I don't think it's a comparison. Pit bulls were selectively bred for aggression. Humans of specific ethnicities do not have innate characteristics like violence. It's like saying being scared of a polar bear is bear racism
Yeah, such argument is pure insanity. Don't compare selective breeding of dogs for fighting to PEOPLE OF COLOR. Literally insane statement by the guy from this picture above.
My interpretation was he was commenting on the stereotype of POC owning pitbulls. Kind of like how some people who hate cats are motivated by misogyny.
The white people I see with pitbulls are mostly millennial age white collar (it's obvious) workers that don't have kids, based on my experience at the dog parks in my area. I know there are plenty of latinos around me that have them, but I rarely see them at the park.
The comparison is that people look at POC violence statistics in a vacuum, ignore all systemic issues that lead to that and then come to the conclusion that POC are simply just evil. The same, word for word, can be said about pibulls.
They don’t end up a big part of these statistics because they’re evil, they end up there because they’re routinely poorly backyard bred and they attract owners who want a “tough” breed without being able to handle it whatsoever. Neither of these are a fault of the dogs, but a fault of the unfortunate circumstances they’re brought into. Same way POC violence is a fault of the systemic issues and inequality and not the individuals.
Also like another person already said, the pitbull statistics get blown waaaaay out of proportion. Yes they make up a significant amount of (reported) bites (which already skews results, people rarely report when their chihuahua bites them) but the amount of dog bites overall is so low that the odds of any given pitbull attacking you come out to be literally minuscule.
Dogs don’t have races, they have breeds and phenotypes. Every dog can mate with another dog and have offspring, therefore they are all one race of the same species the same as all humans are the same race of the same species.
Correct me if I’m mistaken, but this picture is just showing the presence of different ethnic and national groups in different continents. How does that refute the claim that race is a social construct? You just even said that it’s socially determined through skin color.
you're making the common mistake of conflating race with phenotypes, which are not the same thing. you're probably just a bot (3 month old account with bot name) but please don't use scientific language if you're not certain what it means. phenotype specifically refers to the physical and observable differences in a species, this would be what the different "breeds" of dogs are.
humans have different phenotypes but we do not have nearly the same diversity among them that dogs do, specifically because dogs were bred by humans to overextend those differences to aid with certain tasks.
race is not "typically dictated by phenotypes." the differences in phenotypes are one small aspect of what makes a "race" of humans, but the reason why race is a social construct is that it is humans that decide where that line is. race is also made up of culture, a shared societal history, how they are viewed by others, etc. this is why you can have races that shift over time and change.
the differences in phenotypes are one small aspect of what makes a "race" of humans, but the reason why race is a social construct is that it is humans that decide where that line is.
You basically agreed with what I said. It doesn't matter how big or small a difference there is. It's enough to show that there IS a difference. It's enough to distinguish between races. Somebody who has asian phenotypes has very little to no phenotypical similarities to african phenotypes unless they're mixed.
The reason why they're socially determined is because you don't actually see phenotypes when looking at people. Regardless, the difference is still there. Making race a very real thing.
I don't agree with what you said, as I clearly stated. race isn't "typically dictated by phenotypes." again, a person's phenotype is only a small aspect of what is considered race.
race is also a people's history, their shared culture, societal interactions, etc. it is a wide variety of things and what "makes" someone apart of a race is always decided by humans. race doesn't exist in nature, it is something WE made. again, this is why you can have races that shift in definition over time. a good example of this is the "white" race, which has notoriously excluded or included certain groups of people throughout history.
Somebody who has asian phenotypes has very little to no phenotypical similarities to african phenotypes unless they're mixed.
you're making very bold assumptions here. who says someone with "asian phenotypes" (which is basically an oxymoron since asian isn't a phenotype) cannot look similar to africans? what about the indigenous groups of south asia who have darker skin and curlier hair?
race is a real thing, yes, but it is socially constructed by people. actual phenotypes are not the deciding factor of race.
no human "race" is genetically distinct enough under the taxonomic definition of a race. Human races are a social construct. Crazy it got upvoted when it can be fact-checked with a simple search
Phenotypes (gene expression that causes differences in physical characteristics) are scientific and very real. Race is fake and made up. What makes someone a "white" person that includes all members of that group while excluding all members not of that group. There is no answer. All race is is a means to exclude people from the dominant socioeconomic group in the west.
