CNBC reports.
The first ad:
The NRA paved the road to Washington for Bernie Sanders.
— Mike Bloomberg (@MikeBloomberg) February 24, 2020
He spent the next three decades making sure they got a return on their investment.
We deserve a president who is not beholden to the gun lobby.#NotMeNRA pic.twitter.com/HLYZe4J5PM
Posts
298 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 298 of 298“And Gabbard was the only D to not go totally on board with the impeachment vote.”
Another way that Sanders and Gabbard parted ways.
HoaxPPT: "My $0.02. But I think I'm on to something."
I happen to agree with that assessment. To me Gabbard is, if not a perfect choice (because who is?) then certainly by far the "best" choice as I see if from a democrat populist disruptor side of the House.
I thought the way Gabbard dismantled Kamala Harris (who Inga also told us was some sort of world-beater who Trump feared! LOL) gave a pretty good indication that someone with consistent and authentic substance can always take down someone like Li'l Tomahawk who has been faking everything for over 40 years.
I do not comprehend why the Democratic Party won't allow Bernie be the one that takes the hit, other than down ticket implications.
No One can beat Trump.
He will win and bigger than Reagan, and it doesn't matter who it is.
Inga: "Another way that Sanders and Gabbard parted ways."
LOL
And why was that Inga?
I'll give you a hint (though you'll probably need a dozen more before you wise up): Gabbard had the luxury of voting her conscience in impeachment in the House.
Sanders, based on the dem primary base, HAD to go along with the rest of the dems in the Senate.
What makes it even more ironic is those same deep staters who worked with Schiff-ty to frame Trump are now setting Bernie up!!
I should oppose the Deep Staters actions against Bernie simply based on principle alone, but its just too rich having them pull the Russia Russia Russia playbook on Bernie after Bernie's vote!
“I thought the way Gabbard dismantled Kamala Harris (who Inga also told us was some sort of world-beater who Trump feared! LOL)”
Baloney. Liar. I said early on that Kamala Harris didn't have what it takes. She didn’t get my support.
PF: "He will win and bigger than Reagan, and it doesn't matter who it is."
No. Trump will not win bigger than Reagan. Not even close. The nation has changed too much since 1980.
It won't be as big as 1972 or 1984 either. Can't be. Not possible anymore.
However, Trump winning the same number of electoral votes and potentially a few more is well within the range of possibility.
“Sanders, based on the dem primary base, HAD to go along with the rest of the dems in the Senate.”
Ha, now you can read Sanders’ mind?
Inga: "Baloney. Liar. I said early on that Kamala Harris didn't have what it takes. She didn’t get my support."
LOLOLOLOL
History began this morning for Inga.
You went on and on and on about how Trump was afraid of her etc etc etc.
You are such a dope its like watching a fish out of water not understanding why it can't breathe.
I am really surprised Biden hasn't challenged Bernie to a push-up contest.
Biden is at great risk of being the fraction that will be ejected from the race.
Inga: "Ha, now you can read Sanders’ mind?"
The pressure on each dem Senator was manifestly obvious and, given that the vote across both parties was pre-ordained, nobody was going to surprise anyone with a vote out of the expected.
The only prediction I missed was that I predicted Romney would vote guilty on both articles.
“No. Trump will not win bigger than Reagan. Not even close.”
Ahhhh, you ARE worried about Sanders winning. The truth does find a way to squeak out, doesn’t it?
Bob: "I am really surprised Biden hasn't challenged Bernie to a push-up contest."
He probably doesn't even know what a push up is anymore.
Have you been catching his every expanding hilariously false story of being arrested in South Africa along with Andy Young for trying to visit Mandela in prison!!
LOL
I mean, that guy is losing it. It's waaaaay worse than Hillary's lies (exposed by actual video!) of having to dodge sniper fire in Bosnia while walking across the tarmac!
Drago: “No. Trump will not win bigger than Reagan. Not even close.”
From that, Inga somehow, in some weird way, gets this:
Inga: "Ahhhh, you ARE worried about Sanders winning. The truth does find a way to squeak out, doesn’t it?"
LOLOLOLOLOL
That's right Inga, Trump will win by a margin less than Reagan's 489 to 49 over Carter.
Sort of like the margin he won by in 2016.
Is English your first language? Just checking!
I think we are about 15 seconds away from Inga claiming she really didn't mean what she wrote at all, she was just "trolling".
LOL
I'm not sure I know who Jerry Coyne is, or care, but his opinion is an opinion. I've never heard anyone discuss human "races" in any context with any utility than socially. It's misappropriated pseudo-biology in search of a social aim. Always. Biologists certainly don't find it a useful category to work with, no matter what "opinions" they care to hold.
You can also reach Richard Dawkins discuss race in his book The Ancestor's Tale, where he writes on page 462: "However small the racial partition of total variation may be, if such racial characteristics as there are highly correlated with other racial characteristics, they are by definition informative, and therefore of taxonomic significance."
Then why have the cultural differences between North America (i.e. the US and Canada) and Latin America persisted for so much longer than a "few generations?"
Uh, because culture is group behavior. It's not biology. It can be changed as any collective choices can be.
The civil war had nothing to do with the naturalization of immigrants. It had to do with the foolish decision to important hundreds of thousands of sub-Saharan Africans into the country as chattel slaves. Neither the Civil War nor the 14th Amendment prevented the passing of the Johnson–Reed Act in 1924.
