/sci/ - Science & Math

Shitty bait thread

>>10242104
Actually not baiting, I'm genuinely looking for answers/discussion. I could be wrong, I don't know, I'm still learning.

The social construct thing cones from how racial distinctions change over time. Like how Irish people used to not be considered white, but now are. This change isn’t a result of changing scientific data, it’s the result of the social context and who benefits/suffers financially and culturally.

There are obviously biological differences like facial features and skin colors, but ‘race’ isn’t really affected by that like you’d think. Lots of brown middle eastern people demand to be called caucasion, for example. And they may have been called such for longer than white skinned people. So the social construct thing isn’t total bs.

>>10242098
>it's just objectively wrong
it's not. sure, there is small genetic variation between humans. you can call that "race" but that doesn't capture the sociological phenomenon of "race" properly.
when people say "race is a social construct" they do not mean to say that "humans are genetically indistinguishable." they mean that race as a sociological tool is a construct of classification, not a natural law. one could just as easily say that "species" is a human construct because we use it as a guide to classify animals based on their reproductive abilities and genetic similarities. it's not necessarily some inherent thing, it's something we made up to make studying animals easier.
race is a human construct in the same way, since it makes it easier for us to understand where people might be from. it's pattern matching. but while it looks like a human scientific construct on the surface, the history of race and racial classification reveals that it is quite a fluid notion which follows the guide of social and cultural structures. hence "social construct" rather than "scientific construct."
i'll mention an example in the next post to illustrate this, but the most important thing to take away is that race is a model for understanding humans, not an inherent biological trait. calling it a "social construct" merely describes it as a specific type of model.

>>10242202
The most intelligent post I've ever seen on this board, good stuff.

nobody is convinced race doesn't exist

you can't believe race doesnt exist and believe in racism

it's just a game to see whether you are smart enough to play along or not

>>10242202
"Demanding" is social by nature, though. These people dont "demand" on a scientific or biological basis. They "demand" on an emotional basis for labels. Anything can be labeled anything, we can call white people black, caucasians indoeuropeans that doesn't change the fact that they are biologically different and labeling separately or grouping together doesn't change that fact. It sounds like they're just arguing that the "labels" are socially constructed, and that's it.

>>10242098
>Be me, biotech major
It's obvious you have poor critical thinking skills in the first place.

>>10242202
>Like how Irish people used to not be considered white, but now are

Irish were always considered white you moron. That claim is just Jewish divide and conquer propaganda whose sole source is a SATIRICAL magazine from the 19th century. Believe it or not, Europeans have always joked around with each other, and in that magazine they’re mocking the Irish comparing them to niggers and monkeys, it’s pretty great comedy.

Everyone knows what a white person is when it’s time for (((diversity))) policies, affirmative action hiring and anything else designed to hurt whites.

>>10242204
ah, i was going to continue with the irish example, but >>10242202 already said it.
in fact, the moment someone actually explained to me what "race is a social construct" means i realized it was fucking obvious and that i was being an idiot. within a few weeks all of the /pol/shit i had eaten up disappeared.
it was kind of like finding out how evolution works and going "what the fuck? that's not some magical process, that's literally just fucking obvious" and then suddenly evolution deniers all look like morons.
you'd need to read more into it to get a better sense of how race is a social construct as opposed to a scientific one, since just "le irish" is a single anecdote. but this is relevant in the US to all different racial groups. as another instance, latinos originally were considered FAR more white than asians in the west coast of the US. as wealth and industries shifted and trade with eastern countries increased, the perceptions naturally shifted along with the social setting and their roles reversed.
if you truly are interested in learning more about the sociological history of race in different parts of the world, i would highly recommend it. for someone who barely gives a shit about sociology or history i was surprised at how interesting it was to me. and the best part is, the kids spouting "race is a social construct" in your class probably had no clue what that means just like how pop-sci idiots think evolution is like pokemon. anyone worth their shit could have a very nuanced and deep discussion with you about this, addressing your skepticism knowledgeably and respectfully. i do not claim to know much since i've only taken a couple of classes on the historical perspectives of class and race structures and choose to just do math instead of worrying about that messy stuff, but i have met people with some very reasonable and inductive research building up these sociological theories. it's damn impressive.

>>10242110
there is no social justice movement to declare all subspecies equivalent. in fact, environmental law actually incentivizes biologists to exaggerate distinctions in order to give populations protected status. so you have opposing forces leading to "species creep" in biology and "social justice" in anthropology
study of physiognomy and human racial distinctions have definitely been suppressed in the modern age. there's a very good reason for this, as born out in WWII: the prospect of a human eugenics movement is terrifying.
IMO this "social construct" stuff is just wishful thinking/postmodernist disease, with some small exceptions: e.g. the genetic variation among "blacks" is so high that skin color certainly is not the only or most important distinguishing character.

>>10242204
Thanks, this explanation makes much more sense. But all the people I've met who've used the social construct argument frame it in a way that says "it's only skin deep, all humans are the same".

>>10242213
yeah but "the labels" are precisely what race is. anyone educated does not propose that there are no biological differences, but instead they propose that the "race label" contributes more to perceived social inequalities than biological differences. that's kind of self evident, since social inequalities are inherently, well, social, and therefore involve communication and labeling.
none of this is black magic or unintuitive, it's just a tautology that people haven't thought through.

>>10242204
Thanks, this explanation makes much more sense. But like >>10242225 said, all the people I've met who've used the social construct argument frame it in a way that says "it's only skin deep, all humans are the same".

>>10242240
>it's only skin deep, all humans are the same
There is a weak form of this argument that is at least plausible. Given neural plasticity, you might suspect that the influence of environment on a person's behavior is greater than genetics. There are some instances where this is quite clearly true: e.g. if you raise an aboriginal Australian boy in China, he will grow up to speak Chinese

>>10242240
those were both me. but yeah, those were the people who i'd met for a long time, and when i realized it was bullshit and that they were just pop-soc children i have always been open to having conversations with "le social construct" spouters to help them to understand what the words they're saying actually mean. sometimes it works pretty well.
i feel as though this tends to happen quite often, where a bunch of people all believe precisely the same thing and just don't know how to articulate it properly to one another, so they think that they all disagree.

>>10242098
Race actually IS a social construct, but that is not as significant as most of them think.

