[themuzicman]

If you take a step back, racism is really the confusion of culture with skin color. Although one might be able to make some generalities about a particular culture being primarily of a particular race (i.e. black culture), one cannot extend those generalities to an individual level, and that's where racism becomes an issue.

And we tend to do this because race is a visible marker. We do the same thing with dress. If we see someone in a turban and robe and often we think Muslim (even though this isn't even close to accurate.)

So, it seems to me that the key is to disassociate visible markers from cultural identity and stereotypes.

[iamhuman]

	Originally Posted by Wtfpeople To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	You cant get rid of prejudice, you said it yourself. You can get rid of racism as long as race isnt a part of identity. This thread isnt talking about getting rid of prejudice. All racism is prejudice. All prejudice is not racism. This is why ive been saying its not making any sense since your other post.

So what you're saying is that you can't get rid of prejudice, but you can get rid of racism(which is a form of prejudice) as long as racism is a part of identity, but not if racism is not a part of identity.

And you are saying that I said that you can't get rid of prejudice.

And you are saying that since this thread is not talking about all prejudice, but only one form of it, which is racism, then my posts regarding prejudice don't make any sense.

---------- Post added 11-05-2010 at 09:40 AM ----------

Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

If you take a step back, racism is really the confusion of culture with skin color. Although one might be able to make some generalities about a particular culture being primarily of a particular race (i.e. black culture), one cannot extend those generalities to an individual level, and that's where racism becomes an issue. And we tend to do this because race is a visible marker. We do the same thing with dress. If we see someone in a turban and robe and often we think Muslim (even though this isn't even close to accurate.) So, it seems to me that the key is to disassociate visible markers from cultural identity and stereotypes.

I have often thought that if we didn't have skin color to catagorize and minimalize others, then we would probably start labeling people besed on their hair color.

You know.....brunettes are better than blondes because blondes are genetically dumber. And redheads are over-represented in jails because they can't control their firey tempers.

[Wtfpeople]

Originally Posted by iamhuman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

So what you're saying is that you can't get rid of prejudice, but you can get rid of racism(which is a form of prejudice) as long as racism is a part of identity, but not if racism is not a part of identity. And you are saying that I said that you can't get rid of prejudice. And you are saying that since this thread is not talking about all prejudice, but only one form of it, which is racism, then my posts regarding prejudice don't make any sense. ---------- Post added 11-05-2010 at 09:40 AM ---------- I have often thought that if we didn't have skin color to catagorize and minimalize others, then we would probably start labeling people besed on their hair color. You know.....brunettes are better than blondes because blondes are genetically dumber. And redheads are over-represented in jails because they can't control their firey tempers.

lol.

You're suggesting that people need to learn not to feel superior over another and thus will get rid of racism. You will not ever be able to get rid of discrimination, the same way you'll never be able to stop people from being murdered, for the same reason.

You can tell people group X all you want about moral ideal Y but you have to be a 7th level Retard Prime to think that its going to work 100% of the time.


Want to know an example of my theory on how to end racism?

-I have no idea what race you are.
-I cant be racist against you.

Your idea?

-People shouldnt need to feel better than others because its not right.
-I convict myself with divine reasoning powers to develop a moral system that everyone will agree to.
-Once I spread the word to the whole universe, all racism and discrimination will cease to exist because I told people its not right.

[Claudus]

like seeks like

[iamhuman]

Originally Posted by Wtfpeople To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

lol. You're suggesting that people need to learn not to feel superior over another and thus will get rid of racism. You will not ever be able to get rid of discrimination, the same way you'll never be able to stop people from being murdered, for the same reason. You can tell people group X all you want about moral ideal Y but you have to be a 7th level Retard Prime to think that its going to work 100% of the time. Want to know an example of my theory on how to end racism? -I have no idea what race you are. -I cant be racist against you. Your idea? -People shouldnt need to feel better than others because its not right. -I convict myself with divine reasoning powers to develop a moral system that everyone will agree to. -Once I spread the word to the whole universe, all racism and discrimination will cease to exist because I told people its not right.

I'm suggesting that the cause of prejudice (racism included) is based on the human need to feel good about ourselves, which 'aforementioned need' is attained by placing another group in a one-down position. Not all people fullfill their need to feel good about themselves through this method. So prejudice is not a part of every human's makeup.