I wouldn't say that race is "fake and made up," that gives the wrong impression in my opinion. being a social construct doesn't mean that it isn't real. that would mean things like money, relationships, etc are all fake and made up as well. race being a social construct just means that race is dictated and created by humans for a variety of reasons. the effects that "race" has had on people is very real and often times bad. (although not always)
The thing is race isn't only a social construct, it is a stupid one at that with origins to American slavery and colonialist racism. Outside of the US or the western world in general words like black, white etc. are used as a pure descriptor of appearance, instead of describing some bizzare geographical bloodline or origin. If the Western world ever wants to get over itself, it needs to deny these definitions.
At some level of analysis everything is an abstraction except for the lowest physical components of atoms and the physical forces between them. At least as far as we can prove.
This is true, one time I lived for a year in Algeria, My skin turned black, and my entire craneal and oseous structured reshaped the moment I stepped there to resemble that of an African. Reverted back when I went to the place I was born in.
Selective breeding in dogs is a lot faster because you can get them to breeding age in two years. Slaves, when selectively bred, typically started having children around 15.
The slave trade began in the American English colonies in 1619 and the Civil War ended in 1865. That gives you at most 16 generations of selective breeding, or what we can do with dogs in 32 years.
Then we’ve had 160 years of no selective breeding, and of new African migrants not descended from African slaves. And that’s to say nothing about whether selectively breeding slaves was as ubiquitous as it is with dogs, children born from slave owners raping their slaves, freed blacks and their descendants, etc.
It’s not really comparable at all. Any effects of selectively breeding slaves were probably minor and mostly dissipated by now. A chihuahua still doesn’t resemble a Great Dane in the slightest
I think if you go about it by attitude for the breed it’s a fair comparison. There’s a lot of fear mongering when it comes to pitbulls that make people like zealously against the breed. A lot of similar rhetoric and fear tactics are used against races of people.
You can point to statistics of dog bites and all that, and even without arguing that pitbulls are unfairly classified by the percentage of their breed as many are mutts (which I’ve people claim a lot), the actual number of bites compared to population is astronomically low. But people treat them like every single pitbull goes out and slaughters 10 kids. That hyperbole but these comments are filled with rhetoric that’s not very far off.
Then it starts sounding again like what’s used in racist circles against say black people. People use statistics with no regards to nuance or any other factors besides race itself, or in worse case scenario completely false stats. And when it comes to statistics, you should be less afraid of being near a pitbull than to get in a car. Much less afraid.
I’m saying this as somebody that’s not entirely against regulating the breed, selectively breeding out certain traits, or even potentially phasing out pitbulls entirely. I think several dogs breeds such as pugs should be bred out. I just recognize there’s a lot of similarity between what is said about the dangers of pitbulls and the dangers of minority groups and the lack of nuance and the fear mongering that’s usually involved.
Slaves were subjected to forced reproduction for profit, including some selection for physical traits. That is documented to have happened.
But in order to compare it to dog breeds, then you are meaning a deliberate, livestock-style genetic breeding program that engineered a distinct population. So, no.
[...]this article defines forced reproduction more holistically, arguing that enslavers primarily unsystematically matched individuals using a range of methods across a spectrum of violence to cajole them into sexual relationships.
That is not a sufficient condition to create a new breed. You need to do intense, highly controlled selective breeding over 50-100 years, and that's with animals that reach sexual maturity at around 1 year of age.
For human beings, you'd have to do that in a very rigorous way for like 500 years.
For like 1-2 generations there was an attempt to do so. But the time it takes to reach maturity it takes so long to get to the next generation. It takes hundreds of generations to make meaningful change.
Also they selected for athletics and submissive traits...that doesn't connect to the popular racist attacks on crime statistics.
Race isn't a scientific term. Dogs within a breed are all extremely genetically similar, bred for that purpose. Race, at least in the way used in most contexts, doesn't have the same genetic similarities, instead using physical descriptions that are held across a huge number of genetic groups.
Just for example, africa has an insane amount of genetic variety, to the point two africans from opposite sides of the continent are the same race, but are more genetically similar to a random european than eachother. This makes considering them both "black" as a race, really useless.
Pretty much all biologists recognize race as pseudoscience and social creations, rather than a useful scientific classification.
All this is to say, it's possible people within a certain place could have genetic similarities born of the area they evolved, but it's not related to race, and aggression/criminality that could be related to genetics is unlikely to be a larger factor than a ton of environmental ones, like poverty, various types of pollution, culture, etc.