I once had an anthropology professor argue that color was a social construct (not skin color, but color in general: red, blue, purple, green, etc.) . She argued that, while the electromagnetic spectrum is a physical reality, the divisions we draw on the electromagnetic spectrum are arbitrary, and actually do vary between cultures. Some cultures consider "orange" to just be a more yellowish hue of what we call red. Some cultures view light blue and dark blue as not different shades of blue, but as two separate colors entirely. But this does not negate the fact that red and blue are different, and we can use the socially constructed terms "red" and "blue" to distinguish between real, physical objects.

In the same way, "black", "white", "asian", etc, are social constructs. BUT they still correspond to the biological reality of ancestry, and we can use those terms to make meaningful and real distinctions between peoples. We can notice biological and statistical differences between these socially constructed groups.

>>10242247
the only issue i have with the neuroplasticity argument is that it's bait for more idiots to come out of the woodwork and wave their """studies""" around implying that environmental influences are not meaningful. as if you can run a proper sociological experiment by moving kids around to different families. as if they won't see people similar to them represented in media and find those influential. it's embarrassing how shitty every single argument is surrounding the neuroplasticity point, because people have no idea what they're talking about. neither do i. but as a rule of thumb i find it useful to address that later and start with "that's not what 'social construct' really means" first.

>>10242253
this is a wonderful way of describing it, well done anon
it baffles me that people react so vehemently to the words "social construct" without just thinking for a fucking second about what they obviously mean

>>10242248
Well you've given me a lot to think about. It's nice to finally get some answers. But if race isn't an inherent biological trait, does that mean that /pol/'s wrong about there being a link to it and IQ? I never put too much stock into the theory myself, but I never did much research into it either.

>>10242227
>the prospect of a human eugenics movement is terrifying.
It really doesn't have to be though. It's so unfortunate that the eugenics used in that era (either genocide or forced sterilization) was so unethical. IMO there are a number of ethical ways for a society to practice ethical hygiene. As long as we respect the value of life and reproductive autonomy, I think we can improve ourselves genetically.

I can think of two policies off the bat that would probably have a eugenic effect:

1) Offer tax breaks to the top income bracket in proportion to the number of children they have.

2) Offer violent criminals the option of sterilization in exchange for a reduced prison sentence.

>>10242259
>"that's not what 'social construct' really means"
But isn't it? I mean you've just pointed out yourself the impossibility of separating innate behavior from social influence in sociological studies

>>10242266
>offer violent criminals the option of sterilization in exchange for a reduced prison sentence
I'm not a fan of that idea. Call me naive, but the intended purpose of the prison system is to rehabilitate criminals, it's hard enough for the ones that aren't lost causes to get their lives together afterward without being forced to choose between sterilization and freedom.

>>10242266
>Offer violent criminals the option of sterilization in exchange for a reduced prison sentence.
That has horrifying prospects. Many minority groups receive disproportionate punishment, this policy would reinforce police racism.
>Offer tax breaks to the top income bracket in proportion to the number of children they have.
This too. Who is to say that top earnes have more desirable genetic traits? What if, for example, a sociopathic lack of empathy predisposes business success? Wouldn't we be creating a world of sociopaths where no social contract could survive?

>>10242202
Better example is how Arabs aren't considered white in the US any more.

>>10242219
Irish people aren't considered white even now you fucking mutt.

>>10242264
i don't give a shit whether /pol/ is right or wrong about IQ. IQ measures pattern recognition abilities, which is merely a proxy for a certain subset of intelligence. from my limited knowledge, i can barely imagine it being as biological as it is dependent on environmental factors during early infancy. i have no clue. i don't care. no one deserves to be treated like shit because they're not as good at deciding which shape goes next. that's fucking ridiculous.
>>10242266
do you propose that income and criminal offenses are accurate proxies for genetic fitness? who should make that decision?
one could argue that we should let nerdy postdocs be sterilized to fast-track tenure and provide professional sports players with bonuses for having kids instead. sure, physical fitness is a shitty proxy, but most people would want proof (or overwhelming evidence) that yours is much better.
>>10242269
well, sure, yeah. it is kind of what it means. i just meant that social construct does not mean "humans are all the same, it's only skin deep" but instead refers to a social classification scheme. it's important to address misconceptions before going back to "and it's possible humans aren't so different after all."

>>10242282
that's another very good modern example, but i think the irish one is useful because almost anyone today would be surprised to find out that irish people were once called nonwhite. modern examples are tougher to see in big picture. but it's also helpful to understand that the process of so-called "racialization" (shifts in the boundaries of racial groups) continues to this day.

>>10242098
How are you going to stay racist when you are forced to treat non-white patients since you seem to be a premed anyway?
A nazi doctor can get found out pretty fast. They'll take away your license

>>10242294
>i just meant that social construct does not mean "humans are all the same, it's only skin deep" but instead refers to a social classification scheme
Okay, I understand now. I think most people wouldn't agree to this definition, and that's why people talk past each other. Sociologists have this tendency to redefine words (like "gender") and insist that everybody agree to their new definition -- I find that a little disingenuous. I.E. when most people refer to race, they are not referring to just the social aspect, but a presumed genetic aspect as well. And genetics/anthropology are where the term originates.

>>10242278
>the intended purpose of the prison system is to rehabilitate criminals
At least in America, it rarely works out that way. In fact, if anything, the desperation associated with being in prison combined with the constant networking with other criminals leads to recidivism. Prisons are mostly to separate criminals from the general population, and to disincentivize people from committing crimes. I agree though, that rehabilitation is laudable when possible.

>>10242279
>this policy would reinforce police racism.
I don't think so. Let's grant that arrests and sentencing have a bias against blacks in America (I think there is good evidence for this, at least in the case of sentencing). Those biases are present whether or not we have eugenic sentencing policies. There may be a problem with the system, but it is not any hypothetical sterilization option. Also, note that I am not forcing anyone into sterilization: they are simply given the option, in exchange for a reduced sentence. It may be that the sentence itself was unethical, but that doesn't make the other option unethical by extension.

Consider the following scenario: a murderer is offered 20 years in prison, or 1000 years of torture in hell. You could say the 1000 years sentence is unethical, but since it is presented as an option to the criminal, there's really nothing wrong with it. Offering another option can never override the criminal's autonomy. (This argument only works for sane criminals, and I would only offer the sterilization option for sane criminals.)

