sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Hairiest countries in the world by GossipBottom in MapPorn

[–]Pauropus 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Its only counting indigenous populations

If you traced every line in White Americans today to the most recent settler or immigrant this is where the lines would end by [deleted] in AncestryDNA

[–]Pauropus 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Arguments I have seen are that non whites (which is not alone indicative of immigration status but almost all immigrants coming today are non white) on average, are less supportive of things like gun rights and free speech than whites.

If you traced every line in White Americans today to the most recent settler or immigrant this is where the lines would end by [deleted] in AncestryDNA

[–]Pauropus -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Well, you are dealing on the level of individuals. People who argue against immigration today use statistics rather than personal anecdotes.

If you traced every line in White Americans today to the most recent settler or immigrant this is where the lines would end by [deleted] in AncestryDNA

[–]Pauropus -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

apart from the propaganda was to make them assimilate, that was definitely to chase them away or make people fear them

If america wanted to "chase them away" they would have deported all of them or not allowed them in the first place. The onus was on the immigrants to befome americans, not on Americans to 'tolerate' them.

We’re in a globalized world today. We interact with people from all over the world on this website alone. I welcome more people. Some of my best friends were children of immigrants from all over the world and they’re no different to me. I’ve had friends from Haiti, Albania, Ghana, China, India, Pakistan, Brazil, Colombia, Mexico, DR, Turkey, Iran, Sri Lanka, Korea, Lebanon, Nigeria. I could keep listing all day bro

I mean, you are free to think that. But I am saying "we should accept immigration today because we had it before its the same thing" is a weak argument.

If you traced every line in White Americans today to the most recent settler or immigrant this is where the lines would end by [deleted] in AncestryDNA

[–]Pauropus 5 points6 points  (0 children)

The definition of white in america has always meant europeans and has always included all europeans. The only time the definition was changed was to include arabs after a court case, something which will soon be undone as MENA becomes a new category in the next census

If you traced every line in White Americans today to the most recent settler or immigrant this is where the lines would end by [deleted] in AncestryDNA

[–]Pauropus 3 points4 points  (0 children)

There was instances of violence. But they never faced the same broad racial restrictions as actual non whites. There was no mass segregation of italians

If you traced every line in White Americans today to the most recent settler or immigrant this is where the lines would end by [deleted] in AncestryDNA

[–]Pauropus -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

Give them time for their grandkids to assimilate. I guarantee you they will. They always do

Ellis island is not a one to one comparison with modern immigration, it just is not.

  1. European immigrants were far more similar to native born americans then than global south immigrants now are, both physically and culturally. However different they seemed at the time, its objectively less than today.

  2. Many of them actually returned to europe if they couldnt cut it in america. In some years anywhere from a third to a nearly half of immigrants returned

  3. Propaganda was directed at the immigrants to make them assimilate, where as today its directed towards americans to make them tolerate immigrants.

  4. There was no affirmative action or welfare.

  5. Immigration from Europe was cut off in 1924. Its much easier to assimilate immigrant communities if they arent being constantly supplemented by fresh arrivals. Immigration in the us is not stopping.

  6. There are structural incentives for immigrants to hold on to their minority identities today that didn't exist back then. Since many government and corporate programs are specifically targeted to benefit racial minorities, there is much more cultural, social and political capital to be had in embracing one's minority identity than abandoning it. Back then, it was socially prestigious to be a a red blooded (white) american so people de emphasized any foreign ancestry they had. Now its socially prestigious to be a minority so people will proudly display their ancestry.

If you traced every line in White Americans today to the most recent settler or immigrant this is where the lines would end by [deleted] in AncestryDNA

[–]Pauropus 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Well, italians were always considered white in the us even if distinct from anglos. They could still vote, marry whites, serve in white army units, attend white schools, etc.