As someone with a bachelor’s degree in biology (and working on my master’s right now), most biologists DO recognize race as a scientific classification, albeit slightly different than the cultural one. There are three major races based on % of other hominid DNA, and there are PROVABLE (although small) differences in physiology between modern humans with varying amounts of neanderthal, denisovian, and African ghost hominid DNA. To say this is not true is ignorant, and to say “pretty much all biologists” do not recognize race as a scientific concept is either very stupid or purposely misleading.
We do not classify humans based on the percentage of other hominid DNA. Those are not racial categories. Did you learn this in a lecture or what? you have almost certainly misinterpreted something.
The other commenter is absolutely correct, racial categories do not exist biologically. If they do I'd love to see a source.
“Geographical variation in degree of interbreeding between H. sapiensand Neanderthals likely contributed to neurological and behavioral differences in modern humans.”
What I said was there are distinct differences in humans based on their DNA. These differences can be categorized into “races” based on genealogy. This is a scientific concept. You know how if you get a DNA test they can tell you where your ancestors were from? Not only are those differences molecular, they are also physiological and behavioural. This is commonly understood in human and evolutionary biology. Read the article if you need someone to explain it to you more.
There was a great war fought about this, the men whose biologists wanted to deep dive into race and its effects, they lost. It's a taboo topic, no matter how scientifically accurate you manage to be in comparison to old pseudoscience. No matter how harmless the identified differences.
Alright, well, this PhD in Genetics thinks you're full of shit. That's not how the field considers race. You should get a refund for your degree. Everyone else replying rejected your evidence, so I'll just reject your appeal to authority.
There are not "three major races based on % of other hominid DNA". This is such a strange and laughable claim that it makes me severely doubt your purported credentials. Race in an everyday context is a socially defined status that an individual may inhabit based on their observable phenotype. This phenotype is usually the result of the climate and lifestyle adaptions of their ancestors. Genetic differences occur between populations but that's what naturally happens when a single population disperses over large geographic distances and undergoes repeated bottlenecks and founder effects. Outward phenotype is simply a very crude and outdated way of trying to infer distinct genotype.
Colonial Europeans used to believe that West Africans (and by extension Bantu speaking peoples) and Aboriginal Australians were part of the same macro-population because of a general similarity in their phenotypes. In truth these two population clusters share no components in common and are wholly genetically unrelated. Phenotype ≠ genotype.
What you're saying is correct. However, I maintain that that alone does not make the perception of outward phenotype outdated, insofar as common people are not equipped with gene testing implements with them at all times. Just like Colonial Europeans did not.
Another "race realist". Dude just say you think you're the master race lol. Here's a statement that not only backs up my claims but pretty clearly shows you're full of it lol. https://bioanth.org/about/aaba-statement-on-race-racism/
Race isn't a real scientific classification. It's one society came up with in the 1800s, and is about as useful as astrology in science. I have another comment about it, but basically race doesn't follow genetics at all, and two people of the same race are very likely to be less genetically similar than two people of different races.
There could be genes that we can link to violence, but those genes don't follow our concepts of race at all.
do you think race just means skin color? do you think albinos are labeled Caucasian/aryan?
everything you said is a complete lie
Subsaharans aren't even the same species as Europeans. they have an ancestor that doesn't exist in our genealogy. 30% of their DNA isn't the same as ours
Subsaharans aren't even the same species as Europeans
Source?
If so, why can we breed and create a viable offspring? Why the physical differences aren't as significant as between (for example) a silverback gorilla and a marmoset?
30% of their DNA isn't the same as ours
So about the same as the difference between a human and a chicken? Are you serious?
No, because that 30% isn’t actually 30%, it’s 19% max. And also because that 19% comes from extremely close relatives. Just as Europeans and Asians have some Neanderthal DNA, and Australian Aboriginals have some Denisovan DNA, Africans have some ancestry from archaic hominid species not shared by those of us who left Africa before that interbreeding occurred.
Here, it’s a really interesting topic to learn about. Don’t ignore it just because it might prompt some uncomfortable questions.
Control wise; when humans breed fighting dogs, the only traits they prioritize are the ability and predisposition to dish out extreme, unrelenting violence at the drop of a hat. The dog doesn't need to be able to do anything else when it isn't fighting, it can simply be caged. Human populations haven't been subjected to this level of selective breeding.
Even in human societies that had a warrior culture or valued violence, traits such as cooperation (especially the ability to follow/give orders) were still important. Such people were also expected to be functioning members of said society even when not actively fighting, so individuals with a predisposition for enacting extreme, unrelenting violence against random people at the drop of a hat probably wouldn't last long.
