Home to all things "Mildly Infuriating" Not infuriating, not enraging. Mildly Infuriating. All posts should reflect that.
I want my day mildly ruined, not completely ruined. Please remember to refrain from reposting old content. If you post a post from reddit it is good practice to include a link and credit the OP. I'm not about stealing content!
It's just good to get something in this website for casual viewing whilst refreshing original content is added overtime.
Rules:
1. Be Respectful
Refrain from using harmful language pertaining to a protected characteristic: e.g. race, gender, sexuality, disability or religion.
Refrain from being argumentative when responding or commenting to posts/replies. Personal attacks are not welcome here.
...
2. No Illegal Content
Content that violates the law. Any post/comment found to be in breach of common law will be removed and given to the authorities if required.
That means: -No promoting violence/threats against any individuals
-No CSA content or Revenge Porn
-No sharing private/personal information (Doxxing)
...
3. No Spam
Posting the same post, no matter the intent is against the rules.
-If you have posted content, please refrain from re-posting said content within this community.
-Do not spam posts with intent to harass, annoy, bully, advertise, scam or harm this community.
-No posting Scams/Advertisements/Phishing Links/IP Grabbers
-No Bots, Bots will be banned from the community.
...
4. No Porn/Explicit
Content
-Do not post explicit content. Lemmy.World is not the instance for NSFW content.
-Do not post Gore or Shock Content.
...
5. No Enciting Harassment,
Brigading, Doxxing or Witch Hunts
-Do not Brigade other Communities
-No calls to action against other communities/users within Lemmy or outside of Lemmy.
-No Witch Hunts against users/communities.
-No content that harasses members within or outside of the community.
...
6. NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.
-Content that is NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.
-Content that might be distressing should be kept behind NSFW tags.
...
7. Content should match the theme of this community.
-Content should be Mildly infuriating.
-At this time we permit content that is infuriating until an infuriating community is made available.
...
8. Reposting of Reddit content is permitted, try to credit the OC.
-Please consider crediting the OC when reposting content. A name of the user or a link to the original post is sufficient.
...
...
Also check out:
Partnered Communities:
Reach out to LillianVS for inclusion on the sidebar.
All communities included on the sidebar are to be made in compliance with the instance rules.
So you're saying race == phenotype? Then you also have to say that race is a continuum, and, therefore, any arbitrary line on that continuum a social construct.
Which is btw blindingly obvious to Europeans, Harris is white in my book: There's plenty of Italians with darker skin. Funny how perception changes if you actually consider skin colour to be skin colour and not some grand overarching signifier for an in reality culturally defined group.
Well by that definition fucking everything is a social construct. Which, sure, there's a decent philosophical argument that even reality is a social construct, but it makes it impossible to discuss anything if you get hung up on that.
I've got a secret to let you in on: aside from mathematics and some physics, literally everything is categorized based on arbitrary lines on a continuum. Taxonomic classification. Whether an object is a planet or not. "Ocean" vs "sea". Macro vs micro economics. Every single thing that is classified, a person or group of persons had to make a decision and in some cases that decision was not very clear or easy.
That doesn't mean it's a pure social construct, and it definitely doesn't mean the categories are invalid. It means they're blurry at the boundaries, like all things are. It means they're part of a continuum, like all things are. It does NOT mean or imply that the categories are invalid.
Nope. That humans generally have five fingers is not a social construct, it's an (emergent) property of our genome.
Whether Harris is sorted into "white" or "black" OTOH is based on a social construct: The US's conception of race is not based on physical traits but social realities. It harkens back to the one drop rule which is complete BS when it comes to biology, what matters in her being sorted into "black" is not her phenotype (quite light skin, temperate climate nose, ...), but that a portion, at least a drop, of her ancestry comes from black slaves. That's a social context, not a biological one.
Even more obvious is Obama, actually: He's not a descendant of slaves. So it's not even heritage which dictates whether you're black in the US, but whether your phenotype looks like you possibly could be.
Let me end with Epictetus:
This is the fucking bullshit that makes me want to bitch slap all you academic morons who keep insisting that race is a social construct. It's so goddamn fucking annoying. YOU JUST FUCKING ASSERT THIS. FUCKING A PRIORI. And then you use that bullshit assertion to build the world's biggest fucking straw man.
It's so goddamn stupid and also so smug at the same time, which is a rage-inducing combination coming from anyone. But especially from Kaeieghlyyn who somehow spent 4 years in college studying racial inequality without ever stepping foot in a ghetto.
No one ever gave a shit about the "one drop law", not even in the racist South where it existed, unless someone needed an excuse to exercise power over someone else. If you pass as white you are, for all intents and purposes, white.
How does one get to the situation where they pass as white?
Their parents could pass as white! At least one of them. It's an inherited characteristic, which is what race is. That's it, that's the whole thing. Race is a bundle of inherited physical characteristics sorted by commonalities.
But some humans have different numbers of fingers! Some have four, some have six! Some humans are born without hands! Therefore your entire system of categorization is invalid! You cannot classify things in any way, because exceptions might exist! Literally everything is a social construct!!!!
Or, you know. Alternatively. Categorizations are valid despite the fact that exceptions exist.
Don't "end with" a fucking quote from a fucking philosopher. It's the bitch icing on a giant cake of smugness. I'm happy to debate this with you but for the love of christ at least pretend to be fucking humble. Also your quote is stupid, because it's referring to the type of straw in your straw man. You're trying to explain some shit that doesn't matter, because your entire premise is wrong.
