Philosophy Now Forum

Seleucus[/quote wrote: And on and on and on...
...

Looks like they are assimilating fairly well as all pretty standard fare every Friday and Saturday night over here.

Seleucus wrote:Please don't think that I don't empathize and understand. ...

But you don't?

Don't think that it went unnoticed that the whole mob of politically correct beta leftists never once in all these pages of discussion cited even one philosopher, one book, or one scholarly research article -- instead, name calling. ...

Who you calling PC?

You think your rant on the American Chinese was scholarly.

You ignored the link showing the race is not supported by genetics so why would anything else make any difference, not least because you are here to just troll right-wing propaganda.

I know, you are exhausted, demoralized, apathetic, purposeless, depressed. ...

Not me matey! Invigorated, motivated and positively peppy about things.

The rightist narrative explains the psychological malaise by the formation of an epochal foundation myth that came out of the Holocoaust and fratricidal Second World War:

Then they are talking about themselves.

https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/730498124241444864

He was 15 and had been taken there by his father. Not many children would have been able to act differently.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omar_Khadr

Basically I agree, but not living in Europe or America I see it from the perspective of the colonies. ...

I'd have thought the colonies don't have this perspective of themselves as colonies?

To save face, Westerners told themselves that they gave up world leadership because it was morally wrong. ...

Did they? When did they do this and when you say 'Westerners' you mean the British surely?

But the slight of hand did not really fool anyone, Whites lost world leadership after they exhausted themselves uselessly fighting each other and then retroactively tried to insist that that's what they intended to do all along. ...

Whites didn't have world leadership, the British did.

Actually European peoples were completely humiliated, and they fell into stupor. ...

Yeah! It's been terrible, one of the largest markets in the world, highest standard of living, ditto education, ditto healthcare, hell on earth.

But time heals all wounds they say. And the young generation, no longer mentally tied to these post-war narratives of defeatism is coming back to life, proud and sharp... heroic.

And presumably ready and stupid enough to restart the useless fighting, especially if your kind of views make a resurgence.

Londoner wrote: ↑Fri Oct 20, 2017 1:50 pm

Seleucus wrote: ↑Fri Oct 20, 2017 1:11 pm I can say quite confidently that I am well aware that Slavs, Koreans, Eskimos and Aborigines are all humans. So guess we can agree, that race, just like Golden Retrievers, exists.

So, having got rid of all the pseudo-scientific stuff, we can now refine further our understanding of what you mean by 'race'.

Is it cultural? Such that a black person can become a Slav if they conform to the cultural baggage that goes with being a Slav (and that you have a check list of what that cultural baggage is)?

Or is it about appearance? Is 'race' determined by what you agree are superficial features, like the shade of somebody's skin? So that every person with a sufficiently dark skin, (judged against some sort of colour chart), belongs to the same 'race', irrespective of their culture?

There's a fair bit of wiggle room, but this fellow, Peter Mensah, who was born in Ghana, and played Oenomaus in the TV series Spartacus, could probably not pass, racially, for Slavic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Mensah

Just like we would not easily confuse a Yorkie with a Golden Retriever.

Peter Mensah was playing a Numidian, which was actually a bit unrealistic casting since Numidians are a Semitic people and would most likely have roughly resembled today's Algerians, who are obviously not Black. That's not to say he's a bad guy, apparently he's quit an accomplished actor and also highly trained in martial arts.

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Fri Oct 20, 2017 1:58 pm

Seleucus[/quote wrote: And on and on and on...
...

Looks like they are assimilating fairly well as all pretty standard fare every Friday and Saturday night over here.

Yeah just perfectly as we see in the news headlines pretty much everyday.

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Fri Oct 20, 2017 2:13 pmYou ignored the link showing the race is not supported by genetics

What are you talking about? Race is supported by genetics. It's backed up by haplogroups: if your a Pygmy you're B, Japanese D, if you're Aborigine you're C, if you are Black, you are an E, if you're Gypsy you're an H just like the Dravidians are H, and if you're White, you're most likely an R. Are you joking or actually don't know this?

I know, you are exhausted, demoralized, apathetic, purposeless, depressed. ...

Not me matey! Invigorated, motivated and positively peppy about things.

Then how come your writing is sarcastic and complaining?

The rightist narrative explains the psychological malaise by the formation of an epochal foundation myth that came out of the Holocoaust and fratricidal Second World War:

Then they are talking about themselves.

https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/730498124241444864

He was 15 and had been taken there by his father. Not many children would have been able to act differently.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omar_Khadr

Wrong link, sorry, should have been, "The Perversion of the Western Foundation Myth"

https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/745078923930378240

Here's two more links to the same video just in case I'm still using the Minds.com buttons wrong somehow,

https://youtu.be/ohdmWm0sVLE
https://youtu.be/jvnj7HVV8mw

But the slight of hand did not really fool anyone, Whites lost world leadership after they exhausted themselves uselessly fighting each other and then retroactively tried to insist that that's what they intended to do all along. ...