>>10242279
>>10242294
>Who is to say that top earnes have more desirable genetic traits? What if, for example, a sociopathic lack of empathy predisposes business success?
This is a very good question, and is one of my reservations in advocating this policy. (Another is that maybe there are only so many high profit "slots" in our society, e.g. maybe we can only have so many CEOs, so increasing the number of people with "good CEO traits" doesn't actually increase the number of CEOs.) . All I will say is that there's potential for a lot of good to be done earnings can be increased. We know that earnings are highly heritable in our current environment (whether that is by genetic traits, like intelligence, or environmental traits, like privilege). Therefore, increasing the number of descendants of people who make a lot of money will also increase tax revenue. There is room for skepticism that this will work, but the potential good it could do is also very high. You could fund a lot more public goods and welfare if you doubled the number of people in the top income bracket.

>do you propose that income and criminal offenses are accurate proxies for genetic fitness?
Not really, I don't care about genetic fitness per se. In fact, in America, intelligent people actually tend to have fewer children, so one could easily argue that they are unfit. I am only arguing that crime is net expensive for the state, and high earnings are net profitable for the state. Since these are influence by genes, the state has an incentive to influence those genes in a way that saves it money in the long run.

The social construct argument is retarded. Because you could argue that everything is a social construct, the laws of physics and evolution are also social constructs.
This doesn't mean that there isn't a biological reality behind it.

Race exists, the biggest argument against it is based on Lewontin's Fallacy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Genetic_Diversity:_Lewontin%27s_Fallacy

>>10242214

I'm in bioengineering. Why do you say this?

>>10242202
Let's expand on this:
Chinese people used to be considered niggers in the 19th century. Now they are respected or at least feared.
Japanese people are worshiped but they also used to be seen as inferior.
All Catholics ethnicities used to be seen as white trash scum.
Poles, Irish and Italian immigrants were seen as people see Gypsies today. Poor people who keep to themselves, don't integrate, speak their own language and are prone to criminality.
Arabs made a u-turn. For a while they were see as white people, but now because of completely unrelated people on the other side of the planet, they are no longer white.

>>10242204
This is not a good post. This post is what we call "race denial" and "pseudoscience". He's pushing a myth and narrative that "race is a social construct" as a reasonable belief that its creators do not actually believe. No one who thinks "race is a social construct" says it because they are saying something profound about how humans categorize abstract, and continually changing aspects of biological life. What is life or a species? Its a concept used to simply attack whites and science. It should not be given credence.

Trying to justify a pseudoscientific concept (race is a social construct) is invalidated by the fact that race is a biological and genetic concept, and by calling it a social construct, you are de-legitimizing race and the evidence for it, by actively giving in to leftists attempt to redefine the world.

Calling race a social construct is a leftists tool to shut down any objective examination of race that actively harms them. If race is a "social construct", then race and IQ science can be dismissed. Nothing reveals the pseudoscientific nature of "race is a social construct" then how the left treats race as a biological construct when it suits them, and the idea that they can punish whites as a biological collective for "inequalities" between races that are a byproduct of genetics, but do not punish blacks a biological collective when the genetic physical traits that give blacks an advantage in sports are apparent.

The social construct myth has also been employed for sex. Likewise, idiots bought the myth that biological sex and behavior are not linked, and that gendered behavior is a "social construct", but this lie has gotten a bigger backlash, by the fact that unlike race, sex is determined by a chromosome, so its hard to deny biological sex.

Note that this pseudoscientific lies have been spouted about gender, where they try to fool well-meaning people by shitting up genetic explanations with magical sociological explanations.

>>10242324
you can use whatever word you like to refer to whatever thing you like, but that doesn't mean it's the right word to use. the way people have used race overwhelmingly through human history corresponds better to a social phenomenon than a genetic one. i.e. all the examples presented in this thread. what people "think" the word they're using corresponds to means less than how they're actually using it.

>>10242098
Genetic clustering studies prove that "races" do exist, just more blurry and overlapping than traditional notion of a race. And their significance is still up to debate.

>latinos originally were considered FAR more white than asians
For sure. The denigration of Latinos in America is a new thing. They did not use to be see as such a low class people.

>>10242342
incorrect. all of those are human constructs, but physics and evolution are not inherently social (because they do not follow social dynamics). the term "race" and it's implications, however, are quite easily seen to follow social and cultural phenomena and not biological ones, as per all the examples throughout this thread.
no one claims that there is no biological "reality" "behind" it, but overwhelming evidence seems to suggest that if there is any biological variation contributing to race, it is a small if not negligible contributor. socio-cultural environmental factors are key to understanding the dynamics of race, more so than genetics. genetics may be more useful for understanding, say, ethnicity, which is often conflated with race and wrongly so (i will say it again, as per all the examples in this thread).
these are not offenses or arguable points, they are merely misconceptions.

>>10242202
>Like how Irish people used to not be considered white

It's amazing how this fucking myth endures. There was NEVER A SINGLE POINT IN HISTORY were the Irish were not considered white. I mean, for fuck sakes, do you think your ancestors were stupid? You think they saw an Irish person with the most pale skin in the world, and having a lot of similarities with other British people (could easily blend in with the population), and who saw swarthy Arabs and Indians and though to himself (HERP DERP THEY ARE NOT WHITE). Fuck off. There was a common sentiment in the early USA that the Irish were a trashy people, and that they had little in common with the Anglo-Saxon Protestant, and that there were a distinction between the Northern Germanics vs other Europeans, but they still saw all of these people as the same race.

>Poles, Irish and Italian immigrants were seen as people see Gypsies today. Poor people who keep to themselves, don't integrate, speak their own language and are prone to criminality.

And it was all true. The Irish and Italians brought over the mafia. You look at the context of the time, and you see that the WASP hate of the Irish and Italian are pretty justified. The difference is that Irish and Italians don't have a culture around thievery like Gyspies, which is why they will be hated forever.

This is like saying the Serbs killed Croats and Muslims because they didn't think they were white. Even National Socialist Germany saw the slavs as white. Indeed, the academics, the educated people who were engaging in racial science, never ever ever believed the Irish were not white. Cultures used to perceive and understand the Sun in many ways, so what you're saying is that its okay to undermine objective understanding of the Sun because the Sun is just a "social construct".

>>10242397
>don't know about Hibernophobia
How does it feel to be a total brainlet retard?

