People of color

[Blues Man]

If an AI can accurately categorize us

So can a human

That simple.

Just playing semantic games that are above you. Stop

Annoys me when geniuses do it on this topic. Certainly going to annoy me when you try.

And you ignore the fact that biologists and geneticists have concluded that race has no basis in science.

And like I said an AI is programmed by humans so of course it sees what humans tell it to see.

and then there is this

The Best Algorithms Still Struggle to Recognize Black Faces

US government tests find even top-performing facial recognition systems misidentify black people at rates 5 to 10 times higher than they do white people.

www.wired.com

You put too much faith in programmers

 

[flacaltenn]

Because the darker skinned humans lived in areas where malaria was preventable enough long enough to allow natural selection to work.

These things you are ascribing to race are all explainable by environmental causes

Nope. Go do a little research on race considerations in health and medicine. It's a BROAD SPECTRUM of genetic differences.

Genetics CAN change from enviro causes over long periods. But some things are FUNDAMENTALLY different.

 

[flacaltenn]

And you ignore the fact that biologists and geneticists have concluded that race has no basis in science.

And like I said an AI is programmed by humans so of course it sees what humans tell it to see.

and then there is this

The Best Algorithms Still Struggle to Recognize Black Faces

US government tests find even top-performing facial recognition systems misidentify black people at rates 5 to 10 times higher than they do white people.

www.wired.com

You put too much faith in programmers

You keep pounding this "no difference in science" between races. Just had my doctor explain to me the bump in my kidney EGFR test.. It's because the RANGES and test have been revised to REMOVE the separate equations for blacks. Because the Woking Dead have invaded the halls of science, we're now gonna IGNORE the difference in reading kidney filtration levels in blacks.

The Woking Dead want to STOP using genomic differences based on race for "social justice" and "equity" reasons whilst they DO RECOGNIZE IMPORTANT medical differences in "genomic places of origin" -- like sub-saharan Africa, but they WILL NOT CALL IT "by race".

You;ve been sucked into a war of RENAMING EVERYTHING. Which is what the Woking Dead do for "birthing mothers" rather than women. Here's the 2 sides in the war to STOP screwing with science for politically correct reasons. The same way the political agencies have IGNORED "natural immunity" and all of the previous virology knowledge on that to write vaccine mandates that DONT RECOGNIZE SCIENCE.

The Role of Race and Genetics in Health Disparities Research

USING A BIOLOGICAL DEFINITION OF RACE IN MEDICAL RESEARCH: PROS AND CONS
Scientists in the medical and public health research community are deeply divided about the associations between genes and race in determining the susceptibility, prevalence, and outcomes of human disease.1–3,7,8 Both sides use available genetic data and ethical arguments of social justice to support their arguments.

Pros
Recent population genetics studies have revealed large genetic variations across the 5 racial subpopulations that map to continental ancestry; researchers have found delineation of genetic clusters by racial group and race specificity of rare genetic variants.9–12 Those in favor of using a biological definition of race in medical science claim that these findings indicate that the frequency of variant alleles and the frequency of phenotypes (i.e., external expressions of genetic makeup) vary substantially by racial group, leading to racial differences in the expression of the phenotypes themselves in health and disease.1

This argument is bolstered by examples of rare Mendelian disorders for which the relationship of genes to race is readily apparent, for example, in the Amish, Ashkenazi Jewish, and French Canadian populations.1 Although genetic associations are more difficult to identify in complex genetic disorders, genetic variation by race has also been identified for Crohn’s disease and factor V Leiden, a genetic variant associated with thromboembolic disease.13–15 Proponents of a biological definition of race further argue that there may be important interactions between race and genetic characteristics in the susceptibility to disease, making such racial classification useful even when a genetic determinant of a complex disease is present in all racial groups.1 Currently, the strongest argument in favor of using a biological definition of race in medical science is the genomics movement, a field of scientific investigation that has recently gained momentum by promising to tailor medical therapies using race as a proxy for individual genotyping.4

There are a variety of more hypothetical scientific, social, and moral arguments in favor of using a biological definition of race.1,7 Proponents believe racial categories are useful in generating hypotheses about genetic and environmental risk factors for disease and argue that failure to include variables such as race will retard the progression of medical research. They posit that evaluating genetic differences that underlie health disparities is particularly appropriate when important racial differences persist after access to care and socioeconomic status are taken into account. Ignoring the role of genes in studies of racial differences in the causes, prevalence, and outcomes of diseases, they say, will not make such disparities disappear and will be detrimental to the very populations that opponents of using a biological definition of race seek to protect.

