Hate Speech Public Consultation

Wibbs

iebamm2580 wrote: »

Is it racist to suggest that people of west african origin have genetics that make them better 100m sprinters?

Maybe not, but it's inaccurate. It can be argued that there are more folks of Afro Caribbean origin at the top end of athletic pursuits(it does not mean all of them, even most, just means more outliers in the population). They also have a greater tendency to obesity and type 2 diabetes and high blood pressure when compared to the European populations and even their African relatives who weren't dragged into slavery. A few have suggested the horrors of the Atlantic slave trade was a series of very strong environmental and adaptive pressures. IE those who survived such horrors were "fitter" in a few ways when compared to those relatives back in Africa.

While that may well be in play(and I strongly suspect it is), cultural and social pressures are in play too. EG there are more great African American basketball players because that's seen as more "their thing" and so more African American kids play it from an early age. For most of the 20th century in pro cycling it was the French, Italians and Dutch who were the winners. Because cycling was more "their thing". Lawn tennis couldn't have been Whiter, until Arthur Ashe and latterly the Williams sisters got into it. Economics is a barrier too. So for example motor racing was initially dominated by the rich or their employees. Now we have Lewis Hamilton a Black lad winning all around him.

alastair wrote: »

The quote is from Craig Venter.

Craig would be the first to tell you of the differences in archaic admixture in different populations. Indeed have a read here where the writer discovers his own Scots and far more ancient Neandertal genetic heritage with the help of same Craig. A heritage he simply would not have if he were from Botswana or Korea.

RandomName2

alastair wrote: »

I made clear it was a social construct - not a scientific one

This is veering off-topic (an on-topic observation is that I am not fundamentally opposed to your proposition that there is no such thing as race, even though some people would find it offensive and would thus fall under the definition of hate speech that you yourself advocate)

Some interesting articles that are related to the subject however.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3737365/
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/ajpa.20983
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25345704

alastair wrote: »

We are a different species to chimps. Glad to help.

You should tell the student you quoted (who, somewhat alarmingly is attempting to get a PhD in genetics, though seeing that zer entire article was about the alt-right, maybe a career in the media would be more suitable).

Wibbs

alastair wrote: »

Nope - it’s because it’s not a marker for anything of significance - not Irishness, not race.

Give a sample of your DNA to a geneticist and they will be able to pin down your ancestry and even geography to quite the degree. If you're male, even more so, as the female lines tend to travel more historically. You may recall a few years back where they extracted DNA from an ancient English stone age skeleton. And then found that there was a local schoolteacher who was a direct descendant of the ancient guy on his mum's side. 9000 years is a fair bit of continuity. The San people in southern Africa have a legacy going back many multiples of that, right back to when Modern humans started to move about and move out. But sure, meh, that means nada of significance. For all the talk of "diversity" your Right On types seem to want to ignore and remove the very thing that made humans great and see it as insignificant. And yet I'm the racist? You don't even understand your own humanity and how it got here. Nor it seems, want to know.

My links make very clear that race isn’t a scientific concept - race is a social construct.

Your latter belief isn't backed up by the science. And as I pointed out, while "race" is out of date, "population" and population genetics most certainly are not. But you'd know that if you had even a passing acquaintance with the science beyond your politic and whatever seems to agree with it. It's all surface with you. It is easier I grant you.

A notion you’re clearly uncomfortable with, hence the flailing about with references that have nothing to do with race, and the sad need to try and demean me. Bless.

Nope no discomfort here over genetic markers which make me part of a particular population compared to someone else from a different population. You're the one that seems more concerned about the difference because you seem hellbent on pointing out there are none.

alastair

RandomName2 wrote: »

This is veering off-topic (an on-topic observation is that I am not fundamentally opposed to your proposition that there is no such thing as race, even though some people would find it offensive and would thus fall under the definition of hate speech that you yourself advocate)

No, it would do no such thing. Not sure quite how you would make the mistake of believing otherwise.

RandomName2 wrote: »

You should tell the student you quoted (who, somewhat alarmingly is attempting to get a PhD in genetics, though seeing that zer entire article was about the alt-right, maybe a career in the media would be more suitable).

Why would you suspect she isn’t aware of this fact? Sorry that you’re alarmed at the mention of racists in an article on the social construct of the notion of race versus the science.