Whites didn't have world leadership, the British did.

Well the British are pretty amazing, ArisingUK, but I think I heard there were some Dutch colonies and maybe Portuguese or something too?

Actually European peoples were completely humiliated, and they fell into stupor. ...

Yeah! It's been terrible, one of the largest markets in the world, highest standard of living, ditto education, ditto healthcare, hell on earth.

Yeah, I agree with you, the West is the best.

Seleucus wrote: ↑Fri Oct 20, 2017 2:53 pm
There's a fair bit of wiggle room, but this fellow, Peter Mensah, who was born in Ghana, and played Oenomaus in the TV series Spartacus, could probably not pass, racially, for Slavic.

So, 'race' is purely about appearance?

Just like we would not easily confuse a Yorkie with a Golden Retriever.

But we know that both are dogs, so again you are saying 'race' is purely about appearance.

Peter Mensah was playing a Numidian, which was actually a bit unrealistic casting since Numidians are a Semitic people and would most likely have roughly resembled today's Algerians, who are obviously not Black. That's not to say he's a bud buy, apparently he's quit an accomplished actor and also highly trained in martial arts.

Why these references to a TV drama series? Is it some kind of distraction activity?

However, we are making progress. We have dropped the pseudo science. It seems we have now dropped the stuff about culture. 'Race' is just about what people look like.

Now, let us take the term you use above. Are 'Semitic people' an example of what you think is a 'race'? When you say they ' would most likely have roughly resembled today's Algerians' are you saying they are now extinct? How do you know? What are you comparing 'today's Algerians' to?

Or if you prefer we can do 'white people' or 'blacks', supposing you think either of these are 'races'? Again, how do you identify them? Is it purely a matter of skin tone, or are there a list of other features, presumably with various weightings, that you use to assess them. An equivalent of the way the Dog Breeder's associations assess a Golden Retriever?

I am curious as to how you are going to handle borderline cases, for example where people have brown skin. There is going to be a certain variability amongst them so, since you are going by appearance, are you OK with the notion that two parents from one 'race' might have children of another 'race'?

Seleucus wrote: ↑Fri Oct 20, 2017 3:12 pm What are you talking about? Race is supported by genetics. It's backed up by haplogroups: if your a Pygmy you're B, Japanese D, if you're Aborigine you're C, if you are Black, you are an E, if you're Gypsy you're an H just like the Dravidians are H, and if you're White, you're most likely an R. Are you joking or actually don't know this?

Oh dear. You think you have made progress but as soon you turn away he forgets it all.

Once again; Yes, if you changed your mind about race being about appearance you could instead construct an idea of 'race' based on haplogroups, just like you could have 'races' based on skin colour, or left-handedness, or geographical location, or anything else. But all you would be doing is saying that - for you - 'race' just means whatever feature you picked. 'Race' would not mean anything else.

For example, it is not true that 'if you are Black, you are an E'. There are people with skin darker than most Africans living in India and Australia. So, you can either have 'race' based on haplogroup, in which case it doesn't correspond to skin colour - or - on skin colour, in which case it won't respond to haplogroups.

Seleucus wrote:What are you talking about? Race is supported by genetics. It's backed up by haplogroups: if your a Pygmy you're B, Japanese D, if you're Aborigine you're C, if you are Black, you are an E, if you're Gypsy you're an H just like the Dravidians are H, and if you're White, you're most likely an R. Are you joking or actually don't know this? ...

Aren't Aborigines black?

You're going to find it very difficult to convince the white supremicists that Kurds, et al are white.

Given pretty much everyone shares genes the concept of unique races exists only in the minds of those who are already racist and are looking for so other confirmation than skin colour but I look forward to white supremacists discovering their non-white genes and wonder how they will deal with this.I also look forward to seeing if the haploid supremacists will accept all the findings of having near common ancestors.

Then how come your writing is sarcastic and complaining?

Probably because I'm British. But no complaining from me so maybe not all British.

Here's two more links to the same video just in case I'm still using the Minds.com buttons wrong somehow,

Not to bright then as you are but from the looks of youtube they are talking about Americans.

Well the British are pretty amazing, ArisingUK, but I think I heard there were some Dutch colonies and maybe Portuguese or something too?

Small beer.

Yeah, I agree with you, the West is the best.

And yet you are whining and complaining about them?

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Fri Oct 20, 2017 4:12 pm

Seleucus wrote:What are you talking about? Race is supported by genetics. It's backed up by haplogroups: if your a Pygmy you're B, Japanese D, if you're Aborigine you're C, if you are Black, you are an E, if you're Gypsy you're an H just like the Dravidians are H, and if you're White, you're most likely an R. Are you joking or actually don't know this? ...

