Well, it's funny, from my perspective, with that latest comment I was doing the ethical bare minimum of suggesting, ever so gently, that maybe what you're saying is more ideological than factual. But I see why such a glancing engagement may look like trolling. I am reluctant to get into a protracted, detailed debate because there really are more important things to do, and besides, it's not as if I'm here to promote a specific racial typology in opposition to pure social constructionism. It is a long way from noticing that a lot of marathons are won by East Africans and a lot of Nobel Prizes are won by Jews to having correct and evidence-based opinions about the overall contours of human biodiversity. Folk theories of racial difference can be thoroughly wrong, and scientific ones too; prevailing cultural associations are hugely influential and can act as self-fulfilling prophecies; visible differences can constitute a target for irrationally displaced hostilities, so one can see why people would want to cultivate a culture of race-blindness; the most significant intrinsic differences between human subpopulations may not even have been identified yet, and may have no correlation with any of the commonly recognized differences.
But you certainly seem to work from the assumption that whatever group-based genetic differences do exist, they aren't too relevant to anything that matters. I say this given your comment about Catholics and Protestants. Do you actually have any basis for your opinion there, or are you just presuming? Catholicism and Protestantism are quite different as sensibilities; sensibility can be linked to character, character to genetics, genetics to population. I find it quite plausible that in Europe at least, where the difference was born, there is a systematic and causally relevant genetic difference between the members of the two sects! Though I certainly wouldn't just assert that it is so.
The previous time I was here, if I left a few responses hanging, it was because I had nothing to add. I wasn't going to argue against potty parity, for example! Or against the existence of prejudice. I stated my points, you stated your points. I felt a bit artless not aiming to produce some consensually recognized closure to the discussion, but there were three subthreads by then. It was simplest just to fade out. I'll probably do so again at some point, though I do at least want to ask sanguinity about their assertion that if you started without traditional racial divisions, and then examined genetic diversity, you wouldn't reinvent them. Is that just another presumption?
If you still think I argued on bad faith last time, and want to point out examples, please go ahead. I don't take offense at having been called a troll, by the way (though I don't aim to be one), given that overall you're clearly giving me a chance to state my views.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
But you certainly seem to work from the assumption that whatever group-based genetic differences do exist, they aren't too relevant to anything that matters. I say this given your comment about Catholics and Protestants. Do you actually have any basis for your opinion there, or are you just presuming? Catholicism and Protestantism are quite different as sensibilities; sensibility can be linked to character, character to genetics, genetics to population. I find it quite plausible that in Europe at least, where the difference was born, there is a systematic and causally relevant genetic difference between the members of the two sects! Though I certainly wouldn't just assert that it is so.
The previous time I was here, if I left a few responses hanging, it was because I had nothing to add. I wasn't going to argue against potty parity, for example! Or against the existence of prejudice. I stated my points, you stated your points. I felt a bit artless not aiming to produce some consensually recognized closure to the discussion, but there were three subthreads by then. It was simplest just to fade out. I'll probably do so again at some point, though I do at least want to ask
If you still think I argued on bad faith last time, and want to point out examples, please go ahead. I don't take offense at having been called a troll, by the way (though I don't aim to be one), given that overall you're clearly giving me a chance to state my views.