Anonymous
(ID: 7/Z7w0Jd)
11/12/2025, 3:57:28 AM
No.521183635
[Report]
>>521183759
>>521183835
>>521185081
>>521185614
11/12/2025, 3:57:28 AM
No.521183635
[Report]
>>521183759
>>521183835
>>521185081
>>521185614
The attempt to discredit race as a concept
Sit yo ass down lil white ass mufugga, a real pole-nigger (as ordained by Jean-Jacques Dessalines) gonna finna discuss a lil sumn.
Debating the biological reality of race with an academia faggot is fucking pointless. Why? Because the issue isn't factual for him. It is semantical.
Does race actually exist? What we intuitively refer to as biological reality for humans are the shared characteristics, and relationships between those characteristics. These are more or less undeniable. Race, however, is just a taxonomic categorisation purposed to label humans based on said shared characteristics. Now most of us utilize them as a mental shortcut to reference the index of variations between individual humans. It makes sense, it is how most use language. So yes, in this way, race exists as a semantical consensus between most parties that choose to employ the lexicon. I know what race means, you know what race means, we can perceive it visually, so we out there debatin on common grounds an shiet, nigga.
Now, what if one day the academia decides not to? It seems that precisely because taxonomy is an inherently abstract system imposed upon reality, that essentially most forms of categorisation can be accepted or rejected by the academic consensus as established forms of categorisation. The concept of race fits perfectly into the modern standards for taxonomy. In biological contexts, race is pretty much a synonym for an ecotype or a subdivision within a species showing genetic and phenotypic differences related to geographic location and environment. Humans also manifest phenotypical variation in external characteristics like height, eye color, and skin tone, or internal physiological and behavioral traits. It is, therefore, a perfectly rational form of human categorisation, which the academia just chooses not to use it due to its socio-political connotations.
1/2
Debating the biological reality of race with an academia faggot is fucking pointless. Why? Because the issue isn't factual for him. It is semantical.
Does race actually exist? What we intuitively refer to as biological reality for humans are the shared characteristics, and relationships between those characteristics. These are more or less undeniable. Race, however, is just a taxonomic categorisation purposed to label humans based on said shared characteristics. Now most of us utilize them as a mental shortcut to reference the index of variations between individual humans. It makes sense, it is how most use language. So yes, in this way, race exists as a semantical consensus between most parties that choose to employ the lexicon. I know what race means, you know what race means, we can perceive it visually, so we out there debatin on common grounds an shiet, nigga.
Now, what if one day the academia decides not to? It seems that precisely because taxonomy is an inherently abstract system imposed upon reality, that essentially most forms of categorisation can be accepted or rejected by the academic consensus as established forms of categorisation. The concept of race fits perfectly into the modern standards for taxonomy. In biological contexts, race is pretty much a synonym for an ecotype or a subdivision within a species showing genetic and phenotypic differences related to geographic location and environment. Humans also manifest phenotypical variation in external characteristics like height, eye color, and skin tone, or internal physiological and behavioral traits. It is, therefore, a perfectly rational form of human categorisation, which the academia just chooses not to use it due to its socio-political connotations.
1/2