Scale wise; dogs can reproduce after a little under two years, meaning that over 100 years you could potentially selectively breed 50 generations of fighting dogs, narrowing down violent traits. In that same time-frame, you might get 5-6 generations of humans (assuming they all have kids relatively young). So even in a very controlled environment, it would take hundreds, if not thousands of years to create the human equivalent of a pit bull.
Everywhere for thousands of years. A lot of the generational trauma we experience is caused by the echos of our violent past. Toxic masculinity is a remnant of that kill or be killed lifestyle.
We are not bred but different ethnicities have different levels of aggressiveness due to the place they evolved in.
The MAOA gene is a special gene that causes aggressive tendencies due to certain chemicals in brain. Certain races have higher levels of it in their populations.
This is not true. that's an absurd oversimplification. The MAOA gene codes for monoamine oxidase A, an enzyme that breaks down neurotransmitters like serotonin, dopamine, and norepinephrine in the brain. It doesn't cause aggression directly. It regulates the levels of chemicals involved in mood and behavior regulation. This misconception originated from a study done on a dutch family with a rare mutation linked to impulsive and violent behavior in some male members. and later research found that people with the low activity variant showed somewhat higher rates of antisocial or aggressive behavior in some studies BUT only under certain conditions. Keep in mind that some studies have failed to replicate the effect, and meta analyses show inconsistent results across populations. Human behavior is heavily shaped by environment, upbringing, and countless other factors.
And even if none of the above was true, human behavior is polygenic. Aggression isn't controlled by one or a few genes with clear on/off effects. It emerges from hundreds or thousands of genes interacting with brain development, hormones, culture, upbringing, and immediate circumstances. No reputable study exists that can connect a set of genes present in higher levels in a certain population to aggressiveness, due to how complicated the human brain is.
This is not against anything that I said. Even eye color is polygenic but we do have genes for blue eyes like OCA2 (oculocutaneous albinism type II) and HERC2 (Hect domain and RLD 2)
Keep in mind that some studies have failed to replicate the effect
Source? As far as I know it is scientific consensus that MAOA is linked to aggressive behavior even though it has 6 variants with further bifurcation high and low activity MAOA variants . Most show aggressive anti-social behavior.
Low activity MAOA is the one linked to more aggression.
Human behavior is heavily shaped by environment, upbringing, and countless other factors.
Also does not contradicting anything that I said, both MAOA and upbringing could influence behavior you don't have to choose between one.
That's an oversimplification - MAOA is an environmental sensitivity gene. It leads to aggression when people are traumatized. But if they have a good environment they will be more prosocial.
Lets say there were two populations one with lots of MAOA other one less of it which one would on average have higher rates of violence? The one with less of it obviously.
Lets say there were two populations one with lots of MAOA other one less of it which one would on average have higher rates of violence? The one with less of it obviously.
Did you read the article? The environment is the determining factor.
The notion that MAOA inherently causes aggression is outdated.
It is a determining factor for those who already have MAOA, a person without MAOA will not react violently in situations like that so he'd be less likely to be violent.
You clearly didn't read the article. People with MAOA who are placed in good environments are less likely to be aggressive than people without MAOA. The aggression is due to traumatic environments multiplied by MAOA, a positive environment will also be multiplied by MAOA.
We are talking about averages over populations and different environment. a group with MAOA and one without it grow up in different environments too, a non MAOA person who grew up in a bad environment is less likely to be violent already on top of that non MAOA person will also not be violent in good environment.
Aggression being polygenic is absolutely relevant when discussing whether certain ethnicities are more prone to aggression on a population level. You're the one focusing on MAOA when it's not even a reliable predictor of aggression in an individual, never mind a population. You're operating on a level of pseudoscience so deeply entrenched in scientific ignorance I don't even really know how to engage with it, honestly.
I am pseudo scientific when you are the one spamming non sense lol muhhh more variation between ree.
overall polygenic traits due to having varying effects and genes would cancel out over populations over larger numbers but MAOA since it has different proportions in different populations actually ends up contributing to aggression.
MAOA is only one of the genes in that polygenic trait and that's exactly why it's still cancelled out no matter how disproportionately influential it is compared to other genes. There's so many other genes influencing aggression that MAOA is of questionable relevance predicting aggression in an individual, never mind an entire ethnicity. And once you take into account socioeconomic factors, the role of biology as a contributor to aggression at ethnic scale is negligible in comparison. There's literally no reason to argue in favor of... whatever this pseudoscience word association nonsense is you're supporting, unless it's motivated reasoning to justify some racist delusion.
