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?
They were both gman alts, no?
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.
An excellent article I suggest everyone read.
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.
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.
Yes, they were.
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.
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.
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.
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.
- what about mixed race people? *
- what about people that don’t know they are mixed-race?
- 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
- it leaves off completely other genes that may cause the problem, both within the target population, and especially outside the target population
- we are now learning a few proteins encode not from single genetic elements (alleles) but from the shape of several in proximity
- this is different from some traits expressing from a confluence of multiple alleles
- having the gene is often not sufficient, many conditions require environmental factors in combination (why twin studies are important)
- “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.
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.
This is a very key point and spot-on accurate.
The thread has morphed!
I’m here to help!
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.
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.
None! (But I don’t know and talk to any black people, either.) I’m sure any Muslim I would talk to in the US would be VERY progressive compared to their mainline views.
And I’m ignoring ISIS. They’re an offshoot. Islam is plenty terrible without ISIS even existing. Saudi Arabia murders and imprisons tons of people. They treat women great, too.
I have told you repeatedly why I did not just lock this topic or delete it. You may disagree with that, and may think the very act of letting the topic exist is an attack on you, but you should consider that we’ve had multiple posters say they’d never even heard of the subject before this.
We have bigotry and racism specifically listed in the rules. What exactly is the consequence for breaking that rule if all you’re going to do is split the bigotry and racism to another topic to continue the conversation. What exactly about that says:
We will not tolerate open bigotry or racism.
When it says we will not tolerate open bigotry or racism what does that mean? What are you expecting to do when you run into it? See to me, not tolerate does not mean new topic and continue, but now I am curious what was intended with this rule?