Denmark Vesey: Whiteboy Aint Scared

Tuesday, March 03, 2009

Whiteboy Aint Scared

Look at these three clowns.

You have Michael "I am not a member of a biological black race" Fisher.

You have the two faces of Craig. He can't decide if the material is all that exists even though he chastises anyone who forces him to concede the shortcomings of his pseudo-science.

Both these fools try and sell their own non-racist racist system of white supremacy.

Fisher tries to desconstruct race and claim it non-existent because it's not scientifically verifiable while spewing the GSWS (Global System of White Supremacy). Such a thing, by Fisher's own logic, is but a social construct. And because social constructs aren't scientifically verifiable then they don't exist. So there is racism and white supremacy, but there is no race or even white race. How's that work?

Nulan tries to give genetic credence to "white supremacy" via a theory called "Dopamine Hegemony." Such a genetic understanding gives rise to the idea that "white supremacy" can be altered genetically and should be altered out of existence. But does "white supremacy" have an existence to begin with? If so, is not Nulan's inquiry an attempt to make white supremacy legitimate? His is a post-Darwinian eugenics program seeking the material and non-material roots of "White Supremacy."

Then there is Mills. A sellout of the highest order as affirmed by two loathesome characters.

But to all three of ya... Provide some of those "racist" quotes. There should be something you can put in these posts to substantiate your claims.

Three jive-talkin' hustlers!!! LOL!; Undercover Black Man said...
I know you like to instigate and all, DV, but damn... take a little pity on Michael and Craig. Especially Craig. You have ensured that he will devote more precious daylight hours to useless online pissing contests.


cnulan said...
rotflmbao..,: Mills nearly hurts himself running to the head of the line for a few precious, asparagus-tainted golden drops..,

Denmark Vesey said ....,

Instigating? Moi? Nah Mills.
I'm just practicing what I preach. A Global System of Black Supremacy. Fuck Affirmative Action. Level playing field. We talk shit about white people all day. When one of them says something back we supposed to ignore the cat? That's some punk shit. Don't Dish Out What You Can't Take.

I read the sob story about how "great" the usenets were "back in the day" until a few "mean racists skinhead Nazi boogeymen showed up and ru-int it fo' everybadeh!"

Sounds like a forum of punks to me. A bully shows up so we take our ball and run? Nah, not I.

This cat grabbed you in your digital collar, stuck his hands in your virtual pockets and robbed you in cyberspace, and you talkin' 'bout "DV Instigatin'" Nah Negro I'm giving you a platform to straighten Thordaddy's "racist" ass out.

Fisher you aint scared are you? Come on now Yale. Don't let me down. I told you the GSWS was inheretly flawed. You got the title backwards. Maybe a brother from one of the HBC's can help.

93 comments:

Undercover Black Man said...: I know you like to instigate and all, DV, but damn... take a little pity on Michael and Craig. Especially Craig. You have ensured that he will devote more precious daylight hours to useless online pissing contests.; Mar 3, 2009, 9:41:00 AM
CNu said...: rotflmbao..,

Mills nearly hurts himself running to the head of the line for a few precious, asparagus-tainted golden drops..,; Mar 3, 2009, 9:46:00 AM
SimonGreedwell said...: Thordaddy said: "Fisher tries to desconstruct race and claim it non-existent because it's not scientifically verifiable while spewing the GSWS (Global System of White Supremacy). Such a thing, by Fisher's own logic, is but a social construct. And because social constructs aren't scientifically verifiable then they don't exist."

Small correction here. I've had some pretty lengthy discussions with Fisher regarding his views on race-as-a-social-construct, and if I recall correctly, Fisher doesn't say that social constructs don't exist. In fact he says just the opposite. He says that since "race" has no biological content, the verbal descriptors we use to indicate the distinguishing characteristics of individuals are based solely upon social convention, i.e., they are social constructs.

He goes on to say that the collective self-definition of "white" which this particular cohort has heaped upon themselves and which is reflexively acknowledged as valid by every other member of the cohort is akin to a type of collective act of violence against the non-members who have been excluded from said cohort.

Pretty sure he can clarify this himself, but that's how I remember it.; Mar 3, 2009, 2:23:00 PM
CNu said...: bottomline Gray,

existential differences are not amenable to discursive resolution.; Mar 3, 2009, 2:40:00 PM
Thordaddy said...: Gray Conservative,

Because social contructs are scientifically unverifiable, as is the claim Fisher makes about "race," then the GSWS does not exist.

GSWS might "exist" as a social construct in Fisher's head, but it isn't scientifically verifiable and so it really doesn't exist as per Fisher's own requirements of scientific validation.

This is the heart of Fisher non-racist (there is NO biological race) racist ("white" supremacy rules) theory of white supremacy.

All Fisher has to concede is that race has both a biological aspect and is in some manner socially constructed. Then his GSWS might make some headway if he can convince us that it is more than the paranoid raving of a non-black man.

Then Fisher, being NOT Black, can tells us of his inexplicable passion for all things Africa?; Mar 3, 2009, 3:49:00 PM
Thordaddy said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; Mar 3, 2009, 3:49:00 PM
Michael Fisher said...: Gray...

"In fact he says just the opposite. He says that since "race" ..."

Yep. That pretty much sums it up.; Mar 3, 2009, 4:02:00 PM
SimonGreedwell said...: Thordaddy said... "Because social constructs are scientifically unverifiable—"

Are you sure about this?

I think you're misinterpreting a key distinction Fisher makes between the biological and the social. Fisher's discussion of what he considers "the social construction of race" isn't subject to criticisms of scientific verifiability because he considers such a social construct to be wholly unscientific in the first place. Social constructions aren't necessarily constructed scientifically, and it's questionable to me if it's valid to say that we're incapable of scientifically verifying and observing the existence of social constructions.

From what I've observed, Fisher consigns biological statements of fact to the realm of things which are subject to criticisms of scientific verifiability, while on the other hand he places the discussion of socially constructed things in the realm of what is referred to as "social construction".

How does one scientifically verify the existence of a social construct?

"Emile Durkheim first theorised about social construction in his anthropological work on collective behavior, but did not coin the term. The first book with "social construction" in its title was Peter L. Berger and Thomas Luckmann's The Social Construction of Reality, first published in 1966. Since then, the term found its way into the mainstream of the social sciences.