Aren't Aborigines black?

No, not closely related which is obvious if you have a look at them. Black people have round heads, aborigines have wavy blond hair. Very different looking. The Papuans and the Aborigines are closely related mind you.

You're going to find it very difficult to convince the white supremicists that Kurds, et al are white.

Kurds from what I understood are the pastoral branch of the Indo-Aryan family.

Given pretty much everyone shares genes the concept of unique races exists only in the minds of those who are already racist and are looking for so other confirmation than skin colour but I look forward to white supremacists discovering their non-white genes and wonder how they will deal with this.I also look forward to seeing if the haploid supremacists will accept all the findings of having near common ancestors.

So you, presumably a Briton, believe you have H and E and B hapogroup genes?

Then how come your writing is sarcastic and complaining?

Probably because I'm British. But no complaining from me so maybe not all British.

Well I suppose leftist is a spectrum, there might always be someone more Marxist with even purpler hair.

Here's two more links to the same video just in case I'm still using the Minds.com buttons wrong somehow,

Not to bright then as you are but from the looks of youtube they are talking about Americans.

Minds is trying to provide a space for those getting their accounts closed on YouTube. At least one good things about it is I never have to endure adverting when I watch YouTube anymore since all my favorite rightist channels have been demonetized or else I have to watch them on Minds now.

Londoner wrote: ↑Fri Oct 20, 2017 3:44 pm

Seleucus wrote: ↑Fri Oct 20, 2017 3:12 pm What are you talking about? Race is supported by genetics. It's backed up by haplogroups: if your a Pygmy you're B, Japanese D, if you're Aborigine you're C, if you are Black, you are an E, if you're Gypsy you're an H just like the Dravidians are H, and if you're White, you're most likely an R. Are you joking or actually don't know this?

Oh dear. You think you have made progress but as soon you turn away he forgets it all.

Once again; Yes, if you changed your mind about race being about appearance you could instead construct an idea of 'race' based on haplogroups, just like you could have 'races' based on skin colour, or left-handedness, or geographical location, or anything else. But all you would be doing is saying that - for you - 'race' just means whatever feature you picked. 'Race' would not mean anything else.

For example, it is not true that 'if you are Black, you are an E'. There are people with skin darker than most Africans living in India and Australia. So, you can either have 'race' based on haplogroup, in which case it doesn't correspond to skin colour - or - on skin colour, in which case it won't respond to haplogroups.

Those super dark people in India are the Dravidians. The dark ones in Australia are Aborigines. Those are what we call races. They actually look nothing alike. You can see this for yourself what people look like by looking on google images for "miss", "soldiers" or "family". For example Miss Russia, Russian soldiers, or Russian family.

Londoner wrote: ↑Fri Oct 20, 2017 3:27 pm

Seleucus wrote: ↑Fri Oct 20, 2017 2:53 pm There's a fair bit of wiggle room, but this fellow, Peter Mensah, who was born in Ghana, and played Oenomaus in the TV series Spartacus, could probably not pass, racially, for Slavic.

So, 'race' is purely about appearance?

Body hair, feet, eye shape, head shape, hair type, hair color, noses, and so on... Body odor too (Orientals have none). Seems it's also about haplogroup. Also blood proteins I've read differ from race to race. Black people are more immune to Malaria... Whites and Aborigines are prone to color blindness...

Now, let us take the term you use above. Are 'Semitic people' an example of what you think is a 'race'? When you say they ' would most likely have roughly resembled today's Algerians' are you saying they are now extinct? How do you know? What are you comparing 'today's Algerians' to?

The people then known as the Numidians are today called Algerians. The name changed. There may have been a wee bit of migration into the area for instance the Goths and the Arabs, but its pretty much the same people today as it was back in Roman times.

Or if you prefer we can do 'white people' or 'blacks', supposing you think either of these are 'races'? Again, how do you identify them? Is it purely a matter of skin tone, or are there a list of other features, presumably with various weightings, that you use to assess them. An equivalent of the way the Dog Breeder's associations assess a Golden Retriever?

I guess you look at a person, and in about one second you conclude their race. Sometimes you find out there is more to the story, it seems you didn't realize that Aborigines are not Africans and look quite different since maybe you've never seen an Aborigine before? I'm well aware there are some vaguenesses,Are Persians White? What about Punjabis? What about Central Asians like Kazakh people? And similarly are Nubians Black? Are Somalians Black or are they Caucasian people with rather dark skin? Depends on how you want to call it based on politics and other things.

I am curious as to how you are going to handle borderline cases, for example where people have brown skin. There is going to be a certain variability amongst them so, since you are going by appearance, are you OK with the notion that two parents from one 'race' might have children of another 'race'?

