Social Justice Warriors - Now With Less Feminism Sperging

[PT 522]

Actually an interesting question ...
Neither is the short answer. Definitely not human/chimp. A species can’t interbreed successfully with another - it either doesn’t work or the offspring are sterile (actually there have always been dark whisperings of people attempting this but afaik no concrete evidence.)

Races as we see them in humans aren’t as clearly defined as people think in genetic terms. There are more genetic differences within a racial group than between them on average. Some groupings are more different than others and have different contributions from extinct human species (most non African peoples but not all have Neanderthal contributions, people on Papua New Guinea have some Denisovan contribution.)
You can tell to a degree where someone is from with just a genetic sample but it’s not that clear cut - we are revising our interpretation of how modern humans have arisen quite a bit at the moment.

Dog breeds are created quite quickly by selective breeding but they’re all dogs. And in theory a wolf and a chihuahua could breed (mechanics notwithstanding, just from a genetic POV.)

Sperge: Dog genetics are informative for human diseases because you can look at things that cause very distorted facial shapes for example and pick out genes that are useful to look at for various human developmental syndromes.

Anyway, neither.

Edited to add, yes the size thing is cool - dogs are really malleable in some weird way. I have a friend who works on dog genetics. Next time I see her I’ll ask, but she mainly does skull stuff.

What I wonder is what will happen if you cross a hairless cat and one that's just like a giant puffball. Will it be half and half, balding, or will both cancel out and it will be medium haired?

 

[Corbin Dallas Multipass]

What I wonder is what will happen if you cross a hairless cat and one that's just like a giant puffball. Will it be half and half, balding, or will both cancel out and it will be medium haired?

Cat genetics are weird, you'd probably end up with a litter that has a hairless, a puffball, 2 cats that look nothing like either of the parents, and one giant lumpy yellow cat (You always get that).

 

[Wallace]

What I wonder is what will happen if you cross a hairless cat and one that's just like a giant puffball. Will it be half and half, balding, or will both cancel out and it will be medium haired?

The gene for Sphynx hairlessness is recessive, so you'd wind up with puffball cats in all likelihood.

The naked truth: Sphynx and Devon Rex cat breed mutations in KRT71

 

[ProgKing of the North]

The gene for Sphynx hairlessness is recessive, so you'd wind up with puffball cats in all likelihood.

The naked truth: Sphynx and Devon Rex cat breed mutations in KRT71

Less science, more pictures of kitties, please and thank you

 

[Tasty Tatty]

Do dog breeds really correspond with human races, or would it be more like comparing humans and chimps? I guess it's closer to the former than the latter, as humans cannot breed with any other primate (I'm just going to assume, nobody link any evidence of anyone checking for themselves please...)

I sometimes wonder if this is a language problem. I remember I read an article pointing out how both "race" and "breed" are used in Latin speaking languages (I remember they talked about Spanish, btu I think they also mentioned French, I don't remember right now). What you know as "dog breeds", in Spanish is know as "race". hence, the term "racism": the discrimination based on the evolutionary differences between human groups.

 

[Positron]

Do dog breeds really correspond with human races

No. Dog breeds are the result of artificial selection. The only similar procedure that happened among humans was between royal families.

There are more genetic differences within a racial group than between them on average.

This is true (race accounts for something from 6-11% of the genetic difference among two human beings randomly picked from the world), but the very existence of racial genetic difference says that race is a real biological phenomenon, and is not entirely a "social construct".

More race baiting:

How is a white family supposed to "give up whiteness"? Isn't that cultural appropriation?

 

[Dante Alighieri]

No. Dog breeds are the result of artificial selection. The only similar procedure that happened among humans was between royal families.


This is true (race accounts for something from 6-11% of the genetic difference among two human beings randomly picked from the world), but the very existence of racial genetic difference says that race is a real biological phenomenon, and is not entirely a "social construct".

More race baiting:
View attachment 715684
How is a white family supposed to "give up whiteness"? Isn't that cultural appropriation?

My family has no connection whatsoever to slavery and even then I wouldn't be responsible for the sins of my fathers.

