4 ms·

>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.
      - throwaway65512 7y ago
        That's a false equivalence. Some terms are well-defined in phylogeny, and even among the murkier concepts (like species) almost all of them are clearer than race which basically covers a hodge-podge of sometimes contradictory concepts no one ever seems to agree on.
        jshevek 7y ago
        Saying that it is "arbitrary" is not helpful here, and can imply that it is "wholly arbitrary" which is wrong.
        throwaway65512 7y ago
        It is arbitrary enough as to be utterly irrelevant in modern genomics. Some people cling to it, usually doctors who haven't gotten the memo, old school taxonomists who don't want to let go of their traditional systems, and of course Pioneer Fund recipients. But popgen/phylogeny researchers avoid using it because of how little information it conveys due to its being so poorly defined.
  - throwaway65512 7y ago
    As your link points out, and as is widely acknowledged among the phylogeny and popgen communities, there is no single definition of race and the notion is largely discredited in modern classifications.

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.
    - throwaway65512 7y ago
      That's a false equivalence. Some terms are well-defined in phylogeny, and even among the murkier concepts (like species) almost all of them are clearer than race which basically covers a hodge-podge of sometimes contradictory concepts no one ever seems to agree on.
      - jshevek 7y ago
        Saying that it is "arbitrary" is not helpful here, and can imply that it is "wholly arbitrary" which is wrong.
        throwaway65512 7y ago
        It is arbitrary enough as to be utterly irrelevant in modern genomics. Some people cling to it, usually doctors who haven't gotten the memo, old school taxonomists who don't want to let go of their traditional systems, and of course Pioneer Fund recipients. But popgen/phylogeny researchers avoid using it because of how little information it conveys due to its being so poorly defined.
- throwaway65512 7y ago
  As your link points out, and as is widely acknowledged among the phylogeny and popgen communities, there is no single definition of race and the notion is largely discredited in modern classifications.