[FiveofSwords]

Cyanobacteria are not human.

And you have ancestors that were not human. What is your point?

[ingliz]

@FiveofSwords

We were discussing the human race, not bacteria.

And we are one 'race'.

A landmark 2002 study by Stanford scientists examined the question of human diversity by looking at the distribution across seven major geographical regions of 4,000 alleles. Alleles are the different “flavors” of a gene. For instance, all humans have the same genes that code for hair: the different alleles are why hair comes in all types of colors and textures.

In the Stanford study, over 92% of alleles were found in two or more regions, and almost half of the alleles studied were present in all seven major geographical regions. The observation that the vast majority of the alleles were shared over multiple regions, or even throughout the entire world, points to the fundamental similarity of all people around the world—an idea that has been supported by many other studies.

If separate racial or ethnic groups actually existed, we would expect to find “trademark” alleles and other genetic features that are characteristic of a single group but not present in any others. However, the 2002 Stanford study found that only 7.4% of over 4000 alleles were specific to one geographical region. Furthermore, even when region-specific alleles did appear, they only occurred in about 1% of the people from that region—hardly enough to be any kind of trademark. Thus, there is no evidence that the groups we commonly call “races” have distinct, unifying genetic identities.

[FiveofSwords]

@FiveofSwords

We were discussing the human race, not bacteria.

And we are one 'race'.

A landmark 2002 study by Stanford scientists examined the question of human diversity by looking at the distribution across seven major geographical regions of 4,000 alleles. Alleles are the different “flavors” of a gene. For instance, all humans have the same genes that code for hair: the different alleles are why hair comes in all types of colors and textures.

In the Stanford study, over 92% of alleles were found in two or more regions, and almost half of the alleles studied were present in all seven major geographical regions. The observation that the vast majority of the alleles were shared over multiple regions, or even throughout the entire world, points to the fundamental similarity of all people around the world—an idea that has been supported by many other studies.

If separate racial or ethnic groups actually existed, we would expect to find “trademark” alleles and other genetic features that are characteristic of a single group but not present in any others. However, the 2002 Stanford study found that only 7.4% of over 4000 alleles were specific to one geographical region. Furthermore, even when region-specific alleles did appear, they only occurred in about 1% of the people from that region—hardly enough to be any kind of trademark. Thus, there is no evidence that the groups we commonly call “races” have distinct, unifying genetic identities.

Actually there are distinct genetic clusters within the human species. The darker skin from sub saharan africans for example does come from them having distinct genetics. They aren't just burned up white people.

[Tainari88]

in the old days it was far leftists and devout Christians that were into banning things right and left and centre. The Soviet Union turned banning ideas into a mass industry. I guess it was good for keeping people on their toes. What was the party line last week, could get you sent to Siberia next week. And the line that was denounced last week could become the new party line next week. And yes @Potemkin I did pick up "your giddy with success" Stalin reference in the other thread.

But it strikes me that banning any idea we didn't like really took off in the mainstream after 9/11. I didn't believe that 9/11 was an inside job, but why we can't we talk about it. This was a key stage in my total alienation from the establishment. I want to listen to extremists. I want extremists to be given a platform. I actually want their voices to be amplified, because although the extremists may only be a small even insignificant minority, they normally represent ideas that have a much wider currency in a more diluted, less thought out and coherent way. Personally I'd love it if we could get some real ISIS or Al Qaeda members on the forum, but of course the Liberal's immediate response would not just be to close down the individual but get the whole forum shut down.

I would not want my IP address to be available to people known to kill and be violent.

One time I ran across a poster who who was a right wing, violent extremist. I think this was in the late nineties. He kept saying how he hated anyone who was not from his narrow ideology.

After a lot of back and forth....it was known the man had gassed up his truck, went to drive to the White House. He waited supposedly for Bill Clinton to come out and he was preparing to gun him down.

He was sent to a psych ward because his relatives said he suffered from bipolar disorder.

