I’m saying, these statistics are biased, because people are biased.
Why are these cultural reasons irrelevant? Other than because you don’t want to believe them? “Unfounded”…perhaps to you, but there are plenty of racially profiled scandanavian people of colour who would like to offer their lived experience as evidence, of course, only if it is worthy of your superior white gaze (sarcasm).
Not true, multi-ethnic societies can work, but you’re right that people can use them to justify hate and social divisions…I’d say that’s a failure related to human failings/ignorance, not to the cultural divides alone.
Speaking as a pretty blonde girl, I haven’t experienced this, I’m English, not Norweigan. Plus, just because someone might be sexist or rude doesn’t inherently make them a criminal and it certainly doesn’t make them sub-human: humans are all pretty weak, morally-speaking.
Society has a sexism problem, but we aren’t going to solve that through racism, don’t use women to excuse your racism. I’m not your maiden to “protect”.
That is not the same phenomenom at all. That is paedophilia. It is ONE ring, which had white members, which the police department failed for a long time with. A less overwhelmingly white force would have felt less self-conscious about race and been able to handle it sensibly.
You are right it is a poor post, there is no context, and it’s old. But it bought us here, to your racism and my abhorrence of racism. And I doubt any of the notes on this are positive about the gif.
They’re inadequate explanations because criminality, like all behavioural and psychological traits, is highly heritable. That includes social attitudes such as racism. Differences not only exist at the individual level, but at the group (racial) level. Most people are simply unaware of such data from human genetics, or simply deny the facts outright. I reckon both in your case.
Present an argument illustrating that multi-ethnic societies do in fact work. Ethnic diversity is a modern phenomenon. Recent conflicts the world over have had ethnically based internal implications [see: the massacres in Rwanda, the Congo, Ethiopia, Sudan, Lebanon, Indonesia, etc]. Regardless of what social measures you implement, we continue to experience racial conflict, by whatever means defined, in multi-ethnic societies.
All liberals acknowledge that racism is a problem, but despite what was predicted, modernisation will not sweep aside the old basis for divisions, because like everything, they too have a genetic substrate, but you’ll never even attempt to understand ethnic tension, bigotry, and racism from an evolutionary standpoint, because you’re too stuck in your political views. You acknowledged exactly that in your first sentence. In fact, you agree outright that people are biased. Present evidence that this can be changed by social reform.
Yes, one paedophile ring, with a bare minimum of 1400 victims. Look at how easily you trivialised that. You won’t even acknowledge the clear racial underpinnings, in Britain or otherwise, will you?
I know exactly what I was doing with this original post. I’ve confirmed this. If you won’t acknowledge your clear bias is there any point in continuing this? Plus, when I’m the one that argues human attitudes are genetic, essentially fixed, and therefore inflexible to change, nonsensical back and forth arguments become highly ironic and a waste of time, especially when I know if this continues I’m going to be the only one speaking with insight and providing sources.
I know you’re going to attempt to address some of the points, but are you going to approach them with fresh insight and not the typical, banal rhetoric we see all the time on Tumblr? How many times can you hark back to white prejudice for every argument? Your first challenge would be to acknowledge and accept the importance of genetics, but as soon as you do this a majority of your political perspectives and the points you’ve raised here fail at the first hurdle. So it’s a trap. You’re better off ending this now and going on with life pretending that genetics is of no importance, pretending that individuals, good or bad, are all a product of their culture and upbringing. I know some of you lefties do this anyway.
Those studies were incredibly confusingly written, could you make them easier to understand somehow? I’m aware of literature, but no, you’re right, I’m not convinced (“yet”).
I am not going to take the responsibility of convincing you alone. But I will share with you some resources that explain my insight and hope. Here is an anecdotal piece about mulit-cultural multi-ethnic egypt, with possible nostalgia goggles. And here is a discussion of multicultural society with a bit of a christian slant, which goes more deeply into causes and solutions to tensions.
Those were not ethicnally motivated massacres, they were culturally motivated.
Again, I honestly would appreciate that study being explained.
My evidence, other than that second resource, is personal experience and basic logic.