The idea of Berger and Luckmann's Social Construction of Reality was that actors interacting together form, over time, typifications or mental representations of each other's actions, and that these typifications eventually become habitualized into reciprocal roles played by the actors in relation to each other. When these reciprocal roles become routinized, the typified reciprocal interactions are said to be institutionalized. In the process of this institutionalization, meaning is embedded and institutionalized into individuals and society - knowledge and people's conception of (and therefore belief regarding) what reality 'is' becomes embedded into the institutional fabric and structure of society, and social reality is therefore said to be socially constructed. For further discussion of key concepts related to social construction, see social constructionism and deconstruction."

Do you suppose, Thordaddy, that Durkheim's, Berger's, and Luckmann's identification and observation of social constructs were in some way unscientific?

GSWS might "exist" as a social construct in Fisher's head, but it isn't scientifically verifiable and so it really doesn't exist as per Fisher's own requirements of scientific validation.

If you say that it's possible to scientifically verify and observe the existence of social constructs (a la the method of Durkheim, et al), then your argument starts to come apart somewhat. Fisher challenges the claim that "race" has biological (i.e., scientific) content on the basis that such claims are not scientifically verifiable. I don't believe he ever said that "race" (as a pure social construction) is incapable of being scientifically identified as a social construct.

I'll quit at this point and let Fisher speak for himself.; Mar 3, 2009, 5:06:00 PM
Denmark Vesey said...: Gray Conservative is a beast.; Mar 3, 2009, 5:48:00 PM
Thordaddy said...: Gray Conservative,

The problem with social constructionists is that most are on the road that denies all external truth except that which can be verified by the scientific method. They invariably limit their tolerance for Truth.

And so, when "science" says there is no biological marker for "blackness" or "whiteness" it is treated as truth. But is it the truth?

Fisher claims the egg came before the chicken. He claims we have racism but no real race, i.e. that which is differentiated at the conceptual level.

Fisher claims he is NOT biologically "black" and so we must conclude that his passion for all things Africa is purely a social construct. But who constructed Fisher's social environment? This is taking the Wizardry of Oz to a new level.

You ask,

Do you suppose, Thordaddy, that Durkheim's, Berger's, and Luckmann's identification and observation of social constructs were in some way unscientific?

If all they did was identify and label what they saw as "social construction" then this would fail in the idea that such things had scientific validity.

Again, Fisher claims a GSWS exists and such a system must be scientifically verified or it cannot be considered truth. This is the RESTRAINT that Fisher put upon himself and has articulated ad nauseum in the case of biological race.

This "system" has a few self-evident characteristics that call into question its very existence outside the realm of a not black man's mind.

1. It's a social construction and therefore it remains Fisher's responsibility to scientifically verify it. Until then, it is merely the concoction of a man who claims he's not biologically black. A risible claim, indeed.

2. This "system," granting its existence, is limited in scope and pervasiveness. The best empirical evidence of this is Michael Fisher himself who self-evidently lies outside the "system." Given this understanding, it becomes even more obvious that the "system" should be capable of being scientifically verified. Predictions, experiments and results..., Mr. Fisher, please...?

3. This system is ambiguous as to whether "white supremacy" actually exists. Should Fisher rename his theory to GWPWS...? Global System of Perceived White Supremacy...? Does "white supremacy" actually exist or is your theory misleading and ambiguous?

4. Given numbers 1,2, and 3, it becomes a legitimate question to inquire about Fisher's sanity.

How does Fisher "see" a system he lies outside of? Such a position would lend itself to scientific verification. Short of that, Fisher is spewing nonsense, no?; Mar 3, 2009, 7:25:00 PM
Denmark Vesey said...: "The problem with social constructionists is that most are on the road that denies all external truth except that which can be verified by the scientific method." Thordaddy

That's a great point; Mar 3, 2009, 8:01:00 PM
Denmark Vesey said...: "They invariably limit their tolerance for Truth. " Thordaddy

Very True; Mar 3, 2009, 8:02:00 PM
Denmark Vesey said...: "If all they did was identify and label what they saw as "social construction" then this would fail in the idea that such things had scientific validity." Thordaddy

True Again.

Cat's on a role.; Mar 3, 2009, 8:04:00 PM
Denmark Vesey said...: "This "system" has a few self-evident characteristics that call into question its very existence outside the realm of a not black man's mind." Thordaddy

LOL. Oh shit.; Mar 3, 2009, 8:06:00 PM
SimonGreedwell said...: Thordaddy said... If all they did was identify and label what they saw as "social construction" then this would fail in the idea that such things had scientific validity.

Fails in terms of scientific validity on the basis of what?

Thordaddy, this statement necessarily requires me to ask your opinion of the scientific validity or lack thereof of the method of naturalistic observation. As far as I can discern, naturalistic observation is the only method by which the existence of social constructs (and therewith the existence of "social constructionists") can be scientifically verified.

Beyond this, I'm thoroughly confused by what you've said here. I find it hard to believe that the coining of the new term "social construction" is the sole basis upon which you consider the observations of Durkheim, et al, to be scientifically invalid. It's akin to me saying that if all the physicists did was label the building blocks of matter as "atoms" then their entire body of work is rendered scientifically invalid. The post hoc "naming" of the scientific phenomenon is completely independent from the question of whether the method whereby the phenomenon was observed and cataloged as such is scientifically valid.

I want to go back to the question of whether or not you think the method of naturalistc observation is capable of producing scientifically valid conclusions or not. I'm thinking primarily of the method of Jane Goodall in which she engaged in a 45- year study of chimpanzee social and family life.

Work

Goodall was instrumental in the recognition of social learning, thinking, acting, and culture in wild chimpanzees, their differentiation from the bonobo, and the inclusion of both species along with the gorilla as Hominids.

Goodall pioneered and advocated the observation of primates in the wild as opposed to the previously established methods of observation within a controlled environment. Another innovation in her methodology was naming the animals she studied, instead of assigning each a number. Numbering was a nearly universal practice at the time, and it was thought to be important in the removal of one's self from the potential for emotional attachment to the subject being studied. Goodall thought the contrary, that becoming attached to her subjects helped her observations. Her success caused many to rethink the previous restrictions of un-involvement as necessary.

