So why does the left insist on pretending otherwise?

Because it is a means to advance their political agenda of control and to increase their power.

Bill Nye at the 2015 Rutgers graduation (after being all politically correct on climate change, I guess in the hope that the left will miss that he is going off message on this):

"Along with the evidence of common sense, researchers have proven scientifically that humans are all one people. We’re a lot like dogs in that regard. If a Great Dane interacts (can we say interact?) with a Chihuahua, you get a dog. They’re all of the same species. Same with us. The color of our ancestors’ skin and ultimately my skin and your skin is a consequence of ultraviolet light, of latitude and climate. Despite our recent sad conflicts here in the U.S., there really is no such thing as race. We are one species — each of us much, much more alike than different. We all come from Africa. We all are of the same stardust."

where did you get the idea that "leftists" think that humans of different races are not the same species?

They sure act as if there is some immutable catigorization called race.

I'm pretty sure there are lot of non-leftists who recognize the concept of race.

It's not a biological reality, but some things are, lamentably, as real as people imagine them to be. Even if it's "just" a social construct, it's been solidly constructed. It can be deconstructed only with great difficulty.

it would be like trying to argue that countries don't really exist because we're all one species.

Arguing the semantics of the word 'race' certainly doesn't resolve any problems with discrimination. Two different things.

All dogs are dogs. But I hate small, yappy ones.

Zoinks argues they're all the same size and nobody can tell them apart except liberals.

Lefties just have great imagination as to why some people who are born with a different skin color are treated differently in many situations.

The best way to prevent people from addressing racism is to act and claim that we are all equal and that racism does not exist. Why would you address something that does not exist? Of course if you are white, racism towards you seldom happens. If it does not happen to you it must not exist. However if you happen to not be white, racism is real to you and claims of true equality sound like bu!!$hit.

There's no such thing as money either. It's "just" a social construct. If you have a lot of it, it's nearly invisible to you -- for instance, you can eat at the type of restaurant that doesn't list prices. If you have less of it, you're very aware of how much things cost.

Humanity is more than biology. That's what makes it so complicated.

Would it be too much to ask to state your proposition, rather than assume that we get it purely from your snark? Just fill in the blank:

Leftists believe ___ about race but they're wrong because ___ or they're hypocrites because ___ etc.

bub said:
Would it be too much to ask to state your proposition, rather than assume that we get it purely from your snark? Just fill in the blank:
Leftists believe ___ about race but they're wrong because ___ or they're hypocrites because ___ etc.

I'm confused. I know this is not your first day on the internet. This seems to be the way all Internet discussions take place. Snark, obnoxiousness, and basically trying to define a strawman of your opponent so that you can knock him down.

I've been thinking about this thread in the wake of the Charleston shooting. On a few occasions I've been tempted to write a reply to the OP, but I've thought better of it. First, because people who post like that aren't looking for a discussion, and second because I think it's better to post something constructive than rather than the angry, accusatory reply something like the OP is trying to provoke.

So instead, I'm going to deflect the OP a bit and share why I do see race, and why I think it's important to do so.

I didn't always. I'm a white male who grew up in the suburban Midwest, where race isn't only invisible, it's very easy to keep it that way. About the only time I ever saw black folks was in the news (in the context of some sort of violence) or in sports.

I don't think I ever had the angry animosity toward bringing up race that the OP displays. It just seemed irrelevant; people bringing it up seemed like they were just looking to pick a fight.

I went to college out west, then moved to NYC, lived in a few different neighborhoods and boroughs (Inwood, Harlem, Queens), worked a few jobs. I had black neighbors, black co-workers, black acquaintances. One of my landlords was black. I had a black boss.

So ironically I suppose, as "race" became more visible to me, "racial differences" much less so -- these weren't people showing up on the news in the context of some problem, just people. And so when issues dealing with race and racism came up, it wasn't so abstract or unbelievable. Once you see racism, it takes a lot of work to unsee it.

I suspect that for a lot of white folks, it's similar -- less overt hostility and more just a consequence of how well and thoroughly we've segregated ourselves. If you don't know any black people, never interact with them, never have any context other than news stories about crime or unrest, racism probably doesn't seem like a real thing worth worrying about.