Oh, and you're better off being a descendant of a slave as if you were African you would be raped, catch AIDs, and die. Or get Ebola and die. Or malaria and die.

 

[Piga Dgrifm]

How is a white family supposed to "give up whiteness"? Isn't that cultural appropriation?

They just need to kill themselves for being white.

 

[Otterly]

but the very existence of racial genetic difference says that race is a real biological phenomenon, and is not entirely a "social construct".

Yeah it is. It’s a mix. And depends on who you’re looking at as well. So two populations might be culturally quite different but more closely genetically linked than two populations which live side by side. Populations at great remove around the North Pole for example. There’s more similarity (or was before modern travel) with Y chromosomes on the welsh side of Offa’s dyke with those in Bits of Europe than those in England.

It’s disingenuous to say it’s purely cultural- you can tell a Sami and someone from Eritrea apart by looking. What there isn’t are huge genetic differences- it’s all fairly minor stuff in the main. And sometimes it does really matter. For example eGFR (a lab measure of how your kidneys function) is different in black African people. So if someone is being treated for kidney failure or in a drug trial you need to record race.

There’s a long history of people using genetics as a justification for doing Unpleasant Shit to groups of people, so a lot of research is kind of off limits. A geneticist will be thinking ‘wow Kenyans are amazing runners/Northern Europeans seem to be slightly resistant to HIV / these guys who live at high altitude have a different oxygen carrying molecule, that’s cool how does that work?’ And someone somewhere will be reinterpreting that as ‘x lot of people I don’t like are sufficiently different/inferior to wipe out.’ Or the MRA lot will be using eco psych to justify why the government should be giving them a submissive hot woman each.

Sperging again. Sorry.

 

[Super-Chevy454]

It's time to get a guilty pleasure to see SJWs eating themselves like that case where feminists are in civil war about trans rights and gender inclusivity.

Feminists In Civil War Over Trans Rights Law, Gender Inclusivity Could BACKFIRE On Feminists. A new law called the Equality act would amend the 1964 civil rights act to expand protections to trans individuals. But Republicans and even some Feminists oppose the bill saying that gender identity is too vaguely defined and one Feminist going as far to claim the bill is a human rights violation. Within Feminism there are different factions such as intersectional and gender critical.

Both groups are at odds with each other and simply by using their preferred titles I can be accused of supporting one group or the other. In some circumstances social justice activists and far left activists have actually contradicted their own protests by simultaneously demanding women only spaces but also demanding they be open to all identities. Even more odd is Matt Gaetz argument that this new law could allow Trump to be the "first female president"

 

[Elwood P. Dowd]

Within Feminism there are different factions such as intersectional and gender critical.

Not really. The gender critical ones are pretty much silenced across all media platforms and in all of academe at this point. It would be like saying the Druze are a faction of Islam. They kind of are, but other Muslims consider them wayward at best, apostates at worst. And to push my Druze metaphor, the only media outlets allowing GC feminists a platform these days are right wing, much the same way the only country in the Middle East where Druze can safely declare what they are is Israel. Hell, I wonder if any GC academics have their own variant of the Druze version of taqiyya, which the Druze use as justification to hide in the larger Islamic population. Wouldn't surprise me.

tl;dr - Being a feminist these days is pretty much kowtowing to girldick. Outliers that don't are gonna have problems.

 

[Otterly]

If you’re the kind of feminist that thinks that women don’t have penises, or believes in, you know, actual biology, you’re basically a witch and require burning.

It was quite a surprise to me, as a mild mannered, sensible woman, who is generally of the ‘yeah whatever, you do you, just don’t trample on anyone else’s rights’ mindset to be branded a radical Nazi TERF for believing that women don’t have dicks.

There is one GC outlet that’s not right wing - mumsnet in the UK. We live in interesting times when a sarcastic but supportive parenting forum is seen as akin to stormfront. Pretty much every other feminist site or forum has been invaded by troons and their hangers on.