People are biased, because it is easy, and, from evolutionary standpoint, easy = safer. It makes sense. But, obviously, we are mostly not in the same fight for survival any more. We can afford to take time to understand situations at more complex levels. We don’t have to be biased, we can address it. E.g I can meet two people with blue hair who are spiteful. I can talk to others, who confirm that they have met people with blue hair who are spiteful. I then meet another person with blue hair, and instinctively think: This person will be spiteful. Now, I have a choice. To run with that view (my distrustful attitude combined with confirmation bias consolidates my preconcieved distrust of blue hair.) Or to recognise that people are individuals, and make an effort to see past that and judge merely the individuals. They could still be a spiteful person. It’s not one and the same as having blue hair though.
I did trivialise it as evidence, because one case is not particularly strong, even if it was an extreme case, and obviously horrifically widespread.
However, “clear racial underpinnings”? Excuse me, there were white members? Also, there are other rings which are predominantly white, you cannot honestly be telling me that this is a racially-profilable crime.
I am acknowleging my bias, as are you. I understand you feel it’s pointless defending your view that peoples’ attitudes don’t/can’t change. But that’s because you think people’s views/behaviours can’t change. I do. This is our area of conflict.
Again, I wait for your explanation of your evidence before I will reject or accept it. Bearing in mind that science and racism are not mutually exclusive.
I’ll humour you once more. If you continue to spew the same kind of elementary tumblr knowledge expected of a typical urban liberal knitwit, and still have no interest in taking on board the data to consider re-evaluating your views accordingly, then there’s no point continuing this. It’d mean we fundamentally disagree.
There’s no quick way of explaining. Those posts cover studies from the field of behavioural genetics, which is the study of inheritance. As alluded to, the predominant idea that became the cornerstone of the Enlightenment (that human nature is shaped only by the environment) was thoroughly dismantled by the time of the 1980s, when they had conducted studies demonstrating that all human traits are in fact heritable. At this point the research was so extensive and of such quality that they simply couldn’t be ignored.
What behavioural genetics does is look at how closely identical twins resemble each other compared to same-sex fraternal twins. With random mating identical twins share 100% of their genes and fraternal twins only 50%. Under any reasonable assumption environments will be equally similar for fraternal as for identical twins. If genetics made no difference to a trait the trait’s correlation for identical and fraternal twins would be the same. In fact, identical twins show a stronger correlation on some traits than for fraternal twins. E.g. 0.4 versus 0.2, which implies that at least 50% of the transmission on one trait from parents to children is genetic.
There have been those who long doubt the validity of these twin adoption studies. Their validity (which was never really up for question) was the last hope in defending the “nurture only” argument. Since then, a newer and more advanced technique known as Genome-wide Complex Trait Analysis (GCTA), allows estimation of heritability due to common SNPs using relatively small sample sizes. It has been applied to height, intelligence, and many medical and psychiatric conditions. It examines pairs of unrelated individuals and computes the correlation between pairwise phenotype similarity and genotype similarity (relatedness). The point is that this newer, more accurate method found similar measurements as estimated by the old (but evidently still completely valid) twin and adoption studies.
In such studies you’ll always see traits measured by their influence from genetics (genes), the shared environment, and the unshared (unique) environment. The shared environment (e.g. parenting) signifies events that happen to both twins, affecting them in the same way. This force is found to have insignificant (or even statistically zero) impact on adult outcomes on seemingly any trait analysed. It is the unshared, or unique environment— events that occur to one twin but not the other, or events that affect either twin in a different way—is something we know little about and may not deserve it’s “environment” title, yet seems to influence traits in a way that can’t seem to be accounted for by genes. On an overall scale, we’re talking about at least 50% influence from genes (~81% for important life outcomes such as intelligence), a portion from the unique environment, and an insignificant amount from the shared environment.
The other source of information used in behavioural genetics to identify the role of genes is the outcomes for adopted children compared to their biological and adoptive parents. These work very much in the same way. E.g., in the case of criminality, the chance an adoptee would end up with a criminal record when neither set of parents had one is found to be rather low, when only the adoptive parent had a criminal record this chance would only rise (if at all) very slightly, indicating very little (or just insignificant) influence from the share-environment. However if only the biological parent had a criminal record the chance of the adoptee having a criminal record would rise much more, and so on. This is what the data finds.
