You accused me of believing race is a social construct. You made up a straw man based on a false dichotomy and I called you out on it. Plain and simple.
I still don’t even know what you’re arguing against. You’re just butthurt in general it seems. You’ve said nothing of substance except to attack me.
This is the original comment that was up for a little more than a minute:
The math isn’t the problem. The problem is the idiotic belief that because Jews share genetic heritage that they’re all the same, believe the same things, have the same values, are friendly with one another, and/or are all collaborating and plotting with one another to take over the world or something.
Here’s the current, edited comment that you claim is “completely different”:
The math is neither wrong, nor a problem. What wrong is the belief underlying the implication being made.
There. Now you don’t have any excuses. Now explain how your response wasn’t a complete straw-man and false dichotomy? What exactly did I say that you disagree with?
The problem is the idiotic belief that because Jews share genetic heritage that they’re all the same, believe the same things, have the same values, are friendly with one another, and/or are all collaborating and plotting with one another to take over the world or something.
So race has zero effect on a person whatsoever. It changes nothing about their environment, biological structure, the world they are born into, how they are raised to deal with it. Either race is in fact a complete social construct (aka completely made up and able to be dismantled), or someone being part of a certain group does in fact effect how they believe, value, and act.
That's not even getting into the obvious in-group/out-group dichotomy nor tribalism that come instinctual to humans. Something that has defined the entire course of human history, but in this special case its apparently non-existent.
If race/genetic background/whatever you want to call it has zero effect on a person's life beyond the artificial creation of social structures, then you are implying race is in fact a social construct.
All of that was obvious from the simple first sentence I said, but I'll spell it out for you again with some extra words. You didn't call anything out, you just didn't like your cheap defense (or the second weaker defense of "the unspoken implication I decided you meant is wrong") being called out for being a poor argument.
You accused me of believing race is a social construct. You made up a straw man based on a false dichotomy and I called you out on it. Plain and simple.
Right, because you were so cowardly you editted the comment after I wrote that so now what I wrote does look pretty wild.
Any smug response you try fails because of that pathetic little move.
You’re just making excuses and deflecting.
I still don’t even know what you’re arguing against. You’re just butthurt in general it seems. You’ve said nothing of substance except to attack me.
This is the original comment that was up for a little more than a minute:
Here’s the current, edited comment that you claim is “completely different”:
There. Now you don’t have any excuses. Now explain how your response wasn’t a complete straw-man and false dichotomy? What exactly did I say that you disagree with?
So race has zero effect on a person whatsoever. It changes nothing about their environment, biological structure, the world they are born into, how they are raised to deal with it. Either race is in fact a complete social construct (aka completely made up and able to be dismantled), or someone being part of a certain group does in fact effect how they believe, value, and act.
That's not even getting into the obvious in-group/out-group dichotomy nor tribalism that come instinctual to humans. Something that has defined the entire course of human history, but in this special case its apparently non-existent.
If race/genetic background/whatever you want to call it has zero effect on a person's life beyond the artificial creation of social structures, then you are implying race is in fact a social construct.
All of that was obvious from the simple first sentence I said, but I'll spell it out for you again with some extra words. You didn't call anything out, you just didn't like your cheap defense (or the second weaker defense of "the unspoken implication I decided you meant is wrong") being called out for being a poor argument.
I can’t facepalm hard enough.
I think we’re done here. You clearly have no intention of engaging in good faith. This was a waste of time.