The wicked nature of pseudo-woke mob

Good news for you, in that case. The American Society of Human Genetics flatly says "Genetics demonstrates that humans cannot be divided into biologically distinct subcategories"

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6218810/

ASHG Denounces Attempts to Link Genetics and Racial Supremacy

It ain't saying what you think chief. It can't even tell you how many of these supposed races exist.

.....I can see were the "categorization" has gone wrong, associating social and cultural differences to genetics (let alone differences, but this superiority/inferiority BS) but that does not make the genetics wrong. I may be wrong, but it seems to me that @Lexicus is defining "race" and "racist" as the same thing.

do you guys read at all?
 
ASHG Denounces Attempts to Link Genetics and Racial Supremacy

do you guys read at all?
They denounce racial distinction:

Genetics demonstrates that humans cannot be divided into biologically distinct subcategories. Although there are clear observable correlations between variation in the human genome and how individuals identify by race, the study of human genetics challenges the traditional concept of different races of humans as biologically separate and distinct. This is validated by many decades of research, including recent examples.

Most human genetic variation is distributed as a gradient, so distinct boundaries between population groups cannot be accurately assigned. There is considerable genetic overlap among members of different populations. Such patterns of genome variation are explained by patterns of migration and mixing of different populations throughout human history. In this way, genetics exposes the concept of “racial purity” as scientifically meaningless.​
 
ASHG Denounces Attempts to Link Genetics and Racial Supremacy
do you guys read at all?

Do you?

I asked this last time. When they take the race of the patient, are they using their self-submitted socially constructed race from the patient's own mouth, or are they determining it genetically?

Why do they do it this way?
 
You should try refusing to answer that stuff sometime.
 
What do you think would count as defamation? This whole at will employment seems pretty broken to me, but I have not heard about defamation claims around it.

There won't be a defamation claim unless she wants to make one.

“Effective immediately, I am suspending Whoopi Goldberg for two weeks for her wrong and hurtful comments,” Kim Godwin, president of ABC News, wrote in the statement.

“While Whoopi has apologised, I’ve asked her to take time to reflect and learn about the impact of her comments. The entire ABC News organisation stands in solidarity with our Jewish colleagues, friends, family and communities.”

This is definitely a published statement, with ramifications to Goldberg. Godwin is not privileged against defamation, to my knowledge. It is a statement of fact.

The only element which would be in dispute would be whether her statement (which was given significant punishment) was wrong. If ABC has operated on the basis of race/skin color in the past without punishment, they might have a hard time demonstrating that Goldberg was "wrong" by their own standards. But maybe ABC could successfully defend in challenging that, too. Would be interesting how they cover "race" issues after doing so in such a hypothetical.

This is similar to when people get kicked off of social media, and the company releases a statement as to why. The statement itself is a) not covered by section 230 and b) defamation, if the stated reason is not accurate (while harming person in question, which is generally the case when it's high profile). Similarly, at-will employment is one thing, but releasing a public statement for why you fire or discipline employees is another.

A company cannot fire or suspend someone and claim "we did this because he smashed an animal with bricks", unless he actually took that action. Similarly, if Goldberg is operating with the same standard for "race" as ABC has used many times, it is weird to now publicly denounce her for...using that same standard again.

Suing them for it is definitely going scorched earth. I don't blame her for not doing that, but I don't like these apologies/accepting punishments nicely either.
 
There won't be a defamation claim unless she wants to make one.



This is definitely a published statement, with ramifications to Goldberg. Godwin is not privileged against defamation, to my knowledge. It is a statement of fact.

The only element which would be in dispute would be whether her statement (which was given significant punishment) was wrong. If ABC has operated on the basis of race/skin color in the past without punishment, they might have a hard time demonstrating that Goldberg was "wrong" by their own standards. But maybe ABC could successfully defend in challenging that, too. Would be interesting how they cover "race" issues after doing so in such a hypothetical.

This is similar to when people get kicked off of social media, and the company releases a statement as to why. The statement itself is a) not covered by section 230 and b) defamation, if the stated reason is not accurate (while harming person in question, which is generally the case when it's high profile). Similarly, at-will employment is one thing, but releasing a public statement for why you fire or discipline employees is another.