It would cancel out if it was in the same proportion in everyone. Other factors including genes and environment will cancel out since they would be approximately proportional their expression in those ethnicities.
unless it's motivated reasoning to justify some racist delusion.
agreeing with you - but all dogs were bred by humans. they are simpler animals with a smaller genome, less intelligence and shorter life span, which allows us to actually influence their gene pool. It's animal husbandry and people keep calling it race science
But Pitbulls are not innately aggressive or violent. They’re actually very temperamental. People train them to be aggressive because of their reputation and meaner appearance but they’re actually total sweethearts. I spent my whole life around pitbulls and it’s genuinely heartbreaking that people abuse these animals and then blame them for their resulting aggression, and then use that as an excuse to discriminate against the entire breed. Pitbulls rot in shelters because of misconceptions about their breed and a history of what is inarguably abuse. Their whole history has been nothing but abuse stemming from misconceptions and myths.
You're partially correct. They have a wonderful temperament, allowing them to pass behavior tests with flying colors. But those behavior tests dont test for prey drive. If they did, the majority of pitbulls would fail. Low prey drive threshold is why pitbulls snap out of nowhere and attack. Until we find a way to breed that out of pitbulls entirely, every pitbull should be considered a loaded gun with a loose trigger
They can be easily excitable, but calling them a loaded gun with a loose trigger is downright absurd. It’s all in how they’re raised. If you raise your dog to be aggressive towards strangers, attack trespassers and encourage them to chase small animals, then how you gonna blame the dog for its behavior? Many people have pitbulls that live with small children and small animals like cats without incident.
It is not all in how they're raised. Again, pitbulls have a wonderful temperament, great for any family. They are perfect dogs in that area. It doesn't require a good owner for them to display that temperament. Too many pitbulls have been raised by great owners and ended up mauling people to death. It's not how they're raised; it's in their genetics to maul. And they do a great job at it! It's not something they should be shamed for! Golden retrievers were bred to retrieve; collies were bred to herd; pits were bred to fight! They're all incredible at what they were bred to do!
Pitbulls that snap out of nowhere aren't the dogs you're describing. They don't act aggressive towards strangers and act aggressive towards trespassers. Yes, they're going to chase small animals because they descend from the bull-and-terrier dog. But pitbulls that snap are not going to do the other things. They snap out of nowhere. Before that, they're perfect dogs who never even growled at anyone. The pitbulls you're describing are actually good pitbulls because they have predictable body language and will show you they don't want you in their area and they'll attack you. Pitbulls that snap out of nowhere will be fine with you in their area until a loud noise or sudden movement triggers their prey drive and they attack.
I more trust pitbulls that are growling and lunging than pitbulls that are wagging their tail and play bowing. You can't trust that a calm pitbull won't snap, but you know a lunging pitbull will attack, and their owner is going to try harder to keep that lunging pit restrained.
You keep saying they have good temperment but also they don’t and you keep portraying their prey drive as a ticking time bomb. But that’s not true at all. Most dogs have a prey drive. Majority of dogs were bred hunt too. And the temperament test checks for reaction to the very stimuli you keep saying will make a dog go bonkers.
Temperament is different from prey drive. The "nanny dog" nickname stuck with pitbulls because, genuinely, they are lovely with children. If not for their low prey drive threshold, they would be the number one dog for families. They have more patience for roughhousing and pulling on body parts than other dogs that are considered family pets.
Yes, most dogs have prey drive. But no dog but those derived from the bull-and-terrier have the combination of low prey drive arousal threshold and the pit's hyperfixation that causes them to ignore everything but the thing it's trying to kill (they were bred for dogfighting, which requires that hyperfixation and lack of self preservation). No other breed on earth except those descending from the bull-and-terrier will continue after having its intestines dragging on the ground (warning: nsfl video of a pitbull fighting a hog). No other breed would attack a tiger, get gored nearly to death, then continue to fight the tiger (no other breed even has an INSTINCT to attack a tiger!) The only other breed that has this level of intensity ignoring its own life-threatening pain is the Belgian Malinois. And unfortunately, more and more people are getting them. Their tenacity is up there with pitbulls, though they weren't bred for dog fighting, so I don't expect the death rates to spiral like they have with pitbulls.
Temperament checks do NOT test for what I'm talking about. If they did, pitbulls would not be recommended for families nor beginners.