So what? In 1920 eugenics was in full swing. Plus ca change.
As far as disparities, that bell curves overlap is nothing new.
Humans have always tried to find increasingly fatuous ways to distinguish themselves from each other and bell curves such as those employed by Charles Murray are just another one of these. Science only answers what you bother to ask. Sometimes the questions are dumb or over-emphasized. Many times, in fact.
How does "empire" and "the conquered" explain the success of South Korea or Taiwan or Singapore?
What success? Economically? I never said empires were required for that. And why are you now reverting back to GDP as the end-all be-all as your fellow white supremacists have done? I thought you just wanted America to be "biologically white" (whatever that means), national GDP be damned. Those are some flexible goalposts there, slick.
Chinese arrived as refugees in Malaysia and Thailand and are now economically dominant in both countries. How does "empire" or "the conquered" explain their success over the native populations who controlled the countries they live in?
Repeating the same thing I never said doesn't mean I magically said it.
You seriously think efforts to prevent one specific race from integrating socially and economically into a community no matter how well they did had no impact?
European Jews were subject to pogroms, ejection from their homes, and dispossession and ultimately rounded up and shipped off to extermination camps. What impact has this had on the success of Ashkenazi Jews?
You're referring to "success" by the 21st century American capitalist standard. The Holocaust was one event a policy pursued over the short blip of about 4 years of history. Prior to that they were able to keep families intact for millenia and to build communities centered around learning and elevating the most learned among them to leadership status. They also served in high positions advising European monarchs. They were not processed into 24/7 manual labor machines with no opportunity to build communities around which scholarly pursuits were common and of paramount importance.
How about the destruction of their families for centuries before that last century and a half?
In 1960, 25% of black children were born to single mothers. Today it is close to 75%. The black-white gap exists everywhere on the planet. Sub-Saharan Africans were lagging behind the rest of the world before the transatlantic slave trade and before European colonialism of the continent. Haiti has been a black republic for over 200 years and remains the poorest, most backwards country in the western hemisphere.
Today, at the age of 101, the black female mathematician who mentally calculated how to send NASA's first men into space and without whose manual double-checks on the math John Glenn would not continue on a mission, died.
Why were white Europeans, as an entire group, so behind? Why the lag on their entire race when it came to this obvious and astounding sort of achievement? What's their excuse?
The same sort of questions Hitler asked himself when Jesse Owens kicked every Aryan's ass at the 1936 Olympics.
The metrics change, but the same presumptions of group superiority/inferiority are always the same.
Your trick is a tired and old one, Farmer. Your mental habits in this realm are as boring and aggravating as watching someone who can't stop biting his nails while complaining about how dull the taste is and why it never changes.
Evolve, already.
A man with a low ejaction fraction wouldn't have the vigor of Sanders- at least not by my observations.
when Bernie flew back from Cuba, he was seen at the airport drinking a Big Gulp
Reminds me of my visit to the 7-11 in the Vatican. You think the Big Gulp is big, you should see the Mea Maxima Gulpa.
You are just tedious, Chuck. I take it you are one of the ones that think Sanders is a godsend for Trump in November- is this why you are so adamant that he be defeated?
Inga, you know who is afraid of Bernie?
Democrats.
Lots and lots of democrats.
THE NATIONAL INTEREST FEB. 24, 2020 by Jonathan Chait (yes, I know, it's just Chait, but whatevs)
If Democrats Aren’t Terrified of Bernie, They’re Not Paying Attention
Drago, I haven't followed that story. I just assume almost everything Biden says is made up.
Warren would be a poor choice for Sanders as VP- regionally, ethnically, and politically. Gabbard is somewhat better, but still too far left for political balance. What Sanders should go for is a moderate African-American, and, in my opinion, the VP candidate should be male in this case. So, look for such candidates with some sort of profile, preferably from the midwest. Not an easy task, is it?
I agree with Drago. Trump could have a solid win, but he cannot have a Reagan sized landslide. Sanders could, if the country loses its mind, but Trump cannot.
I do expect him to win, gaining on last time. More a guess at this point than a prediction.
Bob, if Biden, tomorrow, claimed he was once a Senator from Delaware, I would have to double check it.
@President Toilet Paper Shoe's Cooked-Up Drug Deal:
Repeating the same thing I never said doesn't mean I magically said it.
No, I brought up "the disparities between Europeans, East Asians, and sub-Saharan Africans persist," and you responded, "What's your point? That imperialism didn't massively benefit the empire and disadvantage the conquered?" But imperialism and empires does not explain why South Korea, Taiwan, and Singapore are so far ahead in terms of development. They weren't empires, they were victims of empires.
They were not processed into 24/7 manual labor machines with no opportunity to build communities around which scholarly pursuits were common and of paramount importance.
Before the advent of the transatlantic slave trade or European colonialism in Africa, sub-Saharan Africa already lagged behind other parts of the world. Why?
Today, at the age of 101, the black female mathematician who mentally calculated how to send NASA's first men into space and without whose manual double-checks on the math John Glenn would not continue on a mission, died.
So your response to me bringing up the relative position of sub-Saharan Africa and Haiti is to identify a single black woman? Oookay. Of course, If I ever made some ridiculous claim that there weren't any intelligent black people, you might have point. But since I haven't, you don't.
