Sigh, I know, I literally laughed out loud. Scared my dog.
Religious intolerance in the GOP
- Thread starter Cypress
- Start date
It is not my party. The lack of diversity in the Republican party has nothing to do with the religious intolerance and the number of members of Congress elected by each religious group. Two separate issues. I'm sure Republicans would be happy if Buddhists, Muslims, Jews, and Hindus voted for them.
Caucasians are categorized as white. Race describes physical characteristics, cultural elements are included in ethnic group.
They are white by the U. S. census although I think they have a new category in 2020 (MENA: Middle East/North Africa).
It is not false equivalency. It is just intolerance expressed in a different form. And it changes--many Democrats hated Muslims following 9-11 and Muslims liked Republicans in 2000 when the Democratic VP candidate was Jewish. That sounds like the intolerance (hate) came equally from the Muslims in 2000. They didn't vote Republican because Democrats were intolerant toward them.
Genetics is not determined by what people consider themselves.
StoneByStone
It's OK to Be White
It's only an outdated term because the acknowledgement of race is politically incorrect. Scientists still accept the existence of the genetic groupings.
White people are an ethno-racial people. Whiteness is defined by both European ethnic culture and Caucasoid genetics. So if you have both, you're white. If you have one or none, you're not.
Now I realize this is the part where I'm told that white people doesn't exist because of [reason]. Well, at the end of the day, the "whiteness" label is a social and political label that is deeply ingrained in the entire world, especially the West. If you say white people don't exist, or you don't see race, or you identify as Dutch not white, the establishment and pretty much everyone you meet will still call you white. In fact, the establishment types will call you racist because by not acknowledging your whiteness, you are ignoring your own privilege and ignoring racism. Yes, I realize the hypocrisy in being told this while the same people say race doesn't exist, but here we are.
StoneByStone
It's OK to Be White
Jews aren't considered white. Jews are their own ethno-racial group.
Jews never assimilate into white societies like actual white ethnic groups do.
Now they are still Caucasoid, since that goes by genetics, but whiteness is defined by culture too.
StoneByStone
It's OK to Be White
I think most people in the West would say Jews aren't white. And since whiteness is a social and political label, and since Jews never assimilate to the white majority, it makes more sense to not consider them white.
StoneByStone
It's OK to Be White
Yes, which is why I agree that Ashkenazi Jews are Caucasoid. That's a genetic category.
StoneByStone
It's OK to Be White
I'm not talking about twenty years ago, I'm talking about the current decade.
Some Muslims would probably join the RNC if Republicans didn't hate Muslims. That's the difference here. Muslims not wanting to be around Republicans hangs on Republicans hating Muslims, whereas the Republicans simply hate Muslims. Saying that's the same would be like saying gay people are intolerant because they don't like being around homophobes.
You are just so wrong.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.livescience.com/amp/40247-ashkenazi-jews-have-european-genes.html
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sephardi_Jews
I’ve never heard of whiteness by culture, that is just ridiculous
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
Disagreed. There's a reason why religious and both political and non-political groups will lean toward or firmly embrace one of the two major parties. Groups would tend to support those who they themselves support or which is most beneficial for their aims. Obviously what the Republicans represented are not in keeping with any religion except the Mormons and the Evangelicals.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/02/23/u-s-religious-groups-and-their-political-leanings/
Disagreed. There's a reason why religious and both political and non-political groups will lean toward or firmly embrace one of the two major parties. Groups would tend to support those who they themselves support or which is most beneficial for their aims. Obviously what the Republicans represented are not in keeping with any religion except the Mormons and the Evangelicals.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/02/23/u-s-religious-groups-and-their-political-leanings/
Whew. I was wondering which way Eastern Orthodox Christians leaned, and am reassured to learn it is Democratic.
Thanks for the Intel.
StoneByStone
It's OK to Be White
Most people don't consider Jews white. Jews never assimilate into white societies. Because whiteness is a social label based on the way we're perceived and the experiences we have, Jews aren't white.
I can understand saying Jews have fair skin so they're white, it's an understandable view. But because the Jewish experience is so different from the white experience, it makes more sense to say Jews aren't white.
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
Fuck political correctness. The LWers have fucked up everyone with that concept.
"Genetic groups" is a long way from saying they are different "races".
http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2017/science-genetics-reshaping-race-debate-21st-century/
In the biological and social sciences, the consensus is clear: race is a social construct, not a biological attribute. Today, scientists prefer to use the term “ancestry” to describe human diversity (Figure 3). “Ancestry” reflects the fact that human variations do have a connection to the geographical origins of our ancestors—with enough information about a person’s DNA, scientists can make a reasonable guess about their ancestry. However, unlike the term “race,” it focuses on understanding how a person’s history unfolded, not how they fit into one category and not another. In a clinical setting, for instance, scientists would say that diseases such as sickle-cell anemia and cystic fibrosis are common in those of “sub-Saharan African” or “Northern European” descent, respectively, rather than in those who are “black” or “white”.
BattleofHodow
New member
Actually, Near-Easterners are probably the most Caucasoid, they have very prominent noses, very thin faces, and are very hairy.
But, the original peoples of Europe until about 8,000 years ago, like Cheddar man a WHG or Western Hunter Gatherer in no way look Caucasoid.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...-teacher-believes-looks-like-Cheddar-Man.html
They actually look kind of like a blue eyed, but blacker skinned Native American to me.
BattleofHodow
New member
Not a total consensus.
A consensus in your dumb Individualist Western European based country.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/336854138_Race_differences
Agreement with race realism is lower among researchers in USA and higher in East Europe and East Asian, however, there are substantial numbers of experts with both views in everysurvey.
BattleofHodow
New member
When they say no Race, they mean the formal term of Race being no Sub-Species of Humans.
That doesn't mean there's no differences biologically.
Besides, the majority of Biologists appear to be you know who.
https://www.jta.org/1954/07/23/arch...gh-percentage-among-young-american-scientists
The percentage of scientists from Jewish families varied considerably in the several fields of science, the Fortune report says. In biology and medical research it was 52 percent
I don’t care what you consider, they are genetically Caucasians. What you or others think doesn’t matter.
I didn’t realize that experiences had colors, that is hilarious.
Yes, this is true, but if you remove race how are these people going to feel superior from now on. Don’t be a party pooper.