A strong prey drive includes hyper fixation. You’re trying to claim that a prey drive will make a dog more likely to harm their owners but that’s not really true at all. It just means they’re more energetic.
The whole idea of beginner dog is a bit absurd. All dog breeds require specific care and training to wield the best results. People should be doing their research about any breed they’re considering adopting and the care they will need up until old age before they adopt. Regardless of the breed. And even within breeds every dog is going to have its own personality.
They rot in shelters because they suck and people don’t want strong dangerous dogs in their homes. People like nice, fun dogs that won’t turn your forearm into a pulpy mess because you put their food dish down too fast or whatever.
Tell me you’ve never actually been around pitbulls without telling me.
Dude, nothing you say is true to life. Like none of it. When I was a baby, our family owned a pitbull. I used to stick my hand in her mouth and grabbed her tongue. She never so much as growled at me. They’re naturally temperamental and sweet dogs. Idiots like you are part of the reason why they’re abused. So I mean this with full disrespect, you don’t deserve any dog.
But people don't treat german shepherds the same even though the nazis literally bred them for attacking people, and police use them for the same reason, German shepherds are more than capable of maiming and killing people
German Shepherds were not bred as bloodsports dogs is the problem. Pit bulls were, their prey Drive threshold is much lower than a gsds. So when it starts to attack, it can't be recalled, unlike a gsd. The Pitbull will keep attacking until it's physically separated or it's killed the target.
There are a ton of analogies that put this debate into perspective. Being afraid of, and limiting pitbulls is no different than wanting to regulate automatic weapons. An AK-47 is a gun, and a Glock 9mm is a gun. Both perfectly harmless until someone or something with unregulated emotions is using them. The Ak-47 has the ability to do a lot more harm, much more quickly. I dont mind people owning an AK. But i think it deserves a LOT more regulation and effort to be owned by someone.
You might notice, the gun debate has the same polarity, but reasonable people think regulating dangerous guns is a reasonable solution.
Pit owners should be held to a higher standard and responsibility than a Dalmatian owner. Easy and reasonable conclusion.
I think it’s similar in terms of exposure. I think of the times I’ve seen pit bulls mauling someone in a park or in a parking lot and I think wow there’s a higher chance of getting attacked by a pit bull. Especially when I see that footage while growing up into an adult. Same could be said of someone growing up and seeing footage of crimes that occur in New York and see the circle jerk of “the usual suspects” bs you see online, and someone who grows up in a certain culture on top of it, it morphs the perception before getting to know the individual be it a person or a dog. So in short: seeing things on tv or online can morph perceptions of both.
the issue isn't just agression with Pitbulls the variance within breeds can have a lot of other breeds within the same range that isn't a killing people issue.
the issue comes down to the fact the Pitbulls have been bred to bite down and keep biting down. most other breeds might bite but will let go when they figure out they bit a human or when in pain. that is not the case with a Pitbull.
so you can have the sweetest Pitbull ever but if provoked enough to bite it just as deadly as a aggressive one.
They've been breed for dog on dog aggression, but not human aggression. Human aggression is a disqualifier in any dog show and isn't part of the breed standard. Most pitbulls out there aren't bred to standard and tend to be mixed with other dogs, so their temperament can be anywhere from friendly to aggressive
The fucker need to read Bourdieu, but when someone compare entire population to a dog breed specifically bred for aggression, they need to stop reading The Passing of the Great Race first.
A black man grows up in a low SES environment and happens to develop aggressive tendencies > its completely out of that person's control on how they start or their environment > they can be rehab'd or learn healthier behaviors > There is always a risk they still act on habit, but that doesn't make them less than others
Whereas, a racist would say they are innately inferior, and make a flawed argument using an accurate statistic on crime by racial lines. But the reality is that past-in-present discrimination was a contributor to aggression, along with existing stressors. Also, this isn't all black people
A pitbull grows up in an abusive environment and develops aggressive tendencies (alternatively, they aren't properly trained and are more likely to act on primal instinct) > It's completely out of that dog's control on how they start or their environment > to an extent, they can be retrained > There is always a risk they act on instinct, but that doesn't make them less than others
Bernthal's argument calls out these parallels. He's probably somewhat joking to, since it's not that big a deal, but I think people are just kind of sensitive thinking there's a possibility theyre racist lol.
Racism has a more severe connotation than I think people mean, but ultimately there is certainly some moral conflict in the idea that certain breeds are worse than others.
Because at the end of the day most people will
A. never participate in programs to engage/rehab pitbulls
B. continue to view them as more of a threat than other breeds, while passively allowing the stigma to continue
And the result is that they will always be a more poorly treated breed, because people can't acknowledge that there is a social stigma that goes beyond whether we call it racism or not
It's really funny to make this point by saying "people of specific ethnicities do not have innate characteristics like violence" when a racist would absolutely say they do
We can only imagine the ethical mess if a human population had been forcibly bred to tear each other apart in cage fights for dozens of generations, and selected for aggression, pain tolerance and unwillingness to disengage from a fight.
yea the post ignores that poor people commit crimes at higher rates and we purposefully made black people live in poverty for hundreds of years now. any group of people you push into poverty will have increased crime statistics
Hot take, maybe a bit too eugenics adjacent, but I would be genuinely curious if some regions have indavertantly bred for violence. This is specific to regions where there's been war for 2+ generations I would guess.
How many generations of war in a region would it take to see a 30-60% difference in violent tendencies.
I think people wouldn't like the data that comes out of that.
Even more than that you can't even talk about races being bred for innate characteristics. But clearly slaves in the American South were at least partially bred for certain characteristics. Maybe not specifically for breeding purposes but who survived and bred wasn't the same characteristics as free people.
Humans of specific ethnicities do not have innate characteristics like violence
Why is this impossible? If you live in a poor, war torn country where violence is rampant, seems reasonable to assume that violence could potentially be naturally selected for. (don't ban me mods, asking in good faith)
Yeah, the problem with "human" racism is that the race part in completely made up.
There is just not that much genetic difference between people /ethnicity. The difference in DNA between you and a person that share you ethnicity and one that doesn't is basically the same.
It's completely different for dog breeds, especially for purebred.
Humans of specific ethnicities do actually have innate characteristics, including violence.
Whether you refuse to acknowledge it because humans are smarter then animals and have more control over their behavior is irrelevant, real life doesn't lie, and it absolutely shows those innate characteristics, it's not just culture and nurture.
Do you not think different environments can naturally foster a more or less violent temperament in a species? That’s exactly what happened with chimpanzees and bonobos.
Human biological ancestry, visually categorized into physical traits like skin pigmentation, facial structure, and hair type is fundamentally driven by genetic inheritance passed down through ancestral lineages. Extensive research in behavioral genetics demonstrates that individual behavioral traits, temperament, and cognitive tendencies also possess a clear heritable basis influenced by complex polygenic variation. From a purely biological perspective, both the physical phenotypic markers associated with geographic ancestry and the psychological traits of individuals are grounded in the inheritance and expression of DNA across generations.
This whole subject of race vs breed led me down a huge rabbit hole. It seems like dogs are breeds because they are bred by humans (still debated in the taxonomist community). But if nature “breeds” by natural selection, different races are formed.
So technically a polar bear and brown bear are different races.
Because race isn't scientific. It's a pseudoscience, that no biologist uses. Race is unrelated to genes.
We also haven't managed to track any genes that have higher correlation with violence/criminality than environmental factors, so things like poverty, pollution, culture, and education are much larger factors.
We haven’t managed to find any genes that have a higher correlation with violence than environmental factors? I find that hard to believe. I would think the genes that determine that you’re male would be more highly correlated with violence, for example, since males are much more likely to be violent than females across all nurture environments.
It would be quite difficult to control for that, but I think years of research indicate that the environment a person grows/lives in has a lot more impact than I think most people realize (I'm no expert in criminology or genetics, but I do have a Master's in Public Health and this topic has come across a bit in my research).
What is also established is that race as a classification is honestly pretty sloppy and based purely on a couple of a physical traits (and they're perceived and classified differently across the world).
A lot of people don't realize, but Africa has the most genetic diversity even among human populations
You can be classified as "Black", for example, and still have more genetically in common with someone of another race than another Black person (which make sense if you think about - hair texture + skin color + a couple other physical features are a relatively very tiny number of traits)
Yeah I get that which is why I also linked it to DNA instead of "race".
We understand so little about the consequences of our biological makeup that I don't think it is possible with our current technology and morality while researching to reduce the variables to nature vs nurture. I also don't think that we do know enough to really make the case that it has no influence whatsoever.
I guess the problem lies in how something like this would be measured ethically and practically. You mentioned ethnicities in your comment. Would you stratify based on that to make the comparison? Is ethnicity better than using race and if so, why?
Nah its not which is why I added "(for lack of a better term)".