No. Case in point: I mentioned how Harris has lighter skin than many a Sicilian, and also very much has a temperate climate nose. These are not, in the slightest, phenotype traits typical of sub-saharan Africa mostly Nigeria thereabouts where most of the slaves trafficked during the Atlantic slave trade where from.
If you can't see that then I suggest you visit an optometrist.
Then why is Harris considered black? What does "passing" mean, here? Does it really have anything to do with phenotype, or is it cultural?
That's a misexpression, the genome codes for five. And even then: Having six fingers is a physical, objective, trait. Harris being black isn't, phenotypically she could just as well be Italian.
As I have said, picking individual outliers does not invalidate a category. I think you've got it backwards. We interpret racial characteristics through a social lense. But the characteristics do, themselves, exist. And they are easily grouped (not exclusively, but generally) into the categories we call "race". And we're not randomly picking traits. They're inherited via a common ancestry. As you said, physical, observable traits.
Could Harris pass as Sicilian? Probably not, but even if she could, she doesn't have any Sicilian ancestry to my knowledge, so it would be inaccurate to call her Sicilian. Or Indian or Korean or whatever. She could call herself Nordic and we would laugh at her.
I didn't say anything about validity.
So it would be inaccurate to call Obama African American because he has no slave ancestry?
"African American" is a subculture identified with people freed from slavery. It is not a thing of ancestry, or Obama wouldn't be part of it. It is not a matter of phenotype, or Harris wouldn't be part of it. And both aren't outliers, they're simply prominent examples. At the same time, you have more recent African immigrants to the US who very much insist that they are not part of that group identity. Dunno how Obama's father identified but he had that kind of heritage.
Noone, at least no American, is questioning Harris' and Obama's identity as African American, and that's precisely because it's neither about ancestry nor phenotype but subcultural belonging. They're African American because they stay vibing that way.
Plenty of people with much darker skin in the Nordics. If she had gone to school and studied in Norway or something Nordic would be absolutely accurate. See here on the other side of the Atlantic we don't sort ethnicities by phenotype because phenotype has nothing to do with ethnicity. Correlation, yes, causation, fuck no. Double triple fuck no. This man is Oldenburger. How could I claim otherwise his Low Saxon is better than mine! ...and Harris is African American, even she doesn't fit the phenotype, because it's only correlation, and Obama is African American, he fits the phenotype and chose to vibe that way, but also might've chosen otherwise. Which probably would not have exactly been the path of least resistance because America, overall, is racist AF with their subcultural identifications.
Phenotype has nothing to do with nationality. Nationality =/= ethnicity.
You force migrant Africans to drown in the Mediterranean, get off your high horse dude.
It would be debatable. That's the point I've been trying to make. You take a set of physical characteristics and common heritage and you classify people based on that. Some people won't neatly fall into those classifications and that's okay, but the classifications are still valid.
That's the whole point of the phrase "race is a social construct". Attacking the validity of race as a concept.
I never claimed them to be equal. Also, "Nordic" isn't a nationality, Norwegian would be. If Harris was born in the US, moved to Norway when she was 3, went to school in Norway, studied in Norway, then returned to the US, what ethnicity do you think she would identify with? And yes bi-ethnic people exist, very common in fact because people do move around.
Did you just call me Italian. Or Greek. Or whatever. You force migrant Latinos to drown in the Rio Grande.
Why would you connect such unconnected things as phenotype and heritage? Why not have separate classifiers for both things? Why, then, on top of that, sort people into subcultures based on those classifiers?
Democracy is a social construct. Freedom is a social construct. The only thing that's getting attack, and should and must be attacked, is a purported biological basis for ascribing properties to people based on phenotype because that's complete BS. And with that, I repeat the Epictetus quote:
Do you now, finally, understand what he's saying there? The connection is not "You have black skin, therefore, you are African American", the connection is rather "You have black skin, therefore, you get sunburnt less easy than me".
Identity with, or identify as? You can choose the former to an extent, but the latter is biologically inherited.
Fine, since you're getting hung up on definitions, instead of "phenotype" say "inherited physical characteristics". I don't feel like getting into an argument about genetics, it's beside the point. The point is, people inherit physical characteristics common to their enthnicity, and that is what "race" is. It's not a bad thing, just a descriptor.
The connection is "you have black skin, and wiry hair, and African ancestry, and X and Y and Z, therefore you are Black." And it's less a connection than a definition. No value judgment, just a statement.
It sounds like what you should be arguing against is "you are Black, therefore you are inferior". Which would be a really easy and common argument to make without all this bullshit "race is imaginary" crap.
So Obama isn't African American, got it.
Ethnicity is not genetic. Are you one of those yanks spewing nonsense such as "I'm 23% French that's why I like mayonnaise".
That anyone said that is something you're imagining. Also just because we're imagining something doesn't mean it's not real. A judge is just a human in fancy clothes imagining to have power over you, try telling them that as a defendant they'll be impressed at your reasoning skills. The bailiffs? Only imagining that they have to follow the judge's orders.
I told you, ignore the genetic bit if you want to quibble about it. I'm talking about inherited physical characteristics. What would you call it? Pick a word, whatever. That's what I'm talking about, and that's the basis for race.
That's genetics.
Ok, there you have it. I think that's an incorrect usage of the word, but for the sake of discussion, let's call it genetics. It's a real, physical, biological phenomenon and it's not purely a social construct (except in the vague sense that all of interpreted reality is a social construct).
What is real and physical about Harris being black when looked from one perspective, and as white when looked at from another?
One is incorrect. I don't really understand the question.