Wibbs

alastair wrote: »

Again - this is indicative of sad sack racism:

Please show examples of those I listed who go on record of claiming to be Irish.

alastair

Wibbs wrote: »

Give a sample of your DNA to a geneticist and they will be able to pin down your ancestry and even geography to quite the degree. If you're male, even more so, as the female lines tend to travel more historically. You may recall a few years back where they extracted DNA from an ancient English stone age skeleton. And then found that there was a local schoolteacher who was a direct descendant of the ancient guy on his mum's side. 9000 years is a fair bit of continuity. The San people in southern Africa have a legacy going back many multiples of that, right back to when Modern humans started to move about and move out. But sure, meh, that means nada of significance. For all the talk of "diversity" your Right On types seem to want to ignore and remove the very thing that made humans great and see it as insignificant. And yet I'm the racist? You don't even understand your own humanity and how it got here. Nor it seems, want to know. Your latter belief isn't backed up by the science. And as I pointed out, while "race" is out of date, "population" and population genetics most certainly are not. But you'd know that if you had even a passing acquaintance with the science beyond your politic and whatever seems to agree with it. It's all surface with you. It is easier I grant you. Nope no discomfort here over genetic markers which make me part of a particular population compared to someone else from a different population. You're the one that seems more concerned about the difference because you seem hellbent on pointing out there are none.

seem to want to ignore and remove the very thing that made humans great and see it as insignificant.

Sorry to break it to you, but staying put in one region for a long period of time is hardly “the very thing that made humans great”. And gawd love your attachment to ‘genetic markers that make me part of a particular population’. ��

Wibbs

alastair wrote: »

Why would you suspect she isn’t aware of this fact? Sorry that you’re alarmed at the mention of racists in an article on the social construct of the notion of racers the science.

You're flailing now. You simply don't understand the definitions beyond the surface when they agree with you and have zero clue of the science, genetics and history behind them. Even the cultural history of said definitions.

You're a busted flush regurgitating parroted received wisdom and bullet points. You rarely engage at all beyond them and when you do it's just to scream "FOUL!!" or "RACIST!!!". You're remarkably like debating with the more fundamentally religious; your only fallback is to run to your particular scripture or shout blasphemer!! And not even a good example of the fundamentally religious, as you've not utilised the "interpretation" angle yet. That's always a beauty. Maybe give it a go? Like I said you're fun.

alastair

Wibbs wrote: »

Please show examples of those I listed who go on record of claiming to be Irish.

That’s the best you can cling to in defence of that sad sack racist tripe?

alastair

Wibbs wrote: »

You're flailing now. You simply don't understand the definitions beyond the surface when they agree with you and have zero clue of the science, genetics and history behind them. Even the cultural history of said definitions.

You're a busted flush regurgitating parroted received wisdom and bullet points. You rarely engage at all beyond them and when you do it's just to scream "FOUL!!" or "RACIST!!!". You're remarkably like debating with the more fundamentally religious; your only fallback is to run to your particular scripture or shout blasphemer!! And not even a good example of the fundamentally religious, as you've not utilised the "interpretation" angle yet. That's always a beauty. Maybe give it a go? Like I said you're fun.

Again - this is indicative of sad sack racism:

Again I note that when this "I'm Irish and you better believe it, or else you're a Wacist!!!" stuff comes up, it's almost always from darker skinned folks and usually Africans, you don't hear it nearly so much from lighter skinned Poles, Italians, Spaniards, Russians, Czechs, Latvians et al, even folks from the Middle East and China, no matter how long they've lived here or what passport they carry.

sabat

alastair wrote: »

Nope - it’s because it’s not a marker for anything of significance - not Irishness, not race. My links make very clear that race isn’t a scientific concept - race is a social construct. A notion you’re clearly uncomfortable with, hence the flailing about with references that have nothing to do with race, and the sad need to try and demean me. Bless.

Again - this is indicative of sad sack racism:

So at what point did that woman become "Irish" and not what she was prior to that? Are you seriously suggesting that I could take a plane to Moscow tomorrow and on Tuesday morning I could be Russian if I felt like it?
Let's put another hypothetical situation in play-imagine her home country discovered oil or gold deposits or had some sudden windfall and decided to divy out the money, giving $10 million to every citizen, excluding those with dual nationality. Would she stay here to be "Irish" or would she be tossing her new passport in the bin and jumping on the first plane back to resume being Nigerian or whatever?

Wibbs

alastair wrote: »

Sorry to break it to you, but staying put in one region for a long period of time is hardly “the very thing that made humans great”. And gawd love your attachment to ‘genetic markers that make me part of a particular population’. ��

ah man. this is too easy. Would you object to a lad or lass from Zimbabwe being aware and even proud of their origins and culture, or is it only being White that makes it suspicious and racist for you? Oh and BTW I have no particular pride about an accident of birth and geography. I don't deny that accident of birth and how it came about though.