Cons
Those who argue against using a biological definition of race in medical science dispute the veracity of data obtained by researchers who claim to have identified a biological role for race in elucidating racial differences in the causes, prevalence, and outcomes of disease.3,16 The argument against begins with the premise that the species Homo sapiens consists of a single population and that biologically distinct human races do not exist. This premise is supported by genetic studies demonstrating that human beings share 99.9% of their DNA in common and the vast majority of genetic variation (90%–95%) occurs within, not across, human populations.16,17 Although opponents of a biological definition of race acknowledge that it is possible to classify geographically defined populations on the basis of clusters of genetic building blocks, they argue that the public health implications of such ancestral clustering of genes is controversial and that race at the ancestral or continental level has not been proven useful in terms of predicting individual diagnoses or individuals’ responses to drugs or causes of disease.3

This camp also makes ethical and social justice arguments against the use of a biological definition of race in medical research.3,16,17 They use historical arguments to suggest that associating race, genes, and disease could result in unwarranted discrimination at the individual level and could, at worst, result in stigmatization of whole communities and even population eugenics. They argue that an unintended consequence of genetic reductionism, or categorizing biological risk by race, might be the exclusion of other, more relevant, social or environmental factors as potential explanations for the expression of health or disease.

******************************************************************

In an age where theruapuetics for disease can be SPECIFICALLY TARGETED to individuals' genome -- not disclosing to the public -- SIMPLY BECAUSE OF political correctness that a special CURE EXIST FOR BLACK PEOPLE -- will CAUSE disparity in health care.

And as usual by RENAMING THINGS, the leftist wokesters will only cause confusion and massively DANGEROUS side effects.

 

[flacaltenn]

And you ignore the fact that biologists and geneticists have concluded that race has no basis in science.

And like I said an AI is programmed by humans so of course it sees what humans tell it to see.

and then there is this

The Best Algorithms Still Struggle to Recognize Black Faces

US government tests find even top-performing facial recognition systems misidentify black people at rates 5 to 10 times higher than they do white people.

www.wired.com

You put too much faith in programmers

A little "chink" in your thinking there. WHY IS IT that face recognition struggles with recognizing black people? Wouldn't be GENETICALLY BASED would it?

Maybe they need a special "Afro-American" algorithm tweak? I've done face recognition before. If we did NOT recognize racial and ethnic differences the shit would have ZERO chance of being reliable.

 

[Circe]

What exactly are people of color? How many of the 5 races recognized by the US Census does the term "people of color" apply to, and which races are not people of color?

Jes' blacks. Negroes. They don't consider Asian Indians and Chinese colored people no matter what their color --- they're too smart. So really, I guess "persons of color" means the stupid ones.

 

[Circe]

I thought it was a slur along the lines of “black on the outside but white on the inside.”

Yeah, like the slur the Chinese use openly about Chinese-Americans: bananas. You work it out.

 

[Paul Essien]

flacaltenn
You keep pounding this "no difference in science" between races. Just had my doctor explain to me the bump in my kidney EGFR test.. It's because the RANGES and test have been revised to REMOVE the separate equations for blacks. Because the Woking Dead have invaded the halls of science, we're now gonna IGNORE the difference in reading kidney filtration levels in blacks.

I agree we are not all the same.

Yes - There are persistent and real genetic differences that cluster within racial groups, and more so than many have believed.

Yet these differences still fall far short of indicating sub-speciation, which is the normal standard used by biologists to indicate different “races” or breeds of a larger species.

