Anyway, to answer your question.

I think it's because we now have true equality of opportunity. And under these circumstances, you get to see what people's TRUE differences in ability really are. And progressives do not like what they see.

Now that biological inequality is being rubbed in progressive's faces, they are reacted badly. They are reacting by upping their group bias in favor of underachievers to insane levels. This manifests as advocating more and more redistribution and forced desegregation. Including redistributing school grades, advocating new welfare programs, reparations and programs promote favored groups up the hierarchies of institutions, etc.

I've never seen the scientific evidence for this, I hear it often but I'm sure it's a myth. — Hallucinogen

All that you'd need to do is look at people.

Risk? As in, if racists make it racist?

All that you'd need to do is look at people. — Terrapin Station

So look like each other = have similar genes?

So look like each other = have similar genes? — Hallucinogen

The appearance factors in question are matters of genetic expression.

I've never seen the scientific evidence for this, I hear it often but I'm sure it's a myth. — Hallucinogen

It's here.

a group of people defined by how related they are to each other compared to other groups. And haplogroups exist, which means race exists. People within that haplogroup will have more in common with each other genetically than they do with anybody from a different haplogroup. — Hallucinogen

In some respects, yes, but those characteristics will very unlikely be visually identifiable and most will be derivable from several unique alleles making distinction vague at best.

In many public and most professional situations if one is a racial minority - member of an out-group or caste - one doesn't have the luxury of "racial color-blindness" because a racial minority's daily prospects, even life, more often than not depend on vigilance - one quickly, correctly, seeing how 'race & color' are seen (i.e. signified) by some members of the racial majority e.g. white cops (US) - and thereby conducting oneself accordingly. — 180 Proof

So minorities assume that the majority is thinking in terms of race, rather than how the OP is explaining that everyone should look at race. It racist to assume that a particular person thinks a certain way, or views others a certain way, simply based on the color of their skin.

How does someone come to assume what others think, or how they behave, because of the color of their skin? Most likely how someone was raised. If your folks were raised in a different time, then they're going to raise you as if there times are still relevant today. They aren't. We have, and are still trying to move past racism and the only way to do that is to stop dividing people and making assumptions about them based on the color of their skin.

How does someone come to assume what others think, or how they behave, because of the color of their skin? Most likely how someone was raised. If your folks were raised in a different time, then they're going to raise you as if there times are still relevant today. They aren't. We have, and are still trying to move past racism and the only way to do that is to stop dividing people and making assumptions about them based on the color of their skin. — Harry Hindu

That's not going to happen. Given [insert local history here] it simply is the case that people of ethnicity X are liable to be in danger from people of ethnicity Y in the places where people of ethnicity Y rule the roost and there is a history of conflict. This applies to honkeys in the South African townships, and blacks almost anywhere in the US or Europe. Only if you are of ethnicity Y that rules the roost can you afford to ignore the obvious facts of life on some theoretical principle.

One comes to assume these things because they are true, not because genes or skin colour make it true, but because social forces make it true. Just as Germans tend to speak German despite there being no gene for speaking German and no distinct race of Germans. It is a wonder to me that seemingly educated folks hereabouts cannot get their heads around this.

Just as Germans tend to speak German despite there being no gene for speaking German and no distinct race of Germans. It is a wonder to me that seemingly educated folks hereabouts cannot get their heads around this. — unenlightened

Well, but that mostly holds true not for "Germans" but "people living in Germany."

There are plenty of Germans (i.e., people of German descent) living in America who couldn't tell Spätzle from Knödel if their life depended on it.

That's not going to happen. Given [insert local history here] it simply is the case that people of ethnicity X are liable to be in danger from people of ethnicity Y in the places where people of ethnicity Y rule the roost and there is a history of conflict. This applies to honkeys in the South African townships, and blacks almost anywhere in the US or Europe. Only if you are of ethnicity Y that rules the roost can you afford to ignore the obvious facts of life on some theoretical principle.

One comes to assume these things because they are true, not because genes or skin colour make it true, but because social forces make it true. Just as Germans tend to speak German despite there being no gene for speaking German and no distinct race of Germans. It is a wonder to me that seemingly educated folks hereabouts cannot get their heads around this. — unenlightened

It is a complex problem because self-labelling also becomes a factor... i.e. it's not merely true because [generic] "social forces" make it true, but also because the minorities themselves begin to self-identify with those labels and self-identify as victims.

