Feedly is the most user-friendly (albeit also perhaps privacy-unfriendly) option imo. I used them for years before I started self-hosting through FreshRSS. If you are targeting someone unfamiliar, I’d go that route
It’s fuckin annoying. The whole time I thought I was Gen X up until a decade ago. Then all of sudden other people are telling me I’m this bullshit.
For fucks sake, I remember using rotary phones and fucking with TV antennas to get better reception. I remember when no one had cell phones or the Internet. If you didn’t know an answer to something, you just made your peace with that.
The annoying thing I’m discovering is people insisting that millennials were all children in the early 2000’s, when, if millennials start with 1980 as I’ve been told (and it does seem to keep changing), a lot of millennials were adults before the 2000’s even started.
I use the MTV demarcation line. If you were born before MTV came on the air (1982) then you’re GenX. But the whole Xenial thing is also legit.
PS the hidden secret to knowing anything before the internet was librarians. If it was really obscure the NY public library would take calls from all over the country.
No GPS, no map Quest, no internet on cell-phone. You just got lost in the smokey mountains for hours, about to run out of gas, hoping there was an open gas station at the next exit. Just raw-dogging those road-trips for the most part
Man, those were interesting times. It’s funny, elsewhere in these comments I remarked about a question people didn’t ask back in the day. “Where are you?” was hardly ever asked because of landlines.
Your response reminded me of an inverse question, one that’s rarely asked nowadays.
Indeed, they were always perfectly acceptable. I was just commenting how you usually knew the location of the person you called because you knew to call that locations landline. You still wouldn’t know receiving calls off the bat, at least until caller ID.
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.
Everyone has different DNA and nobody refutes that, but the lines at which race are defined are completly arbitrary. Are you considered black if you have 50% sub Saharan African DNA? Most would say yes. Are you black at 25%? How about at 5 or 10%? The slew of different answers is a clue that race is just a social construct borne of perception rather than hard fact.
Similarly, a lot of groups that are considered “white” today would not have been in the slightest if you were to go back 100+ years. The Irish, Italians, Greeks, among others were not considered white until more recently than you might believe.
Thats the crux of it, race is only truly defined by these arbitrary lines in the sand that people draw, and these lines are different for different groups and individuals. Race is only real because people perceive it to be. We could divide up society based on hair color or if your ear lobes hang or are directly connected to your head and it would make just as much sense, which is to say not much.
Edit: I might add that there’s more genetic diversity in sub Saharan Africa than anywhere else in the world but they all get lumped together as black because “skin dark”. It’s stupid when you examine it.
I’ve heard it said that the average Englishman and the average Indian are more genetically similar than two random Englishmen, too.
In other words, if that’s true, there are some general trends in genetic differences between “races”, those trends are, overall, far smaller and less significant than the random differences that pop up by chance within a single race.
My go-to examples are Melanesians and Indigenous Australians. They sometimes have darker skin than people we in the West call black, and if we saw one of them walking down the street in a Western country, we would think they were black. But they are quite genetically distant from Sub-Saharan Africans. They just also have very dark skin pigmentation.
So are they both the same race? If not, what are we calling race here? Because I’ve only ever heard it described in terms of skin color.
I could be wrong, but I believe that I’ve heard there’s more genetic diversity in sub-saharan Africa than pretty much anywhere else. Which kinda makes sense when you think about how that’s where Homo sapiens first evolved.
Ah, so it’s the race, like what you would put on a government form that they’re disputing, not the fact that we all have ethnicities which make up our person. I guess that makes sense, although it seems like splitting hairs to me. Nationality and ethnicity are already two different concepts. I suppose “race” in this context would be like you said, saying someone is “white” as opposed to saying they’re of English ethnicity. Is that right?
CRT focuses on how this arbitrary idea of race shapes how people are treated, especially on a societal scale. We divide people by wealth, by where they’re born, what gender they are, etc. All of these things affect how people are treated. I find most of the pushback is because some white people feel attacked when someone points to the fact that whiteness is a status.
I’ve seen push back by people of various backgrounds, not just “white” people, which we shouldn’t actually say, since it’s a construct in direct contradiction with the assertions of CRT. Right? To be clear, my post isn’t meant to be a criticism of the CRT statement. I asked so that I could more clearly understand, which I do now, thanks to you and some other people here. Thank you.
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.
I saw them when they came out (and remember how I LOVED them) and rewatched the first one last year. It did not age as well as I thought it would have.
I liked the first one. Got super bored with the second. Never watched the third. I feel like the first one should have been the only one. It was a fine stand alone film.
The DNA test is just testing for genes which tend to be in certain groups - but that's not necessarily the case - and the lines they draw between groups are arbitrary.
Not Rick had a great answer, but I wanted to try to contribute simple examples:
True, skin color is a trait that can be traced by DNA, but so is eye color, or hair color. We could easily create “races” based on “Brown hair vs blonde hair”, “brown eyes vs green eyes”, “people who need glasses vs people that don’t”, “shorties and tall-os”, “those who can roll their tongue, and the inferior swine that were never blessed by the Great tongue father.”
All traceable in the same way as skin color, but we consider them “features”, and not race defining traits.
Yeah that’s clear. As to the why, I suppose it’s because our brains are wired to categorize things and find patterns everywhere. It is useful to have labels for groups with common traits, although I do recognize the issues with that when it comes to systemic discrimination.
We kind of do though. There’s nothing official about hair types, but there’s all kinds of stereotypes about people with certain hair colors, like blondes, or redheads. There’s even some scientific evidence that people with red hair have higher pain thresholds.
Yeah that’s a good take, it’s like a modern Fifth Element.
I have seen Chronicle, but I probably need to rewatch it. Not sure if they just had bad direction or writing, but they seemed more like siblings instead of love interests.
Without Chris Tucker, the Fifth Element would not be the same. There’s no Chris Tucker here. There’s no innocent/badass Milla Jovovich either. There’s Rihanna, but that scene was forced as well. The quick wit action hero is almost done well.
Really, carrying the movie, there’s just two smart-ass surly 20-somethings that need to bone and get it over with. That trope is LONG dead.
I watched The Princess Bride and couldn’t understand why it gets so much love. I found it really gruesome and unfunny, and Robin Wright’s princess was bland and unlikable.
The social construct of race is which features we consider important enough by which to categorise people. So in the USA, this is white, black, asian or hispanic. Maybe native. Those categorisations are based on real observable traits, but we could choose other categorisations. It notably groups together traits which we can easily distinguish and pull out as subdivisions, such as south-east Asians.
We could redraw these groupings: we could for example together north Africans, middle-easterners and Indians, separating out those from southern and central Africa. We could separate Europeans so that Scandinavians, Finns and Slavs are together, separately from western and southern Europeans.
Not_Rick has a great answer but I will add something. Your question about the quote you posted is based on a disagreement about what race is, between you and social scientists. The phrase “we can take a DNA test and get our ancestry, telling us what percentage of what races make up our overall ethnicity” already assumes that genetics = race, end of story. But this is an unfounded assumption. All the test can tell is our genetics. Not_Rick offered some good examples for the counterpoint, that genetics ≠ race. If you disagree with that basic premise then you will always be bothered by modern theories on the subject such as CRT.
Once you see that race clearly is not just genetics, you can start asking what it truly is and what things do determine one’s race. These are much more interesting questions. For example, a new question might be ‘what has been the historical relationship between ethnicity and “being white” in the US’? And let’s not even start on the ridiculousness that is the census form.
asklemmy
Oldest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.