Again you really don't have much facility for musing beyond the surface and the obvious and the already dug in belief. That's what makes your position dangerous. You are so cock sure you're correct.

alastair

sabat wrote: »

So at what point did that woman become "Irish" and not what she was prior to that? Are you seriously suggesting that I could take a plane to Moscow tomorrow and on Tuesday morning I could be Russian if I felt like it?
Let's put another hypothetical situation in play-imagine her home country discovered oil or gold deposits or had some sudden windfall and decided to divy out the money, giving $10 million to every citizen, excluding those with dual nationality. Would she stay here to be "Irish" or would she be tossing her new passport in the bin and jumping on the first plane back to resume being Nigerian or whatever?

Nothing to stop you becoming Russian. Fire away.
Play your own game. Neither of us can speak to what the woman might do. She’s a dual national in any case, so she doesn’t need to toss any passport.

Wibbs

alastair wrote: »

That’s the best you can cling to in defence of that sad sack racist tripe?

And yet you can't answer it? Then again there's not a lot you can seem to answer, on a few questions throughout. And again the empty dogwhistle hoping for a yap from some quarter. Someone is peddling tripe alright. To consider someone of your seeming capacities could very well call for a "hate crime" on another. Now that's scary.

alastair

Wibbs wrote: »

ah man. this is too easy. Would you object to a lad or lass from Zimbabwe being aware and even proud of their origins and culture, or is it only being White that makes it suspicious and racist for you? Oh and BTW I have no particular pride about an accident of birth and geography. I don't deny that accident of birth and how it came about though.

Again you really don't have much facility for musing beyond the surface and the obvious and the already dug in belief. That's what makes your position dangerous. You are so cock sure you're correct.

You and the notional Zimbabwean would both be divvies if you claimed an attachment to “genetic markers that make me part of a particular population“ 😂

Wibbs

alastair wrote: »

She’s a dual national in any case, so she doesn’t need to toss any passport.

Oh so you know more about her? Do tell. Dual citizen eh, yet claiming to speak for the culture and history of the most recent one? Yeah, g'way to feck is still in play alright.

Ironicname

alastair wrote:

Nothing to stop you becoming Russian. Fire away.

Christ. Becoming Jessica Yaniv territory. You are what you choose. Facts be damned.

Can I be 18 again if I choose to be?

alastair

Wibbs wrote: »

And yet you can't answer it? Then again there's not a lot you can seem to answer, on a few questions throughout. And again the empty dogwhistle hoping for a yap from some quarter. Someone is peddling tripe alright. To consider someone of your seeming capacities could very well call for a "hate crime" on another. Now that's scary.

Dissemble, dissemble. No dogwhistle here, just straightforward unvarnished racism:

Again I note that when this "I'm Irish and you better believe it, or else you're a Wacist!!!" stuff comes up, it's almost always from darker skinned folks and usually Africans, you don't hear it nearly so much from lighter skinned Poles, Italians, Spaniards, Russians, Czechs, Latvians et al, even folks from the Middle East and China, no matter how long they've lived here or what passport they carry.

Mules

I think the biggest problem is the idea of law being based on 'perceived offensiveness'. That is what UK hate speech law is based on. I'd imagine that's likely to be what would be brought in here. Clear cut racism is obvious. But offensiveness is subjective so something innocuous could have the police knocking at your door. A friend in the UK worked as a magistrate. She had a teenager up before her who was accused of dancing in an offensive manner, a Bollywood type dance when crossing the road in front of a driver of Indian heritage. Even though everyone thought it was ridiculous, the law said they had to find her guilty so they did. Mad things like that will always crop up with these type of laws.

alastair

Ironicname wrote: »

Christ. Becoming Jessica Yaniv territory. You are what you choose. Facts be damned.

Can I be 18 again if I choose to be?

No. But you can be Russian. Fact.

yoke

Is blonde hair considered an “Irish” trait today, or do people who have blonde hair today “look like foreigners” to “genuine Irish” people?

After you answer that, consider if blonde hair was considered an “Irish” trait 1100 years ago, or if it was considered “the mark of the foreigner”.

alastair

Wibbs wrote: »

Oh so you know more about her? Do tell. Dual citizen eh, yet claiming to speak for the culture and history of the most recent one? Yeah, g'way to feck is still in play alright.

That racism is blinding you once again. How exactly would holding dual nationality impinge on her statement at all? Our constitution was written by a dual national let’s not forget.

alastair

Mules wrote: »

I think the biggest problem is the idea of law being based on 'perceived offensiveness'. That is what UK hate speech law is based on. I'd imagine that's likely to be what would be brought in here. Clear cut racism is obvious. But offensiveness is subjective so something innocuous could have the police knocking at your door. A friend in the UK worked as a magistrate. She had a teenager up before her who was accused of dancing in an offensive manner, a Bollywood type dance when crossing the road in front of a driver of Indian heritage. Even though everyone thought it was ridiculous, the law said they had to find her guilty so they did. Mad things like that will always crop up with these type of laws.