Ultimately I believe there's two kinds of racists. There's those who are simply misguided. Those might yet be redeemed. Then there's those who want an excuse to hate. These people would find excuses to hate even if they weren't racists. We all know such people. The kind of people that would look at a total stranger minding their own business and blurt out a passionate rant about how much they hate that total stranger based on nothing but a glimpse of this person's existence. Those people are doomed.

>>10242374
thanks for informing me that my post is not "good" whatever that means, but you are merely spewing nonsense that you've read elsewhere. of course i agree that the people claiming the things you're saying are incorrect, because that's idiotic. but if you actually had any knowledge of modern anthropology and sociology theory, you'd be aware that the definitions and examples i'm sharing are the academically accepted and studied norms.
i do not know who came up with the phrase "race is a social construct" and it is entirely possible that they were attempting to push the narrative you express, but that is not the current academic narrative surrounding the phrase. i care very little for the political narrative surrounding it. i care much more about understanding how this term "race" plays into historical and cultural phenomena.
you're trying to politicize science. it's obnoxious and it's not what anyone on this board is looking for. just because anthropologists and activists both say "race is a social construct" does not mean that they're saying the same thing. and it just so happens that the anthropologists are right, and that the activists are probably wrong.
you're talking about "the left" in this post and i have no idea where that comes from. this thread is not about the political left or right. this thread is about understanding a scientific definition and its empirical and theoretical implications. it's not about politics.
you're introducing the whole sex argument too, which is obviously tangential. and you use the word pseudoscience a whole lot without much defense. i barely even get what your point is after reading your post a couple times, is it just to tell me that i'm using a different definition of "social construct" than the one with which you're familiar?

>>10242386
Latinos were always seen as a low class people you dumbass. They were never welcomed into the USA, but they still came here because of a loophole in US immigration policy that allowed some of them to get into the country despite being white only. Look at any historical European account of Latin America and the Spanish empire holdings in it, and none of them are exactly praise worthy. And of course Latinos were seen as far more white then Asian. Maybe it has to do with the little fact, that...you know, most of them have ACTUAL WHITE BLOOD IN THEM. Race is a biological concept, so of course "latinos" who are just race mixed products of Spaniards and Amerindians, would be seen as more white.

Like you're fucking stupid. You think 17th century and 19th century whites didn't understand that race was more of a spectrum? You think that just because they hated Irish, that the race academics did not consider them white? I mean, I can prove it. An Indian once tried to argue in the US supreme court that he should get citizenship because as a full blooded Aryan of a high caste, he was a Caucasian and thus deserved citizenship. But even the US supreme court just flat out ruled against it, because while he was Caucasian, he was not among the white Europeans. Hence why the Irish were allowed into the US.

Its strange that race is a social construct because people thought the Irish weren't white, and yet, US own immigration policy which restricted immigration from white Europeans only, were completely cool with Irish immigration. Because in the end of the day, they saw the Irish as being white.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Bhagat_Singh_Thind

>>10242397
you can spout as much as you want about something, but that doesn't tell any of us that you actually have any clue what you're talking about. plenty of primary and secondary historical documents describe the irish as nonwhite.
"the sun" is not a social construct, but cultures' understanding of the sun certainly is. just like cultures' interpretation and classification of human genetic variation is a social construct applied to a physical phenomenon. and "race" refers to the interpretation scheme, not the human genetic variation itself. if you want to claim that it does refer to the variation itself, you're free to, but that doesn't change how the word "race" is actually used in almost any context.

>>10242419
i like how you keep using the terms "race academic" and "race scientist" even though such people were at best as reputable as the sociologists you decry today. you've picked a side, at least recognize that.

Please report these /pol/ bait threads.

>>10242419
US immigration policies and laws are typically framed in terms of ethnicity, not race. most of your claims and arguments refer to "ethnicity" which is arguably a more scientific classification.
why do you have such a chip on your shoulder about which word people use? modern science seeks to make these terms more precise, hence the bifurcation of the once conflated "race" and "ethnicity."

>>10242401
Were did I say there was no anti-Irish sentiments? Did you read? Race is a biological construct, not a social construct, and the fucking stupidest way you people deny that race is a biological construct is to bring a non-existent time were the Irish were not considered white. Like a time were a White European would see an Irish but seriously and unironically saw him exactly as an Arab or a Japanese. There was NEVER a time were that happened. You need to fuel this myth by relying on SATIRICAL pages of a satire magazine where they mocked Irish behavior by comparing them to negros.

Just because people disliked the Irish didn't mean they weren't seen as white, which puts the kaboosh on this stupid "race is a social construct and is super malleable". Just because some average pleb at the time thought "We scots are a proud race" didn't mean they thought that the Scots were a super distinctive group of people, or that it was commonly seen like that. Race is a biological construct, so almost any person who encounter the Irish would group them up with any other people who looked similar to them, hence all white Europeans.

>>10242441
i disagree, i think this was a largely productive and useful thread until this guy came in here sucking off "race academics" and posting incidental wikipedia links

>>10242409
I think anti-racism is evil, and it needs to be eradicated from humanity because racial equality is a pseudoscience. Especially you, sounding so self-righteous that you hold such an immoral belief.

>>10242447
"arab" and "japanese" are not races, they're ethnicities. the more you repeat the phrase "race is a biological construct" without any reasoning to back this up as the proper interpretation beyond "LOL do you think they were IDIOTS?" the less credible anything you say becomes.

>>10242412
Yes, your entire post is garbage and is giving credence to an agenda that needs to be quashed. Race is a biological construct, some of us don't actually accept your sociological bullshit as valid. Sociology is an outdated field because it denies the role that genetics play in human behavior and social relationships.

>>10242389
> if there is any biological variation contributing to race, it is a small if not negligible contributor. socio-cultural environmental factors are key to understanding the dynamics of race
We are talking about phenotipical difference that you can easily see with your own eyes. And other biological aspects such as: genetic susceptibility to diseases, differences in brain structures that correlate with intellectual abilities, hormonal differences that cause a variation in the propensity towards violent behaviour.
Race is not the a cultural creation, but it is the cause of cultural differences.

>>10242463
>some of us don't accept...
some people don't accept evolution either, it doesn't mean they're right.
the belief that human genetics plays a significant role in human behavior is an old belief which is what's outdated. sociology now frowns on this belief because it has been largely debunked through decades and decades of reputable peer-reviewed experimentation, study, and research. you can continue to argue that you and your little community of pundits and failures is correct and that an entire established field of social science is wrong and full of disingenuous idiots, but i don't think people will take you very seriously.

