So define one. A race.

Der_Einzige 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_it_when_I_see_it

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_test

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatic_maxim

	▲	og_kalu 3 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		There’s more genetic variation within any so-called racial group than between groups, so race obviously has no genetic justification. It's real in the way other social constructs are real.
	▲	flir 3 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		aka "a category that appears self-evident to me". This was my thinking, also. Good cluster of links.

▲

machomaster 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

A group of people that have lived long enough in relative isolation that they became unique, distinguished and separate from other races.

▲

og_kalu 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

The problem is that Human 'races' are not in fact unique, distinguished and separate from other 'races'. Genetically, two sub Sahara African men could be more genetically distinct than one of those men and a random white man even they should be both 'black'.

▲

machomaster 2 days ago | parent [-]

The problem you describe only concerns people who don't know anything about the subject, but still have no shame to have strong opinions about it.

Nobody in race sciences (anthropology, etc) claim that there are only unique races that are separate from each other and don't mix. This is a clear strawman.

The fact that there is mixing between races does not mean that races don't exist. You can make an emulsion out of water and oil, but water and oil still are their own things.

And the science has all kinds of specific categorization for human groups that go way beyond the rough separation into 3-4 main races. All the mixing, separation, migration, isolation, etc have been taken into account.

It's a pity this kind of topic/science is basically a taboo in the Western World and for real info and honest discussion have to go to other systems/countries/languages.

▲

og_kalu 10 hours ago | parent | next [-]

My example has nothing to do with race mixing lmao. Two Sub Saharan Africans today are literally descendants of people that never left the continent, there's no amount of 'race mixing' that would causing one of them to be genetically closer to another 'race' than to each other if race was a genetic reality. You're just an idiot with poor reading comprehension.

Between us, you are clearly the one with no clue about what he's talking about.

There’s more genetic variation within any so-called racial group than between groups, race mixing or not. Clearly, 'race' has no genetic justification.

	▲	machomaster 9 hours ago \| parent [-]
		You are only further proving my exact point. You must be one of those clueless people who think that sex is fluid and is a social construct because there is in certain characteristics a bigger difference within each sex than between the medium of each sexes.

▲

2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

[deleted]

▲

flir 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

"long enough"? "relative isolation"? "unique" how: genetically? culturally? phenotypically?

	▲	machomaster 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		You are asking questions that are already were answered if you cared to RTFM/LMGTFY. Shortly: - Unique how? Optimally genetically, but this has practical problems that the field of paleogenetics is trying to work on. Until then must use: classical morphological features, odontology, dermatoglyphics, biochemical characteristics. - How long enough? Depends on the type of group. There are different levels of human group classification, both above the traditionally understood "races" and a lot below that.