One of Goodall's major contributions to the field of primatology was the discovery of tool use in chimpanzees. Goodall discovered that some chimpanzees used twigs as tools, poking them into termite mounds. The termites would grab onto the stick with their mandibles and the chimpanzee would then just pull the stick out and eat the termites. Previously, only humans were thought to use tools. Her mentor, Louis Leakey, responded: "Now we must redefine 'man,' redefine 'tool,' or accept chimpanzees as humans." Indeed, much rethinking has been done in light of her various discoveries.

Goodall discovered that the life of the chimpanzee had some other disturbing similarities with human behavior. She observed infanticide and bullying behavior that could result in death. In 1974, at the Gombe Stream Research center the first known "war" between primates was observed and recorded for four years. This "war" stopped only when the rival group was completely eliminated.

Cooperative hunting in the primates was unknown before her observations of red colobus monkeys. She also expanded the understanding of chimpanzees' diet. Previous to her observations, they were thought to be exclusively vegetarian, when in fact they eat a wide variety of other animals and sometimes eat other primates.

Do you think it's possible for an individual to implant him or herself in a society of individuals and unobtrusively observe the behavior and interactions of that cohort of individuals which then result in scientifically valid claims?

If all Jane Goodall did was label her observations as "monkey business", then what is the criteria upon which her work is said to be "critically acclaimed", and how does it differ in any way from the designation of the same observable behavior in humans by Durkheim, et al, as "social construction"? What sort of denial of "external truth" takes place in the observation of monkeys that can be said to not take place in the observations of humans?

If we venture to think of Fisher as a type of urban Jane Goodal who is peevishly engaged in the observation of self-identified so-called "white" people, in the same way that Goodall was an observer of chimpanzees, then what are the primary differences which separate Fisher's observation of self-identified "whites" from Goodall's chimpanzees? The difference lies in the nature of the conclusions. Fisher reaches a certain set of conclusions based upon his observations of his selected cohort while Goodal reaches a set of conclusions based upon the observations of hers.

The problem with social constructionists is that most are on the road that denies all external truth except that which can be verified by the scientific method. They invariably limit their tolerance for Truth.

You cannot simultaneously claim that Truth should be ideally uninhibited by even the likes of the scientific method while also claiming that the post-hod naming of repeatable observations across populations is somehow indicative of unscientific observation.

The designation of "scientific validity" depends upon the repeatable results of one or more tests which are designed to test the validity of a hypothesis. Consistent repeatable results of such tests result in the promotion of the hypothesis to the position of an established, axiomatic, peer-reviewed, scientific theory.

Because of my numerous and extended interactions with Fisher on this subject, I'm almost ashamed to admit that I have an almost collegiate-level understanding of his positions and can readily recognize when his arguments are being grossly misunderstood and misstated. I've previously raised the issue of ambiguousness with regard to his system of GSWS (as you have). I've also challenged the pervasiveness of the system in the exact same way. (cf. The Coob/Fisher debate which was hosted on Maxambit.) So none of this is new to me.

How does Fisher "see" a system he lies outside of? Such a position would lend itself to scientific verification. Short of that, Fisher is spewing nonsense, no?

It's one thing to disagree (as I have on numerous occasions) with Fisher's conclusion, but it's another thing to completely misunderstand the claims and observations which lead to said conclusion.

I'm going to keep trying to keep my mouth shut here so that Fisher can weigh in on this himself.; Mar 3, 2009, 8:54:00 PM
Thordaddy said...: Gray Conservative,

To save us some time and get to the heart of the matter, I don't require scientific validation in all "matters."

I don't require that a social construction be scientifically verified... Michael Fisher DOES. And he does so by demanding that RACE be scientifically verifiable in order to claim its existence as material thing. Meaning, if it isn't scientifically verifiable then it doesn't exist and is therefore not true.

I believe race to have a material and non-material aspect to it and the non-material aspect usually manifests materially. Fisher says he isn't "black," but he has an affinity for the defense of Africa. This would be an example of the non-material manifesting materially.

I don't deny that a GSWS might exist, but that only demands more questions.

Is it, as demanded by its most passionate advocate, scientifically validated?

Does "white supremacy" actually exist in a scientifically validated way? Meaning, does "white supremacy" have a material existence?

How does Fisher live outside this "system" and not concede to the fact that all others can live outside the system also?

And if Fisher doesn't actually live outside the "system" then why does the "system" tolerate that which could reasonable be seen as a threat to its existence? Why has the "system" not done what it is entirely capable of doing?

If he cannot and feels he does not have to scientifically validate GSWS then the validation of race no longer requires the scientific method to be considered truth. And if "race" still requires scientific validation (material existence) then Fisher must explain why the rest of his tripe doesn't?; Mar 3, 2009, 9:34:00 PM
Michael Fisher said...: Farst...

"Fisher says he isn't "black," but he has an affinity for the defense of Africa."

Not so. Fisher has an affinity for Justice.; Mar 3, 2009, 9:46:00 PM
Michael Fisher said...: Farst...

"And if Fisher doesn't actually live outside the "system" then why does the "system" tolerate that which could reasonable be seen as a threat to its existence? Why has the 'system' not done what it is entirely capable of doing?"

I suspect it is because Fisher ain't got no guns, ammo, and an army.; Mar 3, 2009, 9:48:00 PM
Michael Fisher said...: Farst...

"I believe race to have a material and non-material aspect to it..

Belief is a nice thing. Some people believe in the tooth fairy. Some believe that there's a big guy with long blond hair who hurls big hammers around while flying in the sky and thereby causing thunder.

So what part of "race" is

(a)material

and

(b)non-material?; Mar 3, 2009, 9:53:00 PM
CNu said...: Gentlemen,

I assume that you've peeped this clown's hole card?

In the event that you haven't, here's another view.

Your counterpart is a theocratic essentialist.

No matter how skillfully or well you hold it down, you'll only be squandering cycles.; Mar 3, 2009, 10:09:00 PM
Thordaddy said...: Fisher finally chimes in...

So what part of "race" is

(a)material

and

(b)non-material?

Your black skin and black ancestry is the "material." Now, you might retort that you have African ancestry and not "black" ancestry. You might retort that you have light brown skin as opposed to "black" skin. If you want, when not calling you Fisher, I can call you light brown man?