I think it then becomes a valid question to ask whether we should continue to use those labels even though there is some historical social reality to it that still affects those minorities.

I agree with the description, but not necessarily with the prescription....I don't think anybody really 'knows' how to solve this problem.

There are plenty of Germans (i.e., people of German descent) — Artemis

Well there you have it. One begins with a nationality, and it becomes a race. Such is identity. But what, then does one make of 'American'? Some Americans are Germans that don't speak German? Some Americans are Africans? Are there some American Americans? If there are, they sure ain't white or black.

Some Americans speak English - some Americans are English. It would be nice to be able to say this is all nonsense, and it is all nonsense in the same way that the holocaust was nonsense - lethal nonsense. And that is my point against the op and his ilk. You can make the denial of race, but are you putting your life on the line? Because if you aren't then you are abusing your (white) privilege. Because if those others start treating you just like any other nigga, you gonna freak out big time.

Because if those others start treating you just like any other nigga, you gonna freak out big time. — unenlightened

Are you stereotyping all black people as ghetto gang-bangers now? Ha! I know a few Nigerians who will get a kick out of that. Excuse me while I take a screen shot of this. :lol:

Some Americans speak English — unenlightened

Well... They try.

Well, am I really white? If we put that logic to it’s utmost extreme, then why not break it down even more? Should I identify my race as Tanned Peach? Or maybe because they are brown I should say I am mixed race because of my freckles? Oh and burn victims can henceforth be known as “The blotch people”. I can see the future headlines now “TENSIONS INCREASE AS WAR BETWEEN THE EBONIES AND THE MOCHA LATTES LOOKS INEVITABLE”.

Honestly, this is how I see the logic of people that focus on race so much. It is a social construct and I can promise you that the millennia of slavery and empires that have spanned the globe pretty much guarantees that most people these days have some degree of being mixed race. We are all pretty much mixed. OP is right. This is backpedaling.

Clearly, you're responding to what you've read into what I wrote and not to what I wrote.

Because if those others start treating you just like any other nigga, you gonna freak out big time.
— unenlightened

Are you stereotyping all black people as ghetto gang-bangers now? H — Artemis

I am freaking out Big Time.

There's a NY Times piece on how Italian Americans became white. It's pretty good.

There's a NY Times piece on how Italian Americans became white. It's pretty good. — frank

In other words, how descendents of poor Euro-immigrants became American In-Groupies, thereby privileged enough to (eventually try to) blind themselves to still prevalent racial color-discrimination with kumbaya "racial color-blindness".

Yes.

Well there you have it. One begins with a nationality, and it becomes a race. Such is identity. But what, then does one make of 'American'? Some Americans are Germans that don't speak German? Some Americans are Africans? Are there some American Americans? If there are, they sure ain't white or black.

Some Americans speak English - some Americans are English. It would be nice to be able to say this is all nonsense, and it is all nonsense in the same way that the holocaust was nonsense - lethal nonsense. And that is my point against the op and his ilk. You can make the denial of race, but are you putting your life on the line? Because if you aren't then you are abusing your (white) privilege. Because if those others start treating you just like any other nigga, you gonna freak out big time.

The problem, as I see it, is that you’re treating individuals in accordance with their group membership, their “identity”, and not their individuality. For Instance color blindness is not just practiced by white people, despite the claims of identity politicians.

The belief that the species can be divided into races, and the promulgation of that theory, is racism. It immediately sets the foundation for all hierarchical thinking regarding races. The mental segregation of disparate, unconnected individuals into categories of “race” ultimately leads to real segregation.

“You can make the denial of race, but are you putting your life on the line? Because if you aren't then you are abusing your (white) privilege. Because if those others start treating you just like any other N, you gonna freak out big time.”

I think it’s self evident that even discussing this is putting something on the line for equality. I’ll continue to evaluate people on the content of their character but I can refrain from judging most based on that even then as I am familiar enough with psychology and trauma to have an understanding of the why in most people’s behaviour.

Men and women of all colour are Muslim, and many of all religions and “races” believe in equality and the human will and spirit. You don’t have to be any one thing in order to be a good person. All you have to do is help contribute to a stable future for life. If we maintain the arguments of race then the future is less stable. Now, that is not to say that being “colour blind” means you ignore racism, on the contrary you fight it with arguments like these. No one here is ignoring racism right now. The root of racism though, is the social construct of race.

These are the sorts of conversations that really need to be had with real racists though. It is quite foolish to watch the children in the playground argue over the best colour.

