we grieve for the terrible loss of life. In San Bernardino. In Manhattan. In Shanksville, Pennsylvania. Our magnificent Pentagon. Austin, Texas. Bowling Green, Kentucky. So many places, so many young, beautiful & innocent lives lost (or shattered). Terrorists are FLOODING into our Country. Because we don't have the Barrier. Don't worry, we're getting it very soon. Because of you. Because of Brian K. Because of Mitch. Because of our wonderful Government Workers. Who worked, very patiently, for so long without pay. But most of all, BECAUSE OF ME!!!
(Score: 1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 16 2019, @03:10PM (2 children)
They keep coming in by boat.
"I was oppressed! I need sanctuary!"
'Why didn't you apply in the several counties that you passed on your way here?'
"Racist!"
'Where is your passport?'
"Racist!"
'Several passports washed up on the shore after your boat mysteriously sank just off the coast. Do you know anything about this?'
"Racist!"
'A third world country has offered you citizenship, a passport, travel allowance, a home and a job. Why did you refuse to leave immigration detention and go there?'
"Racist!"
'We need to detain you until your identity is confirmed. Our contact in Syria cannot find any evidence you were ever in Syria.'
"Racist!"
'We only have normal food that everyday people eat. The guards and public servants eat this food. Why do you refuse to eat?'
"Racist!"
'We found your record from an arrest in a different country that you claim to be from. What do you have to say about this?'
"Racist!"
'Your request to bring 3 grandparents 5 brothers 2 sisters your significant other and over 20 people in has been denied.'
"Racist!"
'Your bride is only 11 years old according to the documents you provided.'
"Racist!"
'Your application for asylum was denied in another country. Why did you come here?'
"Racist!"
'Your records show involvement with ISIL. Can you explain this?'
"Racist!"
'We have a concern about a video posted that supports FGM that you are mentioned in. '
"Racist!"
And so on.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 18 2019, @01:51PM (1 child)
To the person who modded this post as being a troll: fuck off
I really wish this wasn't real. There is more. Much more.
Passports being washed up on the beach after boat people have claimed not to have identity papers?
People somehow traveling across the planet to get to an island surrounded by water who claim they must seek asylum here?
People who only make asylum claims for the health benefits?
Google it. All of it. Find the one where the news crew videos the people waiting to get on boats. They openly admit what they are doing. Gaming the system. Country shopping. Economic immigration.
The very worst part about all of this is that there are people in genuine need out there. People we could help. People we could spend billions on instead of these fakes.
If someone says something, anything, about these boat people and their ilk then they are slapped down as being "racist".
You wonder why people have stopped caring or saying anything about it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 18 2019, @09:07PM
i just watched bbc world news yesterday and they were showing some stupid gap toothed, nasty, muslim bitch that left Britain to go be a isis bride. now she's on tv saying people should feel sorry for her because of what she's "been through". trump is releasing these "refugees" and asking the UK and other European countries to take them to trial. They will probably do like the US immigration and give them a court date and more welfare. if the UK and other European countries had any sense they would banish all muslims and exterminate any who don't leave after a cut off date.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 16 2019, @05:55PM
"...keeping bad people (with bad intentions) out of country."
By that definition, we need to put a wall around just you. Say someplace like ADX Florence.
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 16 2019, @06:49PM (1 child)
But this is Australia we are talking about here, Van Diemen's Land? It's about keeping them in.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 18 2019, @02:04PM
It's racist to talk about the abos like that
(Score: 5, Interesting) by looorg on Saturday February 16 2019, @11:53AM (18 children)
Sometimes they surprise you by actually making sane decisions. Belonging to a religious group is not the same as belonging to a race, or just biological subgroup. I could convert to islam (or any other religion) today but you can't really convert race, by becoming muslim I wouldn't change race. It might change some cultural and sociological factors and belonging to various groups. But race isn't one of them. So Kruger is probably not a racist, she might be a bigot or some other things but wanting limit migration from islamic countries is not actually a racist statement.
Still interesting that they found her comments to be vilifying and she apparently should be more touchy feely next time and think of all the people that get their feelings hurt.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 16 2019, @12:40PM (3 children)
Rachel Dolezal finds your words to be bigoted and hurtful.
(Score: 2) by looorg on Saturday February 16 2019, @01:23PM
Can't we ask her parents instead? I would think they would be more hurt then her by her actions.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Saturday February 16 2019, @11:17PM
Rachel Dolezal is a nutbar and should not be taken seriously. I honestly thought she was some sort of ultra-right troll upon first hearing about her, but no, she seems to be one of the few genuine leftie crazies out there...
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 17 2019, @01:48AM
Looks like she's been demolished by both Afropunk and The Root:
https://afropunk.com/tag/rachel-dolezal/ [afropunk.com]
https://www.theroot.com/how-i-know-for-sure-rachel-dolezal-is-not-black-1823604033 [theroot.com]
https://www.theroot.com/this-rachel-dolezal-tea-about-the-oppression-of-darth-b-1792903639 [theroot.com]
https://www.theroot.com/rachel-dolezal-booked-and-released-from-jail-on-welfare-1827328774 [theroot.com]
If we want to move towards a raceless society, then a white person "identifying" as African-American seems to reify racialist theory and is thus a counterproductive act.
