It does. Or well, it is a name for people who accuse wrongly others for being racists/sexists in order to further advance their career. Which in turn makes others further pursue this agenda, and might destroy people's careers. It is as poison as discriminating against people for their skin, gender, or religious belief.
So she doesn’t think they make it up then. Ok.
Honestly, that's not making it up? That's not fake science? Do you hear yourself?
That’s a pity. I was really looking forward to hearing about how 23&Me read each customer’s mind to find out the results they’re looking for, then change their methodology accordingly. Don’t quit now. The night is still young!
It doesn't feel young when I'm talking to you!
The thing is you're reducing racism to an individual act, it's not which is why I said you're reducing racism in the first place.It does. Or well, it is a name for people who accuse wrongly others for being racists/sexists in order to further advance their career. Which in turn makes others further pursue this agenda, and might destroy people's careers. It is as poison as discriminating against people for their skin, gender, or religious belief.
Maybe you're not aware of it same as how I am not aware of racism in the first place
What results do their clientele want though? Genuinely puzzled here. Surely expectations/hopes re ancestry will vary massively from person to person?
As far as i'm aware 23&Me doesn't actually tell you your race, it jus tells you the likelihood of where ancestors are from - nationality wise.
Absolutely. I’ve never had it done but understand the results are all geographical.
It varies who they market to and the methodology varies as a result. You want to hear something? There's a company out there offering to provide you 'scientific' evidence of it! In America it is often people wanting to think they are Native American, in other areas it is people wanting to think they are 'racially pure' white. Their adverts are designed accordingly.
I've got a number of friends who have done it and their results shift slightly quite often, the rationale as I understand it is, that 23&Me's testing accuracy & pool of samples improves over time when more people submit their DNA.
It is not an individual act if it is getting supported by many people. In the case I mentioned, the individual act was supported by the organization that was created to support black researchers on AI. Support and inclusion has gone now to full political agenda that is unfairly advancing the career of a few, and bullying campaigns to anyone who dares to disagree with their leader.
No, the very concept of race is not being denied by people in this thread, but people in the field of genetics. Please, please, please stop and go do a little bit of research, search for an ounce of humility inside yourself and accept that you are wrong.
You’re using a specific occurrence and conflating it as being worse than racism.
No, I mentioned one specific instance, I never said that is the only one. It might be because of where I live and what I do that might make me bias (regress to the mean), but it is far from the only one. Oh, and I did not say worse than racism, I said same shit.
If 'race card does not exist' was not so ignorant, it would have been funny. I mean, I can do that too.
Cool!No need to discuss further on the topic, I have to keep it constructive, and I’m finding that difficult.
- Phil Mitchell, CEO.
sequencing is fine and accurate, the conclusions less so.
Whenever these claims of widespread oppression by PC culture pop up, I find it useful to cross-check them with my everyday experience. It goes like this:It does. Or well, it is a name for people who accuse wrongly others for being racists/sexists in order to further advance their career. Which in turn makes others further pursue this agenda, and might destroy people's careers. It is as poison as discriminating against people for their skin, gender, or religious belief.
Maybe you're not aware of it same as how I am not aware of racism in the first place
Good for you.
And practically everyone I know a bit better.
How much of each? The underlying question being whether we're talking about singular instances or widespread societal problems.
A few of racism card, and more of racism.
Where I live Liberals are right-far right (about where the UK Tory party are) and in the UK they are dead centre (or were when they were a separate party) - which is confusing.
I don't know about private companies but genetic sequencing has been problematic since the start. The best or worst examples being those native Americans whose DNA was used against their will in order to define them as being "unpure", as not "entirely" native. The inverse being those native Americans whose results have revealed no trace of genetic influence outside of the Americas, which is quite few as you'd guess after considering pre-historic migration patterns.
So you claim "a few", whatever amount that is.
Again: I'm sure I must have heard of at least a few instances in my social circles, if it was that significant. People getting removed from their position over racism or sexism (no matter if rightly or wrongly) are usually the talk of the town in any working environment.
More than "a couple", less than "a dozen".
To be totally clear (and to clarify in case I misspoke), I don't think that the phenomenon of people playing racist (or sexist) cards to pursue their own agenda (at times being backed by significant political power) is as bad, dangerous or widespread as the phenomenon of racism. After all, some people might get harmed, some might advance, but the effect is not comparable to that of the racism, especially if we put it on a global scale.
I believe you. It probably depends on what and where you work. I happen to be on the extreme side of the spectrum.
Yeah I don't know why he bothered. There are too many unreasonable people out there and the internet dials up the sociopathy. I have 'friends' who I block on Facebook because they turn into monsters. Trump is a gold plated dangerous narcissistic racist sob, but take a leaf out of his book. If you are going to post online its sometimes good to make it a one way dialogue and let those with a rebuttal scream into the void.
Based on your misunderstandings in this thread I doubt it.
I’ve only just jumped into this thread, but i have seen the “race card” and other cards being played in my workplace (police department). It’s usually used when someone doesn’t get a promotion or special assignment, or have gotten passed over multiple times. A lawsuit is filed claiming they weren’t promoted because of their race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. Or it’s used to get rid of someone in upper management they don’t like.
No, it isn't. It's based on a test that is firstly biased by its own design, and secondly can't provide reproducible results. Even by psychology's low, low standards that test stands out as sheer baloney.
No, she was not. She said that 'she is tired of her work not getting the credit it deserves', 'that her paper has only 5 citations', and 'would that have happened if the author was a white dude' (hint: yes, it would have happened. Mine and another few thousand papers with white dude authors did not make that lecture. In fact more than 90% of accepted papers in top venues (mine included) did not make that lecture, and more than 99% of arxiv-only papers - to the category that paper belongs considering that it is not peer-reviewed yet did not make that lecture). She literally said that thing would not have happened to white men, and put the #CiteBlackWomen hashtag. Google's head of AI liked the post, S.B. wrote a lengthy post on Facebook about it, N.L. literally wanked over the paper, as did many other prominent dove scholars (who * ironically, did not cite that work too, cause you know, it is an okay unpublished work in a sea of dozens of great works, hundreds of okay published works and thousands of unpublished okay works). It was totally accusing M.R. and J.D. of racism and sexism. Whom obviously had to apologize for a crime that they never did.
Just to illustrate, me and my closer circle of friends & relatives have studied, worked, or were regularly engaged in:
...I see typical tropes and buzzwords of the anti-PC hysteria of the right. It's your choice to put your claims in that context, but if you do, people naturally read them in that light.
That's probably the key. Germany is much much better in that aspect, people have still collectively not lost their brain. I lived in Germany last year (though it was in Munich and did not even see this madness.
Speaking of demanding apologies (coupled with legal threats) and generally threatening others' ability to speak freely, here is a one of the signatories of that shitheaded Harper's letter doing just that:
That's interesting, so it's the same than in France and Netherlands. I would have thought that Australia would use a definition cloer to the one used in the US-UK.
