The Operator

7 hours ago, Ten oz said:

No, just a several more words. She could have just said something like It's all about the Benjamins for U.S. Politicians who are bought by lobbyist. Instead she left it ambiguous. 

I thought it was clear. Are you sure you're just not just upset when people call out massive selfish Jewish interference with money ("anti-Semitism")?

Accurate criticism isn't "anti".

54 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

AIPAC wasn't mentioned in Omar's tweet or the Tweet by Glenn Greenwald she was responding to. It may have been what was on her mind but she didn't specify it. That is part of what the issue with her tweet was. 

Yes she should have added several pages of supporting evidence in her tweet.

https://www.wrmea.org/1992-december/january-1993/the-complete-unexpurgated-aipac-tape.html

5 minutes ago, DrP said:

I have over the years though tried to drop any prejudices with regard to skin colour, country of origin, accent of voice or sex...

Because there's no correlation with behaviours, or because it's socially fashionable?

10 minutes ago, DrP said:

I used to think the same way - but they can be damaging to the majority of a group that don't fit the stereotype as it they can fuel prejudices.

Not taking appropriate precautions against types of people who tend to exhibit certain types of behaviour can be damaging to you.

Accurate stereotypes aren't "anti" anything.

1 hour ago, CharonY said:

No, quite the contrary. The larger issue is that strong, large narratives have been around for a long time which have been based on feeble facts or selective reading of data and literature. As scientists, we strive to follow data and not put our larger social interpretation on it. The latter does not always work and there is quit a re-thinking on how we use group identity in building cohorts, for example. In medical sciences, for example often black, Asian and Caucasian are used as distinct groups. However, while this is a social grouping, it does not necessarily follow genetics. African Americans, for example often have admixture with European groups whereas recent immigrants from certain parts of Africa have much less. Likewise South-East Asians or even Asians from different immigration waves face quite different socioeconomic histories which do (perhaps surprisingly) impact health studies. The human desire to form convenient groups is working against us in these cases. For example, averaging income and health in these groups, Asians often come up on top. However, this ignores subgroups within the Asian communities that are almost as bad off as indigeneous populations (which usually, again for historic reasons) have specific health challenges. Even folks who try to make evidence-policies are often unaware of these issues and thereby enacting strategies leading to adverse outcomes.

And this is why as scientist we need to be aware why we create certain groups, on what measures they are based and to what extent we can learn from this particular type of grouping and associated studies. The reason is that as scientist we do not want our own perceptions make us blind to facts, but we are only human after all. Also, when communicating to a broader audience, we have to be cognizant to the fact that certain unsavory types will pick and choose from what we say in order to further their own agenda.

Nobody thinks race groups are homogeneous. This is just a strawman argument. Members of races overlap on traits, everybody knows that. You have to resort to this ridiculous strawman? And look how I compare salamander DNA with human DNA, irrefutable right? But you're concerned about Asian income levels. Ridiculous. You're just a fake science goon. I'll see myself out.

42 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Nope. The difference is between scientific communications. which acknowledges the contexts and definitions and how it is presented to the broader public, who lack that context. And of course there are also certain scientists that oversell aspects for various reasons. 

Isn't your subjective social "context" the whole problem here? You're worried that describing reality (science) will make people be mean to blacks (politics). That's exactly a moralistic fallacy. And that's without even going into whether your preferred "equality" position screws whites.

42 minutes ago, CharonY said:

However the concept has been abused for so much...

Isn't this the moralistic fallacy?

Considering we can divide non-humans like this, could we do the same for humans?

How is it defined? Is it possible to have subspecies within subspecies? Can we reasonably divide continuous or clinal variation, such as that we see in ring species?

Hi I'm The Operator and I have some semblance of an education in AI, evolutionary biology, and linguistics.