The same sort of questions Hitler asked himself when Jesse Owens kicked every Aryan's ass at the 1936 Olympics.
On the question of sports, I take it therefore that you believe that there is zero biological explanation for black predominance in sports. Such as their disproportion in sports like American football or basketball. Or West African dominance in sprinting versus East African dominance in sprinting?
The metrics change, but the same presumptions of group superiority/inferiority are always the same.
Superiority/inferiority is a foolish dichotomy because it implies moral worth, which has nothing to do with what we are talking about. Every human being deserves to be treated with dignity and respect. And describing group differences in mean abilities tells you absolutely nothing about any individual member of that group. Do you consider someone who is stronger or taller than you to be "superior" to you in any meaningful moral sense? Do you consider people who are less intelligent than you to be "inferior" in any moral sense. I certainly don't.
Your mental habits in this realm are as boring and aggravating as watching someone who can't stop biting his nails while complaining about how dull the taste is and why it never changes.
By all means, feel free to ignore me. Trust me, I will not lose any sleep over it.
Warren would be a poor choice for Sanders as VP- regionally, ethnically, and politically. Gabbard is somewhat better, but still too far left for political balance.
I'm willing to make a bet in 2020 that the country is not as right-wing as you may believe.
Poll them on questions, issues. Ask how many of them prefer to spend all the money lost in revenue cutting Amazon's and Jeff Bezos' taxes on whether their bridges, airports and roads function or whether their insurance market hasn't priced them out of coverage - especially the poorest 20% of our country.
Ask them if they prefer to advantage fossil fuel execs over whether their region has fewer droughts, fires and floods by 2030.
Ask them.
Biden can flatten Bernie if he just emphasizes his record. It's long. Arrested for Nelson Mandela. Won a push-up contest with Martin Luther King in the Birmingham jail. Gave up his seat for Rosa Parks. Hired Jackie Robinson. If Bernie says he can match that he's a lying dog faced pony soldier.
But imperialism and empires does not explain why South Korea, Taiwan, and Singapore are so far ahead in terms of development. They weren't empires, they were victims of empires.
For how long and with how much dislocation compared to African countries? Including the timeframes when Arabs had conquered it.
Here is a world map based on the UN's human development index. Here is a world map based on ethnic diversity.
Do you think it's merely a coincidence that higher levels of ethnic diversity are correlated with lower levels of human development?
Before the advent of the transatlantic slave trade or European colonialism in Africa, sub-Saharan Africa already lagged behind other parts of the world. Why?
I don't know. Ask Jared Diamond. Did they lag behind in all the stupid ideas Europeans had as well - such as fascism, serfdom, geocentrism, papal infallibility, etc., etc., etc., ad infinitum ad nauseam. And racism?
Ken B, you need to volunteer for Biden's campaign! How could Jumpin' Joe think up such great stories on his own?
So your response to me bringing up the relative position of sub-Saharan Africa and Haiti is to identify a single black woman?
To whom all those white European American mathematicians - of which there were very many, especially at NASA - were apparently inferior.
Funny how you don't account for European inferiority when it's just one black woman who kicked all their asses when it came to sending dudes to the moon. That's a lot of collective failure.
I don't know. Ask Jared Diamond
While Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steel had among its chief goals to refute any biological explanations for developmental disparity between human populations, he inadvertently helped make the case. While I think he leans too close to geographic determinism, he does explanation the various environmental differences in which the globe's various populations developed. Is it not feasible that these various environments exerted different selective pressures on these groups? Along with genetic drift. We accept that selective pressures explain differences in phenotype, but is it impossible to imagine that these pressures were more than just skin deep?
On the question of sports, I take it therefore that you believe that there is zero biological explanation for black predominance in sports.
I take it that biological comparisons and questions of group inferiority/superiority are so fraught historically with ignorant ethno-nationalistic self-interested bullshit, framing and fallacies that it's 99% of the time safe to assume that whoever's asking the question or making the comparison has some goal and agenda in mind other than knowledge or truth. As you've proven amply over the course of tonight.
To whom all those white European American mathematicians - of which there were very many, especially at NASA - were apparently inferior.
Apparently? Right, because the only explanation was that she was superior to all of them. Not that they weren't known to NASA, that NASA did not attempt to recruit every mathematician in the world, or were involved in other endeavors. Blacks are tested in math every year in this country and every year they lag behind whites and East Asians. But if your response to this disparity is racism and the legacy of slavery and Jim Crow, then where did this woman's ability to come from? Why haven't annual math tests of the country's population revealed all the untapped black math talent? Prestigious universities are tripping over themselves to find black math talent and yet are having trouble. Why?
Superiority/inferiority is a foolish dichotomy because it implies moral worth, which has nothing to do with what we are talking about.
Actually, every single question you've posed tonight derives completely in a very common way of framing superiority/inferiority. So much so that you haven't asked a single question having to do a single characteristic that could even be characterized as "neutral."
But I'm glad you recognize, at least theoretically, how foolish your thinking is. Or at least your biases for which you substitute actual thought.
Every human being deserves to be treated with dignity and respect.
What a nice platitude. Unfortunately racial obsessions as fixed and dogmatic as yours preclude achieving that goal in practice.
By all means, feel free to ignore me. Trust me, I will not lose any sleep over it.
Good. I'm glad that posture is one you're comfortably familiar with.