>>10242470
>it is the cause of cultural differences
citation needed
it could be correlated, i can see that. not seeing substantial causation from any of the examples you've provided. except for the "differences in brain structures and hormones" which, again, need citations. no, one study or an illustration doesn't mean anything. you'd need a whole lot of data and support to overturn the hundreds and hundreds of studies claiming that those differences have far less effect than environmental factors.
do you know how science works?

To any race or sex denier: Leave now, you foolish subhumans; this is a science forum.

We have this thread every day.

Go back to /pol/

>>10242461
Imagine missing the point this badly and arguing semantics. It says a lot when race deniers need to go on a tangent because they know they cannot defend the concept that "race is just a social construct".

No one should even give this social construct garbage anymore thought when you saw how they tried to apply it with sex. When they said "gender is a social construct", noticed how they needed to segregate the word "sex" and "gender" from each-other in order to make rational people accept their cultist beliefs better. If people said "sex is a social construct", it would sound barbaric and laughable. The idea that sex is purely biological is so obvious and uncontroversial, that arguing that sex isn't determined biologically would make you sound stupid. It also helps, that unlike race, sex is determined by the sex chromosomes. However, like all biological traits, sex actually ISN'T definite, like race, there is a spectrum to sex, but unfortunately for these gender social constructivist, very few people are born with ambiguous genitalia, and those who are born with a phenotype that isn't male or female are so low, and most of the time, suffering other genetic disorders, that they cannot be taken into account. Unlike race, its much harder to deny the genetic basis of sex. So they focus on behavior, and how behavior is all socially constructed, too bad for them that behavior is also influenced by genetics, and most gendered behavior have such a odd universality to them is because they are genetic.

>>10242492
It's 4chan and its a science forum constantly raided by you idiots because you hate the truth.

Who is correct: A bunch of autistic wannabe terrorists or nazis on 4chan, or over 8000 researchers in the field of genetics?

https://www.cell.com/ajhg/pdf/S0002-9297(18)30363-X.pdf

>>10242474
>some people don't accept evolution either, it doesn't mean they're right.

Except I am right in calling sociology bullshit and soon to be outdated. Its not a science, and has no place in a science board. And you convince me with the garbage you just wrote after.

>the belief that human genetics plays a significant role in human behavior is an old belief which is what's outdated.

That's funny, because genetics is a very recent field, and behavioral genetics is also very recent too. How can it be an old belief when its completely new?

>sociology now frowns on this belief because it has been largely debunked through decades and decades of reputable peer-reviewed experimentation, study, and research.

No it frowns on the belief because it makes sociology irrelevant. Furthermore, there has been an increase in peer reviewed paper on behavioral genetics, so if anything, there is more and more evidence about how genes determine behavior every year.

>entire established field of social science is wrong and full of disingenuous idiots

Of course its wrong. It embarrassed itself already when sociobiology blew it the fuck out. It will embarrass itself again by denying that genes influence human behavior. After all, how can you call yourself a sociologists and pretend you actually believe in human evolution, when you deny the idea of inherited traits so much?

This is your average race deniers everyone.

>>10242513
Genetic fatalism is not true for behavior. Sociology is a real science, but that's a red herring. Just because evolution exist does not mean your politically motivated believes are true. Your concept of our evolution works in incorrect.

>>10242513
Pathetic and humiliating post. Is being the laughingstock of the educated science community an attractive prospect for you?
Sure, le epic behavioral genetics BTFO sociology totally! BASED!!!!
How can anyone take you seriously when you unironically defend a meme?

>>10242509
The geneticists and smart people who see blatant political agenda controlling scientific organization to promote their race denial bullshit and who start fighting against it.

Race denial is the stupidest thing ever, but it might be the best thing in terms of destroying leftists because they will be too distracted by a pointless issues over the real powerful and anti-left scientific studies. You don't need race to study race and IQ. You don't need race to classify behavioral and personality traits common in races.

>>10242524
And here we go.... the "science is a liberal conspiracy" defense. The final refuge of these idiots.

>>10242499
>it's not a semantic issue because i say so!!!!
it most certainly is a semantic issue. you're just unfamiliar with the modern terminology. accept it.
the concept that "race is a social construct" need not be defended because it is part of the academic definition of "race." if you'd like to use another definition, as you are, you are welcome to do so. but then you should probably stop taking part in academic discussions about race, where all you'll do is frustrate yourself by talking to a bunch of brick walls who find the premise of your argument to be incorrect.

>>10242523
>gene denier is also a sneedposters.

Cool, more reason to get /tv/ to turn against you annoying spammers. Anyway, yes, sociology is outdated garbage because genetics does a better job explain social behavior, because social behavior is genetics. Good to know. You should show more respect for your genes, they are the only reason you are even aware and exist in this universe. Not sociological pseudoscience garbage. Sociology needs to ADAPT to genetics if it wants to stay relevant in the coming decades.

>>10242524
>you don't need race to classify differences in races
Please seek help

>>10242502

You have your own "safespaces" where you can pretend that 1 + 1 = 5 and bathe in your unnatural untruthful filth; meanwhile, anonymous forums like these will always sway towards truth, because for the time being, truth is considered hate speech. Please be advised that one day your kind will be squashed like cockroaches; but let us not be surprised, you can only keep the lid of a boiling pot on for so long before it explodes.

>>10242535
>he posts on /tv/
oh, i see, you're one of them
no need to continue to reply to you! i have that image because people sneedpost on /int/ occasionally. you're clearly a complete idiot if you browse a board devoted to the most braindead form of culture, so i don't really feel any need to refute your poorly-constructed beliefs any further.
note that you're the only poster out of 22 in a thread on a science board on 4chan expressing these ridiculous sentiments.