The man said he could track down my IP address and kill me. And my entire family. His arrest papers he posted on the internet site I was on debating him.

The director of the sanatorium told us on the internet site that he was denied privileges of being on the internet because he did not believe in allowing known violent people to have access to information about other users whom he could possibly act some violent act on due to mental defect.

You should not wish to interact with people who are intelligent, and dedicated to violence in their belief systems. it is risky to try to do so.

You can talk to anyone you wish to talk to. Just join in their platforms online or off the regular grid and do that Rich.

But PoFo is about civilized discussions and disagreements. We can have Nazis on here and ISIS supporters what we can't have are people who want to have civilized discussions and disagreements worried about some crazy person gassing up their truck and getting a hold of a gun and going to their home to kill them.

That is not a discussion. It is living with terroristic threats.

I have dealt with violent people threatening my life and the life of my family and my mother's life Rich.

I doubt you ever had dealt with that shit before. It is not fun. It is stressful and hard.

You worry about the phone ringing away and someone on the other side hoping you die or your loved ones die, being chased by black vehicles. Some racist violent organization wants your loved one or you to die...you go out in the street and you worry about who is following you.

That kind of problem you should not want in your life.

The most important thing for all of us is being able to speak and write without worrying about people who have lost their ability to respect lives that are different than their own.

That is truly living in war conditions, and living with chaos.

When your entire life revolves around worrying about being threatened by violence for thinking differently than what the violent think?

You got problems.

Respect peace and respect living with the freedom to write your thoughts and not be in a facility for mentally ill people or prison with limited time on the internet and people watching your words.

Cherish what you have now. Do not lose it because you are unhappy with the establishment Rich.

You are a very intelligent man, with a fine sense of humor, and you are also charming in your way.

Why limit your own rights by letting in people who only know how to send a message through death and destruction? The only sign that gives off is how hopeless they feel and how much of a lack of alternatives they have for dialogue and for a viable future.

Besides, if you leave I will miss your writing Rich.

I like it. Lol. Even though you might not like mine or respect me much eh?

I like diversity. Even if it is highly unconventional or maybe because it is highly unconventional eh?



I like quality writing. No matter who is comes from.

Saludos.

[ingliz]

@FiveofSwords

Race is a social construct.

The completion of the Human Genome Project in 2003 confirmed humans are 99.9% identical at the DNA level and there is no genetic basis for race.

[Tainari88]

@FiveofSwords

We were discussing the human race, not bacteria.

And we are one 'race'.

A landmark 2002 study by Stanford scientists examined the question of human diversity by looking at the distribution across seven major geographical regions of 4,000 alleles. Alleles are the different “flavors” of a gene. For instance, all humans have the same genes that code for hair: the different alleles are why hair comes in all types of colors and textures.

In the Stanford study, over 92% of alleles were found in two or more regions, and almost half of the alleles studied were present in all seven major geographical regions. The observation that the vast majority of the alleles were shared over multiple regions, or even throughout the entire world, points to the fundamental similarity of all people around the world—an idea that has been supported by many other studies.

If separate racial or ethnic groups actually existed, we would expect to find “trademark” alleles and other genetic features that are characteristic of a single group but not present in any others. However, the 2002 Stanford study found that only 7.4% of over 4000 alleles were specific to one geographical region. Furthermore, even when region-specific alleles did appear, they only occurred in about 1% of the people from that region—hardly enough to be any kind of trademark. Thus, there is no evidence that the groups we commonly call “races” have distinct, unifying genetic identities.

This is a man who discusses some of that study in his explanation about is race genetic or socially constructed?

[late]

in the old days it was far leftists and devout Christians that were into banning things right and left and centre. The Soviet Union turned banning ideas into a mass industry. I guess it was good for keeping people on their toes. What was the party line last week, could get you sent to Siberia next week. And the line that was denounced last week could become the new party line next week. And yes @Potemkin I did pick up "your giddy with success" Stalin reference in the other thread.