I am not suggesting nor have I suggested that eliminating prejudice or racism is a doable thing. So I guess that makes me a less than 7th level retard prime.

Your idea of eliminating racism by not recognizing race at all is about as doable as any of the other suggestions you and I have been conversing about.

My ideas about eliminating racism where said tongue-in-cheek and I really don't believe prejudice can be eliminated, but I do believe that my assessment of the cause of prejudice (racism included) is correct.

I don't 'convict myself' or 'find myself culpable' of or with divine reasoning powers (although they seem to be reasonably sound and understandable to most) and if I did I would probably not punish myself for such conviction.

I'm really not that big of a megalomaniac that I would suppose everyone would follow my moral code. If I did think that way then I might assume people would become blind to race as a solution to racism.

[Wtfpeople]

	Originally Posted by iamhuman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Your idea of eliminating racism by not recognizing race at all is about as doable as any of the other suggestions you and I have been conversing about.

Not at all. There are races which are currently being bred out. If one race can be bred out, so can all of them but one. It's definitely conceivable and doable that given an extended period of time most if not all races would be mixed together. After most of the races are gone, I think people will then really not care at all.

Imagining races being bred out over time seems a lot more realistic than imagining that people will learn to behave themselves as long as they have a choice.

[iamhuman]

Originally Posted by Wtfpeople To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Not at all. There are races which are currently being bred out. If one race can be bred out, so can all of them but one. It's definitely conceivable and doable that given an extended period of time most if not all races would be mixed together. After most of the races are gone, I think people will then really not care at all. Imagining races being bred out over time seems a lot more realistic than imagining that people will learn to behave themselves as long as they have a choice.

Since race is a social construct and can't possibly be 'bred out' because it has nothing to do with genetics, then it stands to reason that society will continue to label people in this particular manner.

If some of the phenotypic traits that are presently used to indentify a 'race' are somehow muted because of interracial relationships, then society will just replace the muted traits with others or become more refined when identifying those particular traits.

[Wtfpeople]

	Originally Posted by iamhuman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Since race is a social construct and can't possibly be 'bred out' because it has nothing to do with genetics, then it stands to reason that society will continue to label people in this particular manner.

Well, you're wrong. Race is not a social construct. Racism is a social construct, which uses race as its main motivator. You remove race, you remove the main motivator for racism.

You can still hate people for whatever else, but it wont be racism (unless its redefined at some other time) because there is no race.

	Originally Posted by iamhuman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	If some of the phenotypic traits that are presently used to indentify a 'race' are somehow muted because of interracial relationships, then society will just replace the muted traits with others or become more refined when identifying those particular traits.

True. But, then the term "racism" would be at least debatable because the main traits for a race would have to be redefined, or if race(ism) as it exists currently would no longer exist.

I dont see how this helps your argument?

Wouldnt this be like saying "I bet you, you cant tell me what the definition of the United States of America is 1,000 years from now, and since you cant, you cant talk about the USA now because it may redefine itself in the future."

If the argument that says "race(ism) could change in the future, therefore its senseless to discuss it now" was really an issue, why post in the thread? If you believe what you just wrote, then doesnt that mean it would be pointless to discuss regardless of whether you believe it possible or not?

Or,

Are you trying to say that because it could change, therefore it cant ever truly be solved?

[woodywoodpecker]

The problem is not the skin color. If we have similar skin color, people also will try to find something else to distinguish. Protection characteristics of ourself is the nature of people, it is a process of natural selection because people who do not distinguish will be eliminated, just only those who tried to protect his own typical can survive and have the survival of the species.

Viewpoint of national and ethnic, which is similar, all countries are trying to keep the cultural identity of its own,have military development, economic development, the arms race to not be annexed , assimilate, invaded ... by other nations.

