"Race realism"? It's toxic racist crap. Let's discuss why.


#202

It seems pretty clear to me that Tom and Telefrog have learned from the gman experience and are continuing to learn. Two posters in the history of the forum isn’t exactly a growing infestation, and characterising multiple posters explaining in depth why what gurugeorge posted was nonsensical racism draped in a facade of pseudoscience as somehow being ‘tolerating racism’ doesn’t seem fair or accurate.

Given that the vast majority of posters hadn’t heard of race realism (myself included), this topic has served a positive purpose and will continue to do so for anyone ignorant of what seems to be the latest racism that’s de rigueur with racists who like to consider themselves intellectuals.


#203

It wasn’t just me, but thank you.


#204

Are you guys really going to make me start listing these guys to show you there were more than two… I mean really?

Jackstark
Hegelian

Here’s two more to start. How many do you want?


#205

They were both gman alts, no?


#206

I’ll take your word for it, but I legitimately don’t remember them.

I do remember one case post gman, and it was fairly quickly dispensed with. May have been one of those.


#207

An excellent article I suggest everyone read.


#208

I don’t know. How would I know that? How would anyone know that except a mod that tracks an IP? They were post Gman and they got a few days of discussion before being closed down. There were a few more though, and of course, even just a day’s discussion is the goal, it’s enough.


#209

I thought they were gman alts. If they were, then that’s still just two posters to my recollection. Gman + alts, and gurugeorge. If that’s the case, I still think several posters are massively overreacting to the long-term ramifications of not instantly banning gurugeorge/not instantly deleting his posts.


#210

Yes, they were.


#211

Oh knock that “posters” shit off. I didn’t ask him to be banned. I asked them to show up immediately and tell him that racism isn’t allowed and to knock that shit off. Instead they spun it off to a new thread with one of the most horrific topics ever to keep talking about it.


#212

I’m going to learn from you.

I found this thread useful, I learned how to spot a new means of trying to be obliquely racist. I’m glad Tom etc gave gurugeorge a chance to hang himself by his own words.


#213

Look, this idea that this forum is some kind of nest of secret racism, is patently false. And really, i think it’s a problem to suggest that there’s some kind of trend of allowing racism to fester here.

That’s not the case. There is no influx of racism. We all know, definitively, because we have all posted on this forum for years. There are no secretly racist threads which have simply escaped moderation. That would never happen here.

Suggesting otherwise is a lie, and it’s an insult to Tom and the moderators, whether intended or not.


#214

Also as a scientist, and who did some work on early genome mapping (for drugs in my case), and someone who was partly raised by a Cultural Anthropologist (who was racist ironically, but she tried) …

Yes, the pitfalls are real. The obvious issues with lay people conflating correlation with causation (my “Ban Ice Cream” link) exist, but it is worse medically as well.

I am glad the author switched about 2/3s of the way in to using the term “populations” instead of races. As a researcher, finding common things in populations is a great way of locating a target to zero in on in research, and hopefully isolating a genetic cause. This has medical research value. I am sure I don’t need to describe that to the person who posted the article, but am stating it for clarity. But in practice it can be very medically problematic for diagnosis and in applying that knowledge.

  1. what about mixed race people? *
  2. what about people that don’t know they are mixed-race?
  3. what about doctor’s stereo-typing populations and assuming, good to assume and not use a drug with a bad reaction, but better to test, if available, but you could miss the right drug, or misdiagnose as well if using an assumption based in population
  4. it leaves off completely other genes that may cause the problem, both within the target population, and especially outside the target population
  5. we are now learning a few proteins encode not from single genetic elements (alleles) but from the shape of several in proximity
  6. this is different from some traits expressing from a confluence of multiple alleles
  7. having the gene is often not sufficient, many conditions require environmental factors in combination (why twin studies are important)
  8. “population” is a very fluid concept, it may be all descendants of a specific person who happened to be the mutation starter, and a mentioned above this does not prevent the mutation spontaneously showing up again, or already being present in a smaller percentage of some other population

I hope if a reader is either a scientist, or not, you now understand that the concept expressed by the researcher in that article just isn’t so simple … in medical practice. I find scientists are very bad about describing the real meaning of what they found in practice. There are many reasons for that including jargon, needing to inflate for funding, and wanting sales of a product based on the research. Don’t even get me started on commercial DNA tests!

So I disagree with the author that that line of thinking has any place outside preliminary research targets, and can be dangerous if the findings are not clearly communicated to doctors, and will be dangerous if murkily communicated via media blurbs only.

/* and this in some ways is an example of research that only benefits “racially pure” or mostly pure people. What is a mestizo? Defining “population” in terms of race can do harm to how you view mixed populations, and I would argue can lead to, if not bad science, at least missed research avenues. It is also why I now test any shelter rescue dog for ivermectin sensitivity … whether it “looks” like it has collie or sight hound blood or not. Looks are not indicative of full genetic background in mixed individuals. But people often do think that way with “races”, a further issue with doctors.


#215

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


#216

I am not suggesting there is a secret cult of racists here. I am telling you they know they can come here and get a day’s worth of attention, at the very least, and they have. I don’t know how you can go around telling everyone to stop calling every new conservative gman and then say oh but all those other ones were gman at the same time.

And again, all of this, all of this, right here and now, took place in the midst of a movie topic staring a woman and the initial consequence of racism and bigotry outlined in our rules was to… give him another topic to continue the topic. If that’s what it means to not have racism and bigotry here, remove it from the rules because it is simply not true.


#217

This is a very key point and spot-on accurate.


#218

The thread has morphed!


#219

I’m here to help!


#220

Couldn’t you have morphed it in a… more positive direction though?

Remember when everyone at Qt3 took a day off P&R to tell the world whether they wiped their ass standing or sitting in the Everything Else subforum? Those were the days.


#221

How many Muslims do you know and do you talk to honestly about their religion? You make it sound like they are all ISIS, which is about right to say all Christians are, oh lets pick the group I know really well, Missouri Synod Lutherans? ;) (UUs would have cows being put in that boat!) About a quarter of the world is Muslim, I’m sure they don’t all agree on religion. Impossible.

I am not afraid of the ideas of the mainstream Muslims I know well, and I have discussed religion in depth with many.