• Dasus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 hours ago

        Well, in the sense that ofc “social sciences” would include history for one, and historically, it was recognised as a notion. And in the sense that that notion is a social construct, is something that modern social sciences would study, obviously.

        I think you know — but now I’m saying in case you didn’t — that I meant that the notion that there is a biological race of any sort isn’t a notion modern science would agree with.

    • soapyplasm@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      4 hours ago

      True dat. If it were, we’d likely have latin names for different races like “Homo sapiens sapiens caucasus” or some stupid shit, lmao. Nope, humans just have different colors and features naturally, and that’s pretty neat.

      • borgertwo@ani.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        4 hours ago

        I’d probaby classify it more as human variants or sub-varients. Intially and historical origins of ancestors, blacks would’ve lived closer toward the equater of the earth where temperatures were warmer and more tropical and white folk lived in a bit cooler less tropical climates in the north. Our climates started off very different and we adapt to changing enviroments. I notice that american blacks are very different from african blacks. I think many american blacks are mixed or may have some italian in their genes. It’s interesting the many variants in people that barely have any classification if any. It can get quite complex and confusing, so many people just lump them in with others. This holds true for people of kinds too. Trying to fit in another form of classification can also be tricky, but not just because complex variants, but also people might get too easily offended. Had some neat ideas of classification, but some people might not see in the same light and might think it meant to offend.

        • jwmgregory@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          3 hours ago

          “sub-variants” “blacks” “equater 🤠” “american blacks vs african blacks” just the entire lines between “it’s interesting…” and “…for people of kinds too.”

          (((kkkomplex))) variant

          had some neat ideas of classification

          people might not see in the same light

          think it meant to offend

          gee, buddy, i wonder why.

          look i won’t even begin to sit here and try to break down the problems with your rhetoric & diction for you, but whatever tf it is in your head that regards race; it got sum mad fucked up with it. like wtf does half of this racist drivel mean?? subvariants?? excuse me is it 1902??? i’d wager a bet your “neat ideas” for human classification are some of the most bigoted and awful things to come out of someone’s mouth, and you’d say them with complete unremorse and not a single wince of irony.

          • borgertwo@ani.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 hours ago

            I come in more hoping for a disccusion, not a battle. Might i ask you to refrain from being rash or hostile. No reason this needs to get uncivil. Same for dasus. Having a mind set to win arguements is unneccessary here. Please talk to me, not at me.

        • Dasus@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          3 hours ago

          And all that is garbage that belongs with the race-scientist of the early 20th century.

          https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/mar/02/the-unwelcome-revival-of-race-science

          https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/race-is-a-social-construct-scientists-argue/

          “What the study of complete genomes from different parts of the world has shown is that even between Africa and Europe, for example, there is not a single absolute genetic difference, meaning no single variant where all Africans have one variant and all Europeans another one, even when recent migration is disregarded,”

          • borgertwo@ani.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 hours ago

            Not sure how viable these sites are as sources, but also i don’t know enough about genetics to determine full extent of changes over long stretches of time. All i know is trying to apply a logical sense of possibilities. In my speculation, just though it to makes sense for climates that are more hot and sunny for people to adabt with darker skin. Even if different races have all the same genetics, might not mean the genetics are not used in different ways. Clearly there is something there that instructs people to have different skin colors and other minor changes. It’s not a bad thing to ask what causes these physical differences and why they occur. What you thoughts on what causes the variations of physcal differences if not genetics?

            • Dasus@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 hours ago

              Why are you bothering to write all that shit when you can’t be bothered to take the few minutes to read those links? Which are from actual scientists, and not someone having racist brainfarts.

              • borgertwo@ani.social
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                2 hours ago

                Bold to assume i hadn’t read it, also i wanna hear your thoughts. This a disccussion, not a debate. Im not used to this reddit style sites, im usually on messeagers with talking to people from logical perspectives, not people who just toss source links from jurnalist sites that tell you random scientist claims it true. You can throw as many journalist sources, scientist claims, bars, graphs as you like, i’d still like to hear your own individual thoughts that arent just random sources to claims. I wanna know you formed your own sense of reasoning or are just repeating what your told.

                • Dasus@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 hour ago

                  It’s really not “bold” to assume you haven’t read it when you just wrote a whole lot of asinine shit you think sounded proper and smart, when you didn’t even understand the part I quoted from them:

                  “What the study of complete genomes from different parts of the world has shown is that even between Africa and Europe, for example, there is not a single absolute genetic difference, meaning no single variant where all Africans have one variant and all Europeans another one, even when recent migration is disregarded,”

                  See you plain do not understand what that means. It’s clear as day from your comment.

                  Im not used to this reddit style sites, im usually on messeagers with talking to people from logical perspectives, not people who just toss source links from jurnalist sites that tell you random scientist claims it true.

                  Dude you’re literally saying that science doesn’t matter, while insisting that you must be right and that you’re “using logic” and that all the actual facts and science on the matter is “some random sources”. It’s not “some random sources”. It’s everyone. That the scientific consensus on the subject. If you claim it isn’t, then you get some fucking science to show instead of your weird gibberish.

                  It’s beyond obvious you haven’t read either of the links. DO SO.

                  • borgertwo@ani.social
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    56 minutes ago

                    I have read, perhaps you should had asked if i understood it. I did mention i didn’t understand enough about genetics. You seem to be having an arguement, where as im having a discussion. Science is important, yes. But blindly trusting words of an article. All scientific consensus says is basically “this is the popular vote of agreement, so it must be true” im not saying its wrong, im saying should blindly trust a general consensus as fact. The obvious thing is you being haneous about having your perspective challenged. Could we discuss this like gentlemen rather than you throwing a hissy fit. There was really no reason get all spiteful and uncivil. This isnt even about the intial discussion any more, but you just getting irrationally angry when i asked for an opinion of your own.