I can build a new fascism which based on the MBTI. The most intelligent ENTJs and INTJs will be leaders in power.
INTPs and ENTPs will be intellectual slaves, those scientific research to serve the general purpose of the orders. NF is used for persuasion, propaganda and brainwashing people. SJ and SP work under orders and be controlled to prevent the resistance

[iamhuman]

Originally Posted by Wtfpeople To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Well, you're wrong. Race is not a social construct. Racism is a social construct, which uses race as its main motivator. You remove race, you remove the main motivator for racism. You can still hate people for whatever else, but it wont be racism (unless its redefined at some other time) because there is no race. True. But, then the term "racism" would be at least debatable because the main traits for a race would have to be redefined, or if race(ism) as it exists currently would no longer exist. I dont see how this helps your argument? Wouldnt this be like saying "I bet you, you cant tell me what the definition of the United States of America is 1,000 years from now, and since you cant, you cant talk about the USA now because it may redefine itself in the future." If the argument that says "race(ism) could change in the future, therefore its senseless to discuss it now" was really an issue, why post in the thread? If you believe what you just wrote, then doesnt that mean it would be pointless to discuss regardless of whether you believe it possible or not? Or, Are you trying to say that because it could change, therefore it cant ever truly be solved?

Perhaps an analogy is in order here.....

Let's say that several thousand years ago people generally decided and agreed to catagorize all people into 'races' based on their hair color. The term 'race' in this analogy, as in actual life, has now been socially constructed to catagorize a group of people based on their phenotypic feature of hair color. In fact, 'races' do not actually exist, but have now been constructed by people in order to place a person into a group that can be and is identified through the phenotypic feature of hair color. This phenotypic feature does not make these people different from each other biologically, but is simply the phenotipic expression of their genes. And their genes have been proven scientifically to be of the same species. And species is the basic unit of biological classification.

Now, for the sake of simplicity, let's say that people were catagorized by four hair colors black, brown, red, and yellow. And let's say that these groups were labeled blacks, browns, reds, and yellows. And let's say that some groups were able to do better in the material world then other groups so that they were able to dominate the less advantaged groups. And let's say that the more dominant groups bagan to believe that they were 'better' than the subordinate groups and began treating them as if they were less valuable .... in other words they started to become racist or exhibit racism toward the less advantaged 'races'.

Another way of looking at it is to think about 'breeds' of dog. Breeds are a human construct that have no basis in biology.

So as you can see, race and racism are both social constructs with no basis in scientific fact. And if the phenotypic features that are generally agreed upon by most people to indentify their race or breed were to slowly become muted over time, then people would just become more discerning about which features applied to which group/race/breed or they would find some other way of catagorizing and dehumanizing other groups.

[Wtfpeople]

Originally Posted by iamhuman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

So as you can see, race and racism are both social constructs with no basis in scientific fact. And if the phenotypic features that are generally agreed upon by most people to indentify their race or breed were to slowly become muted over time, then people would just become more discerning about which features applied to which group/race/breed or they would find some other way of catagorizing and dehumanizing other groups.

Well, this is exactly why we seem to be disagreeing.

I believe that we can end racism by rending the term "race" ineffective and therefore dissolving racism, the hate which is based on race. I am able to cope with the fact that "the hate which is racism" would still exist, just that racism as we know it will no longer exist.

We're disagreeing about agreeing.

We both agree that it wouldnt change anything.
We do not agree that racism will no longer actually exist.

[zibber]

It's funny that in a discussion about racism, the phrase "we must remove 'race' from our vocabularies" is quite common, but in a discussion about sexism, questioning the notions of sex and gender inevitably leads to a shit storm.

Well. Baby steps, I guess.

[Claudus]

	Originally Posted by iamhuman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Another way of looking at it is to think about 'breeds' of dog. Breeds are a human construct that have no basis in biology.

Err, they have no basis in "natural biology". Breeding is done by humans, and is certainly based in biology.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

"As a biological term, race denotes genetically divergent human populations that can be marked by common phenotypic traits."

	Originally Posted by iamhuman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	So as you can see, race and racism are both social constructs with no basis in scientific fact.

Wrong.

You can argue that race is a crude way to classify humans into groups; but you can still classify humans genetically in many different ways, including racially. Genetics have physical manifestations and however those manifestations are termed, they will still exist, and people will still use them to differentiate (discriminate) themselves from others.

[SagPhilosopher]

	Originally Posted by Blse To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	To end racism you have to end political correcntess. The only time I ever hear race it's from someone advocating political correctness. There might have been a point to it in the 50s and 60s, but it's out-lived its usefulness. All it does now is keep racism alive on life-support.