>>10242523
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociobiology

>Steven Pinker argues that critics have been overly swayed by politics and a fear of biological determinism,[a] accusing among others Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Lewontin of being "radical scientists", whose stance on human nature is influenced by politics rather than science,[22] while Lewontin, Steven Rose and Leon Kamin who drew a distinction between the politics and history of an idea and its scientific validity[23] argue that sociobiology fails on scientific grounds. Gould grouped sociobiology with eugenics, criticizing both in his book The Mismeasure of Man. Noam Chomsky has expressed views on sociobiology on several occasions. During a 1976 meeting of the Sociobiology Study Group, as reported by Ullica Segerstråle, Chomsky argued for the importance of a sociobiologically informed notion of human nature.[25] Chomsky argued that human beings are biological organisms and ought to be studied as such, with his criticism of the "blank slate" doctrine in the social sciences (which would inspire a great deal of Steven Pinker's and others' work in evolutionary psychology), in his 1975 Reflections on Language.[26] Chomsky further hinted at the possible reconciliation of his anarchist political views and sociobiology in a discussion of Peter Kropotkin's Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution, which focused more on altruism than aggression, suggesting that anarchist societies were feasible because of an innate human tendency to cooperate. However, some critics have argued that the language of sociobiology readily slips from "is" to "ought" an instance of the naturalistic fallacy. Pinker has argued that opposition to stances considered anti-social, such as ethnic nepotism, is based on moral assumptions, meaning that such opposition is not falsifiable by scientific advances.

Sociologists don't have a future. Its not a science.

>>10242541
>truth is considered hate speech
but i'm not sure where you've provided proof that the hate speech you purport is indeed "truth?"
you've just done a lot of babbling!

>>10242509
Wow, that's fucking sad and pathetic. Just like when the American Psychological Society had the nerve to condemn the Bell Curve before later admitting that the statements in it are completely correct. However, seeing how they reacted to those Chinese CRISPR babies I know that most geneticists are not on board with the agenda of a stupid organization.

>>10242543
more wikipedia articles. thanks!
this is the site your kind claims is dominated by liberal agendas, right?

>>10242541
Science is the truth. You denying science.

>>10242488
Race and IQ:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886916303099
https://www1.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/Rushton-Jensen30years.pdf
http://unamusementpark.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/race-iq-gap-still-remains.pdf

>"Intelligence in the normal range is a polygenic trait, meaning that it is influenced by more than one gene, more specifically, over 500, and is thought to be up to 80% genetic in origin. "

Race and violent behaviour:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3383599/
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886912000840

Could continue, with but i have other stuff to do.
The point is that culture doesn't come from nothing, it's a product of a specific set of human beings and the way are.
I'm also sure that you will not provide any of those "hundreds and hundreds of studies claiming that those differences have far less effect than environmental factors".

>Race denial threads becomes a Gene Denial thread

Why are leftists so afraid of genetics and the idea of "inherentness"? Watching them deny genes manages to piss me off on a level that not even race denial and creationists do. They'll do anything to defend their blank slate religion.

>>10242573
>and is thought to be up to 80% genetic in origin. "
Really? It doesn't seem that way to me. People learn literally everything they know one way or another.

>>10242584
Intelligence is not knowledge.

>>10242560

Today, everything is turned upside down: Left means right. Good means bad. Gender is a spectrum. 1 + 1 is a spectrum. I had never even thought of race until I was told we are all "equal" and that race is not real. Why oh why did they have to tell me something so obvious over and over and over? I know why: Because it was never obvious. Tell a lie enough times and it becomes the truth. That is the mission. Thankfully, I am not so weak as to fall for such lies. You have turned me this way. I have so much spite. Spite is a very powerful feeling. I want to thank you depraved fools, as you have helped me find myself.

>>10242098
this is a really low iq board especially on holidays, go spend time with family. race is real, niggers are stupid and barely human.

>>10242600
Sounds like you're just dumb and confused and refuse to learn anything that upsets you.

>>10242584
https://www.gwern.net/docs/genetics/2016-plomin.pdf

All human traits are genetic. Don't listen to these sociology-twats, they don't even understand what a gene really is, or how genes function in the creation of proteins, hence why they use scary terms and scapegoats like "genetic fatalism", which is just another way of saying "genetic determinism"...but "fatalism", already they reveal their emotional and cultist devotion to the blank slate. Given the cancer these people are, I imagine this conflict between accepting genes and denying genes will get far worse, hopefully, with a genocide of gene deniers because Christ are they annoying. They engage in double think too. What I find interesting is how these people understand "genetics" and how they only seem to accept superficial physical traits as genetics. They don't seem to argue that height isn't mostly genetics, even when height itself has social implications.

>>10242607
Fatalism is a specific kind of determinism, and it is what you believe.

>>10242584
>People learn literally everything they know one way or another.
IQ is the ability of your brain to process information. Think of it as the equivalent of CPU and Ram (task memory).
Knowledge on the other hand is the equivalent of files on your Rom.

>>10242098
OP we should really get into contact. I believe we could have an interesting discussion. I‘m also black. What do you politically identify as? Do you use discord?

>>10242613
Brainlet

>>10242610
Nope, because its just a strawman. No one believes genes determine everything even when it comes to genetic disorders, only Huntington diseases can be really considered fatalists, just that genetics determine the basis. Just because you don't understand how genetics work, doesn't mean you know anything. The difference is that we will give objective and replicate explanation for behavior, while sociologist will offer the world nothing.

>>10242600
be careful with it anon, spite is a mighty weapon but just like an overclocked AMD it can harm you and your frens

>>10242616
>has no way of explaining why i'm wrong
>resorts to insults
>and i'm the "brainlet"

>>10242324
>Sociologists have this tendency to redefine words (like "gender") and insist that everybody agree to their new definition -- I find that a little disingenuous.
?????
Sociology is the study of society, where else is gender as a concept even being discussed? What are you even on about with this?

>>10242573
Lol Phillipe J Rushton That guy is total joke.

>>10242646
Also he was a sociologist.. and these people have been posting about how sociology is not a real science!

>>10242375
Just no
People refered to sub-saharan africans as blacks, because they have different skin color and facial features which are genetic. It's not a "social phenomenon" like the difference between patricians and plebeians.

>>10242650
Psychologist/Psychometrist

>>10242650
He was a psychologist, do you even know anything, apparently not, because you think sociology is a science. Its not. Not my fault you just realized you wasted your life studying garbage that produces nothing.

Race deniers everyone.

>>10242693
It's still a social science, so it's not a real science.

>>10242701
Psychology, unlike Sociology, uses statistics and other objective measurements, and psychological studies can be validated or debunked via neuroscience. So its already objectively better then Sociology.

>>10242721
Psychology is better than sociology, but it's still just pretending to be actual science.

Race IS a social construct.

Genetic differences based on origin is not.

>>10242754
This is true.