I take it that biological comparisons and questions of group inferiority/superiority are so fraught historically with ignorant ethno-nationalistic self-interested bullshit, framing and fallacies that it's 99% of the time safe to assume that whoever's asking the question or making the comparison has some goal and agenda in mind other than knowledge or truth. As you've proven amply over the course of tonight.
So you were lecturing me about a female math genius minutes earlier, but now that I've asked you a question you don't have a ready answer for, you won't bother to answer because I must have "some goal and agenda in mind other than knowledge or truth." You've made that same presumption about me from the beginning, but that hasn't stopped you from trying to refute me. But now it does? Curious.
Actually, every single question you've posed tonight derives completely in a very common way of framing superiority/inferiority. So much so that you haven't asked a single question having to do a single characteristic that could even be characterized as "neutral."
Everything that can be measured can be ranked. "Superior" and "inferior" are your words, not mine. How about height? Does height have a biological basis? Does accepting that fact require one to believe that taller people are "superior" to shorter people?
You would do much better if you actually listened to what I say instead of starting with the presumption that I must automatically be the person you assume I am.
The very highest altitudes I could hope to reach, don't include reaching Ben Affleck heights.
Good for hio. He worked. His blood and sweat and tears will pay off.
Good for hio.
I merely will misquote Buckley, as in William Frank the Junior.
What a nice platitude. Unfortunately racial obsessions as fixed and dogmatic as yours preclude achieving that goal in practice.
And yet in my own life I am perfectly capable of forming strong social relationships with people on the basis of their individual character and not their group identity. I wonder how that can possibly be.
While Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steel had among its chief goals to refute any biological explanations for developmental disparity between human populations, he inadvertently helped make the case. While I think he leans too close to geographic determinism, he does explanation the various environmental differences in which the globe's various populations developed. Is it not feasible that these various environments exerted different selective pressures on these groups? Along with genetic drift. We accept that selective pressures explain differences in phenotype, but is it impossible to imagine that these pressures were more than just skin deep?
Ok, so you're obsessed with bypassing the scientific imperative of Occam's razor and seeking convoluted biological explanations when social or historical or cultural ones much more simply and easily do the trick.
Well, that's a real special talent you have, Farmer. One sought by racists like you since Tribe A first committed genocide against Tribe B. Something that hearkens back to even the chimpanzees.
Problem is, you haven't described a single phenotypic variable for these questions of success that vex you so for which any genotype can (or probably will) be found.
So the moment you identify that gene for "human development," or whatever it is that you'd like to characterize as an actual phenotype (which is impossible because phenotypes are individual and every BS metric you fixate on is social), then go ahead an publish on it.
And market a biopharmaceutical enhancer for it.
Your exercise is pointless. Racists like you always make the same mistake of trying to channel into individual, biological traits things that are only socially observed.
But hey, maybe I know the gene that made Katherine Johnson so much smarter than all white, European-Americans working for the most prestigious and advanced institutions of her day. Whether regular old decent European-Americans or stupid inbred trailer dwellers like yourself.
So you were lecturing me about a female math genius minutes earlier, but now that I've asked you a question you don't have a ready answer for...
Science doesn't have answers to most things, most significantly questions as loaded with social goals and failed agendas as yours.
Everything that can be measured can be ranked. "Superior" and "inferior" are your words, not mine. How about height? Does height have a biological basis? Does accepting that fact require one to believe that taller people are "superior" to shorter people?
You would do much better if you actually listened to what I say instead of starting with the presumption that I must automatically be the person you assume I am.
Sounds like you would do much better if instead of going to war against bio-anthropology in an old, racist and discredited way you actually sat in on some of those community college courses and just argued with the professor instead on how wrong he and all his colleagues are to have never done whatever experiment you'd propose to prove them.
I use the words I used because people like you have and have always had a social agenda having to do with proclaiming superiority/inferiority categories to their or other groups. It's happened so often throughout all of human and pre-human history that not accounting for it and weeding that bias out of the process is basically scientific malpractice at this point.
And yet in my own life I am perfectly capable of forming strong social relationships with people on the basis of their individual character and not their group identity. I wonder how that can possibly be.
Because both you and they are the sort that prefer to badger, browbeat and pontificate each other into "strong" relationships rather than indulge any curiosity or objectivity about the world or the truth or each other?
Just a guess.
This is a link showing what a good boy I am. And what a good dad Bob was. See how good of boys we were.
Whether regular old decent European-Americans or stupid inbred trailer dwellers like yourself.
And yet I've been able to have this entire conversation without once needing to resort to insulting you personally. That in and of itself is quite telling.
Let me ask you a very basic question: why do people from sub-Saharan Africa look different than people from Northeast Eurasia?
Because both you and they are the sort that prefer to badger, browbeat and pontificate each other into "strong" relationships rather than indulge any curiosity or objectivity about the world or the truth or each other?
Or maybe we just have similar tastes in music and movies.
I use the words I used because people like you have and have always had a social agenda having to do with proclaiming superiority/inferiority categories to their or other groups.
Ah, people like me had a social agenda so therefore I must have the same agenda. Well that's certainly irrefutable logic.
And yet I've been able to have this entire conversation without once needing to resort to insulting you personally.
Unlike super-human ubermensches like yourself I suppose I eventually get annoyed with having to explain the same thing fifteen times. But that's because I'm an actual human. Not someone pretending to overturn 100 years of bio-anthropology and history without actually having done the work that's been done in all that time. No, that I leave to you. The super-human who's so superior that he's defective in the realm of properly desiring to reproduce his super-human genetic traits.