But it strikes me that banning any idea we didn't like really took off in the mainstream after 9/11. I didn't believe that 9/11 was an inside job, but why we can't we talk about it. This was a key stage in my total alienation from the establishment. I want to listen to extremists. I want extremists to be given a platform. I actually want their voices to be amplified, because although the extremists may only be a small even insignificant minority, they normally represent ideas that have a much wider currency in a more diluted, less thought out and coherent way. Personally I'd love it if we could get some real ISIS or Al Qaeda members on the forum, but of course the Liberal's immediate response would not just be to close down the individual but get the whole forum shut down.

The Clinton people told the incoming Bush guys that the biggest threat they faced was the guys that did 9/11.

They were ignored.

When the security guys started talking about it, the White House shut them down.

9/11 was simple incompetence.

When it comes to extremism, it boils down to violence. If you are not advocating violence, the security guys won't care much. If you are talking up violence, they will pay attention...

Security guys are mostly not liberals. You are conflating what you call liberals with the security establishment. Those are not only different, they have almost no overlap I know of.

Also, most groups moderate. I think expensive watches are jewelry, nothing more than jewelry. Want to know the quickest way to get banned from a watch forum?

[Tainari88]

@FiveofSwords

Race is a social construct.

The completion of the Human Genome Project in 2003 confirmed humans are 99.9% identical at the DNA level and there is no genetic basis for race.

Lol.

What if I want to unify my race in some artificial construct like Sword wants to?

I pull out some humorous stuff.

A professor at American University in Berkeley says the perfect human is: (drum roll)

https://www.medicaldaily.com/biologist- ... try-313956

https://liorpachter.wordpress.com/2014/ ... rto-rican/

if you are a racist looking for being validated? You can always invent things to favor you. Lol.

But this scientist only took the argument of germ engineering to its logical conclusion.

Hee hee.

Perfection does not exist. What exists is that if you can take the best advantages of each phenotype and mix it? You get the best of all worlds. Sort of like bluebloods from Europe's Royal families having a lot of inbreeding and it caused defects like hemophilia....and voila....too much purity does not a strong gene make. I smile.

But there is tons of evidence that does support your view Ingliz.

[Rich]

Race is a social construct.

The completion of the Human Genome Project in 2003 confirmed humans are 99.9% identical at the DNA level and there is no genetic basis for race.

Oh please spare us this drivel. We know race exists. We can see it with our eyes. And we know that racial difference is based on genetics. Its not based on culture, its not based on nutritional, or environmental factors. And its not based on psychological perception. Its based on genetics.

Any biologist who tells you otherwise is either a liar or a cretin. Of course most lefties know that race exists how ever much they pretend not to. That's why lefties were so up set with Elizabeth Warren claiming racial heritage that she did not have or at least grossly exaggerated. These lefties just flat out lie. Take skin pigmentation the average difference in skin pigmentation between indigenous British people is not greater then the difference between the average skin pigmentation of British people and the average skin pigmentation of Bantus.

These leftie biologists have created their own phony definition of what a race is, and then have failed to disiprove race even using their own phony definition.

[Tainari88]

Oh please spare us this drivel. We know race exists. We can see it with our eyes. And we know that racial difference is based on genetics. Its not based on culture, its not based on nutritional, or environmental factors. And its not based on psychological perception. Its based on genetics.

Any biologist who tells you otherwise is either a liar or a cretin. Of course most lefties know that race exists how ever much they pretend not to. That's why lefties were so up set with Elizabeth Warren claiming racial heritage that she did not have or at least grossly exaggerated. These lefties just flat out lie. Take skin pigmentation the average difference in skin pigmentation between indigenous British people is not greater then the difference between the average skin pigmentation of British people and the average skin pigmentation of Bantus.

These leftie biologists have created their own phony definition of what a race is, and then have failed to disiprove race even using their own phony definition.

