What is hate speech?

Claiming that there is only one race, the human race, is an example of circular reasoning. In circular reasoning one asserts what one needs to prove. Those who make this claim define the human species and race the same way.

 

No it has identified possible geographic sources but not “race”. “Ancestry” is NOT repeat NOT an academic source it is a commercial site feeding into myths

 

No it is based on a lack of diversity among the supposed genetic variances. Australian Aborigines (First Nation people) have genetically more in common with Europeans than with Asians

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00450618.2022.2048690

 

That is probably true, but a DNA test can distinguish between a European white, and East Asian, and an Australian Aborigine.

 

Ancestry DNA testing is accurate enough to introduce people to relatives they never knew they had.

 

The Moors back then were vastly more advanced than the Bantu.

 

So???? And what do you mean by “advanced”? Lols! Betting you know nothing of Greater Zimbabwe

 

But that does not prove race! In fact it supports my and the stance of the academic world that race is a social construct

 

Anyone who claims that someone from Ghana is of the same race from someone from the British Isles is making an ideological assertion that has nothing to do with science. People from England and Finland have more similar DNA than people from Ghana and the Congo, and visa versa.

 

You were using a description of the Moors to indicate that whites and Negroes are of equal intelligence. Beginning with the Italian Renaissance European whites developed the most advanced civilization in history. Our only rivals are the East Asians, who are catching up with us and who I think will surpass us by the end of the century.

 

I have posted a multitude of academic and research papers showing there is little to no genetic variation. I won’t waste my time with more as you obviously are not reading those papers. Pale skin is down to a couple of genes that arose in Africa - not Europe

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/exd.14142

 

The people of Greater Zimbabwe domesticated cattle, practiced international trade, and built brick or stone buildings of more than one story. They did not develop indigenous systems of writing and mathematics, like the Mayans did.

To the best of my knowledge no other group of Bantu came close to emulating Greater Zimbabwe.

 

Humans everywhere share about 98% of the same gene alleles. It is the remaining two percent that make the difference. We also share about 95 of the same gene alleles with chimpanzees.

 

Revisionist history at its best

do you know what this is?

That is is one of the oldest greatest and most valuable libraries in the world? It is in Mali

https://edition.cnn.com/travel/article/worlds-oldest-library-al-qarawiyyin/index.html#:~:text=Al-Qarawiyyin library in Fez,dates back to 859 AD.&text=The library is part of,Qarawiyyin Mosque and Qarawiyyin University.

 

Again where is your citation? If you are making “scientific claims” you have to justify it

 

Didn’t they? And your proof of this is?

 

I said to the best of my knowledge. Can you think of a Bantu tribe that emulated Greater Zimbabwe?

 

National Library of Medicine

Every person has two copies of each gene, one inherited from each parent. Most genes are the same in all people, but a small number of genes (less than 1 percent of the total) are slightly different between people. Alleles are forms of the same gene with small differences in their sequence of DNA bases. These small differences contribute to each person’s unique physical features.

https://medlineplus.gov/genetics/un...e same,each person's unique physical features.

 

How about the largest structure ever built? The Great Wall of Benin.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benin_Moat

 

Says nothing of race or racial differences based on “race”. In fact Homo Sapiens is remarkably homogenous genetically x possibly because we either killed or shagged the other races into extinction. There possible the variety of skeletal remains represented a greater racial variation eg Neanderthal, Homo Naledi, Denisovans and not even going there with Homo Florensis or the Red Deer Cave people

 

define hate first. The other day, I was watching a telivision program called the view, if you've heard of it,

...and the we're talking about the haters.
I thought it was a band, no., another band
So anyway, they called out all the haters.
Then, they started to talk about I UT someone named unowho, I thought the who, no.
Turns out it's Trump, they hate him.
Whoopee the Hutt has a few belts and leads the pack.

I don't understand their name the view..
Should be "five women who hate the Trump family"
If that name isn't already taken.

 

I think calling someone “Whoopi the Hut” might qualify as hate speech - mind you I indulge as I don’t so much hate Trump as loathe and despise the tangerine coloured ferret wearing shitgibbon

 

I hate hate speech, but I hate censorship even more.

George Floyd’s death led to a racial reckoning — where’s the antisemitism reckoning?

I also hate hate posing as virtue-signalling.



'Compare the response to George Floyd’s death with what happened when a pro-Palestinian demonstrator, Loay Abdelfattah Alnaji, murdered a Jewish man, Paul Kessler.'

'Alnaji, a computer-science professor at California’s Moorpark College, was charged with manslaughter after he approached Kessler and struck him in the head with a megaphone he was carrying, resulting in Kessler’s death.'

'Have there been any riots by people protesting antisemitism in America? No.'

'Have media and corporate voices condemned rising antisemitism in America? Not really.'

'Are universities responding by adopting massive anti-antisemitism programs? No.'

'In fact, the reaction to Kessler’s death has barely moved the meter on the national conversation.'

'there’s a general phenomenon of Jews, and their supporters, being victimized by pro-Palestinian violence (ironically, often at the hands of black people).'

 

1. I define hate speech as a bit more strident than dislike speech. 2. I suppose, under current guidelines. 3. I suppose, under current guidelines. 4. Yes.

 

There's no hate speech just like there's no hate crime. There's hateful nasty speech, but whatever...ignore the idiots.