DNA studies do not indicate that separate classifiable subspecies (races) exist within modern humans.

While different genes for physical traits such as skin and hair colour can be identified between individuals, no consistent patterns of genes across the human genome exist to distinguish one race from another.

It has never been a case of there not being differences between the way human beings look.

The trouble is in the imprecise taxonomy. How do you define a “race” and might there not be other equally valid ways of dividing humans into taxonomical groupings ?

Many scientists worked hard (REAL HARD) on finding working definition of race as a biological fact. They all failed.

They all failed not because genetic differences can’t be observed between various humans (after all, if there weren’t mDNA differences, we wouldn’t know much about human maternal ancestry).

They all failed because genetic differences do not support social races, races that divide people into (pardon my words) “black”, “white”, “yellow” and “red”.

The only living subspecies of the species Homo sapiens is Homo sapiens sapiens. That is current scientific knowledge. And it is very likely to remain the only one, unless Sasquatch or the Yeti decide to walk into a science lab for a DNA test one day.

flacaltenn
You;ve been sucked into a war of RENAMING EVERYTHING. Which is what the Woking Dead do for "birthing mothers" rather than women. Here's the 2 sides in the war to STOP screwing with science for politically correct reasons. The same way the political agencies have IGNORED "natural immunity" and all of the previous virology knowledge on that to write vaccine mandates that DONT RECOGNIZE SCIENCE.

With you guys there always has to be at least one mention of "Woke" or “the liberals” or “lefties”

You will never find such mention in serious scientific publications.

But I guess you can always claim ideological martyr status for being shouted down as being iconoclasts in the public square and pretend that marginalized trash are actually hidden gems of knowledge only you and a select few others can see.

Look - Let’s have the debate

Let's see what you're theories would actually mean in public policy terms. Let’s see how the race scientists intend to address the problems of our time and indeed things they see as problems.

But I don't think they or you will because the reason you and others believe in this is because you need a new theory of racism that allows you to separate yourselves from the blue collar stormfronters. So they come up with this high sounding “Scientific” theory.

flacaltenn
.The Woking Dead want to STOP using genomic differences based on race for "social justice" and "equity" reasons whilst they DO RECOGNIZE IMPORTANT medical differences in "genomic places of origin" -- like sub-saharan Africa, but they WILL NOT CALL IT "by race".

Dude- Like what do you want ? Do you want science to say "Science shows that blk ppl are dumb n*ggers and there ain't nothing no one can do about it because on average black people are a sub species of mankind"

Stop fking being a fking pu s s sy and just man up bring it

 

[Circe]

When filling out forms and it asks for RACE, I check other and in the blank I write HUMAN. It really pisses some people off.

I've decided to not fill in any form where it says Male Female Other

They can figure it out for themselves, or not. Darn, I have so many neat rebellions about forms, but I never get to fill any out anymore!

 

[Circe]

Why is people of color considered the polite, politically correct term, when colored people is a slur? It’s the same thing.

My table of wood = my wood table

Right, and I've decided to use the old term. Colored people it is.

 

[Circe]

Race doesn't exist as far as biology and actual science is concerned. It's too bad you are too obtuse to understand that.

Silly you ---- if it didn't exist, we wouldn't be talking about it all the time.

Somehow you types declaring that race doesn't exist just never solves the problems of blacks. I mean, colored people.

 

[flacaltenn]

Yet these differences still fall far short of indicating sub-speciation, which is the normal standard used by biologists to indicate different “races” or breeds of a larger species.

Now that we've sequenced the Homo Sapien genome and have started to specialize medicine to individuals -- there's little danger of being construed as a "sub-species. Even tho in sub-speciation, we'd all be equal.

The DANGER is that medicine shuns science for wokeness and doesn't allow or alert the public of medical diagnosis and therapies TARGETED to specific races. It's brings targeted therapies to a screeching halts and HINDERS better care.

DNA studies do not indicate that separate classifiable subspecies (races) exist within modern humans.