Genetics is a complex science.

You have skin and a subsaharan African has skin. Both have skin. The melanin content varies. Why? That is the interesting part. You have two eyeballs and you see out of them if they are functioning and you do not suffer from severe glaucoma, etc. So why are your irises a different color or shade than a Sub Saharan African? That is what needs to be explained.

But the truth is that both the British light skinned person and the dark skinned African person are human and if they are young, of opposite sexes and can mate during a fertile time for both? They can produce healthy offspring.

That might vary according to what the genetic instructions of the ovum and the sperm did in their embryonic dance in the womb.

That is what is complex. Why every ovum is different, every sperm is different and why every new life is not exactly the same as the last one....to emerge from the mated couple?

Why all this variation? Why not have every human being look phenotypically exact or somatically exact?

Adaptation is the key. What role does adaptation play in variation?

It is about survival of the entire species. All of us. Not just one part of us. That is the key to all the variation.

[ingliz]

@Rich

Phenotypic traits have been used for centuries for the purpose of racial classification. Developments in quantitative population genetics have allowed global comparison of patterns of phenotypic variation with patterns of variation in classical genetic markers and DNA markers. Human skin colour shows a high degree of variation among geographic regions, typical of traits that show extensive natural selection. Even given this high level of geographic differentiation, skin colour variation is clinal and is not well described by discrete racial categories. Craniometric traits show a level of among-region differentiation comparable to genetic markers, with high levels of variation within populations as well as a correlation between phenotypic and geographic distance. Craniometric variation is geographically structured, allowing high levels of classification accuracy when comparing crania from different parts of the world. Nonetheless, the boundaries in global variation are not abrupt and do not fit a strict view of the race concept; the number of races and the cutoffs used to define them are arbitrary. The race concept is at best a crude first-order approximation to the geographically structured phenotypic variation in the human species.

[Pants-of-dog]

The average skin pigmentation of Bantus can be found in other races, such as people from India, Malaysia, Australian Aborigines, and other races.

[wat0n]

There is less genetic variation explained by "race" among humans than variation explained by "breed" among animals (e.g. dogs) if it's of any use.

[Wellsy]

Humans just haven’t been so isolated from one another to develop into such distinct subspecies. Well at least alternatives died out leaving only homo sapiens which all ‘races’ are a type of.
I think I can find the same path trodden on this race realism on here from years ago.

[Rich]

Humans just haven’t been so isolated from one another to develop into such distinct subspecies.

Distinct as what. Race exists, but that doesn't mean that ant particular scheme of racial classification is not subjective and has some level of arbitrariness. But this actually true of many of the boundaries in the biological classification schema.Human races are not as distinct as dog sub species says the Liberal. Yes and so? Who ever said they were?

And even if the in-group variation is greater than the variations between the averages of the two groups, doesn't mean the variation between groups is not worthy of study. It does not mean that it could not have a profound effect on group development.

[FiveofSwords]

Humans just haven’t been so isolated from one another to develop into such distinct subspecies. Well at least alternatives died out leaving only homo sapiens which all ‘races’ are a type of.
I think I can find the same path trodden on this race realism on here from years ago.

So following your logic and other people here I assume you woukd say that black people were never enslaved and there was never a Holocaust of jews. Right? Because that would require that races exist...

[FiveofSwords]

I would not want my IP address to be available to people known to kill and be violent.

One time I ran across a poster who who was a right wing, violent extremist. I think this was in the late nineties. He kept saying how he hated anyone who was not from his narrow ideology.

After a lot of back and forth....it was known the man had gassed up his truck, went to drive to the White House. He waited supposedly for Bill Clinton to come out and he was preparing to gun him down.

He was sent to a psych ward because his relatives said he suffered from bipolar disorder.

The man said he could track down my IP address and kill me. And my entire family. His arrest papers he posted on the internet site I was on debating him.