You're like a mold so perfect that they had to break it after making you, Farmer. Too bad that's not how actual biology works, though.
What I just wrote was something called "irony." One of those hallmarks of that civilization thing that you're so interested in, and yet have so very little of.
That in and of itself is quite telling.
Quit saying things just to make it seem like you sound intelligent. It only advertises your massive sense of pretension.
Ah, people like me had a social agenda so therefore I must have the same agenda. Well that's certainly irrefutable logic.
That's not all. They also didn't know what they were talking about scientifically and didn't care. Which you also share with them.
And the fact that you do this is the irrefutable epitome of illogic.
But babble on, Farmer. Keep up the bio-babble. You and the racists of 100 years ago must really be on to something, and only a conspiracy of all biological anthropology since then stands in your way!
Once you overcome them, though - then you will receive your praise and your due! And of course, absolute power!
If only. If only the world saw the brilliance of your single-minded (or half-minded, but fully engaged) dogged pursuit of the non-questions that have only yielded non-answers in the past!
You're following in the footsteps of many catastrophically failed figures throughout history with this. But don't let that stop you, Farmer. The ground's the limit! Aim low! As low as you can go!
defective in the realm of properly desiring to reproduce his super-human genetic traits.
a mold so perfect that they had to break it after making you
that civilization thing that you're so interested in, and yet have so very little of.
It only advertises your massive sense of pretension.
Got anymore? It takes a lot to make me cry. Especially from your anonymous people on the Internet.
"But hey, maybe I know the gene that made Katherine Johnson so much smarter than all white, European-Americans working for the most prestigious and advanced institutions of her day."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lrF5x1OSJuQ
Ah, people like me had a social agenda so therefore I must have the same agenda.
People who've pursued the same biased and warped sort of unreasoning you employ have always wound up empty-handed, failed and with nothing to show for it than cheerleading the same genocides, oppressions and pointless conflicts these perspectives have always yielded.
Which sounds like an awesome reason to insist on finding the same intellectual merit in it that no one successful in these fields has ever found.
Look, you're either a dumbass or you accept that maybe there's a reason that your racism never receives the support you wish it did academically, as well as socially.
And I can't cure dumbass. In fact, some might say it's genetic.
What are races?
In my own field of evolutionary biology, races of animals (also called “subspecies” or “ecotypes”) are morphologically distinguishable populations that live in allopatry (i.e. are geographically separated). There is no firm criterion on how much morphological difference it takes to delimit a race. Races of mice, for example, are described solely on the basis of difference in coat color, which could involve only one or two genes.
Under that criterion, are there human races?
Yes. As we all know, there are morphologically different groups of people who live in different areas, though those differences are blurring due to recent innovations in transportation that have led to more admixture between human groups.
How many human races are there?
That’s pretty much unanswerable, because human variation is nested in groups, for their ancestry, which is based on evolutionary differences, is nested in groups. So, for example, one could delimit “Caucasians” as a race, but within that group there are genetically different and morphologically different subgroups, including Finns, southern Europeans, Bedouins, and the like. The number of human races delimited by biologists has ranged from three to over thirty.
How different are the races genetically?
Not very different. As has been known for a while, DNA and other genetic analyses have shown that most of the variation in the human species occurs within a given human ethnic group, and only a small fraction between different races. That means that on average, there is more genetic difference between individuals within a race than there is between races themselves. Nevertheless, there are some genes (including the genes for morphological differences such as body shape, facial features, skin pigmentation, hair texture, and the like) that have not yet been subject to DNA sequencing, and if one looked only at those genes, one would obviously find more genetic differences. But since the delimitation of races has historically depended not on the degree of underlying genetic differences but only on the existence of some genetic difference that causes morphological difference, the genetic similarity of races does not mean that they don’t exist.
Further, one wouldn’t expect human “races” or ethnic groups to show substantial genetic differences—there hasn’t been enough time for those differences to accumulate given that most human groups arose since our migration out of Africa between 60,000 and 100,000 years ago.
Nevertheless, even if most human variation occurs within rather than between races, there are statistical differences between human groups that can, when combined, be used to delimit them. Here’s a figure from the paper by Noah Rosenberg et al. (reference at the bottom) that uses these “multilocus” genotypes to distinguish human populations. Their study involved 1056 individuals studied from 52 geographic populations. The genetic analysis was comprehensive, involving 377 autosomal microsatellite loci (“autosomal loci” means “genes not on the two sex chromosomes”).
Is the above wrong? If so, why? See if you can answer without saying the person who wrote it must be an evil dumbass.
Got anymore? It takes a lot to make me cry.
I'm not trying to. Just telling you why I have good reason to believe that not only have you failed to learn anything or come up with anything groundbreaking, insightful or helpful in the way of explanatory power, but will continue to keep doing this thing you fail at until you prove to yourself that I (and everyone else who disagrees, and we are legion) is just as clueless and at a loss as you rightly feel yourself to be on these questions.
I'm allowed to do that. I'm allowed to tell you why you are a waste of time.
Maybe your race is particularly obtuse when it comes to figuring out when and why it is wasting its time on things that never illuminate anything, but simply provide endless fodder for further conflict.