It's here. — Isaac

Thanks. Although I would point out 2 things: that it reiterates that we can cluster people into meaningful groups, and that characterising 377 microsatellites will give an underestimate of how different individuals/groups are from each other. This because it's not just the sequence of small areas that matters, but the areas around them and the distances between them as well. It's like measuring how often a word is used in two different books to say how similar they are. It's not just the words that matter but the sentences they are in. You'd have to do full genomic sequencing to truly see how different people are.

There's a NY Times piece on how Italian Americans became white. It's pretty good. — frank

Could you let me know what it's called? What means does it use to prove that?
I've seen that Europeans never truly assimilated into America: that is that different European ethnicities have the same level of relative income, crime rate and alcoholism as they did when they arrived. e.g. Protestants from England and Germany at the top (highest income, lowest crime, lowest alcoholism) and Irish and Italians at the bottom.

I'm still waiting for an answer to my earlier question for the people who consider themselves “against colorblindness”: is treating everyone the same regardless of their race “colorblindness” in your book?

I don't agree (at all) with OP that diversity training is some kind of malevolent cancer of society or anything like that, but I do generally think that policies ought to treat people without regard for race, and that that doesn't mean denying the history of racial injustice. And I'm wondering if that counts as "colorblindness" in the eyes of those who oppose that.

(I do think that policies ought to treat people differently according to their needs, and that that will automatically treat people of historically disadvantaged races better, exactly in proportion to the present legacy of that disadvantage, without ever having to explicitly discriminate on the grounds of race).

I think it's because we now have true equality of opportunity. — Hallucinogen

How do you/we know this? Cite some data or sources. Thanks.

we now have true equality of opportunity. And under these circumstances, you get to see what people's TRUE differences in ability really are — Hallucinogen

Given that outcome is the product of ability and opportunity, if you assume there is equality of opportunity, then differences in outcome are indicative of differences in ability. But it's equally possible that differences in outcome indicate differences in opportunity.

We have independent means of measuring human ability, which generally show results that are normally distributed (i.e. on a Gaussian curve). If opportunity was distributed uniformly (equally), we would expect a normal (Gaussian) distribution of outcomes as well. But instead, outcomes are far from normally distributed. That indicates that opportunity is not, in fact, uniformly distributed.

I think it's because we now have true equality of opportunity. — Hallucinogen

I can point you to a history book - THE COLOR OF LAW (2017) - that will show that we do not have, and have not had equality of opportunity. We need not go back as far as the 18th and 19th centuries and slavery. Let's go back to the 1930s.

IN the middle of the Great Depression, Roosevelt recognized that the availability and quality of housing in the US was poor. Of course, there were fine houses being built, but across the board, housing stock was deteriorating and was in short supply. In 1934 Congress created the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) which was charged with the task of promoting housing construction. One element of the law was that the FHA housing program was NOT TO RESULT IN INTEGRATED HOUSING. Blacks and whites would both be served, but not in the same places.

For white people there was an ambitious program of suburban community creation with tracts of new single-family housing located next to existing cities. For blacks, there was to be a large program of rental housing creation inside existing cities. Before these plans could be rolled out, WWII intervened. After WWII, the FHA program took off.

The quality of the housing was at least GOOD. The urban rental housing was sturdily built, and where they were maintained, FHA buildings remain in use and are in good shape. The suburban housing tracts were semi-manufactured, and were built very rapidly. Still, the quality was at least good. The houses were fairly small, and were situated on (usually) spacious lots. No city or suburban developer ever had difficulty finding urban renters or eager buyers. The housing was affordable but not "cheap".

Over time, the affordable suburban housing was improved by the owners. Rooms were added, landscaping was carried out, and services were upgraded. The value of the homes has, on average, continually appreciated. Some modest houses built in the 1950s now sell for $300,000 to $400,000.

The rental housing built in cities provided good housing, but renters do not accumulate equity. After 10 years of renting, a family is not better off in terms of equity than they were the day the moved in. Suburban families, however, stood to gain equity which they could either cash out, pass on to children, or keep by remaining in place. When they did cash out their property, they might enjoy a very large windfall that could be used for education, purchasing another house, or some other life enhancement.

Many cities had a weak commitment to maintaining the rental housing stock. If it was allowed to deteriorate, a downward spiral could--and often did--begin, which ended up with the rental housing turning into high-rise slums. Chicago had huge rental housing tracts built which were initially good, but ended up being altogether unlivable--owing to urban housing authority corruption and neglect.