Yet, because I don't need scientific validation to see that you're a black man with an even blacker caterpillar on his lip, what is your point other than to imply that you need to scientifically validate your GSWS theory. You must give material existence to "white" supremacy while claiming that "white" doesn't actually exist.

Your affinity for black justice in Africa is the "non-material" aspect of race. You claim no biological racial categorization for yourself and yet you identify with those that would think you were crazy in claiming not be be a black man.

Can you explain this non-racial affinity for black African justice? Doesn't Occam's Razor apply here, i.e., your theory is as shabby as Nulan's?; Mar 3, 2009, 10:10:00 PM
Michael Fisher said...: Farst...

"Fisher finally chimes in..."

Notwithstanding Mills' fantasies I do have other stuff to do.

Farst. Lemme ask you a simple question.

Are you a white person?; Mar 3, 2009, 10:37:00 PM
Thordaddy said...: Fisher,

Only if I can be a part of your GSWS...? Oh wait, I am!

Haven't you answered your own question?; Mar 3, 2009, 10:40:00 PM
Michael Fisher said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; Mar 3, 2009, 10:48:00 PM
Michael Fisher said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; Mar 3, 2009, 10:49:00 PM
Michael Fisher said...: Farst. Be serious. Are you white all over, like the color within this area?

-----> <------; Mar 3, 2009, 10:51:00 PM
Thordaddy said...: Fisher,

We've already done this dance.

I'm going to say, "I'm white."

And you're going to say, "scientifically validate that claim."

And I say, scientifically validate the "Global System of White Supremacy" and you will have done for yourself what you ask of me.

Unless of course, you are going to claim that "white supremacy" is but a social construct based on the false notion of "whiteness."

But isn't this the same as saying "white supremacy" doesn't really exist?

And because you haven't scientifically verified your GSWS theory, there is even greater reason to believe you are full of it.

Scientifically verify the GSWS theory or concede that "white supremacy" doesn't really exist because white people don't exist?

Or, scientifically verify GSWS theory thereby verifying the biological notion of race and "white" supremacy.

Pick it, homey?

This is why I say Nulan and Fisher are charlatans with their pursuits. Both are working to legitimize white supremacy in all its essence because at heart they are radical autonomists loyal to nothing and no one.

They are both attracted to the idea of supremacy and so it only makes sense that they would be drawn to "white supremacy" and its roots, genetics and social construction. They see radical autonomy theory as a "white" man's way of asserting his will in principle. They procede likewise.; Mar 3, 2009, 11:21:00 PM
Michael Fisher said...: Well, Farst, if you indeed are white as this area ---> <---- you constitute a biological race of one.; Mar 3, 2009, 11:57:00 PM
Thordaddy said...: Nulan says,

Your counterpart is a theocratic essentialist.

Which would mean I believe God is essential.

It would also imply that Nulan is a theocratic non-essentialist. Meaning, he believes God is non-essential.

Clearly, his notion is far more absurd and irrational than mine as my belief in the essentialness of God is a self-evident characteristic of God.

So in reality, Nulan is merely asserting his belief in radical autonomy. His god is non-essential, i.e., his god is autonomous.

Thus, he bows to the god that requires nothing more than no relationship. Look at the record and tell me Nulan that you're not averse to healthy relationships? And tell me it does not stem from your beleif in an autonomous god?; Mar 4, 2009, 3:23:00 AM
Thordaddy said...: Fisher,

Here are your options:

Scientifically verify the GSWS theory or concede that "white supremacy" doesn't really exist because white people don't exist?

Or, scientifically verify GSWS theory thereby verifying the biological notion of race and "white" supremacy.

Your choice, homey.; Mar 4, 2009, 3:28:00 AM
Denmark Vesey said...: I don't know Fellas.

May have to give this round to Thor.; Mar 4, 2009, 8:30:00 AM
CNu said...: Look at the record and tell me Nulan

phuk you..,; Mar 4, 2009, 8:34:00 AM
Michael Fisher said...: DV. Don't embarrass yourself. Farst apparently has even less aptitude for logic than a certain other individual.

"...concede that 'white supremacy' doesn't really exist because white people don't exist?

Clearly he ain't got a clue. The actual argument is that white supremacy exists because biological white people DO NOT exist while socially constructed white people DO exist.; Mar 4, 2009, 10:07:00 AM
SimonGreedwell said...: The actual argument is that white supremacy exists because biological white people DO NOT exist while socially constructed white people DO exist.

I tried to explain this, to no avail.; Mar 4, 2009, 10:16:00 AM
CNu said...: "When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things."; Mar 4, 2009, 10:22:00 AM
Undercover Black Man said...: The actual argument is that white supremacy exists because biological white people DO NOT exist while socially constructed white people DO exist.

When y'all are ready for the next phase, try dealing with the notion that biological white people AND socially constructed white people BOTH exist.

The mere existence of "race" as a social construct DOES NOT DISPROVE the existence of genetically distinguishable human sub-groups.

Again I say... do a cheek scraping and send it to one of those DNA testing companies for a genealogical work-up. Watch 'em tell you the ratio of your Northern European, West African and Amerindian ancestry... without resort to any "socially constructed" anything.; Mar 4, 2009, 10:46:00 AM
CNu said...: When y'all are ready for the next phase

I can even hear it in pumpkinhead's little nasally sounding, no swag having, twang..,

Farst's endgame presumes not only this inane essentialism, but also that the biologically and socially constructed "whites" exist as the primary vessels/vehicles of divine inspiration.; Mar 4, 2009, 10:58:00 AM
Denmark Vesey said...: "When y'all are ready for the next phase, try dealing with the notion that biological white people AND socially constructed white people BOTH exist.

Watch 'em tell you the ratio of your Northern European, West African and Amerindian ancestry... without resort to any "socially constructed" anything." UBM

Um ... um .. um

Wouldn't the cheek scrape only prove biological Northern European people ... not biological white people?

