4 ms·

i think you’re misunderstanding the important parts of the analogy (and as a result calling me a racist, which is ridiculous). i’m saying all people are on a co

i think you’re misunderstanding the important parts of the analogy (and as a result calling me a racist, which is ridiculous). i’m saying all people are on a continuum of genetic difference and that some groups are clumped together along the spectrum relative to some phenotypes and other groups are clumped together elsewhere on the spectrum relative to the same phenotypes - and that it’s easier to see differences between those groups relative to these phenotypes (an easier line to draw. say, average hair color between Pygmies and Swedes) and harder to see differences within those groups relative to the same phenotypes (harder line to draw. say, average hair color distribution within Pygmies). tell me what is racist about that observation. at no point did i claim that certain of these clumps of phenotypic groupings are correlated with being stupid or inferior or better or worse (nor would I make that claim).

foldr 7y ago
Obviously you can group people according to generic similarity. That could only be false if there were no generic variation. The point is that there is no independently motivated means of grouping people according to their genes that will make, e.g., the racial classifications of current US society fall out as a result. You will get clumps, but you won't get one clump corresponding to African Americans, one group corresponding to Latinos, one group corresponding to Asian Americans, etc. etc. People who are obsessed with linking these non-genetically-defined classifications to genes are, almost invariably, racists. What other motivation could there be?
- vcavallo 7y ago
  off the top of my head i can think of a few non-racist, potentially useful motivations. here’s a random one: say you’re an EMT responding to a medical emergency and you have limited time to check for the top few health emergencies likely in the presented situation. you know that, based on the “perceived race” of the patient, condition X is more likely given this ancestry than condition Y. this is the only visible information that would influence your decision. your time is limited - it’s only rational and responsible to check for the statistically more likely condition X before you check for condition Y. does that make this EMT a racist? or “obsessed with linking [...]”? in the same way biological sexes might have medical correlations (color blindness, for instance), the things we’re loosing calling races may also. why not use this potentially useful information in order to save resources and improve lives? i can’t help feel like you’re descending into ad hominem - you’re mostly agreeing with the facts of what i’m saying, yet claiming that looking at these facts at all makes one a racist. that’s a non-starter. the facts are the facts and what you choose to do with them is what potentially makes you a racist; not merely their acknowledgement.
  - foldr 7y ago
    > you’re mostly agreeing with the facts of what i’m saying, No, not really. For example, you claimed above that "Latino" was a genetically identifiable subgroup. As to the motivations you suggest, go back and look at my original comment in this thread. There's nothing in it that anyone with those motivations would object to. In fact, that very comment made reference to the medical significance of differences in the distribution of genes between different "races".

foldr 7y ago

Obviously you can group people according to generic similarity. That could only be false if there were no generic variation. The point is that there is no independently motivated means of grouping people according to their genes that will make, e.g., the racial classifications of current US society fall out as a result. You will get clumps, but you won't get one clump corresponding to African Americans, one group corresponding to Latinos, one group corresponding to Asian Americans, etc. etc. People who are obsessed with linking these non-genetically-defined classifications to genes are, almost invariably, racists. What other motivation could there be?

vcavallo 7y ago
off the top of my head i can think of a few non-racist, potentially useful motivations. here’s a random one: say you’re an EMT responding to a medical emergency and you have limited time to check for the top few health emergencies likely in the presented situation. you know that, based on the “perceived race” of the patient, condition X is more likely given this ancestry than condition Y. this is the only visible information that would influence your decision. your time is limited - it’s only rational and responsible to check for the statistically more likely condition X before you check for condition Y. does that make this EMT a racist? or “obsessed with linking [...]”? in the same way biological sexes might have medical correlations (color blindness, for instance), the things we’re loosing calling races may also. why not use this potentially useful information in order to save resources and improve lives? i can’t help feel like you’re descending into ad hominem - you’re mostly agreeing with the facts of what i’m saying, yet claiming that looking at these facts at all makes one a racist. that’s a non-starter. the facts are the facts and what you choose to do with them is what potentially makes you a racist; not merely their acknowledgement.
- foldr 7y ago
  > you’re mostly agreeing with the facts of what i’m saying, No, not really. For example, you claimed above that "Latino" was a genetically identifiable subgroup. As to the motivations you suggest, go back and look at my original comment in this thread. There's nothing in it that anyone with those motivations would object to. In fact, that very comment made reference to the medical significance of differences in the distribution of genes between different "races".