The upshot of the FHA program is this:

After 40 years of official segregation, and 70 years of de facto segregation, suburban whites were much better off financially than they were immediately after WWII, and urban blacks were as bad off, or worse off, than they were in 1946.

Since education is organized along community boundaries, suburban communities have generally funded much better education than poorer cities. That's another way that opportunity is not equally distributed. Poor and poorly educated populations tend to have worse health outcomes than more affluent people. That's a third inequity of opportunity.

Ain't facts a mofo, Hal? :eyes:

I think it's because we now have true equality of opportunity.
— Hallucinogen

I can point you to a history book - THE COLOR OF LAW - that will show that we do not have, and have not had equality of opportunity. We need not go back as far as the 18th and 19th centuries and slavery. Let's go back to the 1930s.

IN the middle of the Great Depression, Roosevelt recognized that the availability and quality of housing in the US was poor. Of course, there were fine houses being built, but across the board, housing stock was deteriorating and was in short supply. In 1934 Congress created the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) which was charged with the task of promoting housing construction. One element of the law was that the FHA housing program was NOT TO RESULT IN INTEGRATED HOUSING. Blacks and whites would both be served, but not in the same places.

For white people there was an ambitious program of suburban community creation with tracts of new single-family housing located next to existing cities. For blacks, there was to be a large program of rental housing creation inside existing cities. Before these plans could be rolled out, WWII intervened. After WWII, the FHA program took off.

The quality of the housing was at least GOOD. The urban rental housing was sturdily built, and where they were maintained, FHA buildings remain in use and are in good shape. The suburban housing tracts were semi-manufactured, and were built very rapidly. Still, the quality was at least good. The houses were fairly small, and were situated on (usually) spacious lots. No city or suburban developer ever had difficulty finding urban renters or eager buyers. The housing was affordable but not "cheap".

Over time, the affordable suburban housing was improved by the owners. Rooms were added, landscaping was carried out, and services were upgraded. The value of the homes has, on average, continually appreciated. Some modest houses built in the 1950s now sell for $300,000 to $400,000.

The rental housing built in cities provided good housing, but renters do not accumulate equity. After 10 years of renting, a family is not better off in terms of equity than they were the day the moved in. Suburban families, however, stood to gain equity which they could either cash out, pass on to children, or keep by remaining in place. When they did cash out their property, they might enjoy a very large windfall that could be used for education, purchasing another house, or some other life enhancement.

Many cities had a weak commitment to maintaining the rental housing stock. If it was allowed to deteriorate, a downward spiral could--and often did--begin, which ended up with the rental housing turning into high-rise slums. Chicago had huge rental housing tracts built which were initially good, but ended up being altogether unlivable--owing to urban housing authority corruption and neglect.

The upshot of the FHA program is this:

After 40 years of official segregation, and 70 years of de facto segregation, suburban whites were much better off financially than they were immediately after WWII, and urban blacks were as bad off, or worse off, than they were in 1946.

Since education is organized along community boundaries, suburban communities have generally funded much better education than poorer cities. That's another way that opportunity is not equally distributed. Poor and poorly educated populations tend to have worse health outcomes than more affluent people. That's a third inequity of opportunity. — Bitter Crank

Like a MEGA boss! :strong: :clap: :party:

Also, thanks, BC, for the relevant literature. :cool:

I'm not sure why I was tagged in this response? I'm not arguing against any of that. Sounds like that's all meant to address Hallucinogen, whom I was also arguing against.

I was just including you in the loop. one doesn't always know who is reading which posts.

it reiterates that we can cluster people into meaningful groups, — Hallucinogen

Yes, but based on ancestry which it specifically then goes on to demonstrate does not reveal itself in any identifiable collection of physical characteristics. People's ancestry can be vitally important to identifying their genetic make-up, but it is not reliably identifiable by natural breaks in the scale of physical characteristics.

characterising 377 microsatellites will give an underestimate of how different individuals/groups are from each other. This because it's not just the sequence of small areas that matters, but the areas around them and the distances between them as well — Hallucinogen

Those factors were measured, that's how they determined their ancestry groupings, but the number of loci required to generate a distinct cluster was regularly in the hundreds and most groups shared a large number of loci. So whilst this is important for epidemiology, it has almost no bearing at all on traditional concepts of 'race'.