[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 336 KB, 648x1024, 1312333016626.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3525993 No.3525993 [Reply] [Original]

>From Wikipedia, the absolutely trustworthy encyclopedia:
Scientific racism is the use of scientific techniques to sanction the belief in racial superiority or racism.
This is not the same as using scientific findings and the scientific method to investigate differences among the humans and argue that there are races. In biological classification differences between animal groups are investigated without necessarily claiming that one group is superior to others. Racism or racial supremacy is the additional claim that some races are superior to other races.

>Translation: It is perfectly acceptable to investigate the existance and/or differences between races, unless you actually find evidence for it. You can investigate all you want, it is science. But if you dare, actually find differences, it is scientific racism.

>> No.3526005

>>3525993
not so fast tim.

>>>/b/
>>>/newnew/

>> No.3526011

Science tells us that different races exist. Is that also scientific racism?

Morgan Freeman said what I've been saying for years, ever since i was a kid in school during the Clinton administration's forcing of diversity down everyone's throats. Watch the video, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3cGfrExozQ it's only 0:55.

>> No.3526018

Jesus Christ any more freckles and she'll look Indian.

>> No.3526022

I see nothing wrong with that quote, and I don't see where you're getting your "translation" from. It's saying that scientific racism is equivalent to studying reptiles to look for justification for your belief that alligators are better than crocodiles.

>> No.3526023

Racialist
Racist

Difference.

>> No.3526029

>>3526011
>Science tells us that different races exist. Is that also scientific racism?

It tells us that there is variance in gene frequency, but it does not support cultural racial categories.

>> No.3526037

>>3526011

so we are just going to ignore race, when a doctor is treating a black person and saves his live by knowing a black man is more vulnerable to condition X and thus treats him for it, he should be called a racist?

>> No.3526039

>>3526029
Oh you poor soul! Don't you know science has proven the kindergarten descriptions of human race - white, black, yellow, brown, red.

>> No.3526041

Completely misinterpreted.

>> No.3526058

>>3526022
the problem is that we can say things like a black person has darker skin, that's scientific, but when you say a black person is on average stronger (this is an example, but someone will tell me that blacks arnt stronger) it is Scientific racism because people then say but stronger = superior. how does that make sence?

>> No.3526063

>>3526058
Black person? Spanish, Italian, Iranian, Afghans, Indians, Chinese etc have, in most cases, darker skin. What the fuck are you talking about?

>> No.3526075

A cow and a badger are different.
But who is superior?

>> No.3526094

>>3526063
>Spanish, Italian, Iranian, Afghans, Indians, Chinese etc have, in most cases, darker skin.
why so racist?

>> No.3526100

Scientist 1: Oh look, I found evidence races exist.
Scientist 2: That is awesome what did you find?
Scientist 1: Well, first of, let me clarify that the definition of "different races exist", means that groups with differences exist.
Scientist 2: Yeah, I know. Like skin color, and facial features adn resistances to diseases, bone density, dental density, blood type frequency, recessive gene expression frequency etc.
Scientist 1: True, but you see if we are to imply that groups with differences exist, then there is also one other thing...
Scientist 2: What?
Scientist 1: Well naturally some differences may be more beneficial in certain situations... You know, maybe some groups are better at some tasks
Scientist 2: Are you implying that races are different in meaningful ways, that would make some groups superior at perfrorming certain taska?
Scientist 1: W...well the evidence suggests...
Scientist 2:RACIST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!BIGOT!!!!
...
...
...
..
...
...
...
...
Hint: Scientist 2's name is Shlomo Goldensteinberg.

>> No.3526107

>>3526029
that's racist!

>> No.3526115

>>3525993
you have extremely poor reading comprehension.

>> No.3526118

The amount of angry sagers in this thread pretty much confirm what OP is saying.

>> No.3526128
File: 7 KB, 269x215, varg-vikernes.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3526128

Yep, just more cases of jews calling blood libel.

>> No.3526136

I have itching in an around my asshole, penis hole and ears. It is most intense at night. I think the linens I use affect it heavy sheets make it worse. Sometimes I have it on my hands and feet when it gets really cold. I was told I was crazy and that it wasn't real, recently my cat has been showing some symptom of the ear thing because it will wake up and shake it's head very hard. What is it, I have been aflicted for so long.

>> No.3526137

>>3526075
the badger is better at hiding himself and food. Better at digging underground tunels.
The cow is superior at providing humans with milk, and m
being the vessel to this world to the noble bull.

>> No.3526150

>>3526100
protip: attempting to hide your belief that one race is inferior or superior to another behind "righteous anger" due to your misunderstanding of a wikipedia article only makes you look like and asshole AND a racist.

>> No.3526156

>>3526136
were you meaning to start a new thread, or post an obnoxious comment in this one?

>> No.3526166

>>3526058
>the problem is that we can say things like a black person has darker skin, that's scientific

Actually it isn't, since "black person" is so poorly defined in the first place.

>> No.3526175

>>3526166
>>3526166
>HURR DURR
>aah semantics, how i missed you.

>> No.3526191
File: 6 KB, 243x207, you keep using that word.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3526191

>>3526175
>semantics

>> No.3526193

Racism has really lost its sting. This is boring. Nobody cares. Nobody.

>> No.3526223

>>3526193
then why are you on /new/?

>> No.3526217

In our expirement, 29 out of 35 of the subjects of the experimental group A1 jumped a distance superior to 20x while 5 jumped a distance equal or inferior to 20x but superior to 15x. 1 person in group A jumped a distance inferior to 15x. In the witness group B1, 16 out of 35 subjects jumped a distance superior to 20x, 10 jumped a distance equal or inferior to 20x but superior to 15x and 9 jumped a distance inferior to 15x.

>Assuming groups are composed of people of different genetic group (race if you want), this study isn't racist, but we haven't reached the interpretation yet.

Observing the results of the experiment including the scores of the subjects of the experimental groups A1 to A30 and the scores of the subjects of the witness groups B1 to B30, we can assume using a normative bell and an uncertainty index of 0.1% that people of genetic patrimony 1 jump distances 1.24 times longer than people of genetic patrimony 2.

>This shouldn't be considered biased to, since no general conclusions have been made out of a simple fact.

We can then conclude that blacks are better athletes than whites.

>This would be the fucked up part.

>> No.3526254

>>3526193
You must be white. If not, well, I'm surprised that anyone would actually think the way that you do.

>> No.3526284

There are differences. None of them indicate objective benefit in darwinian terms.

>> No.3526292

OP here. It's amazing how everything will almost always end up in debates about racism or sex.

>> No.3526308

>>3526217

We can then conclude that blacks are better athletes than whites.
This would be the fucked up part.

It would be fucked up because there are many athletic events, there would be nothing wrong with saying they are better at the jumping event though.

If you got data on all athletic events and it turned out one race was better in the majority then yes you could say they are better athletes

>> No.3526309

>>3526292
> end up

But... that's where it started....

>> No.3526317

>>3526308
>If you got data on all athletic events and it turned out one race was better in the majority then yes you could say they are better athletes

It would be an almost meaningless thing to say, though.

>> No.3526322

>>3526292
real OP here, what the fuck are you talking about?

>> No.3526332

>>3526322
>>3526292
What? Impostors!
I am the real OP and I'm currently choking on dicks.