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?
I completely agree with you on communication being incredibly difficult (to the point that I generally avoid these sorts of conversations unless I can sit with someone in person and have a real discussion in front of a whiteboard.) When I see this discussion, I instantly visualize PCA mapping of ancestry that we use as part of any well designed GWAS analysis. This picture (not to mention the next 10 principle components) is a bit harder to explain to people plainly what’s going on - we can group people into populations, but underlying each dimension on the plot can be thousands of contributing alleles.
Re “mixed race people” (but again, we don’t use that term, we say admixed populations), I suggest you take a look at David Reich and Nick Patterson’s work on population admixture and admixture mapping, which turns your questions about “what about mixed race people” from a problem into something that yields additional power…It’s even mentioned in the fine article:
Self-identified African-Americans turn out to derive, on average, about 80 percent of their genetic ancestry from enslaved Africans brought to America between the 16th and 19th centuries. My colleagues and I searched, in 1,597 African-American men with prostate cancer, for locations in the genome where the fraction of genes contributed by West African ancestors was larger than it was elsewhere in the genome. In 2006, we found exactly what we were looking for: a location in the genome with about 2.8 percent more African ancestry than the average.
When we looked in more detail, we found that this region contained at least seven independent risk factors for prostate cancer, all more common in West Africans. Our findings could fully account for the higher rate of prostate cancer in African-Americans than in European-Americans. We could conclude this because African-Americans who happen to have entirely European ancestry in this small section of their genomes had about the same risk for prostate cancer as random Europeans.
Though, really, race realists aren’t interested in your prostate cancer data. They’re looking for studies that support re-enslaving black people and putting Jews back into gas chambers. If you could get on that, please, and keep using “race” and “genetics” together in as many articles in the NYT as possible.
On a side note, its funny how the genetics community WANT to study more diverse populations (because it seems like different populations help you understand different parts of genetic architecture), but it can be challenging to be inclusive. Telling people what we believe is true based on research can be considered unethical, which can make it rather unattractive to try and study certain populations…even though they might eventually have quite a bit to gain from more diverse research.
Altruistic motives and good intent should not automatically grant an individual or institution the right to gather, access or use genetic information or material. When working with Native communities, their cosmological world view should take precedence during the design, implementation, analysis and use of findings of any genetic research. For example, the findings on the Havasupai blood suggested they migrated from Asia across the Bering Strait. This announcement challenged the tribe’s worldview of their identity and origins, which is based on the belief that the retreating waters from a global flood carved the Grand Canyon and that the Canyon is the birthplace of the human race.5
If academic generated research undermines the cultural fabric and beliefs of a group, it is tantamount to stripping them of traditions and practices that have also served as protective factors for generations.
I doubt a geneticist is going to talk a race realist into much of anything. They’ll cherry pick the little tiny bits of reality that support their opinion, and ignore the other 95% of information that doesn’t support their POV.
Would it be better if scientists shut up so the race realists can go back to the bible as their primary source of hate?
I’m not interested in debating this, but I just want you to know I feel about this post the way Nesrie probably feels about gurugeorge’s post. It’s painful for me to read comments that I consider open bigotry from someone who I “internet” know and like. I hope you understand that. :(
It means that what happened here – the account was closed – is what will continue to happen.
Do you realize how insulting your accusations are? I wish you would stop. If you honestly feel this forum tolerates racism – I suspect you know better – I can’t imagine why you would stay. I know I wouldn’t. But if that’s how you feel, there are other places that are far faster to react to perceived racism, intolerance, bigotry, sexism, and so forth. If you have a problem with how this forum is run, you might be better served at one of those places.
I’m pretty sure the guy whose account was closed feels less welcome than you. But I meant what I said. For the most part, I’d hate to see you go, but I can’t imagine why you’d stay if you honestly believe the things you’re saying about this site, about how it’s run, and about me personally.
You should note that the poster in question is gone. If that took too long for you, that’s really too bad, but that cadence isn’t changing. We all have other jobs and we don’t like to kneejerk ban people, so the speed at which we react to shitposting may not be to your liking, but that’s the way we roll. That’s not an endorsement of racism. That’s just the reality of not having full-time mods.
I’ll tell you one more time: I allowed this topic to continue because I found it valuable as an instructive tool for others. You may think “race realism” is a common term, but it’s really not. I know you already know this, but Qt3 skews Caucasian, middle-aged and older, and fairly well off in terms of finances. (At the very least, most of us have enough discretionary income to play multiple new games a year.) To that demographic, not immersed in academia or experiencing its effects in a firsthand way, “race realism” could easily slip by as harmless until the lie is exposed. I think it’s worth exposing and not just shuttering it away.
Knowing that we have some pretty smart folks on this board that don’t tolerate bullshit, I was fully confident that the topic would get a drubbing. “Race realism” is dumb, and almost every poster in here reacted exactly the way I knew they would. There’s room for discussion of nuance in a scientific way as @espressojim and @Hechicera are showing, but like the idea that the Civil War was primarily about States’ rights, the general layman can safely dismiss it as bunk.
Finally, I frankly no longer care for your input on the topic of how I mod.
He should have known it was not okay to say what he did when he was in the movie thread.
You have a bunch of people in this topic claiming over and over and over again how they think discussing with someone who actually believes there are subhumans in this world to be thought of less than and not worthy of whatever they can come up with can actually have a real discussion with although every single one of them ends the same way, here.
If you have that view, is it really so hard to understand why someone of a mixed race on a board full of mostly white men might actually want to change the perception of how certain topics are approached, make sure when they talk about racism they spend a fraction of the time and effort spent addressing that issue thinking about the experience of racism and not just the racist, and always pointing out that racism, talking about it, experiencing it… seeing it, hurts. It always hurts. This idea that it’s some dispassionate topic to be discussed like in a classroom, but then claim not to be academic enough to actually know the terms.
Yeah, one guy was banned, but the lecture, the scolding, and the anger… it’s directed at the person who was outraged at the racism not the actual racist.