Edited to add: the modern plague of everyone needing a label for their every preference or belief is part of the problem. I guess I’m a feminist because I think there are still some areas where women and girls need a bit of a boost - like not changing the fucking equality act to let fetishistic men into women’s prisons, for example. Such a crazy opinion!

 

[Hux]

It's time to get a guilty pleasure to see SJWs eating themselves like that case where feminists are in civil war about trans rights and gender inclusivity.

It's what I keep saying, incels should just troon out so they can fuck more women than any Chad ever could, entirely consequence free and be praised for it

Just that, you know, instead of fucking their cunts, they're fucking their reputations and their lives

 

[Corbin Dallas Multipass]

No. Dog breeds are the result of artificial selection. The only similar procedure that happened among humans was between royal families.


This is true (race accounts for something from 6-11% of the genetic difference among two human beings randomly picked from the world), but the very existence of racial genetic difference says that race is a real biological phenomenon, and is not entirely a "social construct".

More race baiting:
View attachment 715684
How is a white family supposed to "give up whiteness"? Isn't that cultural appropriation?

I guess my family must have missed one of her family then... must have been too busy being in the UK, italy, france, poland, and a fuckload of other random ass places that weren't a plantation in the US in the era of slavery.

Hey you fucking dumbass moron, who do you think gave you desegregation and voting rights? I guess all the white people must not have been against those things, since they fucking happened.

I'll confidently call the person who can't shut up about race the racist here.

 

[Prompt Critical]

This is true (race accounts for something from 6-11% of the genetic difference among two human beings randomly picked from the world), but the very existence of racial genetic difference says that race is a real biological phenomenon, and is not entirely a "social construct".

While I feel like this is rapidly turning into a crossover episode with the Race Realists topic, I'd like to point out that these two things (real observable phenomenon and social construct) are not mutually exclusive.

A very simple example to illustrate this is colors. Colors are a "social construct" in the sense that they're arbitrary human-created distinctions in the spectrum of visible light, and they're not even the same across different cultures - Japan, interestingly, did not have the concept of "blue" or "green" as distinct colors prior to European contact, instead considering both to be different shades of "Ao" (青) which is sort of a cyan color. However, as an experiment, if you take a color picture and tell a computer program to sort the pixels into three groups according to hue similarity, despite that computer not knowing anything about human social construction of colors, the output will be group that very closely corresponds to yellow, a group that very closely corresponds to red, and a group that very closely corresponds to blue. If you instead set it up to make twelve groups, you'll get roughly the same categories as a box of Crayola crayons. Etc.

This applies to race as well, despite the fact that human racial groups are an entirely socially constructed category system. Specifically, several different experiments have given a large group of individuals a multiple choice questionnaire asking them to self-report their race, then mapped their genome and fed the results into a sorting algorithm which was instructed to create the same number of categories as the questionnaire based exclusively on genetic similarity. Self-identified race (a social construct) predicted which group an individual would end up in with over 90% confidence.

Also, not to attack any one individual poster, but as a general rule you should be extremely wary of the "more variation within than between" statement, because it is highly dependent on what I'd have to call mathematical trickery to function and assumes ignorance of the methodology to be convincing. Specifically, it depends on something called a fixation index (Fₛₜ) which is a somewhat complex concept from population genetics. As a quick and dirty summary, Fₛₜ is a measure of the probability of picking different genetic variants from a given sub-population relative to the whole population, and it relies heavily on averaging differences across the total population to estimate this. So while it is technically correct using this metric to say there is more variation within human racial groups than between them, it is also equally correct to say there is more variation within human racial groups than between humans and chimpanzees using the same metric. And that's obviously pretty dumb.

 

[ChurchOfGodBear]

"It's not the same because... reasons."

 

[Dante Alighieri]

What a dumb cunt. One was a liar and made millions off of it, the other has nothing to gain because she doesn't have the backing of the Democrats and the MSM.

 

[Barabbas]

 

[Muh_Soggy_Knee]

 

[ProgKing of the North]

Sounds like somebody's still bitter about having to clean up after Daddy deepthroated the business end of a Glock