I confess I don't quite understand how someone living on the metropolitan East Coast, where you can't avoid mixing with people of all sorts of background, manages to maintain such a bubble. I don't know the OP's story, and doubt I ever will -- why is he so angry, why so defensive and threatened by any acknowledgement of race? Well, this post isn't for him anyway.

For others on this thread who are interested, I also have two reading recommendations I've found really helpful. One is The Warmth of Other Suns (at SO library and Maplewood), about the Great Migration. It shifted the way I saw African-American communities in the north (eg here in the NE) -- internal migrants. For those of us with an immigrant background (which is many of us), that's very relatable, though of course it is different to be migrant within your own country.

The second reading recommendation would be anything by Ta-Nehisi Coates, who blogs over at The Atlantic. He blogs less frequently now -- see if you can get anything from his archives.

pmartinezv said:


The best way to prevent people from addressing racism is to act and claim that we are all equal and that racism does not exist.

As an extension of this, a good way to raise a child up to be accidentally racist is to pretend race doesn't exist and never talk to your children about it.

I'm pretty sure that America's slave owners--whom the OP has repeatedly defended--weren't quite as progressive on the topic of race as Bill Nye.

I've decided to take Jackson Fusion's analysis to heart and assume Zoinks does not believe all this stuff, but is really just trolling.

I don't think it's parody but instead an exaggerated version of what he actually believes for purposes of provocation (except for his lamenting the Emancipation Proclamation, which I truly think he despises).

ramzzoinksus said:
Because it is a means to advance their political agenda of control and to increase their power.
Bill Nye at the 2015 Rutgers graduation (after being all politically correct on climate change, I guess in the hope that the left will miss that he is going off message on this):
"Along with the evidence of common sense, researchers have proven scientifically that humans are all one people. We’re a lot like dogs in that regard. If a Great Dane interacts (can we say interact?) with a Chihuahua, you get a dog. They’re all of the same species. Same with us. The color of our ancestors’ skin and ultimately my skin and your skin is a consequence of ultraviolet light, of latitude and climate. Despite our recent sad conflicts here in the U.S., there really is no such thing as race. We are one species — each of us much, much more alike than different. We all come from Africa. We all are of the same stardust."

I recently read in the news about a right-wing, "states-rights" guy with a gun who disagrees with that.

Race is both real and not real. Race is a social construct, but the actions of some people towards other people based on that social construct are very real. I think it is the subtle duel nature of this that is eluding some.

PVW said:
I've been thinking about this thread in the wake of the Charleston shooting. On a few occasions I've been tempted to write a reply to the OP, but I've thought better of it. First, because people who post like that aren't looking for a discussion, and second because I think it's better to post something constructive than rather than the angry, accusatory reply something like the OP is trying to provoke.
So instead, I'm going to deflect the OP a bit and share why I do see race, and why I think it's important to do so.
I didn't always. I'm a white male who grew up in the suburban Midwest, where race isn't only invisible, it's very easy to keep it that way. About the only time I ever saw black folks was in the news (in the context of some sort of violence) or in sports.
I don't think I ever had the angry animosity toward bringing up race that the OP displays. It just seemed irrelevant; people bringing it up seemed like they were just looking to pick a fight.
I went to college out west, then moved to NYC, lived in a few different neighborhoods and boroughs (Inwood, Harlem, Queens), worked a few jobs. I had black neighbors, black co-workers, black acquaintances. One of my landlords was black. I had a black boss.
So ironically I suppose, as "race" became more visible to me, "racial differences" much less so -- these weren't people showing up on the news in the context of some problem, just people. And so when issues dealing with race and racism came up, it wasn't so abstract or unbelievable. Once you see racism, it takes a lot of work to unsee it.
I suspect that for a lot of white folks, it's similar -- less overt hostility and more just a consequence of how well and thoroughly we've segregated ourselves. If you don't know any black people, never interact with them, never have any context other than news stories about crime or unrest, racism probably doesn't seem like a real thing worth worrying about.