How you jump from "Northern European" to "white"?; Mar 4, 2009, 11:00:00 AM
Undercover Black Man said...: ^ Get a job, Boo Boo. Feed your kids.; Mar 4, 2009, 11:00:00 AM
Denmark Vesey said...: "Farst's endgame presumes not only this inane essentialism," CNu

What does that mean Craig?; Mar 4, 2009, 11:12:00 AM
CNu said...: Stop trying to relate to me pumpkinhead and go get yourself a woman...,; Mar 4, 2009, 11:42:00 AM
CNu said...: racial essentialism is a belief that there are inherent and innate biological differences between racial groups.; Mar 4, 2009, 11:50:00 AM
Denmark Vesey said...: "racial essentialism is a belief that there are inherent and innate biological differences between racial groups." CNu

Differences between individuals of each group, or differences between groups measured as a whole?; Mar 4, 2009, 11:53:00 AM
Big Man said...: Denmark is faking the funk.

Gray Conservative held it down and pointed out several distortions in Thor's arguments.

If y'all didn't notice that, y'all weren't paying attention. I've watched all of y'all argue enough to know some of what you believe, so I know when somebody is distorting what another person says, and Thor did that.

It's cool to disagree, but the rules say you can't misrepresent what other people say and believe.; Mar 4, 2009, 11:54:00 AM
Michael Fisher said...: Mills...

"Again I say... do a cheek scraping and send it to one of those DNA testing companies for a genealogical work-up. Watch 'em tell you the ratio of your Northern European, West African and Amerindian ancestry"

Lawd, that guy is dense. What the fuck is in your head? Cement?

These tests are based on small random samples of populations throughout different geographical areas and can only tell you about probabilities.

And it about ain't the probability of race. It tells you that there are minuscule genetic markers which probably tend to occur in the sampled populations MORE OFTEN than they occur in sample populations on the other side of the globe. It's like saying there are lots more people who are 6 feet in height in Hanover, Germany than there are in Beijing China. Fact is, however, that there are 6 feet tall people in both locations.

Mills. READ A BIOLOGY BOOK. PLEASE.; Mar 4, 2009, 2:59:00 PM
Michael Fisher said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; Mar 4, 2009, 3:09:00 PM
Thordaddy said...: I love it when people claim I distort what they say or they say I'm racist and never provide one stinky quote to substantiate their claims.

Fisher says,

The actual argument is that white supremacy exists because biological white people DO NOT exist while socially constructed white people DO exist.

Well, at least you say it's an "argument" and so now we can breath a little easier knowing you aren't really convinced of its truth.

But again, what actually exists in your notion of "white supremacy" and have you scientifically validated such an existence as per YOUR requirements concerning "race?"

It is the "white" that is material or does the "supremacy" have a material existence?

It can't be the "white" because you say such a material "white" person doesn't actually exist.

So again, how does "white" supremacy actually have a material existence and have you scientifically validated such a claim?; Mar 4, 2009, 3:12:00 PM
Michael Fisher said...: Mills...

"The mere existence of "race" as a social construct DOES NOT DISPROVE the existence of genetically distinguishable human sub-groups."

Mills, once again. Get it in your head. You need to be able to define where this human sub-group BEGINS and where it ENDS.

Why?

That's because EVERY HUMAN BEING with the exception of identical twins and, possibly in the future, clones is genetically distinguishable from the other. Otherwise I would, to my greatest chagrin, look like you.

In order to group each UNIQUELY genetically distinguished human being into groups you have to be able to come up with genetic characteristics which the members of these "sub-groups" have in common that no other member of any other "sub-group" has in common.

There is no such genetic characteristic. If there were, each such "sub-group" would be a different SPECIES.

Mills. Stick to writing screen plays or READ A BOOK.

Look, Mills. Put you money where your mouth is and tell us exactly what these supposed genetic characteristics are that determine "biological races".; Mar 4, 2009, 3:12:00 PM
Michael Fisher said...: Gray...

"I tried to explain this, to no avail."

I know. And to think that you and I are not even, to put it mildly, exactly in the same boat politically.

My, my. What would I give for a white cat showing up here who doesn't believe in reptiles and flying blond men with hammers. I'm really starting to miss Skip Sievert. Insults and all.; Mar 4, 2009, 3:19:00 PM
Thordaddy said...: Gray Conservative,

You want to keep insisting that I'm missing Fisher's point, but you don't pinpoint the distortions and explain the distortion. So we are left with nothing.

Fisher has conceded several things concerning the GSWS.

First, he has said that GSWS is but an "argument."

The actual argument (my emphasis) is that white supremacy exists because biological white people DO NOT exist while socially constructed white people DO exist.

He also concedes that GSWS is socially constructed. But he, like you, remain ambiguous at to whether that means GWSW really exists materially?

Can you give a "material" example of "white supremacy?" Wouldn't you need to find a "white" person first? And then find a "white" person who was practicing "supremacy?" Have you EVER come upon such a material thing as "white supremacy?"

Fisher also concedes that his GSWS, granting its existence, is limited in scope and influence. Meaning, he has conceded that anyone with the will can live outside the system.

In this light, Fisher is conceding that the "system" has no will to stop those that want to live outside the "system."

Fisher then asserts that "race" is socially constructed because there is no scientifically validated identifiers for "race." But what remains ambiguous is whether he thinks this means "race" really doesn't exist materially?

If "race" requires a scientific validation or else be relegated to a mere social construction then Fisher logic dictates the GSWS isn't scientifically validated?

So question is, does the GSWS construct merely exist as a non-material "argument" in the mind of a not black man?

Or, is "white supremacy" REAL?; Mar 4, 2009, 7:15:00 PM
SimonGreedwell said...: You want to keep insisting that I'm missing Fisher's point, but you don't pinpoint the distortions and explain the distortion. So we are left with nothing.

I really don't know how to explain it any better than what I posted previously. As has been mentioned by both myself and Fisher, he and I don't exactly agree on the issue (meaning his ultimate conclusion), but I understand the structure of Fisher's argument because he and I have discussed this extensively. Fisher's argument has a premise and a conclusion. My small corrections were in relation to what as I saw as your slight misinterpretation of his premise, that's all. My statements to you had nothing to do with Fisher's conclusion and therefore I did not speak to the existence of lack thereof of his GSWS. Since you and I both "generally" disagree with his conclusion, this is a minor issue.

In fact, Fisher and I have never discussed his conclusion "in depth", but we have had other discussions about some basic definitions of terms which form the foundation of his premise which you can find at his site.; Mar 4, 2009, 8:31:00 PM
Michael Fisher said...: Farst...

