And you will find less genetic difference between a randomly-chosen human and a randomly-chosen chimpanzee than you can find between two not so randomly selected humans. That there is enormous genetic heterogeneity within a nominal "race" is hardly surprising; otherwise they would all be the same height, look exactly alike, etc. And the…
And you will find less genetic difference between a randomly-chosen human and a randomly-chosen chimpanzee than you can find between two not so randomly selected humans. That there is enormous genetic heterogeneity within a nominal "race" is hardly surprising; otherwise they would all be the same height, look exactly alike, etc. And the human genome was fully sequenced, what, less than a generation ago, this is a fledgling science.
It seems to me that you are rebutting things I didn't say, arguing points I clearly conceded.
I think the "not" in your last sentence is backward.
Yet you can lose your job if someone runs across your social media post insisting that "trans" women are not truly women.
I’m not sure I understand your response. All humans share well over 99% of their DNA--all genetic variation among humans is attributable to .01 or .02 percent. They share about 98.7% of their DNA with chimps. Also chimps have 48 chromosomes while humans have 46.
So humans are more like each other than they are like chimps. However, because chimps have been around longer than humans, there is much greater genetic diversity among chimps than among humans. Was this what you were referring to?
I was taking issue with your equating genetic reality with wacko transgender ideology. Your statement 2 to be specific. Did I misunderstand you?
What exactly did you think I meant when I said that race is not a scientific concept? And said twice how the significance of the concept is social and behavioral?
What I meant in (2) was a wanton denial of any and all objective reality masquerading as some sort of sagacity. People who say everything is a "social construct" regardless of the scientific truth, since they think that logical thought itself is "eurocentric cisnormativity" or whatthefuck ever. It does not advance scientific understanding of race or anything else by mixing it in with this pseudointellectual pot of mud. So when someone yaps that "race is a social construct" instead of, oh, "race is not a scientifically-founded concept" then it adulterates the argument.
Because "social construct" is part of the language of postemodernism, where "trans" looniness is right at home.
I probably could have made my post a little clearer but we've talked about this stuff enough and I thought we were already, if I may coin a phrase, "on the same page."
I am as far off the grid as I can manage, increasingly distant from any contemporary zeitgeist as I can make myself, and lately have become aware of just how much this shit-thought has metastasized. I mean, I know the "trans" activists are functionally insane but I had no idea how firmly established this "everything is subjective" nonsense has become.
I had a friend, a guy I talked with every week, a former manager I have stayed in contact with for many years, pull the "trans teen suicide" shit on me a few days ago. This guy is plenty smart enough to figure out that since history prior to the Affirmation Generation is not a killing field of teen suicide then something is wrong with the idea, but instead he excoriated me as some sort of bigoted moon-calf ready to support warehouses of dead kids and even more homeless ones because of bigoted parents. He was so derisive and nasty about it that I had to block him and doubt our weekly talks will continue (and it isn't like I can afford to lose many human contacts). I awoke the next morning so angry I was kicking things over all around the house and that isn't like me.
And you will find less genetic difference between a randomly-chosen human and a randomly-chosen chimpanzee than you can find between two not so randomly selected humans. That there is enormous genetic heterogeneity within a nominal "race" is hardly surprising; otherwise they would all be the same height, look exactly alike, etc. And the human genome was fully sequenced, what, less than a generation ago, this is a fledgling science.
It seems to me that you are rebutting things I didn't say, arguing points I clearly conceded.
I think the "not" in your last sentence is backward.
Yet you can lose your job if someone runs across your social media post insisting that "trans" women are not truly women.
https://www.facebook.com/1517954111/videos/1342557583254781/
I’m not sure I understand your response. All humans share well over 99% of their DNA--all genetic variation among humans is attributable to .01 or .02 percent. They share about 98.7% of their DNA with chimps. Also chimps have 48 chromosomes while humans have 46.
So humans are more like each other than they are like chimps. However, because chimps have been around longer than humans, there is much greater genetic diversity among chimps than among humans. Was this what you were referring to?
I was taking issue with your equating genetic reality with wacko transgender ideology. Your statement 2 to be specific. Did I misunderstand you?
The last part I don’t think I understand.
What exactly did you think I meant when I said that race is not a scientific concept? And said twice how the significance of the concept is social and behavioral?
What I meant in (2) was a wanton denial of any and all objective reality masquerading as some sort of sagacity. People who say everything is a "social construct" regardless of the scientific truth, since they think that logical thought itself is "eurocentric cisnormativity" or whatthefuck ever. It does not advance scientific understanding of race or anything else by mixing it in with this pseudointellectual pot of mud. So when someone yaps that "race is a social construct" instead of, oh, "race is not a scientifically-founded concept" then it adulterates the argument.
Because "social construct" is part of the language of postemodernism, where "trans" looniness is right at home.
Is that clearer?
Yes, it is clearer. Point taken. I think we actually agree---just both a bit ornery.
I probably could have made my post a little clearer but we've talked about this stuff enough and I thought we were already, if I may coin a phrase, "on the same page."
I am as far off the grid as I can manage, increasingly distant from any contemporary zeitgeist as I can make myself, and lately have become aware of just how much this shit-thought has metastasized. I mean, I know the "trans" activists are functionally insane but I had no idea how firmly established this "everything is subjective" nonsense has become.
I had a friend, a guy I talked with every week, a former manager I have stayed in contact with for many years, pull the "trans teen suicide" shit on me a few days ago. This guy is plenty smart enough to figure out that since history prior to the Affirmation Generation is not a killing field of teen suicide then something is wrong with the idea, but instead he excoriated me as some sort of bigoted moon-calf ready to support warehouses of dead kids and even more homeless ones because of bigoted parents. He was so derisive and nasty about it that I had to block him and doubt our weekly talks will continue (and it isn't like I can afford to lose many human contacts). I awoke the next morning so angry I was kicking things over all around the house and that isn't like me.
Hey, take a run. Do something outside and enjoy the day. There are lots of good people out there.
"Where are they?" — Enrico Fermi
I meant 0.1 or 0.2 percent. Oops