Nietzsche was smart. He found that the best exceptions to the avoidance of ad hominem was when someone had such bizarre thoughts and behaviors that you were left with no other option but to ask, "What sort of a person would even do this???"
And here is the full discussion if you wish to read it.
IF the guy said the number of them was unanswerable then that ends it by declaring the category devoid of utility right then and there. And the fact that he lists nations as "races" is a dead tell.
Race is always used to divide human groups against each other, because conflict is a perpetual pitfall for them. It's like rape or murder or anything else. To equate them with language groups (the currently vogue way to define a nation) is a dead tell. Intellectually lazy. Hitler did this very thing. It was common then. Absolute bunk now. Gene flows across and throughout language groups show no markers or boundaries between them. Genes do not equate to languages. DId you know that there are actually no "genes" for "French," or whatever?
SO you can tell right then and there that the guy is ignorant and falling prey to the perpetual pitfall of substituting accidents of history (i.e. language groups) with anything biological whatsoever.
Bunk.
"Not so easy is it mike, doing what i do"
To equate them with language groups (the currently vogue way to define a nation) is a dead tell. Intellectually lazy. Hitler did this very thing. It was common then. Absolute bunk now. Gene flows across and throughout language groups show no markers or boundaries between them. Genes do not equate to languages. DId you know that there are actually no "genes" for "French," or whatever?
Nothing in that quote or at the link I provided makes an effort to equate race with "language groups." You're tilting at windmills there, my friend.
IF the guy said the number of them was unanswerable then that ends it by declaring the category devoid of utility right then and there. And the fact that he lists nations as "races" is a dead tell.
How many species are there? Why does the concept of "lumpers" and "splitters" exist in biology? Does this fact make the concept of "species" devoid of utility?
All these people know is lil' bobby de niro so you have to tell him over and over and over.
Nobody thinks he's smart, okay.
He's an insult to every character he ever played.
So stupid.
"What are races?
In my own field of evolutionary biology, races of animals (also called “subspecies” or “ecotypes”) are morphologically distinguishable populations that live in allopatry (i.e. are geographically separated). There is no firm criterion on how much morphological difference it takes to delimit a race. Races of mice, for example, are described solely on the basis of difference in coat color, which could involve only one or two genes.
Under that criterion, are there human races?
Yes. As we all know, there are morphologically different groups of people who live in different areas, though those differences are blurring due to recent innovations in transportation that have led to more admixture between human groups.
What is incorrect about these two paragraphs?
Listen, dummy. Even if you wanted to say that there are three main races the fact remains that the Ural mountains and Saharan desert were passable. So there was no dividing line preventing Europeans from breeding with Asians, or preventing North African "caucasians" from breeding with sub-Saharan Africans.
So as there are no real hard and set divisions between these populations for the most part, there is no utility to dividing them up against each other as if they were separate biological categories evolving in isolation from each other.
WTF is so hard to understand about that?
Thomas Jefferson had a Y chromosome that is usually only found in African populations. What does that mean? Nothing, although given your man-on-man preference for engaging in the act that perpetuates these "races" that you're so interested in segregating, maybe that supposed paragon of white civilizational dominance (according to how your words beg to be interpreted) was really an African, too. Or of "the African race" - if there were such a thing. At least in his manliest attributes. Which might be of interest to a gay man like you.
But the real kicker is, does that do anything to explain his lust for Sally Hemmings? Or was that about something else altogether.
This rabbit hole just keeps getting deeper and deeper for you, the way you'd prefer to scamper into it, Farmer.
Nothing in that quote or at the link I provided makes an effort to equate race with "language groups."
"Finns" are a language group, dumbass.
And Bedouins are simply Arabs or related peoples who live nomadically.
Nice try.
Read what you write, next time. If you quote it, and you need him to do your arguing for you, it's as good as your own words.
So use them responsibly.
Does this fact make the concept of "species" devoid of utility?
Species are defined as being capable of producing fertile offspring, but I understand that very useful definition might be a sore spot for someone with your affliction.
What is incorrect about these two paragraphs?
Other than the fact that humans are not simply just animals, probably nothing.
But that's just about everything.
It would be interesting to see how he goes about conducting human breeding experiments. Interesting to see how that would clear ethical review.
So as there are no real hard and set divisions between these populations for the most part, there is no utility to dividing them up against each other as if they were separate biological categories evolving in isolation from each other.
And yet if you lined a Norwegian, a Korean, and a sub-Saharan African up, it would take you about a millisecond to determine from where on the globe their ancestors originated.
Thomas Jefferson had a Y chromosome that is usually only found in African populations.
Not quite.
"We have characterized the Y chromosome carried by President Thomas Jefferson, the general rarity of which supported the idea that he, or a patrilineal relative, fathered the last son of his slave Sally Hemings. It belongs to haplogroup K2, a lineage representing only approximately 1% of chromosomes worldwide, and most common in East Africa and the Middle East. Phylogenetic network analysis of its Y-STR (short tandem repeat) haplotype shows that it is most closely related to an Egyptian K2 haplotype, but the presence of scattered and diverse European haplotypes within the network is nonetheless consistent with Jefferson's patrilineage belonging to an ancient and rare indigenous European type. This is supported by the observation that two of 85 unrelated British men sharing the surname Jefferson also share the President's Y-STR haplotype within haplogroup K2. Our findings represent a cautionary tale in showing the difficulty of assigning individual ancestry based on a Y-chromosome haplotype, particularly for rare lineages where population data are scarce."