The director of the sanatorium told us on the internet site that he was denied privileges of being on the internet because he did not believe in allowing known violent people to have access to information about other users whom he could possibly act some violent act on due to mental defect.

You should not wish to interact with people who are intelligent, and dedicated to violence in their belief systems. it is risky to try to do so.

You can talk to anyone you wish to talk to. Just join in their platforms online or off the regular grid and do that Rich.

But PoFo is about civilized discussions and disagreements. We can have Nazis on here and ISIS supporters what we can't have are people who want to have civilized discussions and disagreements worried about some crazy person gassing up their truck and getting a hold of a gun and going to their home to kill them.

That is not a discussion. It is living with terroristic threats.

I have dealt with violent people threatening my life and the life of my family and my mother's life Rich.

I doubt you ever had dealt with that shit before. It is not fun. It is stressful and hard.

You worry about the phone ringing away and someone on the other side hoping you die or your loved ones die, being chased by black vehicles. Some racist violent organization wants your loved one or you to die...you go out in the street and you worry about who is following you.

That kind of problem you should not want in your life.

The most important thing for all of us is being able to speak and write without worrying about people who have lost their ability to respect lives that are different than their own.

That is truly living in war conditions, and living with chaos.

When your entire life revolves around worrying about being threatened by violence for thinking differently than what the violent think?

You got problems.

Respect peace and respect living with the freedom to write your thoughts and not be in a facility for mentally ill people or prison with limited time on the internet and people watching your words.

Cherish what you have now. Do not lose it because you are unhappy with the establishment Rich.

You are a very intelligent man, with a fine sense of humor, and you are also charming in your way.

Why limit your own rights by letting in people who only know how to send a message through death and destruction? The only sign that gives off is how hopeless they feel and how much of a lack of alternatives they have for dialogue and for a viable future.

Besides, if you leave I will miss your writing Rich.

I like it. Lol. Even though you might not like mine or respect me much eh?

I like diversity. Even if it is highly unconventional or maybe because it is highly unconventional eh?



I like quality writing. No matter who is comes from.

Saludos.

Lol...what a complete load of fiction. None of this happened and there are no 'violent racist organizations'

[Tainari88]

Lol...what a complete load of fiction. None of this happened and there are no 'violent racist organizations'

Yes they are.

Lol. You might think they do not exist. But it is nice to think that you are in denial and it will be good for you to stick to writing paranoia on the internet.

Let people who actually know what they ard doing with the violent ones do their job eh?

BTW, how many mass shootings have happened in the USA over the last five years? A lot.

How many were about homegrown extremist people? The majority.

How many were unmarried young men who had anti social behavior? A lot.

How many write about threats from other ethnic groups? Quite a few.

https://www.splcenter.org/20220216/freq ... ent-groups

From that same website this is a part of the description:

https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch

Why is a proud boy using your vocab phrasing so much FiveofSwords? They bandy about white genocide all the time.

Is that the way they train you to speak? Why?

[Rich]

So I assert that racial categorisation is meaningful, interesting and potentially useful. But that is a very long way from saying that race should be a basis for rights, citizenship or career eligibility. Now one can question whether peoples such as the Lakota, the Cheyenne or Iroquois are really nations. Sometimes these so called nations have never been part of a united polity. But if they are nations one thing we can be absolutely certain of, is that they are not first nations. They are not the first nations of their locality or region and they were not the first nations of North America. Some tribal entities only formed after Columbus landed in the Americas. The only claim these Native Americans have perhaps is to be the first races of North America.

This is why Elizabeth Warren took a genetic race test. Because the modern left are profound believers in Blut und Boden. Some of them seem to be quite extreme race essentiallists.

[Tainari88]

Also @FiveofSwords you fall right into what the Hatewatch section states about getting identities based on playing cards.

Read this folks:

The House committee investigating the events surrounding the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection focused Tuesday on the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers, two extremist groups involved in the attempt to stop the certification of President Joe Biden’s electoral victory.

