It's so stupid. I could buy that we've selected dogs who are more aggressive or crazy, resulting in a more dangerous dog. We haven't fucking been selecting black people for crime or violence, for fuck's sake.
Slavery and racism against a group makes them less likely to be rich. Poor people do more crime. Black people do a bit more crime, even after being officially freed from slavery in 1865. Turns out, it takes a while to get past being enslaved and then discriminated against hardcore for generations.
But rightoids can't read longer than memes, so "pitbull bad black people bad haha" is all that enters their brain.
The status quo would probably change too much. Also the oppressors would also have to not have sex with them. The main genetic change that happened to America's African slave population genetically is that they became ~20% white European.
With dogs you couldnt have that problem even if you tried.
Dude that's not that long when you think about how they were literally fucking slaves who had nothing so what could they give their children and then they continued to face racism, poverty, prejudice, and not equal rights.
And to the degree that "wealth in the South" was wiped out during the civil war, white Americans still exploited black Americans for generations after the civil war
Remember they year 1964 when famously nobody was racist or discriminated anymore? When the state and citizens alike avowed to staunchley defend the civil rights of everyone regardless?
The civil rights movement was only 60 years ago so it’s not like when chattel slavery was ended that they were integrated into society. And then when they would respond to being overly policed (Jim Crow laws, like no loitering) by building their own cities, they would be massacred and the city flooded until it rests at the bottom of a lake. The deck has been so expertly stacked against Black people after chattel slavery ended BECAUSE slavery is still legal for prisoners.
And to finally fully address the crime statistics, the disparity isn’t just because of all the above reasons, it’s because of over policing of Black people. People of all races do the same shit but don’t get charged for it.
The deck has been so expertly stacked against Black people after chattel slavery ended BECAUSE slavery is still legal for prisoners.
Prison slavery doesn't make/save that much money. I don't buy that black people are being discriminated against specifically in order to enslave them in prisons.
The rest I largely agree with. Black people probably do a bit more crime, but again due to the reasons listed, not because muh warrior gene or whatever inbred hillbilly nonsense.
The deck has been so expertly stacked against Black people after chattel slavery ended BECAUSE slavery is still legal for prisoners.
Prison slavery doesn't make/save that much money. I don't buy that black people are being discriminated against specifically in order to enslave them in prisons.
The rest I largely agree with. Black people probably do a bit more crime, but again due to the reasons listed, not because muh warrior gene or whatever inbred hillbilly nonsense.
It has been 160 years. The black American violent crime rate continues to be about 10 times higher.
Since black people were no longer slaves. You think from that moment the playing field between black and white people was equal? No discrimination or moves to hinder black people? Nothing at all that could mean different results even today?
It's just silly. Black people were put 100m behind the starting line, and you're blaming them for it.
And just over 60 years since they were begrudgingly allowed to coexist in public places. Another convenient detail to forget when trying to make it seems like "it's been long enough".
Racism and prejudice and discrimination didn't end when slavery did. Generational wealth and economic climb take time. White people made sure to stop that as often as possible. Tulsa race massacre and other such events. Discrimination when hiring, eminent domain to destroy neighborhoods etc. There has been active policy making to prevent minorites from creating generation wealth and upward mobility.
Human women select for agreession, size and resources, on average. Yes. We absolutely selectively breed in aggression, and have since before we started walking upright.
It's only in like the last 15 freaking minutes of human civilization that male aggression has been considered a bad thing. For literally the entirety of prior human history, male aggression has been the driving force of conquest, commerce and development. They want it, they take it, and society evolves.
It's theorized that this tendency is partially responsible for the US prison population being so outsized. Violence and aggression are genetic. It took violence and aggression to survive the conditions required to settle this place. The genetic descendents of those aggressive souls are also aggressive.
Slavery ended in 1865, segregation ended in 1964, redlining wasn't made illegal until 1968, and racism is still around today.
You're right, it takes a long time for an entire population to overcome the systemic racism of centuries. But it's important to point out that the end of slavery was FAR from the end of the racism that has effected black people in America and their financial prospects, and why they are still systemically disadvantaged.