A company cannot fire or suspend someone and claim "we did this because he smashed an animal with bricks", unless he actually took that action. Similarly, if Goldberg is operating with the same standard for "race" as ABC has used many times, it is weird to now publicly denounce her for...using that same standard again.

Suing them for it is definitely going scorched earth. I don't blame her for not doing that, but I don't like these apologies/accepting punishments nicely either.
I do not know enough about law to say is "wrong and hurtful comments" could rise to the standard of defamation. What I would argue makes it wrong is saying that the Jews are not a race. I do not see how ABCs actions would effect that determination.

Is there any cases where a company got successfully sued for defamation for kicking someone off of social media? If that was a thing I think we would have heard about it. I bet they have lawyers to make sure it does not happen. I bet they had a lawyer approve the "wrong and hurtful comments" thing.
 
They denounce racial distinction:

Genetics demonstrates that humans cannot be divided into biologically distinct subcategories. Although there are clear observable correlations between variation in the human genome and how individuals identify by race, the study of human genetics challenges the traditional concept of different races of humans as biologically separate and distinct. This is validated by many decades of research, including recent examples.

Most human genetic variation is distributed as a gradient, so distinct boundaries between population groups cannot be accurately assigned. There is considerable genetic overlap among members of different populations. Such patterns of genome variation are explained by patterns of migration and mixing of different populations throughout human history. In this way, genetics exposes the concept of “racial purity” as scientifically meaningless.​
This only means there is no unique and "correct" way to split people into categories.
Like with colors - we know that color is just a wavelength, continuous variable. And technically, there are infinite number of colors. Yet, everybody knows what red and green means.
 
Think they're to obsessed about science and even then they cherry pick. Average person doesn't care/know.

Perception is reality in there s regard. Races exist because that person looks different. And that's fine. Same thing applies to culture and politics.

Perception is reality.

Sure you might be technically right have a piece of candy no one cares. People react with emotion and that's inherently illogical much like American coffee.
 
They denounce racial distinction:

Genetics demonstrates that humans cannot be divided into biologically distinct subcategories. Although there are clear observable correlations between variation in the human genome and how individuals identify by race, the study of human genetics challenges the traditional concept of different races of humans as biologically separate and distinct. This is validated by many decades of research, including recent examples.

Most human genetic variation is distributed as a gradient, so distinct boundaries between population groups cannot be accurately assigned. There is considerable genetic overlap among members of different populations. Such patterns of genome variation are explained by patterns of migration and mixing of different populations throughout human history. In this way, genetics exposes the concept of “racial purity” as scientifically meaningless.​

Then diversifying and categorizating racial representation in clinical trials should (increase/decrease/not be even considered)?
 
Is there any cases where a company got successfully sued for defamation for kicking someone off of social media?

Still ongoing, if I'm not mistaken. The complaint wasn't the removal itself, but the public statement made by the company when it did so.
 
Then diversifying and categorizating racial representation in clinical trials should (increase/decrease/not be even considered)?

Diversification should be increased, but racial categorization should be thrown into the trash bin of medical history.

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.
 
It is a confusing topic. Sometimes "racial appropriation" is bad. But other times "race doesn't exist". Sometimes "treating Jews as a race" is a thing & if you say it isn't you're in trouble (Whoopi, to get back to the OP). But then the same people say "race is a just social construct" & It Isn't Actually A Real Thing. But, then, sometimes it does matter, like in hiring issues.

Not trying to trivialize the subject, but, well, it can become difficult to figure out when Race Should Matter vs when Race Is A Social Construct & Shouldn't Matter.

I mean, I'm pro-BLM, pro-hiring more black coaches in the NFL, happy to see diverse MCU super-heroes, but... the whole "race doesn't exist" vs. "race totally matters" dichotomy seem to come from the same people (mostly white people, it seems). I admit I don't get it. It's a confusing topic.
 
do you guys read at all?

I might ask you the same question.

There are genetic differences between individuals and populations.

There are genetic differences between population groups.

You are just engaging in the same old motte-and-bailey of pretending that "genetic differences between human populations exist" and "race is biologically real and can be determined objectively from someone's genes" are the same statement. They are not.