I confess I don't quite understand how someone living on the metropolitan East Coast, where you can't avoid mixing with people of all sorts of background, manages to maintain such a bubble. I don't know the OP's story, and doubt I ever will -- why is he so angry, why so defensive and threatened by any acknowledgement of race? Well, this post isn't for him anyway.
For others on this thread who are interested, I also have two reading recommendations I've found really helpful. One is The Warmth of Other Suns (at SO library and Maplewood), about the Great Migration. It shifted the way I saw African-American communities in the north (eg here in the NE) -- internal migrants. For those of us with an immigrant background (which is many of us), that's very relatable, though of course it is different to be migrant within your own country.

The second reading recommendation would be anything by Ta-Nehisi Coates, who blogs over at The Atlantic. He blogs less frequently now -- see if you can get anything from his archives.

Very insightful and revealing PVW. I'd like to share this with insight with some people from the SOMA Coalition on Race. Have I your permission?

nohero said:

ramzzoinksus said:
Because it is a means to advance their political agenda of control and to increase their power.
Bill Nye at the 2015 Rutgers graduation (after being all politically correct on climate change, I guess in the hope that the left will miss that he is going off message on this):
"Along with the evidence of common sense, researchers have proven scientifically that humans are all one people. We’re a lot like dogs in that regard. If a Great Dane interacts (can we say interact?) with a Chihuahua, you get a dog. They’re all of the same species. Same with us. The color of our ancestors’ skin and ultimately my skin and your skin is a consequence of ultraviolet light, of latitude and climate. Despite our recent sad conflicts here in the U.S., there really is no such thing as race. We are one species — each of us much, much more alike than different. We all come from Africa. We all are of the same stardust."

I recently read in the news about a right-wing, "states-rights" guy with a gun who disagrees with that.

Not true. He seemed to think he was African, too. South African, or Rhodesian.

Here's the fun thing. Nye is, of course, right. People are all the same, but people are also stupid, there's more than 7 billion of us, and we can and have come up with infinite dumb reasons for enslaving and murdering each other: power, resources, religion, skin color, you name it. We're simply too effing thick to understand what it is Nye is saying.

@Surya - of course, thanks for asking

dave23 said:
I don't think it's parody but instead an exaggerated version of what he actually believes for purposes of provocation (except for his lamenting the Emancipation Proclamation, which I truly think he despises).

I do not "despise" it. Its intent is admirable. It just happens to be unconstitutional. As I have said over and over again the constitution is neither good not bad. It has not morals at all. But what is written in it, even if the impact is awful, is the law until it is changed in accordance with the rules in the constitution. So states had every right under the constitution to leave if they wanted because it does not say they can not. The constitution can not be violated just to get a desireable outcome.

ramzzoinksus said:

dave23 said:
I don't think it's parody but instead an exaggerated version of what he actually believes for purposes of provocation (except for his lamenting the Emancipation Proclamation, which I truly think he despises).

I do not "despise" it. Its intent is admirable. It just happens to be unconstitutional. As I have said over and over again the constitution is neither good not bad. It has not morals at all. But what is written in it, even if the impact is awful, is the law until it is changed in accordance with the rules in the constitution. So states had every right under the constitution to leave if they wanted because it does not say they can not. The constitution can not be violated just to get a desireable outcome.

The Civil War trumped ante bellum legal assumptions. Try to get over it and move on with your life.

It does not make the actions any less unconstitutional.

The constitutionality was questionable, the morality was not. The Constitution has been violated innumerable times for truly egregious reasons, yet you remain fixated on this.

Yes the New Deal is another really bad violation. But I'm not fixared. You are. You are the one who brought it up.

Just needed to give everyone a refresher that you favored keeping slavery intact for decades.

The Federal government should never be allowed to exceed its authority. The fact that it has been repeatedly able to do so has gotten us to the statist state we have now.

ramzzoinksus said:
It does not make the actions any less unconstitutional.

Or your obsession with the topic any less tiresome.

Why don't you change your obsession to studying the unintended consequences of war. After all, wars never seem to turn out the way the instigators expect.