This holds much truth. Living in Brooklyn, I mix with people from virtually every nation and of every race, every day. For the most part, the blending works. But there is an underlying tension felt constantly from the language barriers. Spanish, russian, hebrew and chinese are all spoken with preference to english. Is it bad to want to speak your milk language? No. Does it make it hard to communicate with people that don't speak the same language? Yes.

I think political correctness was the key factor in the subtle shift away from people learning to speak english in the U.S. and to continue to rely on their first language. As long as we actively seek to be different, we always will. We aggrandize the differences in heritage and race with endless celebrations and parades and then wonder why people don't become less conscious of our differences.

[iamhuman]

Originally Posted by Wtfpeople To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Well, this is exactly why we seem to be disagreeing. I believe that we can end racism by rending the term "race" ineffective and therefore dissolving racism, the hate which is based on race. I am able to cope with the fact that "the hate which is racism" would still exist, just that racism as we know it will no longer exist. We're disagreeing about agreeing. We both agree that it wouldnt change anything. We do not agree that racism will no longer actually exist.

I am reminded of the saying, 'a rose is still a rose by any other name', but O.K.

---------- Post added 11-10-2010 at 11:40 AM ----------

	Originally Posted by zibber To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	It's funny that in a discussion about racism, the phrase "we must remove 'race' from our vocabularies" is quite common, but in a discussion about sexism, questioning the notions of sex and gender inevitably leads to a shit storm. Well. Baby steps, I guess.

That may be because race is a social construct and sex is absolutey based in biology. In other words, we must have a name for each sex because it is a concrete thing that must be identifiable in order to converse about it. The same is not true of race.

---------- Post added 11-10-2010 at 11:50 AM ----------

Originally Posted by Claudus To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Err, they have no basis in "natural biology". Breeding is done by humans, and is certainly based in biology. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. "As a biological term, race denotes genetically divergent human populations that can be marked by common phenotypic traits." Wrong. You can argue that race is a crude way to classify humans into groups; but you can still classify humans genetically in many different ways, including racially. Genetics have physical manifestations and however those manifestations are termed, they will still exist, and people will still use them to differentiate (discriminate) themselves from others.

Hair color is an expression of genetics. It does not indicate a difference in genes, necessarily, but rather a difference in gene expression. The bottom line in biolological differences is species. I could make up anything I wanted to about our phenotypic differences and say that they have a biological route, therefore, we are biologically different. In fact every human being is, therefore biologically different from every other human being and thus there are billions of races.

Race is absolutely a way of classifying humans into groups, but not genetically, since species is the basic unit of biological diversity.

[Claudus]

	Originally Posted by iamhuman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Hair color is an expression of genetics. It does not indicate a difference in genes, necessarily, but rather a difference in gene expression.

A gene cannot express itself if it does not exist. This comment is absurd.

	Originally Posted by iamhuman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The bottom line in biolological differences is species.

Wrong.

	Originally Posted by iamhuman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I could make up anything I wanted to about our phenotypic differences and say that they have a biological route, therefore, we are biologically different.

As you have already demonstrated, you do like to make things up.

	Originally Posted by iamhuman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	In fact every human being is, therefore biologically different from every other human being and thus there are billions of races.

Wrong.

	Originally Posted by iamhuman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Race is absolutely a way of classifying humans into groups, but not genetically, since species is the basic unit of biological diversity.

Wrong.

Your post is idiotic and your arguments are pathetic.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

If you compare my genome with that of a Chinese grad student down the hall from me, you'll find that only tiny fraction of the 2-3 million differences between us tells you much about our ancestry. Among Chinese, there may be a tendency to have a DNA base 'G' at position XYZ in gene ABC on chromosome 12, while among Europeans (where my ancestors came from), there is a tendency to have an 'A' at that same position. What we find though, in almost all cases, is that these tendencies are not absolute: 90% of Chinese may have base 'G', while the other 10% have base 'A'. And maybe 70% of Europeans have base 'A' at position XYZ, while 30% have base 'G'. So in other words, the fact that my Chinese friend has base 'G' at position XYZ in gene ABC does not tell you with certainty that he's Chinese. In fact both my Chinese friend and I may have the base 'G' at that same position, even though it is less likely in my case. If you look at any one gene, you don't get enough information to make an accurate call. In order to really see differences among human populations, you have to look at many genes (or any place in the genome where humans vary - it doesn't have to be a gene). In the Chinese population, base 'G' may be common at position XYZ on chromosome 12, base 'T' may be more common at position TUV on chromosome 6, etc., etc. So once you look at dozens or hundreds of informative positions, you can say with high confidence, 'this person is Chinese, and that one is European.' (And of course we could all be American or Canadian or British by birth - we're obviously talking about ancestral populations here.) By examining enough genes, we can reliably use just DNA to correctly assign people to ancestral geographical populations. Researchers can do it blindly - they can look at DNA sequence for 1,000 people whose identities are hidden, and use DNA information to assign those people to geographical populations. Once the assignments are made, the researchers take a peek at the true identities of their sample group, and it turns out that their assignments are extremely accurate.

