1. never signed up for anything like this,
  2. never donated to or signed up for emails from the DNC, et al.,
  3. political texts like this come all the time, and
  4. I hesitate to reply “stop” because I don’t want them to know this is a live number (is my instinct here outdated/inapplicable?)
  • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
    1·
    3 months ago

    Yeah, Healthline is a source for laymen. That information is provided that way because people won’t know what Y-DNA haplogroup they’re in, but will generally know if they’re considered black. There’s public health research by race too, but again that’s related to social outcomes and data availability.

    White people have higher tolerance for lactose, so a milk-heavy diet is worse for other races.

    Except the other highly tolerant cluster is West Africans, with smaller ones in places like Pakistan and Arabia.

    Stolen from r*ddit, although you can find many similar ones elsewhere

    Here’s what Wikipedia has to say about the scientific consensus:

    Even though there is a broad scientific agreement that essentialist and typological conceptions of race are untenable, scientists around the world continue to conceptualize race in widely differing ways. While some researchers continue to use the concept of race to make distinctions among fuzzy sets of traits or observable differences in behavior, others in the scientific community suggest that the idea of race is inherently naive or simplistic. Still others argue that, among humans, race has no taxonomic significance because all living humans belong to the same subspecies, Homo sapiens sapiens.

    And here’s what the World Medical Association has to say:

    Despite the fact that races do not exist in the genetic sense, in some cultures racial categories are used as a form of cultural expression or identity, or a means of reflecting shared historical experiences. This is one aspect of the concepts of “ethnicity” or “ancestry”.

    I tried to find something from the AMA, but it’s so well established all the recent stuff takes the non-biological nature of race as a granted, and talks more about the ethics of handling the social categories.

    • Cryophilia@lemmy.worldEnglish
      1·
      3 months ago

      Yeah but it’s still obvious bullshit. Bad science is bad science no matter what level of authority does it.

      That information is provided that way because people won’t know what Y-DNA haplogroup they’re in, but will generally know if they’re considered black.

      So? Instead of “race” you’re saying “Y-DNA Halogroup”. Performative bullshit just to avoid the fact that race is real. You could call it “Mario Kart” instead of race, it’s still the same damn thing and it’s still real.

      • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
        1·
        3 months ago

        Yeah but it’s still obvious bullshit.

        According to who? At this point unless you’re a genetics expert yourself it’s starting to sound like a conspiracy theory.

        Y-DNA haplogroups in no way correspond to race. They look a bit like the lactose map: Interesting, and unrelated to the traditional social categorisations. Pretty much all genetic maps are like that.

        • Cryophilia@lemmy.worldEnglish
          1·
          3 months ago

          A haplotype is a group of alleles in an organism that are inherited together from a single parent,[1][2] and a haplogroup (haploid from the Greek: ἁπλοῦς, haploûs, “onefold, simple” and English: group) is a group of similar haplotypes that share a common ancestor with a single-nucleotide polymorphism mutation.[3] More specifically, a haplotype is a combination of alleles at different chromosomal regions that are closely linked and that tend to be inherited together. As a haplogroup consists of similar haplotypes, it is usually possible to predict a haplogroup from haplotypes. Haplogroups pertain to a single line of descent. As such, membership of a haplogroup, by any individual, relies on a relatively small proportion of the genetic material possessed by that individual.

          https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup

          That’s race! That’s the definition of race! Fucking university types just don’t like the word!

          Haplogroups can be used to define genetic populations and are often geographically oriented. For example, the following are common divisions for mtDNA haplogroups:

          African: L0, L1, L2, L3, L4, L5, L6

          West Eurasian: H, T, U, V, X, K, I, J, W (all listed West Eurasian haplogroups are derived from macro-haplogroup N)[10]

          East Eurasian: A, B, C, D, E, F, G, Y, Z (note: C, D, E, G, and Z belong to macro-haplogroup M)

          Native American: A, B, C, D, X

          Australo-Melanesian: P, Q, S

          They are describing race! It’s super fucking obvious if you get rid of whatever white guilt stupidity makes you get the ick when you hear the word “race”.

          • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
            11·
            3 months ago

            You’ll notice letters appear more than once, and there’s more than one letter for every group. Also, that’s mtDNA, and if you actually cared about biology you’d know that’s only one type on DNA, inherited one way, and you can completely mix and match with the Y haplogroups.

            I get it, you hate wokes. I don’t really think cultural disgruntlement is a good basis for defining “science”, though. I suspect there’s no more useful information to exchange here.

            • Cryophilia@lemmy.worldEnglish
              0·
              3 months ago

              I hate people who push bad science in service to an agenda. Especially when it’s doublethink levels of blatantly, obviously wrong bad science.

              • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
                1·
                3 months ago

                And I just don’t think that’s happening. Science moved away from race long before it was cool. The first steps happened over a century ago; Hitler was already doing pseudoscience. (I guess there is actually something to add)

                • Cryophilia@lemmy.worldEnglish
                  0·
                  3 months ago

                  Science moved away from phrenology, but we’re not going around claiming that skulls are a social construct. It’s ridiculous. Just because something has been misused by bigots, doesn’t mean we should pretend the thing doesn’t exist.

                  • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
                    1·
                    3 months ago

                    Phrenological propensities are were a social construct. Skulls and variation within them exist. Ditto for human biological variation in other things. You can call that race, but nobody else thinks of Senogambia when you say “the milk drinking race”, and words don’t have fixed meanings independent of how they’re understood.

                    Sorry if I came off as a little abrasive there, that wasn’t my intention, I was basically just saying we should agree to disagree at some point.