Race is largely a social construct while gender binary largely is not, and so no, you can't s/race/gender/ (as Dolezal attempted). Don't even try.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 16 2019, @12:43PM (9 children)
Change "Muslim" to "Jew" and ask someone whether it's "just a religion" or also something to do with ethnicity or even race.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Saturday February 16 2019, @01:52PM (6 children)
Not so very insightful, IMO. Both Islam and Judaism are political entities, and both are religious entities. Both apparently worship the same God, or at least say they do. The difference between them is, Islam seeks to convert, and thus, to command you, and me, and every human on the face of the planet. Jews do not. A Muslim might kill you for any number of reasons, a Jew is unlikely to kill you except in self defense. One is a viral virus, the other is not so much. For those reasons, Judaism is pretty much confined to one ethnic group, while Islam includes people of every race, culture, ethnicity and nationality on earth.
The funny bit about your question is, the original Jews and the original Muslims were cousins. All were Semitic.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 16 2019, @05:42PM
the original Jews and the original Muslims were cousins.
Ya don't say! And here's the original "#me too" [youtube.com]
(Score: 2) by https on Saturday February 16 2019, @06:23PM (1 child)
The Canaanites would love to agree with your middle point, but since they're dead, they can't.
Offended and laughing about it.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday February 18 2019, @09:00AM
Actually, if you were to double check, the Canaanites were NOT killed off by the Jews. They were TOLD to kill all of the Canaanites, but they didn't do so. Now, whether there are any Canaanites left living today is up for debate, but if they are all gone, it wasn't the Jews that did it.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Saturday February 16 2019, @11:14PM (1 child)
Judaism is the one religion that's also an ethnic group. They are very literal about being Yahweh's chosen *people,* humans, genetic stock (though they didn't have that particular concept back then). In particular, Jewishness is supposed to be passed down *matrilinearly,* which surprised me very much upon learning about it. They also generally discourage conversions, and I remember hearing some of the Chassidim back in Brooklyn outright saying that conversion to Judaism ought not to be allowed.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 17 2019, @02:40AM
Not the only one. Laestadians aren't quite racially homogenous, but they're close to it. Jews are just the largest and most visible/least crazy.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Arik on Sunday February 17 2019, @02:23AM
Mohammed sought to convert, but the Yemeni Rabbis laughed at him. A stripling, a ridiculous youth, son of a single mother, only able to act like a man inside his own tribe because his grandfather was still alive.
I wasn't there. Maybe they really tried. But it sounds to me more like they laughed him off and made him determined to humble them. Which he did. Jews in the Hijaz either converted or died. A few might have been permitted to flee alive, I'm not sure on that.
Semitic, btw, is a linguistic term. People of very different ancestry can share a language, and vice versa.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by realDonaldTrump on Saturday February 16 2019, @02:51PM
We love Jew, sometimes referred to as Jewish. If you have some money that needs counting, you always always hire a Jew to count it -- if you're smart. And we love Israel. They're doing so many things in Israel, tremendous things. And they're putting the Middle East to shame. I think Middle East could learn so much from them. As U.S.A. is learning (Wall& Law Enforcement).
And everybody has heard of the 12 Tribes of Israel. But people don't know this, there are the 12 Tribes of Arabia. Otherwise known as the 12 Tribes of Ishmael. They were Jew. But also Arab. And the famous Mohammad was one of them!!
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Saturday February 16 2019, @05:55PM
That one's a complicated question. There are genetic variations that are only common among the Jews...and among them only common among the Cohens (alleged descendants of Aaron). So. But there's also a large number of folk who are descendants of converts made at one time or another. And, of course, the opposite.
So it would be possible to define a jewish race, but most practicing Jews wouldn't be members. And a few who had never practices the Jewish faith, nor their known ancestors, but end up included.
Mind you, the only way to demonstrate membership in the Jewish race so defined would be to have your genotype sequenced. There's no visible distinguishing feature.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 16 2019, @03:12PM (2 children)
It is illegal to offend people now.
In Australia.
Think about that for a moment.
(Score: 2) by looorg on Saturday February 16 2019, @05:22PM (1 child)
It's not just an Australian thing, most western countries have laws that in essence are there to do the same thing. Most of them appear to focus on various form of hate-speech targeted towards various minorities. Then we have all the normal "offend people"-type laws as various form of slander. Basically we have laws that tell us to love and like everyone or STFU! Just waiting for thought crimes to become a mainstream reality.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 18 2019, @02:08PM
Free speech is dead
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 16 2019, @05:36PM
It means they can't imprison her yet, but they'll be working on revising the laws to do so in future. Politicians are terrified that if a citizen says something about the community, a shaheed will appear to commit mass murder.