The wicked nature of pseudo-woke mob

[El_Machinae]

Ideally, you would want to have participants with diverse genomes from all over the world. The social construct of race is a very poor indicator of that.

Absolutely, but you'll have a very hard time collecting those participants if people have to work too hard to scrub the notion of race from the applications or protocols. Self-identification will allow correlations and can also be used to greatly increase the diversity. We very much need that. Well, unless we need more data regarding college-age males. A lot of this discussion is that people aren't pivoting to a more-useful word such as 'ancestry'.

 

[Kyriakos]

It's not the issue itself whether one identifies races or not, but if some races are projected to be superior in some way. Otherwise, you don't see problems arising with mere categories existing. Human thought is based on categories, which the more intellectual/scientific they get, the more they approach complete neutrality. Imagine the absurd case of thinking that primes shouldn't be their own category, because that leads to more interest on them in regards to most integers.
The problem with categories in less intellectual/scientific/closed system groups, such as race as a term irl, is that the vagueness of its intended use easily can lead to suspicion of biased and polemic misuse - and at times indeed the suspicion is correct. But you won't be rid of that by cancelling an entire category, nor (should be very obvious) would a human society without the notion of race be unable to see (say) skin-tone difference. It's like expecting that if we somehow lose the notion of "fat", people will be unable to identify weight differences.

 

[Senethro]

It's not the issue itself whether one identifies races or not, but if some races are projected to be superior in some way. Otherwise, you don't see problems arising with mere categories existing. Human thought is based on categories, which the more intellectual/scientific they get, the more they approach complete neutrality. Imagine the absurd case of thinking that primes shouldn't be their own category, because that leads to more interest on them in regards to most integers.
The problem with categories in less intellectual/scientific/closed system groups, such as race as a term irl, is that the vagueness of its intended use easily can lead to suspicion of biased and polemic misuse - and at times indeed the suspicion is correct. But you won't be rid of that by cancelling an entire category, nor (should be very obvious) would a human society without the notion of race be unable to see (say) skin-tone difference. It's like expecting that if we somehow lose the notion of "fat", people will be unable to identify weight differences.

No, the categories are a problem. The current categories were invented for racism. People insisting that these categories are in some way real or useful for any purpose except debugging/countering existing systemic issues should be ready to have their views examined closely.

 

[Kyriakos]

No, the categories are a problem. The current categories were invented for racism. People insisting that these categories are in some way real or useful for any purpose except debugging/countering existing systemic issues should be ready to have their views examined closely.

The thing is that you won't avoid categories just by banning them, because they don't exist due to themselves. Let alone when they are tied to something observable with the eyes (eg skin tone, body mass etc). What you can avoid/limit/fight is the categories having non-neutral (such as, in the extreme, racist) meaning.

 

[Senethro]

The thing is that you won't avoid categories just by banning them, because they don't exist due to themselves. Let alone when they are tied to something observable with the eyes (eg skin tone, body mass etc). What you can avoid/limit/fight is the categories having non-neutral (such as, in the extreme, racist) meaning.

What do you want to use the category for?

 

[Lexicus]

I thought your question was rhetorical. I don't see either as a problem. The problem occurs when the health care worker makes assumptions that are not relevant to patient care.

Health care workers use self-reported race, because there is no way to objectively determine someone's race from their genes.

no, I am not. you are just engaging in semantics and conflating genetics with social darwinism.

Yes, you are. You are literally saying that genetic differences between human populations means that race is biological and exists independently of society and history. This is false, and you are either being dishonest or you simply do not understand what you are talking about. In either case your persistence in being wrong about this raises the question of why you so badly want/need race to be biologically real.

....more social darwinism and conflict theory nonsense. Centuries ago, people believed that heritable traits were caused by the environment or curses.

What are you referring to as nonsense? Everything I wrote there is just factually true. The concept of a divinely-ordained hereditary aristocracy predates social darwinism by millennia.

 

[Kyriakos]

What do you want to use the category for?

That's not what I said; I claimed that you cannot lose the object's tie to a category. Banning one category will lead to another replacing it. This is because the issue isn't that "skin-tone" was artificially created as a theoretical notion, but owes its existence to the ability to readily pick up differences in skin tone. You can ban the use of the term "race" for those, but not the difference.

 

[El_Machinae]

No, the categories are a problem. The current categories were invented for racism. People insisting that these categories are in some way real or useful for any purpose except debugging/countering existing systemic issues should be ready to have their views examined closely.

What might be the shortest path could then be suggesting alternatives for which the categorization is being used to solve. People need to write grants and advertise to people who self-identify. If the shorthand 'race' is inappropriate, then alternative words that successfully communicate the goal are essential

For example, S15 of the Canadian charter

Affirmative action programs

(2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability

requires that those grants get written, funded, and populated.

 

[Senethro]

That's not what I said; I claimed that you cannot lose the object's tie to a category. Banning one category will lead to another replacing it. This is because the issue isn't that "skin-tone" was artificially created as a theoretical notion, but owes its existence to the ability to readily pick up differences in skin tone. You can ban the use of the term "race" for those, but not the difference.

If it doesn't have a use, why do you need to say it?

If you mean ethnicity, culture, nationality, or even just a physical description of skin tone then why not say that?

 

[uppi]

Absolutely, but you'll have a very hard time collecting those participants if people have to work too hard to scrub the notion of race from the applications or protocols. Self-identification will allow correlations and can also be used to greatly increase the diversity. We very much need that. Well, unless we need more data regarding college-age males. A lot of this discussion is that people aren't pivoting to a more-useful word such as 'ancestry'.

