Race is a social construct

Racists can't even define who's white and who's not

Both of these men are European

Do these two look like they're a part of the same race?

...

>Vastly different phenotypes who fall within the caucasoid family look different

You don't say?

>mongoloid

>People misuse scientific terms all the time

This is surprising to you?

>hurr durr race is a social construct

First of all, yes, they are both of the same race, but different ethnic groups.

Second, criminologiest can literally figured out the race of a body by using bone structure. Race isn't just not a social construct, it's well defined and used regularly in research

Third, even if it were a social construct, that wouldn't make it less real. Language is a social construct, politics are a social construct, money is a social construct. Social constructs are useful tools for preserving and advancing society. Calling something a social construct to discredit it is a meaningless trope.

>caucasoid

Apparently everyone from Europe to Ethiopia to Bangladesh is the same race

lol

Who said race being a social construct doesn't make it real

It means that there's no biological basis for defining who's 'white'

There is a biological basis. Even a social construct is just a social explanation for objective phenomena. In this case, there are genetic pools that define European-ness, bone structure, phenotypes. There are a great deal of biological factors which define race. It isn't a social construct to begin with, but even if it were, it wouldn't stop being biologically based.

The term "racism" itself is a misnomer.

There is only one human race. There are many, many different subdivisions of the human race, however, and the differences between them are not inconsequential.

If you get blood tests done, many of the markers have different normal values based on your ancestry.

If you're East Asian, the likelihood of being lactose intolerant is nearly 100%. If you're of African descent, then you're at a much higher risk of sickle cell anemia. If you're Caucasian (especially from NW Europe), you're much more likely to be gluten intolerant, etc.

Societies with different compositions of individuals act different and react to stimulus differently because our bodies are different.

A tiny change in neurochemistry, for instance, can completely change an individual.

Dude on the left is turkish
Dude on the right is Anglo

There you go.

Which is?

Skull shape: Arabs and Europeans are the same race

Phenotype: Southern and Northern Europeans are a different race

Bone Structure: I don't even know what you mean by this but I'm assuming you're taking about facial structure. Well that makes Western and Eastern Europeans a different race now

Italian actually

It makes me laugh when people say "All Asians look the same!", because they clearly don't. I'm of NW European descent, but I can tell a Korean person apart from a Chinese or Japanese or Vietnamese person just based on facial structure.

Jaw lines, cheek bones, eye brows, etc all vary significantly between populations.

>social constructs are useful tools for preserving and advancing society

Hello durkheim my old friend.

Point proven. Italians are not the italians they once were. They were fucked by Turks.

I know this is a bait thread but using this shit on liberals when they talk about white privilege is pretty hilarious.

Genetically speaking modern Italians largely resemble the roman population.
The genetic impact of invaders is overstated and is usually bred out.

>i don't understand what a social construct is

see

Dude on the right has blue eyes therefore he's superior and better looking.

You probably live in hongcouver.

Nope. Grew up on Quebec's south shore (98% Caucasian Francophone area), lived in Montreal a few years and now live in the GTA.

Bred out in the same way that 5th generation mixed cauc/nig still have dark skin and shitskin hair. Dominant traits, as small as they are still override and therefore dissolve any hope of Aryan purity.

There is a fallacy that "social construct" = "false" or "irrelevant." Which is wrong. All sorts of things are social constructs. Dog breeds are socially-constructed to a large extent. Vehicle types are socially-constructed; there is no truly "objective" definition of a word like "sedan." And so on.

And yet, those socially-constructed terms are obviously not random or irrelevant. They apply in specific ways to specific things.

You'll eventually get a hyper-precise definition of racial terms through genotypic analysis. The full definition will involve the prevalence of certain alleles as well as the prevalence of certain polygenic clusters.

But those kinds of definitions are impractical in real-life, so we use socially-constructed shorthand terms. Imprecision, however, is not irrelevance.

gravity is a social construct

Very well put, just because there is an element of social negotiation in how we define things doesn't mean what we are defining has no basis in perceived reality.

Nigger on the left is clearly a persian who cares more about cologne than he does about the customs of his host nation.

Nigger on the right is clearly late-stage capitalism infecting an otherwise viable European form. Still oven-worthy.

Defining white is the enemy's job. We're not purist or fanatics, just white people who believe we have the right to exist.

gg Shlomo.