Does anyone actually buy into the "everyone is racist" campaign?

[Deleted]

Where's the comparison with other non-American Asian groups, to show that it's not location, like I said it is.

its in there moron.
they give specific citations for Vietnamese and Cambodians.
or if you mean its America that causes diabetes, the effect is verifiable (and has been) at those islands too you know.
but you apparently didn't get the most important fucking point:
there is no Asian "race"
there are differences between select groups of people, like pacific islanders who typically form a cohesive unit subjected to the same conditions, its like the finches Darwin spoke explained evolution with.
Hell the notion that pacific islanders are Asian is unless i am remembering my migrational theory wrong, incorrect, they came from America, not from Asia.
and as for the toy sachs example...
There are genetically variations across subsets of humanity that for some reason form a cohesive unit, like an island, or when subjected to the same evolutionary pressures.
which you know was my point.
stop arguing about race, its not a scientific construct.

I...don't recall ever asking for a complete and utterly useless Red Herring.

its not.
there is plenty of proof the status quo has been mocking of those who studied non PC things, or things thought wrong.
Like crystallography, a chemistry nobel a couple of years ago.
and its a verified fact that adding sentences about gender perspectives or similar increases chances for funding.

[Foreboding]

Nah, it's just that no one listens to fringe idiots, and often use their papers as a training method for 100 level College Students. There's no conspiracy. Just people like you who demonstrate that they're laughably incorrect across the board, that want to passive-aggressively play the victim when they're laughed out of an adult conversation.

Your arguments get torn to shreds, your reasoning skills are frequently questioned by others, and you appear to be almost buckling under the weight of the large chip on your shoulder. Yet you still persist with ad hominem attacks and pseudo-psychological analyses of others.

[Booshman]

its in there moron.
they give specific citations for Vietnamese and Cambodians.
but you apparently didn't get the most important fucking point:
there is no Asian "race"
there are differences between select groups of people, like pacific islanders who typically form a cohesive unit subjected to the same conditions, its like the finches Darwin spoke explained evolution with.
Hell the notion that pacific islanders are Asian is unless i am remembering my migrational theory wrong, incorrect, they came from America, not from Asia.
and as for the toy sachs example...
There are genetically variations across subsets of humanity that for some reason form a cohesive unit, like an island, or when subjected to the same evolutionary pressures.
which you know was my point.
stop arguing about race, its not a scientific construct.

its not.
there is plenty of proof the status quo has been mocking of those who studied non PC things, or things thought wrong.
Like crystallography, a chemistry nobel a couple of years ago.
and its a verified fact that adding sentences about gender perspectives or similar increases chances for funding.

Good grief. Why can't people read, in this thread? YOU DO KNOW THAT I haven't been saying that race isn't a scientific construct, right? Read the post right above yours. And post #176.

And btw, why did that study only compare the vague moniker of "Asians" in America to Vietnamese and Cambodians. But not other groups like Japanese, Korean, Chinese, Thai, Filipino, Hmong, Laotian, and other groups? Who also exist, last time I checked. Faulty study is faulty.

As for Tay Sachs,you just completely ignored the fact that one cluster of same exact group of Jews gets a specific disease, while the majority of the population doesn't. Less pointless tangents. Focus.

- - - Updated - - -

Your arguments get torn to shreds, your reasoning skills are frequently questioned by others, and you appear to be almost buckling under the weight of the large chip on your shoulder. Yet you still persist with ad hominem attacks and pseudo-psychological analyses of others.

At this point you're saying random things that can't even be substantiated. Like your laughable proof that race exists.

[Revi]

I haven't really followed the thread, but if you don't believe there's genetic differences between groups of people

You need to read more and not post until you actually grasp just what the conversation is about. Because I've never once stated the bold, and "no" to your second point. Because it has nothing to do with your vague/shot-in-the-dark notion of "diverse groups within a location". Since only one particular group in particular locations are effected. While not the majority of the population, who are the same, remain untouched.

Okey, I thought you opposed the idea that different groups can have genetic differences. Must have misunderstood you stance on that. It follows if different groups have genetic differences, some of those will be beneficial or detrimental in some areas.

If only one particular location is affected, that means it's triggered/affected by outside factors, yes. But if one specific group of people (genetically distinguishable from the others) are affected more more than others within the same location, it is reasonable to assume that they have genetic disposition compared to the other groups. If you're going to deny that, you'll have to back it up with more than "it's vague".