There might be an argument using it in applications as a bad crutch to somehow get a diverse set of participants within the limitations of the available population (best would be people from all over the world, but I guess that is not always practical). But in protocols and reports, you should use biologically relevant features. Probably you could just sequence the genome of every participant and calculate a metric of the genetic distance between participants.

What might be the shortest path could then be suggesting alternatives for which the categorization is being used to solve. People need to write grants and advertise to people who self-identify. If the shorthand 'race' is inappropriate, then alternative words that successfully communicate the goal are essential

"Disadvantaged groups or individuals" is already a good definition and then lets you detail about how you decided that these people are disadvantaged. Self-identification? Identification by others (you?)? The minimum standard should be to qualify the word "race" to make clear that this is something subjective and whose misconception of race you use.

 

[Kyriakos]

If it doesn't have a use, why do you need to say it?

If you mean ethnicity, culture, nationality, or even just a physical description of skin tone then why not say that?

Let's say that "race" somehow got erased as a term and no one used it. Can't see why you think the analogous connotations won't be moved to ethnicity*, culture, nationality or even just a physical description of skin tone. Connotations aren't fixed to the term, which is another way of saying that they do not rise due to the term.
Another way to see it is by imagining a function which takes as input anything (x,y, z etc), put always has the same output. If the output was "racist view", it won't matter if you enter "race" or other, because the function isn't under control; only the input.

*they already exist, for all, by similarly inclined people.

 

[El_Machinae]

There might be an argument using it in applications as a bad crutch to somehow get a diverse set of participants within the limitations of the available population

I'd recommend against using it as a crutch, unless you're completely desperate, because the hyper woke end up ruining the conversation.

Alternative words that evoke the essence of what you're trying to communicate in your audience would be required.

I think that's the shortest path. When we wrote grants to include more female participants, we were able to segue to a small list of sexual characteristics. And the grants were both funded and populated

 

[Samson]

Let's say that "race" somehow got erased as a term and no one used it. Can't see why you think the analogous connotations won't be moved to ethnicity*, culture, nationality or even just a physical description of skin tone. Connotations aren't fixed to the term, which is another way of saying that they do not rise due to the term.

This much is true. The reason we need to understand what racism is is because the racists generally not call themselves racists. I am sure the people who are not letting girls go to school will be quite convinced that it is nothing to do with race. We have to understand that there is a class of thing that uses labels to oppress people and we call it racism, and it is really nothing to do with genetics other than genetics sometimes provides useful labels. Sometimes it don't, and religion and culture fit the same hole perfectly well, especially when that provides its own label.

 

[Gorbles]

I'd recommend against using it as a crutch, unless you're completely desperate, because the hyper woke end up ruining the conversation.

Any commentary on the "hyper woke" precludes good faith discussion on the subject, which is probably why conversations then end up getting ruined

 

[Senethro]

Let's say that "race" somehow got erased as a term and no one used it. Can't see why you think the analogous connotations won't be moved to ethnicity*, culture, nationality or even just a physical description of skin tone. Connotations aren't fixed to the term, which is another way of saying that they do not rise due to the term.
Another way to see it is by imagining a function which takes as input anything (x,y, z etc), put always has the same output. If the output was "racist view", it won't matter if you enter "race" or other, because the function isn't under control; only the input.

*they already exist, for all, by similarly inclined people.

Even in this thread the idea of race as genetics has popped back up. Its a tricky idea to break. Connotations aren't fixed, but there is no need to imply that the concepts behind the words have any validity by using them

Just to be clear, I am in fact sort of arguing beyond the point of what I actually think practical here. I don't expect racial terminology to vanish overnight, and I'm not sure that purposefully trying to stamp it out would be worth the benefit for the effort. I'm just trying to demonstrate that the terms and the concepts were never neutral, so to me they're like a knife without a handle. An impractical tool that should be abandoned, and a weapon to the desperate. Ethnicity, culture etc have valid uses. Race has none.

So hope they'll dwindle to being vestigial, but lets not forget their history.

 

[Farm Boy]

"Ethnicity" has precious little use next to "culture" if we're being dry about it. Similarly garbage in the same ways as race. Might as well say either one. You aren't going to improve anything with "ancestry" either. Trying to describe who is the kid of who and which nasty cracks we all emanated from is what people are already doing with "race."

 

[Senethro]

"Ethnicity" has precious little use next to "culture" if we're being dry about it. Similarly garbage in the same ways as race. Might as well say either one. You aren't going to improve anything with "ancestry" either. Trying to describe who is the kid of who and which nasty cracks we all emanated from is what people are already doing with "race."

I mean, I can imagine that the concept has been similarly made toxic for you just by its proximity, and how it was utilized in racial ideology. But Welsh or Flemish speaking Belgians ethnicity/cultural groups haven't been through a period where these concepts were solely used to define your social caste in an imperial project. They have plausible neutral usage imo.

 

[Farm Boy]

Cultural groups works there. Ethnicity adds nothing other than implied spunk-product. Which is what people are trying to make the fuss about when they're "?acting poorly?" in the first place.

 

[El_Machinae]

"Ethnicity" has precious little use next to "culture" if we're being dry about it. Similarly garbage in the same ways as race. Might as well say either one. You aren't going to improve anything with "ancestry" either. Trying to describe who is the kid of who and which nasty cracks we all emanated from is what people are already doing with "race."

I think that there is a bit of an irony here. I'm not up on the controversy, but my suspicion is that people used "race" in order to predict fundamental biological differences.

But then we need a different word when we are sorting using modern technique and statistics, so that we can unpack fundamental biological differences. Or, less severely, useful correlations

 

[Farm Boy]

That's the problem. Yes. Because we want it to both matter and not matter. There's going to be hell coming to pay on this one as we get better able to tinker. We're predisposed with lizard brain to care way too much about this.