When this happens we call it "mixed race". We can probably say this of whole peoples like Central Asians who are basically half white and half Oriental. This was also observed of the Scythians in the old days, the western Scythians were blond, while the eastern Scythians were slant eyed. It varied from century to century as the nomadic peoples drifted one way and another. This is related to the mystery of "who were the Huns"?

Actually, I think you're probably getting into the zone of being insulting by undermining peoples' identity. Almost everyone in the world who isn't suffering from globalist post-modern malaise identifies racially.

Seleucus wrote:No, not closely related which is obvious if you have a look at them. Black people have round heads, aborigines have wavy blond hair. Very different looking. The Papuans and the Aborigines are closely related mind you.

What colour are they?

Kurds from what I understood are the pastoral branch of the Indo-Aryan family.

Does that mean white as their haploid group apparently has them as white.

So you, presumably a Briton, believe you have H and E and B hapogroup genes?

I don't give a monkey's.

Well I suppose leftist is a spectrum, there might always be someone more Marxist with even purpler hair.

Who's a Marxist? I'm a historical materialist and a cultural imperialist who supports a meritocratic citizenship approach for my nation.

Minds is trying to provide a space for those getting their accounts closed on YouTube. ...

Well I suppose the proles need something to do.

At least one good things about it is I never have to endure adverting when I watch YouTube anymore since all my favorite rightist channels have been demonetized or else I have to watch them on Minds now.

Minds is monetised just not in the same way.

Seleucus wrote: ↑Fri Oct 20, 2017 5:49 pm
Body hair, feet, eye shape, head shape, hair type, hair color, noses, and so on... Body odor too (Orientals have none). Seems it's also about haplogroup. Also blood proteins I've read differ from race to race. Black people are more immune to Malaria... Whites and Aborigines are prone to color blindness...

No, if is about appearance it's not about haplogroup. First, all the physical things you mention do not correspond to haplogroups. Ypu would not expect them to, because the small mutations that identify haplogroups do not produce the physical characteristics you list.

The people then known as the Numidians are today called Algerians. The name changed. There may have been a wee bit of migration into the area for instance the Goths and the Arabs, but its pretty much the same people today as it was back in Roman times.

And are Numidians, Algerians, Goths, Arabs and Romans supposed to be 'races'? You avoid the question, with retreats into TV series or cod history.

I guess you look at a person, and in about one second you conclude their race...

Right. So assuming you don't claim to be able to see their genes you have dropped the nonsense about haplogroups. Let's hope this time you can remember this.

Sometimes you find out there is more to the story, it seems you didn't realize that Aborigines are not Africans and look quite different since maybe you've never seen an Aborigine before? I'm well aware there are some vaguenesses,Are Persians White? What about Punjabis? What about Central Asians like Kazakh people? And similarly are Nubians Black? Are Somalians Black or are they Caucasian people with rather dark skin? Depends on how you want to call it based on politics and other things.

Make up your mind; you can either identify the race of a person 'in about one second' based on 'look' - or it 'depends on how you want to call it based on politics and other things'.

'Race' is your concept; if you don't know what you mean by it I can't help you.

When this happens we call it "mixed race". We can probably say this of whole peoples like Central Asians who are basically half white and half Oriental. This was also observed of the Scythians in the old days, the western Scythians were blond, while the eastern Scythians were slant eyed. It varied from century to century as the nomadic peoples drifted one way and another. This is related to the mystery of "who were the Huns"?

Except that as I have explained, it is the other way round. All Asians are descended from the same small group, that is why they are almost identical genetically. It is isolation that produces people who look slightly different, but these differences are trivial and can arise and disappear quickly; for example we see features like dark skins arising separately in people that are distant geographically, who are more closely related to light skinned people than they are to each other.

We have now worked through science, culture, and appearance and you have failed to explain what constitutes 'race'. You say you can recognise it in a second, but you cannot say what you recognise. I think that is an accurate description of what 'race' means in practice; it is simply a reification of an individual's prejudices, if there is a definition of 'race' it lives in your subconscious.

In other words, 'race' isn't about them, it's about you.

Whether it 'exists' or not (could someone post the definition of the thing that they are saying doesn't exist? ) is a moot point.
What is the motive here? That if people know that race (whatever the definition is that doesn't exist) doesn't exist then everyone will live in a glorious melting pot where we will all hold hands and sing the Coca Cola song all day? Yeah right. Sounds more like social engineering by the morally superior than actual science.

Is there really any point in arguing the toss with seleucues? People are hypocrites anyway. Humans are all 'racists' to one degree or another, especially when you are dealing with glaring PC hypocrisy and its favourite habit of finding 'racism', in the broadest sense imaginable, in every nook and cranny its followers can fit their pointy PC beaks into.

Race could mean any number of things depending on agenda. But what it defaults to is biology and not anyone's customized opinions as what they would like it to be.