Oh, and all I did was ask you a question, there's no need to be rude. Calm down.

[Vordie]

There's no such thing as a "Everyone is Racist Campaign" (as far as I know), so you cannot really ask people if they agree with something that doesn't technically exist.

Now, if you're asking if I believe that everyone is racist, yes, I do believe everyone is a LITTLE racist. Some more than others.

[Deleted]

Good grief. Why can't people read, in this thread? YOU DO KNOW THAT I haven't been saying that race isn't a scientific construct, right?

Yes it doesn't exist.
That does not mean there aren't genetic differences in subsets of humanity.
here try this one:

A hypothesis regarding alcohol sensitivity in Japanese due to a polymorphism of liver aldehyde dehydrogenase (ALDH) is presented. ALDH was found to show two major bands, a faster migrating isozyme with a low Km for acetaldehyde and a slower migrating isozyme with a high Km for acetaldehyde. Out of 40 livers of Japanese, 21 had only the slower migrating isozyme. No such variation was detected in 68 autopsy livers of Germans. Our data suggest that the initial alcohol sensitivity, quite common in individuals of Mongoloid origin, might be due to a delayed oxidation of acetaldehyde rather than its higher than normal production by atypical alcohol dehydrogenase.

See a verifiable difference in two genetic sub groups.

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00283404

and your asking for

Japanese, Korean, Chinese, Thai, Filipino, Hmong, Laotian

since when are any of these pacific islanders?
i mean you might be able to if you want to call japan an island...

and as for toy sachs:

These mutations reach significant frequencies in specific populations. French Canadians of southeastern Quebec have a carrier frequency similar to that seen in Ashkenazi Jews, but carry a different mutation. Cajuns of southern Louisiana carry the same mutation that is seen most commonly in Ashkenazi Jews. HEXA mutations rare and are most seen in genetically isolated populations. Tay–Sachs can occur from the inheritance of either two similar, or two unrelated, causative mutations in the HEXA gene.

As an autosomal recessive disorder, two Tay-Sachs alleles are required for an individual to exhibit symptoms of the disease. Carriers of a single Tay-Sachs allele do not exhibit symptoms of the disease but appear to be protected to some extent against tuberculosis. This accounts for the persistence of the allele in certain populations in that it confers a selective advantage—in other words, being a heterozygote is advantageous.

[Booshman]

Yes it doesn't exist.
That does not mean there aren't genetic differences in subsets of humanity.
here try this one:


See a verifiable difference in two genetic sub groups.

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00283404

and your asking for

since when are any of these pacific islanders?
i mean you might be able to if you want to call japan an island...

and as for toy sachs:

You missed the point (again). I've never said that there weren't any genetic differences. I said that there ARE differences, but the differences weren't enough to be considered a separate race. Which is fact.

And what does Japanese inability to hold their liquor have to do with anything? That's not a disease. We were talking about diabetes with Asian-Americans. Me asking about those other Asian groups was because your initial study compared "Asian-Americans" with only two non-American Southeast-Asian groups. Not any other non-American Asian groups but the two provided.

[Deleted]

but the differences weren't enough to be considered a separate race. Which is fact.

Yes.
as i have also stated multiple fucking times.
The definition of a new "race" would typically be the impossibility of inter-breeding.
that's species, the only real way race is scientifically designated.
there is still the possibility of genus, like polar and grizzly who can interbreed but aren't the same.
that being said, no such difference practically exists regarding humans.
nobody has suggested otherwise in this thread.
You were the one linking studies debunking race.

That this still allows for group based differentiation is not the same thing.

and as for your

And what does Japanese inability to hold their liquor have to do with anything? That's not a disease.

I said DIFFERENCE, not disease.

And what does Japanese inability to hold their liquor have to do with anything? That's not a disease. We were talking about diabetes with Asian-Americans. Me asking about those other Asian groups was because your initial study compared "Asian-Americans" with only two non-American Southeast-Asian groups. Not any other non-American Asian groups but the two provided.

im tired of arguing with you.
there are scientific papers about several small groups of people living anthropologically similar lives in harsh conditions, many have several genetic mutations that makes them have trouble with sugar, its medical facts.
this is not about race or racism, there is no value judgement.