[titi monkey]


Yes, but there's a difference between ancestry and race, as explained here:

The visual differences we are attuned to don't tell us anything about what's beneath the skin. This is because human variation is highly non-concordant. Most traits are influenced by different genes, so they're inherited independently, not grouped into the few packages we call races. In other words, the presence of one trait doesn't guarantee the presence of another. Can you tell a person's eye color from their height? What about their blood type from the size of their head? What about subtler things like a person's ability to play sports or their mathematical skills? It doesn't make sense to talk about group racial characteristics, whether external or internal. Genetic differences do exist between people, but it is more accurate to speak of ancestry, rather than race, as the root of inherited diseases or conditions. Not everyone who looks alike or lives in the same region shares a common ancestry, so using "race" as a shorthand for ancestry can be misleading. Sickle cell, for example, often thought of as a "racial" disease afflicting Africans, is actually a gene that confers resistance to malaria, so it occurs in areas such as central and western Africa, the Mediterranean, and Arabia, but not in southern Africa. In medicine, a simplistic view can lead to misdiagnoses, with fatal consequences. Racial "profiling" isn't appropriate on the New Jersey Turnpike or in the doctor's office. As evolutionary biologist Joseph Graves reminds us, medicine should treat individuals, not groups. On the other hand, the social reality of race can have biological effects. Native Americans have the highest rates of diabetes and African American men die of heart disease five times more often than white men. But is this a product of biology or social conditions? How do you measure this relationship or even determine who is Native American or African American on a genetic level? Access to medical care, health insurance, and safe living conditions can certainly affect medical outcomes. So can the stress of racism. But the reasons aren't innate or genetic. Believing in race as biology allows us to overlook the social factors that contribute to inequality. Understanding that race is socially constructed is the first step in addressing those factors and giving everyone a fair chance in life.

Excerpt from the PBS series RACE -THE POWER OF AN ILLUSION produced by California Newsreel, in association with the Independent Television Service (ITVS).

[iamhuman]

	Originally Posted by Claudus To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	A gene cannot express itself if it does not exist. This comment is absurd. Wrong. As you have already demonstrated, you do like to make things up. Wrong. Wrong. Your post is idiotic and your arguments are pathetic. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Gene expression is absurd? Phenotype is gene expression. Did you not know this?

I'm glad we're using logical analysis and not personal comments to get our points across. It's refreshing to talk with other INTJ's because they don't feel the need to resort to these tactics when they realize that they are losing an arguement.

---------- Post added 11-11-2010 at 07:24 AM ----------

	Originally Posted by titi monkey To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Yes, but there's a difference between ancestry and race, as explained here: Excerpt from the PBS series RACE -THE POWER OF AN ILLUSION produced by California Newsreel, in association with the Independent Television Service (ITVS).

Thank you for this.

Hopefully, there will be some here that will be able to understand that this means race is a social construct and not a biological one.