>>10242098
>nobody can agree on what it really means
That's what is meant by 'race is a social construct'. Your race can change when you go to different cultures that treat races differently, like being mixed race in South Africa makes you better than black, but in the USA they have the 'one drop' rule so you're black

>>10242795
>in the USA they have the 'one drop' rule so you're black
Not so much these days, if you're light people will just consider you mixed rather than black. Obama was half-white but you can't really tell from looking at him so everyone considers him black.

>>10242810
>Not so much these days
That's probably a fair point, I did think about finding a different example. Still, it shows how your race can change over time as a society changes

>>10242098
If you think race is not real please get off /sci/ this is for rational humans not morons who think we are special snowflakes exempt from natural selection.
>>10242202
>Like how Irish people used to not be considered white,
Irish people were always white, white is moron way of saying OF NORTH WEST EURASIAN DESCENT dumbass.
>There are obviously biological differences like facial features and skin colors
You mean cranial features as thats how different facial features form in humans idiot.

>>10242282
Arabs are purely middle eastern how the fuck woudl they be white? How can you imbeciles not notice the facial difference between an arab and a white person?

>>10242833
Just because it's a social construct doesn't mean it's not real. Why is this so hard for you to understand?

>>10242844
>social construct
Then why is it actually real? A genetic white race actually exists proving race is a real legit thing.

>>10242840
Are you implying I consider Arabs white?

>>10242848
Yes

>>10242846
>A genetic white race actually exists proving race is a real legit thing.
Lol. Here we go.

I define the purple race as anyone genetically from Antarctica and the North Pole. So the purple race exists genetically. Because if your genes are from either of those, you're part of the purple race.

>>10242844
It's an argument tactic that I think happens unintentionally
/pol/tards see someone argue in favour of their agenda by misrepresenting "race is a social construct" as "race isn't real", something which most people would agree is false. Then they also use the argument themselves and the recurring stupidity continues

>>10242846
Territorial borders are social constructs but you wouldn't wander into North Korea and confidently argue your way out of trouble by claiming their border isn't real. As part of human society, humanity's societal constructs are real to you. For an alien to understand them, they'd need us to understand human society.

>>10242853
We call ourselves white people because most people are too stupid to notice the real reason we are one race. Our real name should be the soft faced humans of North West Eurasia.
>>10242854
Calling race a social construct doesnt mean its not real. If race is not real why dont every human on planet earth look exactly the same huh? For race to not real humans cannot be subjects of evolution meaning magic so you are full of shit.

>>10242864
I was arguing that race is real, and the fact that race is a social construct doesn't mean that race isn't real

>PRETTY PLEASE JOIN MY EXCLUSIVE CLUB AND PRETTY PLEASE WILL YOU STOP BEING FRIENDS WITH ALL THOSE INTELLIGENT PRODUCTIVE PEOPLE BECAUSE THEY LOOK DIFFERENT FROM US!
We all know that behind your racist posts there is nothing but seething anger and desperation. Keep being losers.

>>10242202
This, if race wasn't a social construct then people wouldn't consider a half-white half-black person like Obama as black and /pol/ and other neonazis wouldn't consider mixed race people as "white genocide".

>>10242873
Look fucktard we dont care about being superior to blacks we just want the truth about this disgusting race put in the public light.
>>10242874
Obama is not black hes a mulatto.

>>10242873
>intelligent productive people
Um ok? Those are not the genetic majority of their population so they dont actually matter.

>>10242219
>Jewish divide and conquer

Irish were literally slaves and Europe has been divided and fighting for thousands of years. Even when we were in white ethnostates we were constantly warring with each other. We don't need jews to divide us, humans will always find some new outgroup to hate, it's in our nature.

Surprised to find this thread mostly in agreement about race as a social construct

Can we talk about how little politics needs to come into arguments over racism? Whenever you argue with people over this kinda stuff /pol/ posters love to throw in things like SJW, libtards, leftists etc
I'm relatively right wing compared to everyone I know, but for some reason not being racist automatically means I'm a leftie, I fell like /pol/ always believes it's putting logic and ration first but then whenever you argue this shit they call you a leftie when politics really doesn't need to come into a conversation about 'race realism'

>>10242615
I'm registered as a Republican but I consider myself to be more libertarian. My Discord is Hannibal#4845.

>>10242219
> Europeans have always joked around with each other
As two World wars and a genocide in Serbia will attest.

Throughout human history, there has ALWAYS been a pushback against migration by those born there. The English hated the Irish that immigrated when Ireland was in famine. The Irish turned around and hated the Slavs escaping the Russian revolution and WWI. The Jews, well, the Jews have been bouncing around for millenia.

Today's call of US-Mexican border security and the hatred against the Muslim populations escaping civil war is just more of the same. The dance partners may change, but the song remains the same.

>adopted black cousin
>raised since birth in a white middle class family
>still acts black
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha SJWs BTFO

>>10242973
>Today's call of US-Mexican border security
Not that guy, but the majority of the people who want increased border security aren't against immigration, we're against people violating our laws. My parents were immigrants and they came here legally, but the people who think they can just jump the border are an insult to the rest of us.

>>10242978
>>adopted

>>10242996
Explain the reduction in legal immigration and the desire to revoke birthright citizenship.

Also the majority of the people think increased border security is dumb and wasteful so you are talking for a majority within a minority.

>>10243012
>increased border security is dumb and wasteful
Arizona alone loses 1-2 billion a year dealing with illegal immigrants according to their state treasurer in 2010. Not to mention indirect costs such as higher car insurance rates due to illegals stealing cars and perpetrating hit-and-runs.

>>10242110
The issue is that the meaningful genetic differences that make us actually different can't be detected without a test
Just looking at somebody doesn't always help you classify them correctly
Also, if the scientists said the truth, /pol/tards would use it as an excuse to be assholes

>>10242264
IQ is genetic, but you can't tell somebody's genetics by looking at them so it can't possibly justify being an asshole about it

>>10243017
So what you are saying is that we should pay minimum 5b to save 1-2b as reported by one guy and some statistics you can't back up that you pulled from your ass.

>>10243040
https://abcnews.go.com/Business/illegal-immigrants-cost-us-100-billion-year-group/story?id=10699317
That's just from one state, illegal immigration is estimated to cost the country as a whole 100 billion yearly but the exact number is still being disputed.

>>10243042
>FAIR
I regret to inform you that acronyms do not decide the validity of information obtained from the internet.