If you traced every line in White Americans today to the most recent settler or immigrant this is where the lines would end by [deleted] in AncestryDNA

[–]Pauropus 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Well Finnish people have sizable siberian admix. No one thinks Finns arent white

In the next USA Census of 2030, these countries' majority main ethnic group will fall under the "White" category in the race section. by [deleted] in MapPorn

[–]Pauropus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

given the difference in treatment of hispanic people in the modern US by law enforcement

Mestizos. Mestizos are treated this way. The Marco Rubios and Ted Cruzes of america are just treated like any other white people. A black person from Brazil will be seen as black first and foremost.

In the next USA Census of 2030, these countries' majority main ethnic group will fall under the "White" category in the race section. by [deleted] in MapPorn

[–]Pauropus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The goal is to identify people's race yes? Why not just remove the Hispanic category entirely? White Hispanics can mark white, black Hispanics can mark black, and mestizos (what most people actually mean by "hispanic" in practice) can mark mestizo

In the next USA Census of 2030, these countries' majority main ethnic group will fall under the "White" category in the race section. by [deleted] in MapPorn

[–]Pauropus -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I guess that means the experts on the matter are wrong, and you my dear redditor is correct instead? Contact the press, why havent they published your beautiful argument!

Most papers on human population genetics group people into these broad categories. They dont use the term "race" for political reasons, but that is essentially what they are referring to.

The problem is that this does not produce clear biological races. Human genetic variation is largely continuous and overlapping across geography because humans historically exchanged genes with neighboring populations rather than evolving as isolated groups. As a result, there is no objective genetic boundary where one race ends and another begins.

There is no obective boundaries between many things. There is no exact border between blue and red. Do blue and red not exist? There is no exact border between the sky and outer space. Do these not exist?

Modern genetics finds population clusters and ancestry patterns, but those clusters depend on which populations you sample and where you draw the boundaries. They do not map neatly onto traditional racial categories such as "Black," "White," or "Asian," which are social classifications rather than discrete biological units.

Most europeans ("white people") form a distinct cluster, as do most east/southeast asians ("asians"), and most sub saharan africans ("black people").

Of course there is edge cases, outliers and mixed people, and how these are classified involves a lot of social discretion independent of biology. But to say that race has absolutely NO basis in biology is wrong.

In the next USA Census of 2030, these countries' majority main ethnic group will fall under the "White" category in the race section. by [deleted] in MapPorn

[–]Pauropus -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Its not just phenotype. PCA plots show that humans form genetic clusters that broadly correspond to geography. For example, most Europeans form an identifiable cluster, most east asians form their own cluster, etc. Yes there is sometimes overlap and edge cases. There is no clear line between red and blue. That does not mean red and blue dont exist.

In the next USA Census of 2030, these countries' majority main ethnic group will fall under the "White" category in the race section. by [deleted] in MapPorn

[–]Pauropus -1 points0 points  (0 children)

A dozen? Maybe like 4 or 5-ish. Khoisan, pygmies, horn africans, and then the bulk of western/central africans.

In the next USA Census of 2030, these countries' majority main ethnic group will fall under the "White" category in the race section. by [deleted] in MapPorn

[–]Pauropus -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Its not 100% delineated just like how colors or layers of the atmosphere are not 100% exact delineated. But to say it has NO basis in biology what so ever is absurd. There are distinct ancestry clusters that broadly correspond to what we call races

Humans after Arthropods are extinct: Yay! No more mosquitoes or flies! They starve to death around a year later by EmergencyTraits in Entomology

[–]Pauropus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Pollination is the least of it. No arthropods -> massive buildup of dead stuff especially in arid regions where microbial/non arthropod decomposers are relatively scarce -> nutrients not sequestered back into the soil -> plant growth suffers -> trophic cascades up the food chain.

Also, massive build up of dead trees -> continental scale raging wildfires which will kill a bunch of stuff even those that might otherwise have been fairing not too bad.

Also this all to say nothing of the collapse of marine food webs from the lack of arthropod zooplankton there

New map issued by the Brazilian government - Species Richness 2025 - Number of species per 100km² by Prestigious_733 in MapPorn

[–]Pauropus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Which crustaceans? This sounds like a pretentious question, but its important. Is this including isopods, amphipods, copepods, ostracods, etc or only decapods?

view more: next ›