That's subjective. Because any of the billions of alleles or gene segments that determine medical statistics ARE grouped by race. Because of their prevalence in that racial cohort. OR -- as the woke scientists call it -- your geographical heritage. Thats why they ask you about family history -- except NOW -- we can go back to the roots of your TREE by simply DNA typing you.

With you guys there always has to be at least one mention of "Woke" or “the liberals” or “lefties”

You will never find such mention in serious scientific publications.

OH no man. It's ALWAYS there now. Science has been invaded by them. ALL afraid of losing grants or tenure. Go read that paper I found on NIH posted above. IN IT -- the "CON" side that wants to DENY ANY biological basis to race cites "SOCIAL JUSTICE AND EQUITY REASONS". Science was not DESIGNED to fix social justice or equity and EVERYONE will suffer if suddenly science THINKS it can do that.

It's like thinking renaming and fucking with stuff in MATH -- will fix any social justice or equity issues.

 

[BackAgain]

Yeah, like the slur the Chinese use openly about Chinese-Americans: bananas. You work it out.

Similar to “watermelon”. You know all “green” on the outside but “red” on the inside. Pretty much the actual game plan of the global warming nuts.

 

[daveman]

Can black people ONE TIME get to define what we call ourselves without whites thinking they get to have a say?

We didn't make up the term white. Whites did that. Thenthey decided what they could call us. How about you just call us what WE say we are instead of what you whites decide you want to call us.

Call yourselves what you want. But you don't get to dictate what other people say.

 

[Concerned American]

Do you think negroes are the only people who the term applies to?

Since the definition of white relates to the presence of "all colors" A white surface reflects light of all hues completely and diffusely. Definition of white | Dictionary.com and the definition of black relates to the absence of "all color" opposite to white, absorbing all light incident upon it. Definition of black | Dictionary.com , it seems to me that Persons of Color relates to any race that is not black.

 

[Paul Essien]

Now that we've sequenced the Homo Sapien genome and have started to specialize medicine to individuals -- there's little danger of being construed as a "sub-species. Even tho in sub-speciation, we'd all be equal.

The DANGER is that medicine shuns science for wokeness and doesn't allow or alert the public of medical diagnosis and therapies TARGETED to specific races. It's brings targeted therapies to a screeching halts and HINDERS better care.


That's subjective. Because any of the billions of alleles or gene segments that determine medical statistics ARE grouped by race. Because of their prevalence in that racial cohort. OR -- as the woke scientists call it -- your geographical heritage. Thats why they ask you about family history -- except NOW -- we can go back to the roots of your TREE by simply DNA typing you.



OH no man. It's ALWAYS there now. Science has been invaded by them. ALL afraid of losing grants or tenure. Go read that paper I found on NIH posted above. IN IT -- the "CON" side that wants to DENY ANY biological basis to race cites "SOCIAL JUSTICE AND EQUITY REASONS". Science was not DESIGNED to fix social justice or equity and EVERYONE will suffer if suddenly science THINKS it can do that.

It's like thinking renaming and fucking with stuff in MATH -- will fix any social justice or equity issues.

OK. What should be done ? Let's get to the doing part

 

[WelfareQueen]

What exactly are people of color? How many of the 5 races recognized by the US Census does the term "people of color" apply to, and which races are not people of color?

I love colored people!

 

[Circe]

Can black people ONE TIME get to define what we call ourselves without whites thinking they get to have a say?

We didn't make up the term white. Whites did that. Thenthey decided what they could call us. How about you just call us what WE say we are instead of what you whites decide you want to call us.

How about we call you what we want to call you?

Oh, right, that's actually how it works. There is variation; I prefer blacks and colored people, but a lot of men use other terms.

Oh, and we don't care what you call yourselves, although regularly calling each other n****** and then saying we can't seems pretty hypocritical; you just want to control us. Good luck with that ---- to train a mule, you know, you have to be smarter than the mule.

 

[Circe]

WHY IS IT that face recognition struggles with recognizing black people? Wouldn't be GENETICALLY BASED would it?

I think it's because they all look alike. You know, that could actually be a thing. It makes sense AI could have trouble with that.