It is a confusing topic. Sometimes "racial appropriation" is bad. But other times "race doesn't exist". Sometimes "treating Jews as a race" is a thing & if you say it isn't you're in trouble (Whoopi, to get back to the OP). But then the same people say "race is a just social construct" & It Isn't Actually A Real Thing. But, then, sometimes it does matter, like in hiring issues.

Not trying to trivialize the subject, but, well, it can become difficult to figure out when Race Should Matter vs when Race Is A Social Construct & Shouldn't Matter.

I mean, I'm pro-BLM, pro-hiring more black coaches in the NFL, happy to see diverse MCU super-heroes, but... the whole "race doesn't exist" vs. "race totally matters" dichotomy seem to come from the same people (mostly white people, it seems). I admit I don't get it. It's a confusing topic.

Centuries ago, most societies were organized around hereditary nobility with legally-enacted special privileges. You and I both know that the idea of certain people having "noble" blood making them intrinsically superior to "commoners" is utter and complete nonsense, but the society was still organized around that idea because people took it seriously, and the resulting inequality, injustice, and special privileges for "nobles" were very real.

This is the best analogy I can think of to race. Race is biologically fictional but it is still socially real because people take it seriously (or, they took it seriously in the past and the effects of that remain).
 
Last edited:
It is a confusing topic. Sometimes "racial appropriation" is bad. But other times "race doesn't exist". Sometimes "treating Jews as a race" is a thing & if you say it isn't you're in trouble (Whoopi, to get back to the OP). But then the same people say "race is a just social construct" & It Isn't Actually A Real Thing. But, then, sometimes it does matter, like in hiring issues.

Not trying to trivialize the subject, but, well, it can become difficult to figure out when Race Should Matter vs when Race Is A Social Construct & Shouldn't Matter.

I mean, I'm pro-BLM, pro-hiring more black coaches in the NFL, happy to see diverse MCU super-heroes, but... the whole "race doesn't exist" vs. "race totally matters" dichotomy seem to come from the same people (mostly white people, it seems). I admit I don't get it. It's a confusing topic.
The way I understand it is that if we were to say genotype the people involved with the holocaust, both the Guards and the Jewish "inmates" we would not be able to distinguish the 2 groups. Sure, there may be some allele frequency differences between the populations but on an individual level we would not be able to distinguish who belongs to which group. In this sense race does not exist, in that there is not objective way to define who is in what race in a way that would agree with the racists classification.

However, people were in fact classified into groups, and it really mattered to the individual how you were classified. In this sense it really did exist, in a very life and death manner.

So race does not exist a s a meaningful distinct biological classification, unlike say species. However as a label that is applied to people such that your life is different depending on how society classifies you it really does exist.
 
do you guys read at all?
You seem only to have read the title of the website to which I sent you, but in my post, I culled out of it a quotation that bears directly on your concern. To repeat:

"Genetics demonstrates that humans cannot be divided into biologically distinct subcategories"

It's the first bullet-point in the text or the article to which I directed you.

It feels to me you have to be deliberately trying not to read that, by citing the title, so easy did I make it for you to take the core point.
 
I can look at someone, and they generally "look Slavic" (in appearance and culture) or "look Germanic". Of course, the boundaries for any given group are not strong and they tend to blend into one another (much of Central Asia is blender central, for one), but that's not to say there isn't some core, end-of-spectrum point of Slav or Chinese that has a strong bearing on the people around them.
Is that not how most migration theories go? Austronesian, Indo-Aryan, Germanic, etc? A core home territory with a clearly distinct genetic and cultural makeup spreads out and heavily alters, blends with, and displaces local populations in far wider areas? Obviously, a far-flung Polynesian isn't going to be quite the same as a Filipino in genetics or appearance, but we have no problem understanding that these two groups are clearly connected genetically, culturally, and historically, in ways that they are not connected to, say, an Italian.

Ultimately, people are defining a race as a distinct collection of different genetic/phenotypic gradients, and where there's a strong overlap of X,Y,Z,J,N haplogroups/etc we can consider that a race, and we of course consider border areas (eg Poland) to be mixtures (Germanic/Slavic), and we have racial hierarchies (like Caucasian ->European ->Germanic ->Saxon ->Bobstonian) that reflect the various levels of specificity and implicitly accept there's unclear borders at any given level.

I would say this is making an extreme contrarian statement (in that it is taking a very extreme position of total negation). It seems more a cultural-political statement than anything else.

