ive heard that kinda thingcoming out of europe but this is the only time ive heard of it here

I heard about it a while ago

but i feel like this is a bigger story than anyone is giving it credit for, a 50+ person train robbery

that should have been a huuuuge story

Should be... But it's California where such thing is legal

Why do you think they lowered so many felonies to misdemeanors, such as identity theft.

hey @Timcast im putting a huge massive argument here for you because ive been watching your podcast today and i guess i got a bit triggered by a pretty insignifigant tangent that gets brought up in it about race as a social construct. i know it was brought up by your guest and it wasent the point of the video so its ok that you didint go to far into it but in my hope to keep you well informed on topics im going to fill you in on some key information that really doesent support that idea. now personally regardless of all this information i agree with you that race should not mean much for federal or even state policy, id really only ever argue for policys around race to be used in the medical field or education where these distinct differences between us manifest in a different that disparages groups who are held to the same standard as everyone else.

to begin national geographic isint a reliable source of scientific information anymore, it hasent been for 20 years, but beyond there there are huge huge problems with the assertion that theres no way to differentiate between race. phenotypically there is as pointed out in your podcast, but also genetically its very well studied and being even more studied now that race is determined by genes because ALL phenotypical characteristics of an organism without physical damage are determined genetically. not only that but phenotypical differences discribe more than just your macroscopic differences of skin color, height, hair, ect. phenotypical differences discribe how your body functions down to a cellular level which manifest behavural and medical differences between distinct population groups. lactose tolerence, wet/dry earwax, countless genetic disorders are all traits of a certain genetic leniage which are manifested by a biology predetermined by your genes and those genes have to be different in order for some populations to manifest them while others do not. below are some articles that back this up which give information on the actual genetic study of different races if your interested, ive tl;drd the first one

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/ahg.12251?author_access_token=f2zin36v2YrNgFfKQHvgrota6bR2k8jH0KrdpFOxC67dd_uyeReVHbWDVkzMFxMBys8p0aqqN3WAiGTxtRo6gBBWjAZjLoAV8v6t731-OKjHMC0WW8sU1rX8Ij8AmMm6

tdlr; this article is talking about something related to disease risk factors using thousands upon thousands of genomes to catagorize that risk factor and then comparing that risk factor between the 3 big genetic groups of europeans, asians, and africans and finding that theres differences in the risk factors the wide array of genomes they studied between each of the population groups. basicly europeans having different disease risk factors than asians, and both having different risk factors than africans

more examples
https://www.wired.com/2010/09/the-depression-map-genes-culture-serotonin-and-a-side-of-pathogens/
and
more examples
https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms15694

this may also interest you if youd like to see some genetic information on inteligence predictibility https://twitter.com/antonioregalado/status/980846423670427648
and this video about how IQ actually is a thing
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_O758GJWKs

Yeah I didn't quite get how the assertion that phenotypes were real but there was no genetic component to race could be squared

But I also didn't have time to listen to the whole podcast. Was waiting til I got home

yeah the intro provoked me to watch the whole thing, you dont get a whole lot more from it after that but tim does seem a bit like it might be more than just a social construct

I think it's where we draw the line between one race or another that is often a social construct

i actually look at race more as an architecture of taxonomy more so than a social construct

it discribes the groups of historical isolation to specific geographic regions over a vast period of time where natural selection favored certain traits for survival over others that acts as the backdrop to the mechanism of the diversion of species into new species from a common ancestor

@Arch-Fiend

1) What is the definition of race in a biological context?
1a) Is it different than ethnicity?
2b) Is it the same as the colloquial term race
1c) What percentage of your gene do you need to be in order to be considered a member of that "race"? or are you a member of all races that you have genes from?

2) I have the gene for red hair, although it only manifests in co-dominance in my beard. This is evidence of my Irish ancestry and can be traced back to i believe the Nordic areas. Would this not make me a different race than most other Europeans?
2a) if so, would this not mean that i would not be a member of the "white race" (i.e. Germany-France-Britain area ancestry ) as typically laid out by those who usually care about race?

