3 ms·
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
by 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".