-Thomas Jefferson's Y chromosome belongs to a rare European lineage.
Nothing, although given your man-on-man preference for engaging in the act that perpetuates these "races" that you're so interested in segregating,
I am not interested in segregating anyone but myself. I am happy to leave people to their own devices. I just ask that they extend me the same courtesy.
Other than the fact that humans are not simply just animals, probably nothing.
What else are they?
I am not interested in segregating anyone but myself. I am happy to leave people to their own devices. I just ask that they extend me the same courtesy.
Their "own devices" is that they BREED with each other WITHOUT regard to "race," as long as no one in power is promoting separatist mindsets.
But you neither breed (at least not naturally) and you have stated your preference for controlling these people to prevent them from breeding with each other across whichever arbitrary lines you've defined as their "race."
So who's not extending courtesies to whom, asshole? Your whole raison d'etre here in this thread and in this entire election season is about keeping America somehow that much whiter than it never was in 1776. What floodgates those anti-miscegenation laws opened for us. I guess you can only control others' breeding for so long. Especially if you're not inclined to breed and just want to control how others go about it.
But don't worry. Even Thomas Jefferson did that. He bred with the very slave that he felt a need to dominate and control, despite the horrible opprobrium he would have been subjected to if it had been widely discussed.
Hypocritical, and immoral.
Sort of like you.
"Finns" are a language group, dumbass.
"Scientifically, the "Finnish population" is not inclusive of all Finns. It is limited to genetic relatives of the 16th century settlement population consisting of about 1,500 families in eastern Finland.
In addition to genetics, Finnish linguistics also evolved separately from other European languages. Finnish is part of the Uralian language family, with its closest relative being Estonian."
-Finns Found to be Genetically Unique, Genes Vary Significantly From Europeans
"We further separated Europeans into individuals of Finnish and non-Finnish ancestry given the enrichment of this bottlenecked population; the term European hereafter refers to non-Finnish European individuals."
-Analysis of protein-coding genetic variation in 60,706 humans
Their "own devices" is that they BREED with each other WITHOUT regard to "race," as long as no one in power is promoting separatist mindsets.
People can breed with whoever the fuck they want to. I don't give a shit.
But you neither breed (at least not naturally) and you have stated your preference for controlling these people to prevent them from breeding with each other across whichever arbitrary lines you've defined as their "race."
I have never stated any preference for controlling anyone to prevent who they breed with. That's just you making up shit again. Did you forget to take your medication today?
p.s. I lost count, but I think that's about the dozen time you've made references to my sexuality. Why you seem so endlessly fascinated with that topic, I won't speculate. But sorry, sweetheart, I'm taken.
"Other than the fact that humans are not simply just animals, probably nothing."
What else are they?
Moral agents with free will who don't need to be told whom to breed with.
What else are you?
Well, anyway, thanks for the lively discussion. Goodnight.
People can breed with whoever the fuck they want to. I don't give a shit.
Specifically because you admit to "PESSIMISM" when it comes to controlling them in favor of your agenda to keep America white (except for apparently this whole percentage of "non-whites" who've always been here with fewer rights and in some cases some might say were actually here first and entitled to make those decisions on their own).
Moral agents with free will who don't need to be told whom to breed with.
What else are you?
Someone who has never told anyone whom to breed with. But you keep tilting at those windmills, Don Quixote. Maybe one day you will slay that dragon.
I lost count, but I think that's about the dozen time you've made references to my sexuality.
And every time you've commented here it's been to make clear your stupid agenda to how the breeders go about propagating nations and races. So of course it's curious that a yokel like you who plays no natural part in that role would be so singularly obsessed (in his politics) with reverting to that pseudo-intellectual and very political agenda that's been buried for the last 75 years ever since we ended the horrors and tens of millions of deaths resulting from the efforts of a guy with very much the same sympathies and (mis-)understandings as you have about that topic.
Someone who has never told anyone whom to breed with. But you keep tilting at those windmills, Don Quixote. Maybe one day you will slay that dragon.
Your agenda is keeping America white, as anyone reading your many comments in the last week can see.
America has never been entirely white.
America has at times and to its disgrace implemented laws barring relations between whites and non-whites. To a disturbing and perplexingly complicated degree.
You talk often of upholding what you plainly believe to be a civilizational superiority of white America, a concept that you pursue doggedly with grounding in pseudo-biology.
So for the political values you truly hold to pass, to come into effect, it is obvious that you wish you could making breeding decrees. But you know you can't, so you instead dance around umpteen different maneuvers up and down the racist flagpole, peppered with the typical "I'm just asking questions" ambiguous window dressing to pretend that you're more curious than agenda-driven.
Whatever you are, we know what you want. The fact that you recognize how impotent you are in achieving it doesn't make you any less of a monster to a decent, free society.
Have a nice evening, hopefully fucking off in that non-race perpetuating way. Maybe it will reinforce the the sorrily felt social impotence of your true political values, that you must obviously feel.
And every time you've commented here it's been to make clear your stupid agenda to how the breeders go about propagating nations and races. So of course it's curious that a yokel like you who plays no natural part in that role would be so singularly obsessed...
Okay, you win. I'll fuck your mother to prove my bona fides. Deal?