3) If we put this into context, the race they were talking about is that which is generally broken down into: Black, White, Asian, Jew, and sometimes Hispanic. Those all cover very different sizes of populations and varying sizes or geographical differences inside each subsets: i.e. all of Africa is black, all of Asia is Asian minus russia, jews come from a very specific area in the middle east, and white is all of europe + russia. So with this context, do those races actually exist on equal levels of a hierarchy? Or are they socially constructed by mix and matching various levels of the hierarchy to make up new arbitrary classifications?

lots of people have a misconception that all groups of people are derived from current african racial genetic groups but in actuality whats truly happened is that were all decendent from A african racial genetic group, 2 infact, one which seporated from africa at a much later point than the one that most of us are related to, and sense then the genome has evolved in many many different contexts including those present in africa so that we are more related to the genetic makeup groups commonly associated with certain geographys that at a later time had less migration into them by other humans due to the domination of teritory by the occuptation of human groups

@Grenade123 the socially constructed element of race is defined at where you choose to begin discribing where the race diverts from both its ancestors and its contemporarys. thus when you define a race its then your own choice to do so. were only able to describe different species because different species can not breed with one another generally but to define them genetically sometimes they are more genetically similar to eachother than other creatures who can breed with eachother than those which cannot sometimes. this is why i beleive phenotype can not be completely writen off the table for defining differences between both species and races (more scientificly accurate term a subspecies). ultimately we define these arbitrations of reality and find meaning and mechanical order where it makes since to us and is seemingly consistant with regularity. i believe what we see in race is a gradual adaptation to different envirnmental contexts by our species over tens of thousands of years at a very quick pace due to the extreme success that is found each time a useful trait emerged in our species.

and yeah race is different than ethnicity because ethnicity is actually a social construct by definition and not discribed by biology but rather how different groups of people associate themselves to a group through culture, phenotype, and proximity

lots of people want to conflate the 2 as being the same but race and ethnicity were actually created to be different terms that work on different mechanisms to define themselves

I think there is overlap of two entirely unrelated ideas that are falling under the same term.

perhaps the most scientificly accurate way to define races is to define them when genetic traits become the successful genetic trait in a populate till it becomes the dominant one purely due to natural selection

that might not be how races are defined though

though like species taxonomy, the taxonomy of race is also not static, it will develop as different sexually selective traits emerge in different populations, though racial mixing may both slow that down and speed it up at the same time depending on context

one is just assigning groups of genes that, as far as has been proven, originated from a particular area and have propagated from there. The other is an arbitrary group of easy to identity physical traits that are easy to identify by eye, but not by genes alone.

physical and social

but that is accurate

when talking about the latter that basically boils down to dark skin = black, light skin round eyed = white, light skin squinty eyed = Asian, i say it is right to say that out side the genes that actually control those phenotypes, they are not defined biologically.

which is the interpretation i get from Wood's statements.

probably best to catagorize ethnicity as a social construct and race as an archaic term for a modern concept of subspecies

the problem with race, is that humans sleep around so much, you end up with people who are 4 different "subspeices" in terms of genetic make-up, which might technically make them a new subspecies depending on how the genes interact/mutate with that new combo, and so on and so on, that it really doesn't have any meaning out side of "if you have one of these genes from this group, you might have these problems"

things are so scrambled that you are a collection of various races, which has created a unique grouping in and of itself

fucking slowmo, anyway so you cannot be defined by annoy of those parts

well thats where my statement about the process being slowed or sped up depending on certain contexts. i dont think race should really be used to heard contemporarey groups of people into different areas of the world and than locking them there and now we would have to deal with people who dont fit due to mixture. i think race should be described scientificaly and then people make of that what they will on introspectively purely.

an individual being a member of one race and only one race is a made up social construct as it is probably very rare these days to find a "pure blood" if you will, unless you are looking at England maybe ( 😉 ). instead any given individual is a made up of most likely at least 2 different races in terms of biology, particularly given the mobility of humans today, making isolation of genes much less likely to happen.

actually england isint a good example of a pure blood area, japan is a better example. either way lots of people are basicly derived from a single genetic lineage if defined by trait emergences while granted theres always been groups who are mixed and that population is growing now (basicly all of south america is mixed) that does not make the science pointless nor the process of catagorization for people if they choose to also pointless because it is still very likely to find you basicly decend from a single branch

i was making fun of the habit of the royal family inbreeding

also depending on the context if 2 branches converge for you at a very very distant time period your more recent branch is really what describes you best, its even likely your recent branch is where the traits which discribe the race emerge

also on the social construct side of the matter you could define european jewish people as simply european because while its true that looking at their genetics there is only a very little cross between that group and the europeans surrounding them, it is a case that the context of the european envirnment even within the relitively short 1500 years of jewish settlement of europe; has effected their natural selection process to drive the emergence of many traits from the population at a much faster rate than the surrounding europeans

yea one thing I didnt think of was that you can send your dna to ancenstry and it will tell you your race

It's worth noting that those numbers are less accurate than they'd like you to believe. As in there's not necessarily a guarantee that you're say 2% Scandanavian and 74% Asian on the dot. Their testing methodology, from what I've gathered, is nowhere near that sophisticated.