[jerkface]

racism will fade away after a long time of all the races having similar lives. right now, at least where im at, white people and black people in particular have different life experiences from the beginning (due to the fact that 'the system' is still ruled by whites). its is hard for people to really feel comfortable with someone else unless they can understand their point of view- and, sadly, it is really difficult for people to understand anything they havent actually experienced. im going to tell you something common in my life- it may or may not piss some of you off. im a waiter and am surrounded by other wait-staff, half of which are black (the other 48% are white, and about 2% are hispanic/asian). However, id say after about 6 months of waiting tables, nearly every waiter/waitress becomes racist. White, black, doesnt matter. This is because everyone is convinced that, in general, black people and native americans do not tip well. whereas i have been tipped poorly by these races myself, i can not accept that 'bad tipping' (and/or whatever else is implied by it) is part of being black or native american, no matter HOW many times it happens. i know a lot of people would see this as stubborn irrationality, but i dont- and this is why: the people that are poorly representing their race should not be allowed to represent their race. what these 'bad tippers' are acting on is not cultural, its just poor character. even if this poor character seems to be in higher percentage, it makes no difference, because it is still due only to that individual's poor character. i wouldnt want all white people represented by the Westboro Baptist Church gang, for example. or by billy bob bocephus cooking meth in his bath tub. i am convinced that ONE DAY racism really will be so rare that it might as well no longer exist. to help this future come into being faster, i have decided to live, in my mind, in that future world, and act accordingly.

[iamhuman]

Originally Posted by jerkface To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

racism will fade away after a long time of all the races having similar lives. right now, at least where im at, white people and black people in particular have different life experiences from the beginning (due to the fact that 'the system' is still ruled by whites). its is hard for people to really feel comfortable with someone else unless they can understand their point of view- and, sadly, it is really difficult for people to understand anything they havent actually experienced. im going to tell you something common in my life- it may or may not piss some of you off. im a waiter and am surrounded by other wait-staff, half of which are black (the other 48% are white, and about 2% are hispanic/asian). However, id say after about 6 months of waiting tables, nearly every waiter/waitress becomes racist. White, black, doesnt matter. This is because everyone is convinced that, in general, black people and native americans do not tip well. whereas i have been tipped poorly by these races myself, i can not accept that 'bad tipping' (and/or whatever else is implied by it) is part of being black or native american, no matter HOW many times it happens. i know a lot of people would see this as stubborn irrationality, but i dont- and this is why: the people that are poorly representing their race should not be allowed to represent their race. what these 'bad tippers' are acting on is not cultural, its just poor character. even if this poor character seems to be in higher percentage, it makes no difference, because it is still due only to that individual's poor character. i wouldnt want all white people represented by the Westboro Baptist Church gang, for example. or by billy bob bocephus cooking meth in his bath tub. i am convinced that ONE DAY racism really will be so rare that it might as well no longer exist. to help this future come into being faster, i have decided to live, in my mind, in that future world, and act accordingly.

Just putting this out there.....

Could poor-tippers be overrepresented by minority groups because these groups have less money and are, therefore, less able to tip well?

[jerkface]

	Originally Posted by iamhuman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Just putting this out there..... Could poor-tippers be overrepresented by minority groups because these groups have less money and are, therefore, less able to tip well?

possibly. but if an excuse is made (no matter how valid) for people who are doing it, it only helps to support the racist idea. this is because then people feel even more validated by saying that black people/native americans dont tip well. in fact, it adds another generalized idea 'black people/native americans are poor'. even if there is a valid reason for this poverty, i.e. racism. some human beings will still look down on the oppressed race, the same way they do to many victimized people. a lot of the time, they blame the victim. say, in a rape case, what is the first thing the defense tries to do? sully the victim's image. was she drinking? how was she dressed? it isnt fair, not by a long shot, but thats what people do. also, it doesnt give enough credit to the people of the race who are refusing to be pigeon-holed. there are plenty of people from these races that tip wonderfully. in fact, the best tip i ever got ($160) was from two young black women with their babies. young black women with babies are pretty much the number one group that the wait staff expects low tips from. this is why i refuse to consider any other factor in anyone's poor behavior than their own poor character. (not to say anyone should be tipping $160 for a couple of lunches at Red Lobster. Thats crazy. i actually followed them out into the parking lot, thinking theyd accidently given me an extra hundred (thought the bills may have stuck together) they just smiled calmly and said 'no'. i tell you, i had no idea what to say. i looked like a perfect idiot.)

[Claudus]

Originally Posted by iamhuman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Originally Posted by claudus   Originally Posted by iamhuman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. Hair color is an expression of genetics. It does not indicate a difference in genes, necessarily, but rather a difference in gene expression. A gene cannot express itself if it does not exist. This comment is absurd. Gene expression is absurd? Phenotype is gene expression. Did you not know this?