And while I don't believe there's much evaluative difference between races at the genetic level generally, this statement:
Any attempt to use genetics to rank populations demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of genetics.​
I don't see how it can live in the same scientific framework as Darwin. There will always be some level of survival and breeding inequality between population groups. Humans don't have some divine opt-out from natural selection, even if what they think makes one group superior to another has little to do with what nature thinks.
There is a clear, and stated, agenda here, and while I concur that it is necessary (suppress racial supremacy), they've taken it too far.
 
people with the highest percentage of "Turkishness" depending on Central Asian DNA lives in the West of the country , something like 4% . Tourism zone , very partial to foreigners . Least is 0,4% amd Northeast , primarily the Blacksea coast and oh my , aren't they the mostest Nationalists ? (Unless of course , it is lhvan or any Arab wigh money ?)

and yes , of the 1 million and 46 thousand that was added to county wide population , some 460 000 were foreigners or infants of foreign nationals ...
 

Rogan says white people are more violent than black people and he's accused of racism

canceling Joe Rogan with an edited video from the lesser evil

I'd call that wicked...
 
They denounce racial distinction:
Genetics demonstrates that humans cannot be divided into biologically distinct subcategories. Although there are clear observable correlations between variation in the human genome and how individuals identify by race, the study of human genetics challenges the traditional concept of different races of humans as biologically separate and distinct. This is validated by many decades of research, including recent examples.
Most human genetic variation is distributed as a gradient, so distinct boundaries between population groups cannot be accurately assigned. There is considerable genetic overlap among members of different populations. Such patterns of genome variation are explained by patterns of migration and mixing of different populations throughout human history. In this way, genetics exposes the concept of “racial purity” as scientifically meaningless.

again, the question in biology is heritable?, environmental? magic?. The rest is language, semantics and (social/political/cultural) racism. The gist is pretty clear. it's a touchy subject and when geneticists discuss the "clear observable correlations between variation" and the "considerable genetic overlap among members of different populations", they don't want to be generalized and automatically branded as racists. The "core point" of this statement is political; "Please don't associate us with racists".

Do you?
I asked this last time. When they take the race of the patient, are they using their self-submitted socially constructed race from the patient's own mouth, or are they determining it genetically?
Why do they do it this way?

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.

....You are just engaging in the same old motte-and-bailey of pretending that "genetic differences between human populations exist" and "race is biologically real and can be determined objectively from someone's genes" are the same statement. They are not.
no, I am not. you are just engaging in semantics and conflating genetics with social darwinism.

Centuries ago, most societies were organized around hereditary nobility with legally-enacted special privileges. You and I both know that the idea of certain people having "noble" blood making them intrinsically superior to "commoners" is utter and complete nonsense, but the society was still organized around that idea because people took it seriously, and the resulting inequality, injustice, and special privileges for "nobles" were very real.
This is the best analogy I can think of to race. Race is biologically fictional but it is still socially real because people take it seriously (or, they took it seriously in the past and the effects of that remain).

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

Diversification should be increased, but racial categorization should be thrown into the trash bin of medical history.

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.
ONI-ORISAN: Right. I think many geneticists ultimately want to replace race with genetic ancestry, which is a more precise estimation of genetic variation, plus the social determinants that Dr. Possin described. But we’re not yet at a point where ancestry data are readily available. The solution for that is simply more research, particularly in underrepresented populations, which for now requires taking race into account.

You seem only to have read the title of the website to which I sent you, but in my post, I culled out of it a quotation that bears directly on your concern. To repeat:
"Genetics demonstrates that humans cannot be divided into biologically distinct subcategories"
It's the first bullet-point in the text or the article to which I directed you.
It feels to me you have to be deliberately trying not to read that, by citing the title, so easy did I make it for you to take the core point.
See comment to @Samson

did anyone actually read the link (initially to @Lexicus and now @uppi)?
 
bernie: I listen to geneticists, not poly sci professors
GG: well, here's what the professional association of geneticists says
bernie: that's a political statement on their part

well, then, your next move is to point us to the apolitical geneticists that you listen to . . .

we'll look for them to have more stature in the field that the scholars cited in the six footnotes for the article's first claim that, again,

"Genetics demonstrates that humans cannot be divided into biologically distinct subcategories"
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom