3 ms·

Actually the genetic differences between races are far smaller and more blurry than most people would imagine (based on differences in appearance). The Atlanti

Actually the genetic differences between races are far smaller and more blurry than most people would imagine (based on differences in appearance). The Atlantic had an article about exactly the kind of thing you're taking about, and how this kind of pseudoscience is being pushed by neo-nazis and the alt-right: http://www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/510962/ http://www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/510962/

tristor 10y ago
Thanks for once again proving that nobody can ever have a serious discussion about science related to ethnicity because someone will always jump up, point at them, and scream "racist". I wonder if it's occurred to you how many people suffer from medical conditions because they're either untreated or treated poorly because we don't bother studying and reporting on things like this, specifically and exactly because there's a hundred people just waiting in the wings to call you a racist for studying it? Nothing in the article is racist, nor is anything in my statements. Please take your ad hominem elsewhere.
- openasocket 10y ago
  I think he's responding to the line "harder sciences are proving that social sciences obsession with identity politics has hindered medical advancements" which I would consider false. The existence of genetic diseases that are largely present in a single race has been known for a long time. Tay-Sachs is seen almost entirely in Ashkenazi Jews, Sickle Cell is mostly seen in Africans, etc. I don't think "identity politics" is rejecting this notion, or if it is it's doing a bad job of it.
- tossaccttu78 10y ago
  > I wonder if it's occurred to you how many people suffer from medical conditions because they're either untreated or treated poorly because we don't bother studying and reporting on things like this, specifically and exactly because there's a hundred people just waiting in the wings to call you a racist for studying it? How will that solve for people of mixed heritage? Grandkids of mixed ancestry may look "white" (redheaded whitey here, with great-grandparents that are very obviously native american) and still have genetic predispositions passed down. The solution is not to clump by skin color. But to assess individuals specifically for certain markers. Please take your strawman elsewhere.
- notahacker 10y ago
  To be honest, it's equally difficult to have a serious discussion about science related to ethnicity when people insist on using an interesting piece of research as a launchpad to make tangential and evidence-free claims that social science is harming serious research, regardless of whether they actually harbour any sympathy for the viewpoints of your garden variety racist or not. At the time of this article only two of the many subthreads related to this article had descended into politics and name-calling. One was initiated by your very own unsubstantiated attack on "identity politics". The other (considerably less favourably-received) post was claimed the notion of a social element to race that was the work of "lunatics and agitators seeking to attack and disrupt western society" and argued the researchers were doing themselves and society a disservice by engaging with it. Remind me who it was that's putting a negative slant on useful medical research again.
  - tristor 10y ago
    I'll admit my snipe at the end about identity politics was inflammatory, but it's specifically because of my frustrations trying to have any sort of serious discussion about these types of topics. People immediately throwing out the racist card and comparing you to neo-nazis for wanting to discuss the topic is /exactly/ what I mean by "identity politics" although its just one of the more pernicious subsets. My attack on "identity politics" is substantiated by my own experiences and a significant body of philosophical work, but probably this is not the appropriate forum for it. As a side note, when I started my thread there were more than 60 upvotes on the article and no comments. At least there's a discussion.

tristor 10y ago

Thanks for once again proving that nobody can ever have a serious discussion about science related to ethnicity because someone will always jump up, point at them, and scream "racist". I wonder if it's occurred to you how many people suffer from medical conditions because they're either untreated or treated poorly because we don't bother studying and reporting on things like this, specifically and exactly because there's a hundred people just waiting in the wings to call you a racist for studying it? Nothing in the article is racist, nor is anything in my statements. Please take your ad hominem elsewhere.

openasocket 10y ago
I think he's responding to the line "harder sciences are proving that social sciences obsession with identity politics has hindered medical advancements" which I would consider false. The existence of genetic diseases that are largely present in a single race has been known for a long time. Tay-Sachs is seen almost entirely in Ashkenazi Jews, Sickle Cell is mostly seen in Africans, etc. I don't think "identity politics" is rejecting this notion, or if it is it's doing a bad job of it.
tossaccttu78 10y ago
> I wonder if it's occurred to you how many people suffer from medical conditions because they're either untreated or treated poorly because we don't bother studying and reporting on things like this, specifically and exactly because there's a hundred people just waiting in the wings to call you a racist for studying it? How will that solve for people of mixed heritage? Grandkids of mixed ancestry may look "white" (redheaded whitey here, with great-grandparents that are very obviously native american) and still have genetic predispositions passed down. The solution is not to clump by skin color. But to assess individuals specifically for certain markers. Please take your strawman elsewhere.
notahacker 10y ago
To be honest, it's equally difficult to have a serious discussion about science related to ethnicity when people insist on using an interesting piece of research as a launchpad to make tangential and evidence-free claims that social science is harming serious research, regardless of whether they actually harbour any sympathy for the viewpoints of your garden variety racist or not. At the time of this article only two of the many subthreads related to this article had descended into politics and name-calling. One was initiated by your very own unsubstantiated attack on "identity politics". The other (considerably less favourably-received) post was claimed the notion of a social element to race that was the work of "lunatics and agitators seeking to attack and disrupt western society" and argued the researchers were doing themselves and society a disservice by engaging with it. Remind me who it was that's putting a negative slant on useful medical research again.
- tristor 10y ago
  I'll admit my snipe at the end about identity politics was inflammatory, but it's specifically because of my frustrations trying to have any sort of serious discussion about these types of topics. People immediately throwing out the racist card and comparing you to neo-nazis for wanting to discuss the topic is /exactly/ what I mean by "identity politics" although its just one of the more pernicious subsets. My attack on "identity politics" is substantiated by my own experiences and a significant body of philosophical work, but probably this is not the appropriate forum for it. As a side note, when I started my thread there were more than 60 upvotes on the article and no comments. At least there's a discussion.