4 ms·

>Don't you know it's not good to be racist? That it's bad? That we shouldn't discriminate racially, it's bad. Judging people on their religion is bad. It's bad

>Don't you know it's not good to be racist? That it's bad? That we shouldn't discriminate racially, it's bad. Judging people on their religion is bad. It's bad to judge people by their skin color, their social background, or their nationality. Evaluating the impact that race-specific genetics may or may not have on a disease is not "judging" anyone. We are still in the early days of understanding this disease, with many unanswered questions, but eventually information like this could be helpful to improving our models and predictions. Edit: you explained elsewhere that this is an attempt at humor by quoting a French movie. While I prefer more serious content on HN, I understand others may disagree. At the very least, would you please make it clear when you are quoting?

speedgoose 7y ago
Using the word "race" is deprecated. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_categorization) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_categorization)
- jshevek 7y ago
  Language is defined by usage, and it's obvious that neither the words "race" nor "racist" are deprecated.
  - speedgoose 7y ago
    Yes some part of the world still use this term, like some still use body parts to measure lengths, but we should not continue to be racist because of them. You can read the Wikipedia article, there is no good point of using race in science today.
    - jshevek 7y ago
      >we should not continue to be racist because of them. Who is being racist, and how are they being racist?
      - speedgoose 7y ago
        People who use the concept of races, by using the concept of races. But it's cultural differences I guess, races and racism is bad in my culture, see the movie quote that is making fun of that, and it seems like in yours races and racism do not seem obviously related. I will not try to convince you, you got my point of view. If you write an international scientific paper, please don't use races, thank you very much.
        jshevek 7y ago
        Are you suggesting my culture is racist, simply because we use terms you don't like? Your earlier link is not even relevant to taxonomy. This one is: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(biology) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(biology) >In biological taxonomy, race is an informal rank in the taxonomic hierarchy, below the level of subspecies. It has been used as a higher rank than strain, with several strains making up one race.[1][2] Various definitions exist. Races may be genetically distinct populations of individuals within the same species,[3] or they may be defined in other ways, e.g. geographically, or physiologically.[4] Genetic isolation between races is not complete, but genetic differences may have accumulated that are not (yet) sufficient to separate species.[5] The term is recognized by some, but not governed by any, of the formal codes of biological nomenclature.
        TeMPOraL 7y ago
        As the summary says, it's an informal and arbitrary term. In non-human biology, I haven't seen it used for anything except pet categorization for laymen.
        jshevek 7y ago
        It's true that "race" is not used with the relative level of consistency and precision as other terms are, like "species", but it's important to remember that all of these categorisations have edge cases and grey areas. Saying that it is "arbitrary" is not helpful here, and can imply that it is "wholly arbitrary" which is wrong.
- jshevek 7y ago
  That link is not relevant to taxonomy. This one is: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(biology) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(biology) >In biological taxonomy, race is an informal rank in the taxonomic hierarchy, below the level of subspecies. It has been used as a higher rank than strain, with several strains making up one race.[1][2] Various definitions exist. Races may be genetically distinct populations of individuals within the same species,[3] or they may be defined in other ways, e.g. geographically, or physiologically.[4] Genetic isolation between races is not complete, but genetic differences may have accumulated that are not (yet) sufficient to separate species.[5] The term is recognized by some, but not governed by any, of the formal codes of biological nomenclature.
  - throwaway65512 7y ago
    What they mean is that race is not well-defined among phylogenists/pop geneticists and thus a largely irrelevant concept to the scientific community at large
    - jshevek 7y ago
      Physiological implications of variations in the genetics between Africans, Europeans, Inuit, Pacific Islanders, South East Asians, Native Americans, etc are a very relevant reality to medical researchers, who are part of the scientific community.
      - throwaway65512 7y ago
        These concern only about a handful of genes that have been the subject of very intense selective pressure and has little to do with how phylogeny classifications are done with entire genomes at large. Not only that, this selective pressure often results in evolutionary convergence (all populations in malarial latitudes have some modicum of resistance to malaria, not just Africans) and the resulting shared traits don't say anything about populations are classified.
        jshevek 7y ago

speedgoose 7y ago

Using the word "race" is deprecated. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_categorization) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_categorization)

jshevek 7y ago
Language is defined by usage, and it's obvious that neither the words "race" nor "racist" are deprecated.
- speedgoose 7y ago
  Yes some part of the world still use this term, like some still use body parts to measure lengths, but we should not continue to be racist because of them. You can read the Wikipedia article, there is no good point of using race in science today.
  - jshevek 7y ago
    >we should not continue to be racist because of them. Who is being racist, and how are they being racist?
    - speedgoose 7y ago
      People who use the concept of races, by using the concept of races. But it's cultural differences I guess, races and racism is bad in my culture, see the movie quote that is making fun of that, and it seems like in yours races and racism do not seem obviously related. I will not try to convince you, you got my point of view. If you write an international scientific paper, please don't use races, thank you very much.
      - jshevek 7y ago
        Are you suggesting my culture is racist, simply because we use terms you don't like? Your earlier link is not even relevant to taxonomy. This one is: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(biology) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(biology) >In biological taxonomy, race is an informal rank in the taxonomic hierarchy, below the level of subspecies. It has been used as a higher rank than strain, with several strains making up one race.[1][2] Various definitions exist. Races may be genetically distinct populations of individuals within the same species,[3] or they may be defined in other ways, e.g. geographically, or physiologically.[4] Genetic isolation between races is not complete, but genetic differences may have accumulated that are not (yet) sufficient to separate species.[5] The term is recognized by some, but not governed by any, of the formal codes of biological nomenclature.
        TeMPOraL 7y ago
        As the summary says, it's an informal and arbitrary term. In non-human biology, I haven't seen it used for anything except pet categorization for laymen.
        jshevek 7y ago
        It's true that "race" is not used with the relative level of consistency and precision as other terms are, like "species", but it's important to remember that all of these categorisations have edge cases and grey areas. Saying that it is "arbitrary" is not helpful here, and can imply that it is "wholly arbitrary" which is wrong.
jshevek 7y ago
That link is not relevant to taxonomy. This one is: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(biology) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(biology) >In biological taxonomy, race is an informal rank in the taxonomic hierarchy, below the level of subspecies. It has been used as a higher rank than strain, with several strains making up one race.[1][2] Various definitions exist. Races may be genetically distinct populations of individuals within the same species,[3] or they may be defined in other ways, e.g. geographically, or physiologically.[4] Genetic isolation between races is not complete, but genetic differences may have accumulated that are not (yet) sufficient to separate species.[5] The term is recognized by some, but not governed by any, of the formal codes of biological nomenclature.
- throwaway65512 7y ago
  What they mean is that race is not well-defined among phylogenists/pop geneticists and thus a largely irrelevant concept to the scientific community at large
  - jshevek 7y ago
    Physiological implications of variations in the genetics between Africans, Europeans, Inuit, Pacific Islanders, South East Asians, Native Americans, etc are a very relevant reality to medical researchers, who are part of the scientific community.
    - throwaway65512 7y ago
      These concern only about a handful of genes that have been the subject of very intense selective pressure and has little to do with how phylogeny classifications are done with entire genomes at large. Not only that, this selective pressure often results in evolutionary convergence (all populations in malarial latitudes have some modicum of resistance to malaria, not just Africans) and the resulting shared traits don't say anything about populations are classified.
      - jshevek 7y ago