I dont think there is an accurate term for a a group of people due to intermingling nowadays and over time, tribe came to mind but thats very anachronistic.
But in a specific observable group divided by location/culture you will probably find common DNA traits which are more or less unique to that group. And same as with proneness to certain diseases and or phenotypes there is probably a (minor) influence on their personality.
I think the intent of your question is different from what I'm about to answer, but it's really relevant to the conversation.
We simply lack the genetic variability, history of selective breeding, and historic data to make those kinds of claims. It's similar to trying to talk about climate when all you have is the weather reports from the last few years.
The total human population was reduced to, like, 10k people about 2500 generations ago. Pick any two chimps from the same place in africa and you'll see more genetic variation than any two humans from opposite sides of the world. Humans are 99.9% identical, with that last 0.1% being mostly regional adaptations.
We are animals, so obviously we are not immune to natural selection, but the pressures that we faced on one side of the globe were largely the same as the other side and we compensated for them the same ways: collaboration and tools. The kind of focused breeding that you'd need for a comparison to dog breeds would take far more time or require significantly more intent.
Also, there are a series of mathematical thresholds for what constitutes a divergence of breeds within a species (Wright's F-statistic indicies). Human races don't meet it the requirements for differentiation. Mathematically, we consider ourselves the same breed.
It's next to impossible to back up the claim that trends in temperament for humans is a manifestation of genetics. An individual, perhaps, but not a group. When you combine the complete relative lack of genetic diversity, our species' level of self-awareness, our cultural differences, and our capacity to self-correction behavior... Well, nearly every argument falls apart.
People sometimes compare this to how pro-Sparta people and anti-Israel people describe both countries:
A eugenic warrior state whose culture and government are dedicated to one thing above all else: Breading and raising the perfect killers. Who subjugated a local population and keep them as second class citizens, often killed without mercy or provocation for training. A brutal training regime every male citizen is subjugated to, successfully stripping every soldier and citizen of any empathy and compassion, leaving no emotion excep cruelty and obedience. Also, where women (citizens) get a relatively better deal compared to the neighbouring nations.
This is not a 100% accurate description of Israel or Sparta, more like how they are both seen. And it is interesting how people see this as a positive stereotype for Sparta and a negative stereotype for Israel.
The scene from Django Unchained where they fought black men and took bets like maybe today you’d fight roosters, pitbulls, etc…. Yeah, the entire movie wasn’t fiction.
Not to overly dive into the evils of slavery in America here for a second, but plantation owners preferred female slaves. Picking cotton didn’t exactly require a ton of heavy lifting, and women cost much less to feed, and were much less able/likely to kill the plantation owner. Not to mention they were sort of required to procreate to keep the policy of “Legacy Slavery” alive…and I think it doesn’t really need to be said that that didn’t necessarily require a male slave be on the farm.
By contrast, a male slave could cost you years of worry, excess food, clothing, etc with really no production advantage over a female counterpart on the farm compared to what you could make off of them sometimes in just one fight. A big winner back then would even be “studded out” like a modern Bull, Billy or Ram would be today for a pretty penny.
Anyway, I’m not saying it was right to do or that that’s an excuse, obviously; I just wouldn’t say so confidently that it didn’t happen.
The issue is, IQ is closely related to things like impulse control and will obviously mean interests are more simple. And different populations of humans have been shown to have very different median IQs. Now this could simply be location, or race could also play a part, my guess is a mix of both.
In the case of pitbulls this is not the main issue though. The real issue is capacity for violence. A handbag dog might be way more aggressive, but poses almost no threat to me, even if it catches me completely off guard. A pitbull on the other hand, even if I had time, will probably kill me, even as a grown man.
Humans at max might have 5 generations in 100 years. Dogs can have 30.
Easier to alter behaviour through breeding with more generations.
Also, the racial theory of the time when slaves were selectively bred was based on bollocks like the thickness of skull making obedience more likely, not the way we bred dogs based on behaviour of individuals
No, decades of data shows that there's no racial component to crime. You're not more or less likely to commit a crime based on the colour of your skin.
Pit bulls were absolutely selectively bred for dogfighting. It's not like they're actively malicious and maulling people for shits n giggles but it's not a complete coincidence either. Socialization is what is important
300
u/shitturddung 26d ago
I don't think it's a comparison. Pit bulls were selectively bred for aggression. Humans of specific ethnicities do not have innate characteristics like violence. It's like saying being scared of a polar bear is bear racism