"Fisher also concedes that his GSWS, granting its existence, is limited in scope and influence. Meaning, he has conceded that anyone with the will can live outside the system."

Huh?

Where would I have conceded that a GLOBAL system is limited in scope?

"First, he has said that GSWS is but an 'argument.'"

Lawd, help me. Another guy that don't know nutin' about the English language.

You are mixing up an argument, that is a reasoned deduction that proceeds from a premise to a conclusion (or, if inductive from conclusion to premise) with a hypothesis. I've made a logical deductive argument (logical deductive process) that leads from premise (a) obtained by observation namely (a) being "white race is a social construct" to conclusion (b) therefore we live in a Global System of Racism/White supremacy. What you are positing as "argument" is actually a hypothesis. Which is something entirely different and akin to an educated guess.

"But what remains ambiguous is whether he thinks this means 'race' really doesn't exist materially?"

Ambiguous? Where? I've stated again and again that "biological race" does not exist.

"If "race" requires a scientific validation or else be relegated to a mere social construction then Fisher logic dictates the GSWS isn't scientifically validated?"

Since when can a social construct's existence not be scientifically validated?

Lemme ask you this Farst.

Do you live in the "United States of America"? What exactly IS the "United States of America"? Let me help you out here:

It is a social construct. A way in which certain human beings who have been given certificates characterizing them as "citizens" organize their socio-political interaction.

Now, are you trying to tell me that this social construct "United States of America" can not be scientifically validated?

(((shakin' head)))

Please, you too. Read a book. Any book. A comic book if need be.; Mar 4, 2009, 9:48:00 PM
Undercover Black Man said...: What exactly IS the "United States of America"? Let me help you out here: It is a social construct.

Ah. Now we're getting somewhere, Fish.

You say the United States is a "social construct"... just like race is a "social construct." Yes?

But does that mean the United States is nothing else?? Calling something a "social construct" does not fully define a thing, does it?

For instance... isn't the United States also a land mass?

I would love for you to explain, Michael, why "race" can't be something materially real and a social construct... just as the United States is something materially real and a social construct.; Mar 4, 2009, 10:57:00 PM
SimonGreedwell said...: For instance... isn't the United States also a land mass?

Oh lord. I don't think I've ever seen people misinterpret such simple statements. Social constructions aren't that difficult to figure out.

UBM, do you suppose that the land mass which is referred to linguistically and geographically as "The United States" would be designated as such through the use of language if no human beings existed on the planet to term it as such? Didn't "The United States" make an observable transition from that which was termed simply as "The New World" to that which is currently referred to as "The United States"?

Do you suppose that the animals and pre-historic monsters that roamed the earth thousands of years before the appearance of modern man would ever develop a way of referring to the conjoined continents which comprise that which is referred to as North America as "North America"?

The "land mass" which you refer to in the present moment as the "United States" was previously termed by Columbus as simply "The New World", when he was originally searching for what he assumed was "India". The verbal descriptor of "The United States" didn't exist when the British spoke of the "colonies" which were located in what they knew as "The New World".

"The New World"
"North America"
"South America"
"Canada"
"Mexico"
"The United States"

How do the virtually universally recognized naming conventions of geographic land masses not fit into the definition of what are called "social constructions"? If humans didn't exist to coin linguistic descriptors of geographic land masses then the ultimate "naming" of such land masses would be left up to some Cosmic Observer of the Order of Things who could hardly be bothered to come up with and catalog such terms as "land masses", "geography", or "North America", because no one else would exist to Read them.

Lord knows I don't agree with Fisher's conclusion, but it is That Hard to understand his premise?; Mar 4, 2009, 11:33:00 PM
Michael Fisher said...: Mills...

"For instance... isn't the United States also a land mass?"

False analogy, Mills. Please study some logic.

Look...

The social construct (socio-political organization) United States is constructed ON a land mass (the part of the globe called "North American continent").

The social construct (socio-political organization) "race" is constructed ON a land mass (the part of the globe called "Earth").

Both social constructs are socio-political arrangements between humans.; Mar 4, 2009, 11:36:00 PM
Undercover Black Man said...: Grey Con: Just acknowledge that the words "United States of America" represent not only a "social construct" BUT ALSO, AT THE SAME FUCKING TIME, something materially real... i.e., the land mass we're on.; Mar 4, 2009, 11:54:00 PM
Undercover Black Man said...: The social construct (socio-political organization) United States is constructed ON a land mass (the part of the globe called "North American continent").

Michael: What is Japan?; Mar 4, 2009, 11:56:00 PM
Undercover Black Man said...: ^ Let me ask it simpler, so you're sure to understand, Fish.

What is Japan?

(a) a social construct (socio-political organization)

(b) a land mass

(c) BOTH; Mar 4, 2009, 11:58:00 PM
SimonGreedwell said...: "The New World"
"North America"
"South America"
"Canada"
"Mexico"
"The United States"

How do the virtually universally recognized naming conventions of geographic land masses not fit into the definition of what are called "social constructions"? If humans didn't exist to coin linguistic descriptors of geographic land masses then the ultimate "naming" of such land masses would be left up to some Cosmic Observer of the Order of Things who could hardly be bothered to come up with and catalog such terms as "land masses", "geography", or "North America", because no one else would exist to Read them.

"Grey Con: Just acknowledge that the words "United States of America" represent not only a "social construct" BUT ALSO, AT THE SAME FUCKING TIME, something materially real... i.e., the land mass we're on."

face palm.; Mar 5, 2009, 12:16:00 AM
Michael Fisher said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; Mar 5, 2009, 12:45:00 AM
Michael Fisher said...: Mills...

"What is Japan?

(a) a social construct (socio-political organization)

(b) a land mass

(c) BOTH"

Mills, dearest five-year-old-brain-havin'-boy-child.

You see language is a funny thing. People actually give entirely different things the same name.

For example a Nut. A Nut can be a type of fruit or plant seed, a Nut can also be the description for a person such as a certain individual with the brain power of a five year old.

You see, there are a bunch of mountains in an area that is surrounded with water. That water is called "Pacific" in that particular location. These mountains have been named "Japan". Now on those mountains live a bunch of human beings. Those human beings ARE NOT IDENTICAL WITH THE MOUNTAINS THEY LIVE ON.

