There's a difference between someone being banned for stating the fact:
> Jewish people have dramatically disproportionate income, wealth, and power in the United States. They're eager to levy that charge against White people, but they don't allow White people to levy that charge against them.
... and a deeply powerful, monied Israeli group getting banned for hacking into innocent people's phones and computers both for blackmail and for profit.
This article calls for structural affirmative action to benefit blacks at the expense of non-blacks.
Wherever this weapon is yielded, be it Harvard admissions or tech leadership within Google, a pattern emerges regarding which groups are most and least affected.
It’s in poor taste to propose more of these policies while being a member of an unaffected group.
It’s time we wield your fair weapons against your own tribe: Jews.
Jews are dramatically over-represented in positions of power, influence, wealth, and information gate-keeping (e.g. journalism, entertainment media, the Supreme Court, Congress, academia, the Federal Reserve, the top 1%).
Let’s give everyone institutional affirmative action at your expense! Yes, Jews who are struggling will be the ones the hardest hit. But that’s okay! What matters is “demographic parity” drawn along lines you usually pretend are too blurry to define.
To say that there is more variation within a race than between races when examining a single gene at a time does not support the notion that there are black Africans “much more related” to white Europeans than to each other.
The fact that there is more genetic diversity among black Africans than among white Europeans doesn’t support that claim, either.
Yes, if you look at just one genetic locus at a time, there appears to be more genetic variation within races than between them. However, if you look at multiple loci at a time, the accuracy of racial classification approaches 100%. That’s how genetic ancestry companies are so accurately able to bucket people into broad races.
In 2018, repeating this particular fallacy amounts to deception. It’s a an obvious mistake no one would make in any other statistical context.
The quoted paragraph does not support the notion that “a black African can very well be much more related to a white European than to another black African”. It just doesn’t.
And even if it did, it wouldn’t support the notion that white Europeans are more related to black Africans than to each other.
It seems like certain progressive-minded people can never define race (“Ugh, what does white even mean, anyway?”) until it comes time to give resources to black people (“Ugh, why are 75% of employees at this company white?”).
If we define a set of criteria by which that tweet can be deemed “antisemitic”, then applying that same criteria to comments about white people made by countless progressive-minded journalists would deem those journalists fanatically anti-white.
This propaganda worked so much better when there was a place to retreat from it.
When everyone with power and influence unquestioningly pushes pro-black politics—from major tech conferences to perennial nature magazines—it becomes impossible to view blacks as the underdogs.
If this is one of the most devastating aspects of colonialism, then colonialism must not have been very bad.
Before we have a conversation about this, I urge everyone to research the degree of soil depletion in formerly-colonized Africa, and then compare that to the degree of soil depletion elsewhere in the world (including never-colonized parts of Africa).
(For bonus points, research how much of that soil depletion occurred since the end colonialism).
The numbers are widely available.
Colonial crop management was a boon for native Africans, not a bust.
I appreciate your response. I’m under the impression that the white men who exercised more had more calcification:
> Instead, Laddu and her colleagues found that participants in trajectory group three, or those who exercised the most, were 27 percent more likely than those in trajectory group one to develop CAC by middle age. CAC was measured during the participants’ 25th year in the study using computed tomography, a CT scan, of the chest. At year 25, participants were ages 43 to 55.
A few months ago, a widely publicized study[1] indicated that moderate-to-large amounts of exercise caused a buildup of plaque in the hearts of middle-aged white men. This correlation was not seen in any women, nor was it seen in black men.
Unfortunately, this study included no Indian nor Southeast Asian people. I've seen unrelated studies indicating similar health outcomes for white men and Indian men, so as an Indian man, should I be worried about this?
"Comments that reinforce systemic oppression related to gender, gender identity and expression, sexual orientation, disability, mental illness, neurodiversity, physical appearance, body size, age, race, or religion."
This doesn't preclude thoughts on race-relations—if that was the goal, it would've simply said so.
"Comments that reinforce systemic oppression related to gender, gender identity and expression, sexual orientation, disability, mental illness, neurodiversity, physical appearance, body size, age, race, or religion."
It doesn't take much creativity to recognize the inherent contradiction in this systemic line of thinking.
There's a difference between someone being banned for stating the fact:
> Jewish people have dramatically disproportionate income, wealth, and power in the United States. They're eager to levy that charge against White people, but they don't allow White people to levy that charge against them.
... and a deeply powerful, monied Israeli group getting banned for hacking into innocent people's phones and computers both for blackmail and for profit.