Also if you also enjoy initialisms I should inform you that you are quoting an organization that is considered a hate group by the SPLC.

https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/group/federation-american-immigration-reform

Genetically speaking, tribalism is where it's at.
I'm quite certain if you'll genotype a statistically significant demographic of every country, you'll find genetically distinct genomes per country.
Country borders are actually a reflection of genetic separation.
Globalization and colonialism has made it a bit more difficult. There's more interracial stuff going on than ever before, although ingroups will always be a thing. There'll never be one "togethergroup". Next to socio-economic segregation, there's a reason people from another ethnic group stick together: they actually prefer it that way because it's more convenient for them (language, tradition, ...)

>>10243066
Most modern borders were made by white colonialists to protect their territory from other white colonialists. Whites introduced racism and division to Africa when they brought over phrenology and decided it was a good way to divide groups. Previously small tribes with small conflicts suddenly turned into "races" and when the colonialists got tired and left the things that they didn't take with them were mostly means of dividing and subjugating large groups for profit or war.

>>10242239
The "labels" aren't what race is, though. The labels are just that; labels. You could give absolutely no label to any race whatsoever but guess what, it would still exist, whether acknowledged or not. Therefore, the labels are NOT race. Yes it does make more ignorant prejudice-prone people to over-generalize and it does have its social implications as a result but that is NOT what the "races don't exist" argument argues. If you were to argue that giving these labels is conducive to differentiation and prejudice I would say yes, okay, that makes sense. But arguing that races are just labels is, objectively, incorrect.

>>10243074
So is black a label or a race?

>>10243071
Whites never introduced racism. Racism has always been a thing. Portuguese hated Spanish, Brits hated Dutch, Russian and Prussian hated everyone else. Why do you think there's arms races? Why was there the Roman empire?
There were a shit ton of African tribes at war with each other and a shit ton of them had very respectable empires built up. It just so happens we fucked it all up with colonialism and that we made artificial borders. That's what I mean with "globalization and colonialism make it a bit more difficult". All that history is condensed in that single line.
I'm pretty sure small tribes with "small conflicts" were just as bad as Vikings wiping out entire settlements while passing on their next of kin through rape. Perhaps a little more refined, perhaps a little less. I don't know, I haven't studied African history extensively and I don't know how much of it is actually known/left due to Western involvement.

But when I talk about tribalism I'm talking about almost every country on the planet (except the US, it being mostly a melting pot, but it's slowly being pushed out by the native americans).

>>10242219
It's surreal how this site is so bad that literal satire-tier neo-nazi shills post like they're human, like they're going to be taken seriously. I mean it's an actual, real-life, serious, brain dead fucking neo-nazi participating in an argument trying to blame everything on Jews, including even the behavior of his own incel cult. What the fuck

>>10243074
Protip: figuring out differences in genetics to prove differences in genetics labels people in different genetic classes AKA LABELS.
This doesn't have purely objective merit like how fucking well vision is or how good your heart valves are, but has vast socio-economic consequences based on historical and current human developments, but also geographical ones.

>>10243096
Yeah it's not like Irish never had issues with their fellow UK neighbors, which are both "white", right?
Or that for much of history Spain and Portugal were besties. Or that for much of history France and Germany were besties, even resulting in not one, but two world wars, all because white people get along so fucking well.

I think most people posting here don't have a lot of perspective on the human experience, historical and current. It's all just dichotomous visionary bullshit based on limited, often heavily skewed, information streams. I often wonder how much impact their parents and early development had an impact on their outlook of the world.
>MY DAD WAS SCREWED OVER BY MADOFF REEEEEEEEE

>>10243107
The worst part is how much neo-nazi material is fake/produced by themselves. Tons of fake articles, images, posts, arguments that they use to radicalize themselves even further. It's amazing and scary how once you've become radicalized, it's a self-sustaining process. You can literally make bullshit it up out of thin air that makes you angrier and more biased.

>>10242219
No, racialists and eugenicists condsidered Irish, Southern italians, slavs as inferior to Nordid-Germanics and there was an extremely strong anti-Irish racial bias among WASP’s and Anglo-Saxon elites in the UK and US. They were never white like the Dutch or Swiss or Germans were considered white. Of course they were looked at as Europeans, and as members of the Caucasoid race but that’s not the same as being huwhyte.

>>10243089
>I haven't studied African history extensively
That is apparent.

>>10243168
I wonder how many people can actually study African history extensively though. It's a massive continent with a massive diverse history.
People barely know their own history here, why would they bother with African? At the very least I know Africa was doing quite well before colonialism fucked it all up. That's more than what others can say on the subject.
And why the fuck am I even defending myself for? Ingroups are a thing, they're a real mental construct to organize our social behavior and it's how things like the discussion about race, which is quite redundant now that we have globalized societies, come about.
People like being comfortable in their own comfortable bubble of familiar looking people.

>>10242098
>one day we're told to have a debate about race

Things that never happened

>>10242375
>you can use whatever word you like to refer to whatever thing you like, but that doesn't mean it's the right word to use. the way people have used race overwhelmingly through human history corresponds better to a social phenomenon than a genetic one. i.e. all the examples presented in this thread. what people "think" the word they're using corresponds to means less than how they're actually using it.
like I said, talking past one another. the problem I see is often A talks to a B about race: A thinks race refers to biological distinctions, B thinks race refers to cultural definitions of race. Each person (but mainly B) obnoxiously insists that his definition is the correct one and just talks past the other guy, and nothing useful or original is said

>>10242524
The implication that the geneticists aren't smart is top shelf

>>10242278
I wouldn't call you naive for thinking that prisons are for rehabilitation.
I would call you ignorant for thinking that prisons are for rehabilitation.
A prison sentence is a punishment, the length of the stay is tailored to fit the crime, not "until you get better."

>>10243550
>the length of the stay is tailored to fit the crime
>rich whites steal millions from retirees indirectly causing at least a handful of deaths
6 months
>poor black nails 3rd strike for nonviolent drug offense.
25 years

>>10243078
Label

>>10243056
Look you can disregard the study if you want, but that doesn't change the fact that illegal immigration costs the public billions more than it would cost to reduce it.

>>10243561
I agree that that is unjust. However, that injustice comes from bias in the perception of the crime, not in some idea that drug dealers/users will "get better" after 25 years, or for that matter that white collar criminals "get better" in 6 months.

His point still stands that criminal sentencing is, in practice, not primarily for rehabilitation.

>>10243290
https://docdro.id/EBZVc70
I kept the course schedule, scroll down to week 5 and 6.