You have nothing to suggest those massacres I listed were ultimately culturally motivated, to make such a claim entails you have little knowledge of them. Here’s a paper that is a summary of findings from previous studies (these massacres included) regarding the causations and implications of global violent conflict since the end of WWII. Extract:
[…] “nearly two-thirds of all [the world’s] armed conflicts [at that time] included an ethnic component. [In fact], ethnic conflicts [were] four times more likely than interstate wars.” Another study claimed that 80 percent of “major conflicts” in the 1990s had an ethnic element.
People outside of the West still practice cousin marriage, which produce close-knit tribal-like communities which are marked by cultural, religious, and ethnic animosities. Are you even aware that the estimate is around 5 million deaths, as a result of ethnic conflict in the massacre I alluded to in Congo, with hundreds of thousands more in Sudan, Ethiopia, Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere? Your only ethnic frame of reference is one of white people on one side, and "people of colour" on the other. At most you place people into categories of Asian, black, and white. Not all brown people are the same. They certainly don’t think they are. Research the caste system in India if you want to see what a millennia worth of ethnic discrimination looks like.
Little point in me repeating, so on the topic of ethnic conflict, and the evolutionary causations for bigotry and racism, see here and here. Key here is that ingroup/outgroup recognition, however defined, is instinctive, and the influence from the shared-environment (i.e., what your parents taught you) is again of no significance. Think about that for a second. A prime example of recent ethnic conflict in Europe is of course the collapse of Yugoslavia; a forced multicultural, multi-ethnic experiment that failed.
Finally, individual attitude is constrained by genetics, with attitudes of higher heritability more resistant to change, population-wide alteration and/or subversion is a complete and utter impossibility, as a vast majority of people actually have little control over their innate beliefs, attitudes, thoughts, decisions, and behaviours—they’re "born this way."
If after all this, you continue to believe attitude change is all that malleable, I’d be interested in seeing how you apply this to a trait like homosexuality. What happens now then, are gays born this way or with the use of social conditioning can they too be mass converted? It’s another trap, isn’t it? In fact, I wouldn’t be at all interested. I don’t want to read some nonsensical rambling argument based on entirely nothing about why homosexuality ought to be genetic, essentially fixed, and inflexible to change, yet traits such as bias and bigotry, however defined, can be altered under the right conditions.
When Britain is on the order ~87% white, Polish, English, Irish or otherwise, no, it does not surprise me that white paedophiles exist. You keep putting this in bold formatting, as though the presence of white paedophiles in the mix refutes the topic at hand. It’s telling how your feminist rhetoric appears to be impeded by the racial element: again, to you there is no underlying racial element to these cases? In fact, foreign men of certain backgrounds do not have preconceived notions and opinions about women, in whatever regard, which would fall under your definition of sexism, and that such notions aimed at Western white women often tend to differ from that aimed at women of their own culture and/or ethnic background?
Since “personal experience and basic logic” is apparently a good enough backing for your arguments, consider then the issue of popular British travel destinations such as Turkey or Tunisia, where away from the hotel and tourist hotspots your young blonde white daughter, or a group of young, fair-haired, fair-skinned girls, are likely to attract some unwanted attention from the male locals. This is pretty much routine common knowledge among British families considering holidaying aboard, particularly in Arab and Middle-Eastern countries, and enough for concerned parents to take to the forums of the internet to discuss other people’s experiences (have a quick google search).
You, the identified feminist, I’m sure believes that there is a problem of sexualistion of women and a phenomenon of rape culture, but as of now you’re then saying white women are in no way sexualised and/or viewed by foreign men in a manner on the order different from the way in which said men view their own women? I’m guessing you believe any such notions only exist as a result of white prejudice which has debased their social attitudes towards [white] women? Your “PoC” pets are not all that innocent, and they are racist and prejudice enough on their own, because after all, such traits are genetic anyway.
Oh, and I can assure you that science is mutually exclusive with racism, as defined by people like you. Oh you have no idea - bigotry as an evolutionary evolved mechanism; innate differences in abilities between racial groups; observable racial differences present at birth.
I would actually afford you some praise if you acknowledge any of this, as it’s quite rare for those who hold such views to do so since it largely invalidates them outright and requires you to reassess your worldview, but perhaps I can be your "unique environmental effect" that causes you to shift to your genetic predisposition of ethnic favouritism and acceptance of human nature, if you are at all structured that way, heh.