 

[WelfareQueen]

flacaltenn
You keep pounding this "no difference in science" between races. Just had my doctor explain to me the bump in my kidney EGFR test.. It's because the RANGES and test have been revised to REMOVE the separate equations for blacks. Because the Woking Dead have invaded the halls of science, we're now gonna IGNORE the difference in reading kidney filtration levels in blacks.

I agree we are not all the same.

Yes - There are persistent and real genetic differences that cluster within racial groups, and more so than many have believed.

Yet these differences still fall far short of indicating sub-speciation, which is the normal standard used by biologists to indicate different “races” or breeds of a larger species.

DNA studies do not indicate that separate classifiable subspecies (races) exist within modern humans.

While different genes for physical traits such as skin and hair colour can be identified between individuals, no consistent patterns of genes across the human genome exist to distinguish one race from another.

It has never been a case of there not being differences between the way human beings look.

The trouble is in the imprecise taxonomy. How do you define a “race” and might there not be other equally valid ways of dividing humans into taxonomical groupings ?

Many scientists worked hard (REAL HARD) on finding working definition of race as a biological fact. They all failed.

They all failed not because genetic differences can’t be observed between various humans (after all, if there weren’t mDNA differences, we wouldn’t know much about human maternal ancestry).

They all failed because genetic differences do not support social races, races that divide people into (pardon my words) “black”, “white”, “yellow” and “red”.

The only living subspecies of the species Homo sapiens is Homo sapiens sapiens. That is current scientific knowledge. And it is very likely to remain the only one, unless Sasquatch or the Yeti decide to walk into a science lab for a DNA test one day.

flacaltenn
You;ve been sucked into a war of RENAMING EVERYTHING. Which is what the Woking Dead do for "birthing mothers" rather than women. Here's the 2 sides in the war to STOP screwing with science for politically correct reasons. The same way the political agencies have IGNORED "natural immunity" and all of the previous virology knowledge on that to write vaccine mandates that DONT RECOGNIZE SCIENCE.

With you guys there always has to be at least one mention of "Woke" or “the liberals” or “lefties”

You will never find such mention in serious scientific publications.

But I guess you can always claim ideological martyr status for being shouted down as being iconoclasts in the public square and pretend that marginalized trash are actually hidden gems of knowledge only you and a select few others can see.

Look - Let’s have the debate

Let's see what you're theories would actually mean in public policy terms. Let’s see how the race scientists intend to address the problems of our time and indeed things they see as problems.

But I don't think they or you will because the reason you and others believe in this is because you need a new theory of racism that allows you to separate yourselves from the blue collar stormfronters. So they come up with this high sounding “Scientific” theory.

flacaltenn
.The Woking Dead want to STOP using genomic differences based on race for "social justice" and "equity" reasons whilst they DO RECOGNIZE IMPORTANT medical differences in "genomic places of origin" -- like sub-saharan Africa, but they WILL NOT CALL IT "by race".

Dude- Like what do you want ? Do you want science to say "Science shows that blk ppl are dumb n*ggers and there ain't nothing no one can do about it because on average black people are a sub species of mankind"

Stop fking being a fking pu s s sy and just man up bring it

Hey.

It's rare I'm serious but excellent post. I say that very sincerely. The information you posted is scientifically correct. I work in the health care field and there are minor genetic differences that can affect health. For example, for hypertension beta blockers tend to work best for whites. Calicium channel blockers tend to work best for blacks. There are other examples, but human beings are overwhelmingly similar genetically. That's at least one reason why all the bullshit out there designed to divide us is so ridiculous.

 

[IM2]

How about we call you what we want to call you?

Oh, right, that's actually how it works. There is variation; I prefer blacks and colored people, but a lot of men use other terms.

Oh, and we don't care what you call yourselves, although regularly calling each other n****** and then saying we can't seems pretty hypocritical; you just want to control us. Good luck with that ---- to train a mule, you know, you have to be smarter than the mule.

How about you call somebody black what you think you want to call them and end up getting embalmed? Whites call each other a lot of things and we don't whine because we can't.

So GFY chump.