Your only bona fides are in the "art" of Hitlerian revivalism while pretending that you really have some ambiguous and way less evil agenda, and just want to repair the "intellectual" reputation of whatever ideologies motivated him.
So maybe you'd be better off fucking your own daddy, instead.
Your agenda is keeping America white, as anyone reading your many comments in the last week can see.
America has never been entirely white.
And I have never said it was. That's just another bullshit strawman you keep spitting out like some malfunctioning automaton.
So for the political values you truly hold to pass, to come into effect, it is obvious that you wish you could making breeding decrees.
No, afraid not. It's never been anything that's ever crossed my mind. But it's obviously something that occupies quite a bit of real estate in your brain. Perhaps you think if you could make such decrees, you could actually have an opportunity to have sex with somebody.
But you know you can't, so you instead dance around umpteen different maneuvers up and down the racist flagpole, peppered with the typical "I'm just asking questions" ambiguous window dressing to pretend that you're more curious than agenda-driven.
Not umpteen. Just a couple. A moratorium on immigration and total freedom of association. People who wish to mix it up, god bless them. But I'm evil, right? Nowhere near as righteous as you, who is so convinced of the correctness of your opinion, you're prepared to use the force of the state to force it on people.
Have a nice evening, hopefully fucking off in that non-race perpetuating way. Maybe it will reinforce the the sorrily felt social impotence of your true political values, that you must obviously feel.
Still won't reach the level of pity I feel for a nebbish little dweeb like you.
Hugs and kisses, dear. It's been real. It's been fun. Just hasn't been real fun.
So maybe you'd be better off fucking your own daddy, instead.
Nah. Still prefer your mom. Just permit me a bottle of Jack Daniel's and a barf bag. Just like your daddy!
Okay, now I really have to go. My husband is beckoning me to the bedroom. Hey, don't forget to deflate your date when you're done with her.
But I'm evil, right?
Whatever you are, you're full of shit, politically impotent and have no courage to follow your political desires to their logical conclusions explicitly. Or just talk out of both sides of your messed up mouth.
You've often reinforced your belief in the superiority (biologically) of white "civilization."
You've said that immigration leads to national decline - obviously there is no rational explanation for why you would disconnect that sentiment from your strongly held (and vigorously argued) belief in biological, white social superiority.
You've pretended to be open to objective argumentation, but the overwhelming weight of comprehensive biological and anthropological knowledge is against you on that.
So what you are is clear - WRONG.
As for evil, you seem to at least have the presence of mind morally to understand that your political priorities are considered evil. So you either are trying to contend with that fact honestly and ethically or just want to talk ambiguously and out of both sides of your mouth in order to obscure the true nature of your political aims to others alone, or to yourself as well.
Blah blah blah. Sorry, I didn’t read any of that. Maybe another time. Byeeeeeee. Xoxoxo.
Too bad. It summed up the stupidity of your position quite nicely.
Keep up the harrassment and sexual, personal comments. It shows that when the Birth of a Nation goon in you is outed, you revert to rank creepiness.
Maybe you could have been a character witness for Harvey Weinstein.
Keep up the harrassment and sexual, personal comments
You complaining about "sexual, personal comments?" Hahahahahaha. What's next? Ellen DeGeneres complaining about vaginas? No seriously, anonymous person with the cartoon avatar, you've been great for some laughs, but my Ambien is kicking. Thanks for the entertainment.
I would think that being a communist is a more serious failing than being a supporter of the 2nd amendment, but it's his money.
Great. Authoritarian nutjob vs. authoritarian nutjob.
Blogger Aunty Trump said...
"How do you see Sanders' pro literacy comments playing out?”
Miami Democrat congresspeople are having a fit over it, if that’s any indication. I don’t know what state it will help him win that makes up for writing off Florida, but who knows. In a way, his lack of calculation is kind of endearing.
____________++++++++++++
thanks.
Bernie may be testing also "Cuban" who vote D seriousness about anti-socialism fig leaf
Bernie loves him some corrupt Cuban dictator. What the Castro family did to a once thriving island, economy and people - is a crime.
Bernie loves that lie and that failure.
Geez...who needs the Russians to interfere with our election when Mike Bloomberg is on the case?
"Let's be clear -- the Dems are NOT opposed to Bernie on principles, they will be absolutely delighted to have a President Sanders."
Wrong. The Dems absolutely are opposed to Sanders on principles, and will prefer Trump back in office over Sanders.
The Dems, like the Republicans, are happy and loyal vassals to Wall Street and the military/industrial complex. They just think they're nicer about shitting on the American people than are the Republicans.
"conservative"...That's pretty funny.
J. Farmer said...
What a nice platitude. Unfortunately racial obsessions as fixed and dogmatic as yours preclude achieving that goal in practice.
And yet in my own life I am perfectly capable of forming strong social relationships with people on the basis of their individual character and not their group identity. I wonder how that can possibly be.
Maybe IRL you don't say the things you do here?
We deserve a president who isn't a big State-fellator, Mikey.
President Toilet Paper Shoe's Cooked-Up Drug Deal said...
I lost count, but I think that's about the dozen time you've made references to my sexuality.
And every time you've commented here it's been to make clear your stupid agenda to how the breeders go about propagating nations and races.
Reading this, Ritmo, I thought you had him confused with jimbino, but reading backwards from the end, I'm not so sure. Spirited!
Post a Comment