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

"A modern working definition of a gene is "a locatable region of genomic sequence, corresponding to a unit of inheritance, which is associated with regulatory regions, transcribed regions, and or other functional sequence regions ".[1][2] Colloquial usage of the term gene (e.g. "good genes, "hair color gene") may actually refer to an allele: a gene is the basic instruction, a sequence of nucleic acid (DNA or, in the case of certain viruses RNA), while an allele is one variant of that gene. Thus, when the mainstream press refers to "having" a "gene" for a specific trait, this may be incorrect. In many cases, all people would have the gene in question, but certain people will have a specific allele of that gene, which results in the trait. In the simplest case, the changes observed may be caused by a single letter of the genetic code - a single nucleotide polymorphism."


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

"Another mutation in the OCA2 is found common to nearly all people with blue eyes, and has been hypothesized that all blue eyed humans share a single common ancestor with whom the mutation originated."

Please explain to me how an individual would go about having a blue-eyed "gene expression" when their ancestors don't carry the genetic mutation for it?

	Originally Posted by iamhuman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I'm glad we're using logical analysis and not personal comments to get our points across. It's refreshing to talk with other INTJ's because they don't feel the need to resort to these tactics when they realize that they are losing an arguement.

1) I have not made any personal comment, I claimed your post was idiotic and your arguments pathetic.

2) I am using logical analysis, I'm supporting my argument with references.

3) You offer no support for your points beyond your personal statements.

4) You do not address the points in my arguments, instead you restate your initial flawed position and then devote most of your effort into claiming victory and insinuating that I am wrong, and have not rational posed my arguments.

You offer little beyond your demagoguery, and it should be clear to anyone (INTJ or not) reading this thread.

[iamhuman]

Originally Posted by Claudus To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. "A modern working definition of a gene is "a locatable region of genomic sequence, corresponding to a unit of inheritance, which is associated with regulatory regions, transcribed regions, and or other functional sequence regions ".[1][2] Colloquial usage of the term gene (e.g. "good genes, "hair color gene") may actually refer to an allele: a gene is the basic instruction, a sequence of nucleic acid (DNA or, in the case of certain viruses RNA), while an allele is one variant of that gene. Thus, when the mainstream press refers to "having" a "gene" for a specific trait, this may be incorrect. In many cases, all people would have the gene in question, but certain people will have a specific allele of that gene, which results in the trait. In the simplest case, the changes observed may be caused by a single letter of the genetic code - a single nucleotide polymorphism." To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. "Another mutation in the OCA2 is found common to nearly all people with blue eyes, and has been hypothesized that all blue eyed humans share a single common ancestor with whom the mutation originated." Please explain to me how an individual would go about having a blue-eyed "gene expression" when their ancestors don't carry the genetic mutation for it? 1) I have not made any personal comment, I claimed your post was idiotic and your arguments pathetic. 2) I am using logical analysis, I'm supporting my argument with references. 3) You offer no support for your points beyond your personal statements. 4) You do not address the points in my arguments, instead you restate your initial flawed position and then devote most of your effort into claiming victory and insinuating that I am wrong, and have not rational posed my arguments. You offer little beyond your demagoguery, and it should be clear to anyone (INTJ or not) reading this thread.

I really don't think it's my job to explain gentics to you and if you don't know how a blue-eyed person aquires their genes, then the onus is on you to learn how this is done. You would be best advised to know your subject before arging it.

Claiming that someone's statements are idiotic and pathetic is not using logical analysis and is using personal attacks as an attempt to invalidate another's argument(s).

Just because you find some information online that has something to do with gentics does not mean that you are supporting your arguments.

Do you really consider my statements to be impassioned appeals to the prejudices and emotions of the populace?

The previous statements address most of your comments.