The humans there organized themselves into a socio-political arrangement (organization) which organization they call "Japan" too.

Two different things, same name.

Just like Nut the fruit, and Nut the person.; Mar 5, 2009, 12:48:00 AM
Undercover Black Man said...: Two different things, same name.

So why do you keep harping on the name "white" as a social construction, as if it couldn't ALSO represent a different thing... a materially real thing?

What I'm saying, Fish, is that you cannot prove that "race" is a biological fiction. The very fact that race is a social construct doesn't mean that is ONLY that.

For fuck sake, Michael... gender is a social construct, as well as a material reality. It is BOTH.

Scientists have just now decoded the human genome. It's way too fucking early for you to be talking with such finality about the material reality (or lack thereof) of race.; Mar 5, 2009, 1:02:00 AM
CNu said...: rotflmbao...., whew!!!

Fisher and Gray - thank you both for some lung clearing, gut-busting, and completely unanticipated hilarity.

What happened on this thread tonight absolutely had to be seen in order to be believed.

facepalm

dearest five year-old brain havin' boy child.

OMG!!!

ROTFLMBAO...,; Mar 5, 2009, 1:37:00 AM
Undercover Black Man said...: ^ You're easily amused, Boo Boo.; Mar 5, 2009, 1:40:00 AM
Undercover Black Man said...: Fisher: Is "gender" a social construct, or is it not?; Mar 5, 2009, 1:46:00 AM
Thordaddy said...: Obviously, Fisher is playing games and avoiding the real issue.

Does "white supremacy" actually exist?

We keep going back and forth between "yes, as a social construction" and "no, it's just a figment of some people's imagination."

Has Fisher ever observed a "white" person being supreme?

His answer is obviously "no" because "white" people don't actually exist.

Instead, he asserts that he has observed people who are socially-constructed "whites" being supreme.

But, is this even true? Has Fisher observed another obviously confused individual being supreme? Of course not! Being "supreme" would disqualify one from being in a thoroughly confused state of so-called "whiteness."

So in short, Fisher is asserting that thoroughly confused and socially-constructed "white" people ONLY pretend to be "supreme" because of their confused "whiteness."

So the question remains.

Does "white supremacy" actually exist?

Fisher keeps saying it does, but it doesn't!; Mar 5, 2009, 7:03:00 AM
Michael Fisher said...: Mills...

"What I'm saying, Fish, is that you cannot prove that 'race' is a biological fiction."

(1) Yes I did.

though...

(2) The burden of proof for the existence of a biological race is on you, not me.

and...

(3) You haven't met that burden.

"gender is a social construct, as well as a material reality. It is BOTH"

Nope. None one, not even gender-scholars, claims that. These days social scientists make the distinction between SEX in which ALL of the members of one group of individuals have a genetic characteristic that NONE of the members of another group have. Those being XX chromosomes for females and XY chromosomes for males.

The term "Gender" has been redefined to a mean a set of behaviors that are supposedly "female" or "male" and INDEPENDENT of sex.

The whole thing has been developed in order to explain (and make socially acceptable) homosexuality and transsexualism. Which, by the way I think is wholly unnecessary. If people wanna screw their own sex or grow titties that's no skin off my back.

Now you come up with a genetic characteristic that ALL people that you label as "white" have that no people that are "non-white" have, and you have your "biological race".

Fact is, however, that the "sub-groups" that you, Mills, continue to refer to as "European", "White", "Black", "African", "Asian", "Chinese", etc. do not and CAN NOT, by YOUR VERY OWN DEFINITION of these "sub-groups", have that exclusionary genetic exclusive genetic marker.; Mar 5, 2009, 7:51:00 AM
Michael Fisher said...: Mills...

"Scientists have just now decoded the human genome. It's way too fucking early for you to be talking with such finality about the material reality (or lack thereof) of race."

No Mills. It's not "too early". Why? Once again. That's because your by your VERY OWN definition of "race", "race" can not be biological.; Mar 5, 2009, 7:57:00 AM
Michael Fisher said...: Mills...

"So why do you keep harping on the name 'white' as a social construction, as if it couldn't ALSO represent a different thing... a materially real thing?"

Because a "white" person is NOT a material thing. I've been to, lemme see, all continents, except Australia and Antarctica and I have NEVER seen a person who is "white". Different shades of peach or pink perhaps, each and every individual having their own unique colors (all of which were even different in different parts of their bodies), but no one is WHITE.; Mar 5, 2009, 8:05:00 AM
Denmark Vesey said...: If "white supremacy" is a Social Construct, Plantation Negros are the Mexicans that run up to your car at Home Depot to do the construction work.; Mar 5, 2009, 8:28:00 AM
Anonymous said...: Since there are no 2 cats with exactly the same genome, does that mean "cats" do not biologically exist?

And what are social constructs based upon? Are genotypes and phenotypes included in the assessment - at all?; Mar 5, 2009, 10:10:00 AM
Big Man said...: Anon

But, you can find certain genetic markers that cats possess and that no other groups possess.

Fisher's argument is that you can't do that based on the social construct of race.

I ain't a genius, but it seems like a simple argument to grasp.; Mar 5, 2009, 2:51:00 PM
Undercover Black Man said...: Fisher:

Is sickle cell anemia a "social construct"?; Mar 5, 2009, 3:40:00 PM
Anonymous said...: There's no genetic markers that are unique to a race?

There's a billion or 2 Blacks in this world. Show me just one pic of (an unmixed) one with (naturally) blue eyes & straight, blonde hair, please... If you can't, then how are those traits not unique to non-Blacks?

"study leader Keith Cheng said he was at first uncomfortable talking about the new work, fearing that the finding of such a clear genetic difference between people of African and European ancestries might reawaken discredited assertions of other purported inborn differences between races -- the most long-standing and inflammatory of those being intelligence.

They got a bigger surprise when they looked in a new database comparing the genomes of four of the world's major racial groups. That showed that whites with northern and western European ancestry have a mutated version of the gene."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/15/AR2005121501728_pf.html; Mar 5, 2009, 3:59:00 PM
Michael Fisher said...: Mills...

"Is sickle cell anemia a 'social construct'?"

No Mills.

Now answer this:

(a) Do ALL "black" persons have sickle cell anemia?

