Brian? wrote: » What do they mean to you?
osmiumartist wrote: » You have your races and species mixed up there. Of course they're humans. Nobody in the entirety of this thread has disputed that. Nice strawman attempt though. So we have groups of people with similar genetic traits... but no no no we can't say that means they are a race even though they can be identified as part of a a group based on their DNA. So basically you don't like the word race?
Professor Moriarty wrote: » How many groups of people with similar genetic traits are there?
osmiumartist wrote: » As many as you want, depending on how stringent you want to be on the genetic similarity. Keep trying to lead me somewhere though. Good luck with that.
Professor Moriarty wrote: » I'm not trying to lead you anywhere. Just trying to inform myself. Either there are groups of people with genetic similarities and that is important or there are groups of people with genetic similarities and that is not important. Which is it and why?
osmiumartist wrote: » What does what mean to me? DNA? Amino acids? I was told there is no such thing as race. There clearly is. You have a new, unrelated question?
Special Circumstances wrote: » Should we test everyone for sickle cell anemia, or no one, or just random tests?
osmiumartist wrote: » Is it important to be strong? To be fast? To be smart? To have skin of a certain colour? Important as in confers an advantage?
Brian? wrote: » What do the differences mean to you?
Professor Moriarty wrote: » All of those traits have benefits depending on circumstances. Are there groups of people with groups of people with genetic similarities who are smart and are there groups of people with genetic similarities who are not smart?
Brian? wrote: » What do the differences mean to you? Race is a loaded term I don't like. A lot of amtropologists agree.
osmiumartist wrote: » No, after you sir. I'm not playing Mastermind here Magnus. Are there groups of people with common genetic traits that makes them different in any way from other groups of people with common genetic traits? Let's see if you accept the answer before you try rushing on to your next failed attempt at a loaded question.
Professor Moriarty wrote: » I think people differ greatly and that can be due to genetic inheritance. I don't usually group people together other than by nationality though. But I am interested in the concept of groups of people with common genetic inheritance and how those groups might be defined. Can you give an example of what you mean?
osmiumartist wrote: » https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi_Jews#By_ethnicityhttps://www.wired.com/2015/03/iceland-worlds-greatest-genetic-laboratory/ Relatively homogenous groups of people sharing genetic determinants.
ancapailldorcha wrote: » Post deleted. Back on topic.
Special Circumstances wrote: » I'll assume these were my posts. Internet a bit dodge here. Took a while to get them posted. Probably missed the directive not to talk about racism in the alt-right thread.
Newsbud wrote: Donald Trump and Fascism in America Published on 12 Dec 2016 On this episode of The Geopolitical Report, we look at Donald Trump and the alt-right movement and the attempt by the establishment to portray them as dangerous fascists. Behind the sensationalistic and misleading headlines designed to frighten the American people and widen the political divide, there is another story: how the United States has consistently supported, enabled, and coddled real fascists in Europe under Operation Gladio and backing fascist dictators in Latin America. We also examine the fascist and authoritarian character of the corporate oligarchy.
johnp001 wrote: » A video from today talking about the alt-right movement with reference to modern America and Donald Trump and also in a historical context.
Brian? wrote: » If you accuse Trump of being fascist, It makes you fascist?
Sand wrote: » I think its the street violence, the identification of an 'other' who is not entitled to the rights of citizenship and can and should be justifiably attacked violently and even killed. Its probably the only decent point made in the whole video. A small vanguard of violent activists of course, but if that weirdo had managed to kill Trump lets not pretend there would not have been an orgy of celebration on social media to rival the gloating that greeted Thatchers death.
Inquitus wrote: » Agreed, he gets his arse handed to him by this non sympathetic interviewer a couple of weeks ago trotting out the same veiled racist BS.
legocrazy505 wrote: » Let's be honest though parts of the internet would have been equally happy if Hillary was killed too and it would be apparent on social media and places like Reddit's "bastion of free speech" /r/The_Donald. Both Trump and Hillary attracted their fair share of violent opposition. Gun ho alt-right people who claimed there would be a rebellion if Hillary was elected under the "rigged" system and the far left who believe the only way to counter the alt-right is to be more violent and more ridiculous than them. Maybe the 2nd amendment people can do something about it?
I mean - this Spencer chap. He's clearly a veteran troll. He tries really hard to seem reasonable but he just cannot help himself getting in digs and kicks that will alienate the vast, vast majority of voters. In the same way an unemployed white male in a rustbelt town has absolutely no interest in trendy lefty identity politics, Spencer's dubious story time about racial identity politics isnt going to be a vote winner either.
legocrazy505 wrote: » Until the posts here actually stop generalising is there any point trying to debate? Generalising in politics just makes you look stupid honestly.
