we impose meaning on the world. even the idea that each of us is an individual instead of one unit is a construct. so while we can distinguish between different biological markers, the meaning we impart to that distinction is a construct. we can draw the lines arbitrarily (and we do). the distinction of race is no more natural or meaningful than a distinction based on country of origin.
I’m not sure I follow. Our genetic markers determine how we will look, what types of diseases we’re predisposed to, and that sort of stuff. That is a very real and established reality. How is that not our race? It is more meaningful than our nationality, since it is literally our genetic makeup. I’m not more likely to have lactose intolerance if I’m born in Japan, but am a different ethnicity, but I am more likely if I’m born in the USA and have Japanese ancestry. Is it the historical oppression associated the word “race” that is the issue?
disease and lactose intolerance are also constructs. all meaning is constructed. without an observer, there cannot be meaning. you get to decide which constructs you uphold.
Generally the houses are old enough that they’re from before we forgot that building on floodplains is a bad and that entrances should be perpendicular to the slope, and when every few years we’ll get a day with 200mm of rainfall these houses are generally fine even if some roads get ripped up and swept away, but the new houses that get designed by people hundreds of miles away who think the 1500mm of annual rain they get is as much as anywhere could possibly get (try twice to quadruple that…) often get absolutely destroyed
People also generally have 4x4s as you will need something raised to get through roads sometimes, or to pull people who don’t out
Neither, but if I must choose it’s probably slightly more like muscle than like cartilage. If prepared properly it’s really soft and a bit chewy, distantly reminding me meat from stews.
(That reminds me a local pub that prepares some fucking amazing breaded and deep-fried tripe. Definitively not doing it at home - it spills and bubbles the oil like crazy.)
The Godfather, extremely overrated and very boring. Saw it many years ago, and maybe my taste in movies have changed a bit, and I consider rewatching other movies I did not like, but not that one.
RIP scroll bar and scroll wheel. I’m swiping down to move the bar, which does the heavy lifting of moving the page up for me. This allows me to scroll more with less fatigue and thus I can consume more internet and therefore get more knowledge. Plus, swiping down works your bigger superior forearm muscles, which is the part of the arm that the ladies like, whereas swiping up works the inferior muscle on the other side that no one cares about. In conclusion, scroll down for bigger brain, better grip, and more birches.
I want you to understand something: what you're asking about is much more basic than critical theory. You're talking about the sociological theory of race. I'd avoid trying to understand critical theory without some more basic sociology building blocks because you frankly won't understand what they're talking about otherwise.
I could only recommend an introductory college course since that's where I picked up the basics. Hopefully someone else has better resources. An important thing about sociology is understanding the different approaches there are to things and the language those approaches use.
Your question has nothing to do with CRT, but with science (I am very critical to CRT if you want to know).
There is a scientific method to classify human beings by genetics. You can group by closeness of genetic code. When you do this you will arrive something similar to ethnicity NOT to race. Race classification is akin classification by eye color, while has some relationship to genetics - it has very little relationship and the genetic code similarities between two of ethnic groups, one has white skin, another have black skin, may be significantly larger than genetics similarity between two groups with black skin. This is why it is unscientific classification.
Neuroscientist and professor of neurobiology and ophthalmology at Stanford University.
Does amazingly detailed, up-to-date, research backed podcasts with many other Doctors and such discussing topics involving the brain, sleep, dopamine, routines, diet, mechanisms of action, etc
My favorite podcast I’m always down to listen to and it’s on basically every platform.
E.T. is decent at best. I wanted to watch it as a young kid, but wasn't allowed. By the time I finally watched it, I found it fell short of my expectations and I found it quite dull. Super 8 was also a middling film, but I thought it was slightly better than E.T.
The Temeraire Series by Naomi Novik is one I go back to every now and then. Historical fiction where dragons serve the purpose of air force during the Napoleonic Wars in England. I stared reading, but also quite like the audible narration.
Because there are, categorically, no biological evidence or basis to races in human genetics. Your premise is false and your post is racist bait. The scientific method does not support your racism.
Your accusations and refusal to actually explain anything in a meaningful way is an example of why people who don’t fully understand a new concept outright reject it, instead of discussing it more until they reach an understanding. But I have other meaningful responses that are actually helpful. Good day.
asklemmy
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.