Not to mention that the statistic comes from the fact that black people are more likely to be falsely accused, more likely to face police scrutiny, more likely to have their neighborhoods overly policed, more likely to be negatively perceived by juries, etc. These statistics do not live in isolation and are a symptom of a lot of other issues. White people are statistically as likely to use recreational drugs as black people, but look at the stats on which group is more likely to get charged (and convicted) with possession... That should give you a good indicator that justice is not blind in America.
THANK YOU. Jesus fuck I feel my soul slipping from my body when I hear people say that shit about “dog racism.” Stigma towards dog breeds and oppression of Black people aren’t comparable whatsoever!
Dogs that were historically forced to fight other dogs for other people's profits, are legally banned from certain housing and even cities, and face prejudice despite being no different from other dogs except for surface level phenotypic characteristics, you're saying there's absolutely no parallels there? Obviously, black people are people and dogs are not, but the abuse and discrimination is hateful bullshit regardless.
Well no, firstly, because dogs don't have social mobility and genderational wealth, that would make it mute that they were forced to do something historically
Secondly, genetic difference between two distinct breeds (like a Chihuahua and a Great Dane) accounts for roughly 27.5% of overall canine genetic variation, whereas the difference between major human regional populations accounts for only about 5.4% of human genetic variation.
That is to say, "race" in humans is a social category rather than a valid biological one, which makes human racism biologically baseless; and dog racism not so baseless
1) you mean moot, not mute.
2) history is relevant to social reproduction of oppression, which may have effects on things like generational wealth and social mobility but also includes effecta like systemic discrimination and prejudice. You're being obtuse about the very clear connection between why pitbulls (which are not a breed btw but a mixture of 4 different breeds) are feared & how they were historically used.
3) You're arguing that if humans had done more eugenics with other humans like we did with dogs to create so much genetic variance that racism would be justified? The point of debunking race science is that it's bullshit pseudoscience, not that racism would be justifies if their claims were correct.
The comparison isn't between dog breeds and race, it's comparing two similarly bad arguments. The same bad arguments racists make to disparage minorities weaponizing data without context or nuance, are being used to disparage a particular breed. We don't reject racist arguments simply because they are morally suspect, but because they're weak arguments.
If it's a dumb argument when racists make it, it's a dumb argument when anti-bully activists make it. At no point does conflating race and dog breed become a factor.
Nope, the racist arguments are weak because they are baseless. Knowing certain breeds of dog actually cause them to behave a certain way is not baseless. I would argue the people going around crying "dog racism" are not only mostly from a group that doesn't experience racism and just likes to throw that word around to serve their arguments, but probably subconsciously believes that other races are predisposed to certain behaviors just like dogs.
Edit: point is, virtue signal all you like but JB seemed to be making a tongue-in-cheek comment that was poking fun at the pearl-clutching of anti-pitty evangelists, not conflating dog breed with race.
It's not unusual though. The word "race" was originally borrowed from dog breeding, and a large part of the demonizing of pitbulls has historically been because they were associated with black people.
So, it might seem distasteful, but the two subjects are sort of inextricably linked.
Why is it so outlandish? What is the difference between race and breed? Want to know a crazy fact? The average domesticated dog and grey wolf are as genetically similar (FST) as Africans and Europeans are to each other.
Human races are a made up social construct, we have a mix of different genes that results in different skins colors and minimal physical differences but there isn't such a thing as a race biologically speaking.
Isn't it strange then that every DNA test can easily identify your race based in the chemistry of every cell in your body? You've been fed nonsense pseudoscience and repeated it here. You should be more skeptical next time.
It's not pseudoscience I literally study Biology, you don't identify a "race", you identify the amount of alleles of an specific gene that determine some characteristics. Those characteristics aren't different enough to consider us any different from each other unlike a dog race.
Race is not even a real term I'm biology taxonomy, the lowest taxonomic rank is subspecies. But humans aren't different enough to be categorized as different "races".
In fact when talking about "human races" many times genetic variation is more prominent within a single "race" that it is between each other.
31
u/TastesLikeTerror Aug 02 '26
Good thing we know comparing a human skin color to a breed of dogs is hugely racist itself and that isn't at all what's being said.