It’s not based on perceived offensiveness. The reporting of perceived hate incidents is not the bar set for prosecution or convictions.

sabat

alastair wrote: »

Nothing to stop you becoming Russian. Fire away.
Play your own game. Neither of us can speak to what the woman might do. She’s a dual national in any case, so she doesn’t need to toss any passport.

In my hypothetical scenario I specifically mentioned that dual-nationals would be excluded. The point is that for this woman, and for all the others like her, the only motivations for being here are selfish and financial. She is here pretending to be Irish (and inexplicably being indulged by people like you) because it is to her personal advantage to do so. If Papua New Guinea had let her in and given her more money and better conditions she'd be standing up at some UN sideshow pretending to be Papuan.

alastair

sabat wrote: »

In my hypothetical scenario I specifically mentioned that dual-nationals would be excluded. The point is that for this woman, and for all the others like her, the only motivations for being here are selfish and financial. She is here pretending to be Irish (and inexplicably being indulged by people like you) because it is to her personal advantage to do so. If Papua New Guinea had let her in and given her more money and better conditions she'd be standing up at some UN sideshow pretending to be Papuan.

She’s also ‘indulged’ by The Irish Naturalisation and Immigration Service, who awarded her citizenship. Thanks for that insight to your pet theories. All your own work though, so not really relevant to anything.

yoke

sabat wrote: »

[...] If Papua New Guinea had let her in and given her more money and better conditions she'd be standing up at some UN sideshow pretending to be Papuan.

She wouldn’t be pretending - she would be Papuan in that case.
If the vikings didn’t come to Ireland, Irish people wouldn’t have blonde hair. But they did, and Irish people do.
Same way, Ireland offered her a better future, so she came, and became Irish. It’s not pretending.
If you’ve ever changed jobs in the past due to salary/benefits, are you said to be pretending to change jobs (and you’ll change back at the first opportunity), or are you said to have changed jobs?

sabat

alastair wrote: »

Thanks for that insight to your pet theories. All your own work though, so not really relevant to anything.

OK then. I'll continue with pressing the logic.

There are 65 million refugees in the world. Should Ireland take them all in? Yes or no?

alastair

sabat wrote: »

OK then. I'll continue with pressing the logic.

There are 65 million refugees in the world. Should Ireland take them all in? Yes or no?

That was your cue to stop bothering me with your personal internal monologues. Cheers.

Wibbs

alastair wrote: »

No. But you can be Russian. Fact.

yoke wrote: »

She wouldn’t be pretending - she would be Papuan in that case.

No, she would be in possession of a Russian or Papuan passport. Fact. It does not magically make her Russian or Papuan.

an ethnic group; a social group that shares a common and distinctive culture, religion, language, or the like:

If I gained a Russian or Papuan passport it would not magically confer on me a shared common and distinctive culture, religion and language.

If the vikings didn’t come to Ireland, Irish people wouldn’t have blonde hair. But they did, and Irish people do.

You do understand they were invaders yes? And while they left more genetic markers than once thought, fair hair may or may not be one of them. The genes for red are older than the viking raids and colonies, so the production of pheomelanin(blond/red) was already here(eumelanin is involved in dark hair), so blonds were likely enough without our Norse visitors. Never mind that working out hair and skin types from ancient DNA is not nearly so clear cut as the press would often have us think. We're not "Basques" either.

Same way, Ireland offered her a better future, so she came, and became Irish. It’s not pretending.
If you’ve ever changed jobs in the past due to salary/benefits, are you said to be pretending to change jobs (and you’ll change back at the first opportunity), or are you said to have changed jobs?

So moving from one job to another is the same as ethnicity and just as easy to change? If anyone wants to see where the dafter end of self identity politics comes from, see above.

Wibbs

alastair wrote: »

Our constitution was written by a dual national let’s not forget.

Another perfect example of changing the historical facts to suit, or not being aware of them in the first place. DeValera did not write the Irish constitution. He oversaw its drafting, the first of which was written by one John Hearne and it had many cooks in the kitchen from then on in(too damned many from the Vatican for a start).

Wibbs

alastair wrote: »

You and the notional Zimbabwean would both be divvies if you claimed an attachment to “genetic markers that make me part of a particular population“ 😂

Nope. Try again.

Me. Earlier wrote: »

I have no particular pride about an accident of birth and geography.