---------- Post added 11-12-2010 at 08:38 AM ----------

Originally Posted by jerkface To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

possibly. but if an excuse is made (no matter how valid) for people who are doing it, it only helps to support the racist idea. this is because then people feel even more validated by saying that black people/native americans dont tip well. in fact, it adds another generalized idea 'black people/native americans are poor'. even if there is a valid reason for this poverty, i.e. racism. some human beings will still look down on the oppressed race, the same way they do to many victimized people. a lot of the time, they blame the victim. say, in a rape case, what is the first thing the defense tries to do? sully the victim's image. was she drinking? how was she dressed? it isnt fair, not by a long shot, but thats what people do. also, it doesnt give enough credit to the people of the race who are refusing to be pigeon-holed. there are plenty of people from these races that tip wonderfully. in fact, the best tip i ever got ($160) was from two young black women with their babies. young black women with babies are pretty much the number one group that the wait staff expects low tips from. this is why i refuse to consider any other factor in anyone's poor behavior than their own poor character. (not to say anyone should be tipping $160 for a couple of lunches at Red Lobster. Thats crazy. i actually followed them out into the parking lot, thinking theyd accidently given me an extra hundred (thought the bills may have stuck together) they just smiled calmly and said 'no'. i tell you, i had no idea what to say. i looked like a perfect idiot.)

What you are saying (and practicing) is that prejudging a person based on the 'race' that they have been socially placed into is not a good idea because it is not exercising sound, logical, and fair judgement.

You are very bright indeed.

[Ibian]

I'm just posting so i can grab a link elsewhere, so i'll admit up front that i have not read the whole thread. I'll add a few thoughts anyway that often get overlooked. I'm danish, to give a little perspective to the following.

Race is about more than skin color. There are both physical and mental differences between races, thanks to evolution and the climate different groups of people lived in.

For example, consider africans and scandinavians. An african could build a hut under a mango tree near a river and have everything he needed for the rest of his life. Add in some hunting so he can get some meat and that's about it.

Scandinavians need the same basic things, food and water and shelter, but we have additional demands. While africans have food readily available year round, more or less, scandinavians, with the harsh winters, had to plan ahead. We had to gather more food than we have an immediate use for, treat it so it can last for months without spoiling, and then be very careful not to eat too much every day so it can last through the winter until spring and summer come around again. We also needed to build better shelter, gather firewood while we could and, like with the food, ration it over the span of many months.

This has, by way of evolution, turned africans into people who "live in the moment". Since they never had any great need to plan ahead, they never developed abstract thinking to the same degree as people in colder climates. Scandinavians on the other hand developed it to a comparatively high degree by pure necessity.

On the other hand, the different methods of hunting, and the simple fact that we were forced to stay holed up indoors for a large part of the year, means that africans are better at certain physical activities than we are.

With modern conveniences negating many of the above mentioned demands in colder regions, a lot of people (who, presumably, on some level, think it was always like this) are perceiving a massive unfairness in the world. But racism exists because there is a real world foundation for it, it's not just something arbitrarily decided. With violence becoming taboo in the west, the focus is on the mind. And the white mans brain is simply better at the lifestyle we now lead than the black mans. Which i realize will make me very unpopular with some people, but oh well.

As to how to end racism... immigration is the responsibility of the immigrant, and it begins with language. If immigrants (all of them, regardless of origin and destination) would make an effort to take on the language, norms and mannerisms of the country they move to, then racism would mostly disappear.

[Zombicide]

	This has, by way of evolution, turned africans into people who "live in the moment". Since they never had any great need to plan ahead, they never developed abstract thinking to the same degree as people in colder climates. Scandinavians on the other hand developed it to a comparatively high degree by pure necessity.

Not to say that you're wrong about a frequency of this or that here or there due to what you're thinking but ... proof would be nice. I mean, I see Africans do annual festivals and whatever whenever I watch natgeo so I'm a little confused by what you could be referring to.

---------- Post added 11-12-2010 at 02:09 PM ----------

	Originally Posted by thotpoizn To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Really? You actually believe that there is NOTHING consistent with race? Do you find yourself looking in amazement at a black family, baffled at the amazing coincidence that a child has the same dark pigmentation of his parents?

I guess I might be in some mild amazement considering practically every black I've seen has an at least slightly different colouration than their parents. The variance being how we got different pigments distributed throughout the world's population to begin with.

	Do you find yourself confused by the high frequency of pale blondes in places like Sweden?

They're all blonde? No, not by the frequency I don't, I don't see why I'd be confused by a matter of frequency considering that's my point i.e. that's it's a matter of frequency. It can only be or else evolution isn't true and didn't bring about the frequencies / ethnic groups to be discussed.