Ayers and Van Tatenhove
Jason Van Tatenhove (R) and Stephen Ayres (L) are sworn in on Capitol Hill on July 12 in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Saul Loeb/AFP via Getty Images)
The committee detailed connections between the Oath Keepers and former President Donald Trump’s inner circle, including longtime Republican strategist Roger Stone. In his opening remarks, Rep. Jamie Raskin said, “Members of domestic violent extremist groups created an alliance, both online and in person, to coordinate a massive effort to storm, invade and occupy the Capitol” in the service of Trump.

• Read More: The Long Path to Insurrection

The Committee showed video of an Oath Keepers call to action for Jan. 6 and divulged their leader’s chats with Trump associate Roger Stone, Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio and “Stop the Steal” organizer Ali Alexander.

Oath Keepers was founded in 2009 by Rhodes, who recruited among veterans, first responders and law enforcement. The group had a massive following, with members and chapters across the country.

More than 20 Oath Keepers members are facing charges stemming from the Jan. 6 insurrection, including seditious conspiracy.

Jason Van Tatenhove
Jason Van Tatenhove, who served as national spokesman for the Oath Keepers and as a close aide to Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes, testifies during the seventh hearing by the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the U.S. Capitol in the Cannon House Office Building on July 12 in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)
The committee called former Oath Keeper spokesperson Jason Van Tatenhove, who detailed in testimony to the committee his fears of armed revolution and increasing radicalization inside the extremist group.

Raskin asked Van Tatenhove about Oath Keepers leader Stewart Rhodes’ take on the prospect of Trump calling on the Insurrection Act, a law from 1807 that gives the president the authority to call on militias to defend the U.S.

Van Tatenhove replied: “That was a path forward to move forward with [Rhodes’] goals and agendas. I think we need to quit mincing words and just talk about truths, and what it was going to be was an armed revolution.” Van Tatenhove, who worked for the Oath Keepers in 2015 and 2016, called attention to the arms and explosives the antigovernment group allegedly brought to Virginia, near Washington, D.C., ahead of the Jan. 6 riot. He also referenced the gallows rioters built outside the U.S. Capitol, which was allegedly meant for former Vice President Mike Pence. Rhodes had long held desires of targeting politicians, Van Tatenhove claimed. The former spokesperson said that one of his first assignments Rhodes gave him as an employee was to create a deck of cards with a politician on each card.

The deck of cards would have mimicked a similar set the U.S. military based on Iraqi government officials at the onset of the U.S. war on Iraq in 2003. The goal was to familiarize soldiers with high-level targets.

Van Tatenhove said former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, a longtime target of far-right conspiracy theories, was set to be the Queen of Hearts. Van Tatenhove said he declined to make the set.

The alleged deck of cards is in line with Oath Keepers’ tactic of appealing to former military members. The military itself has struggled to deal with extremism in its ranks in recent years.

He said Rhodes was always looking for legitimacy trying to claim the militia group was instead simply a veterans’ support group.

Van Tatenhove said he left the group when they became so extreme that members openly discussed denying the Holocaust in a grocery store.

Raskin asked Van Tatenhove about his concerns regarding future violence from the Oath Keepers.

Given the Oath Keepers’ extensive training and events such as the 2014 Bundy Ranch standoff, where antigovernment extremists confronted federal law enforcement over rancher Cliven Bundy’s grazing fees, Van Tatenhove said there was potential for worse political violence in the coming years.

“I do fear for this next election cycle because who knows what that might bring if, if a President is willing to try to … encourage … a civil war amongst his followers.”

Editor’s Note: Rachel Carroll Rivas contributed to the reporting of this article.

Members of SPLC's Intelligence Project have prepared statements about extremist organizations and individuals allegedly involved in the Jan. 6 insurrection for the Select Committee. The author of this piece has not had contact with, nor prepared statements for, the Select Committee.