(b) Do NO "white" persons have sickle cell anemia?; Mar 5, 2009, 4:11:00 PM
Thordaddy said...: Fisher,

Does "white supremacy" actually exist?

You assert that it does with your GSWS then you undercut the notion with the idea that it is all just a socially-constructed illusion.

Does "white supremacy" exist and have you observed it?; Mar 5, 2009, 7:16:00 PM
Undercover Black Man said...: We need not play these games, MF. We need only wait for genomic researchers to advance farther down the road upon which they’ve only recently embarked.

In the words of the Foundation for the Development of Africa:

“The human genome will change our grasp of human origins, of domestication, of migration and of development. It will teach us about the evolution and basis of racial difference.

“It will inform us how diseases work and how we can respond and prevent them. It will, simply, change our scientific horizons and, with them, the ethical and legal framework within which we operate.

“But what does this mean for Africa? The sequencing of the human genome has enormous implications for Africa, in medicine, in law, in history, in sociology...”

So then, Fish... better hit the pause button on your current belief system regarding the material reality of race.; Mar 5, 2009, 7:39:00 PM
Michael Fisher said...: Mills...

"It will teach us about the evolution and basis of racial difference."

Mills. Look closely at this statement.

(a) It posits that there is such a thing as "racial difference".

(b) At the same time it says that the folks who made statement (a) can not posit the basis for this "racial difference".

Thus what they are saying is "We know there is racial difference, but we have no evidence ("basis") for our knowledge.

If you can't point to any evidence for "racial difference", how the fuck are you gonna determine there is a thing such as "racial difference" in the first place?

Besides, quoting me this bull from a foundation run by a bunch of WHITE SOUTH AFRICANS ain't exactly awe-inspiring.

Now, please answer my question already:

(a) Do ALL "black" persons have sickle cell anemia?

(b) Do NO "white" persons have sickle cell anemia?; Mar 5, 2009, 8:53:00 PM
Undercover Black Man said...: (a) No.

(b) No.; Mar 5, 2009, 9:18:00 PM
Michael Fisher said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; Mar 5, 2009, 9:25:00 PM
Michael Fisher said...: Mills...

"(a) No.

(b) No."

In that case the trait "sickle cell anemia" is not an indicator for "biological 'black' or 'white' race".; Mar 5, 2009, 9:27:00 PM
Undercover Black Man said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; Mar 5, 2009, 9:28:00 PM
Undercover Black Man said...: In that case the trait "sickle cell anemia" is not an indicator for "biological 'black' or 'white' race".

Who-da-fuck said it was?; Mar 5, 2009, 9:32:00 PM
Undercover Black Man said...: ... from a foundation run by a bunch of WHITE SOUTH AFRICANS...

Either you didn't look closely at the board of the directors, Fish... or you simply enjoy LYING.

Be patient, dude. An African genome (of a Yoruba male) wasn't mapped until just a few months ago. We're in the very early days of humankind's greatest era of discovery! All these riddles will be solved in our lifetime!; Mar 5, 2009, 9:35:00 PM
Undercover Black Man said...: And don't knock white South Africans, Fish. Without them, black South Africans wouldn't be able to read or write.; Mar 5, 2009, 9:37:00 PM
Michael Fisher said...: Mills...

"Who-da-fuck said it was?"

Then what was your point?; Mar 5, 2009, 9:37:00 PM
Undercover Black Man said...: ^ My point was that your semantic games are irrelevant in a world where the material reality of our genetic heritage asserts itself... in ways known and yet-to-be known.; Mar 5, 2009, 9:45:00 PM
Michael Fisher said...: Mills...

Either you didn't look closely at the board of the directors, Fish... or you simply enjoy LYING.

Yeah, well...

"And don't knock white South Africans, Fish. Without them, black South Africans wouldn't be able to read or write."

Is that so you fucking traitorous turd?

Killing people by the ten of thousands, displacing people by millions, stealing the land of the Africans, crowding them into cages and concentration camps called "bantustans", and you say DON'T KNOCK WHITE SOUTH AFRICANS? You fucking dipshit.; Mar 5, 2009, 9:47:00 PM
Undercover Black Man said...: ^ Hee-hee... settle down, Yale. Just fuckin' witcha.

It is the truth, though. Or do you deny it, Fish?

Would the Zulu, the Xhosa and the Sotho peoples be literate today if they'd never encountered Europeans?

And why does this point of fact upset you so?; Mar 5, 2009, 9:55:00 PM
CNu said...: Fisher,

You and Gray absolutely destroyed punkinhaid the other night. Having already won in no uncertain terms, don't even waste the cycles.

You're up against racist magical thinking supplemented by genomania - a fixation with simplistic pseudo-science purporting to link genetic variation with various human behaviors and traits.

A "five year old brain having boy child" is what it is, and it's.just.not.going.to.get.any.better.; Mar 6, 2009, 6:40:00 AM
Undercover Black Man said...: ^ You are a constant disappointment.

With your avowed longtime interest in neurophysiology, Boo Boo... don’t fucking tell me you are ignoring the great new Age of Discovery set off by the mapping of a human genome?

You know that scientific understanding of cognition is in flux right now.

It was just three years ago that a couple of researchers claimed to locate – for the first time in the history of science – two regions in the human genome affecting “variation in IQ.”

Smart people are gonna figure this one out within our lifetimes.; Mar 6, 2009, 9:02:00 AM
CNu said...: smart people are gonna figure this one out...,

facepalm

I was having drinks with the general counsel of the Stowers Institute saturday night, working the wires to get my fourteen year old (whose mathematical aptitude at that age makes mine pale by comparison) into one of the most bleeding edge computational genomics programs/internships in the world.

While you blather in ways that would make your entire ancestry ashamed of your public displays of ignorance, stupidity, and failure of the prime directive - to people who have forgotten more about this subject than you're even capable of fathoming - I do what's needful to maximize my children's possibilities in whatever remains of your species future.

Run along now little monkey, aren't there some beignets and toothless, non-judgemental mouths waiting to help you forget yourself in the big greasy?; Mar 6, 2009, 9:27:00 AM
Undercover Black Man said...: ^ Dude, you are really too old to be behaving this way.

And you're about as predictable as my morning BM. (Though less substantial.); Mar 6, 2009, 9:33:00 AM