is this fitting for a Science News Discussion? Nope.
I would personally prefer if things resorted to how they were previously handled where political stories were posted in the lounge and only occasionally brought forward into the News Discussions.
Anyone can look back over the previous months and see a swathe of articles posted about Trump (around 2-3 a week in some cases.) I don’t find such things fitting into the category of Science News.
If post political news stories played out largely for senstaionalist reaction then what do ou expect? I think I nade it clear enough with the ridiculous attack displayed about Milo. I fin it silly and yet I cannot help but take notice of the posts because they appear on “new posts” page and what seem likely to not mention Trump inevitably lead to the same old “Trump is a bad guy,” point of view thrust down my throat. The irony is ‘ve done the opposite. As reprehensibel as he is people like yourself reveal the some of the problems he points out with society and news channels.
Furthermore who has been trying to deny the science? Where? How? It is clear enough above that you brought up the Obama issue and then when that was referenced by someone it appears you have different views to he is treated like he’s defiling Obama’s name simply for mentioning his name.
When I’ve tried to bring up difficult topics I understand that I may be painting myself in a bad light. I thikn, they are important topics though and I present ample data to back them - the issue with IQ was one such event on this forum where people were quicker to distance themselves fro teh discussion rather than face the scary task of dealing with public opinion and the diffeences between the term “race” in popular culture and i the scientific community.
If you take this as “hijacking” when it is a broad news discussion and not your expressed opinion then how is it “hijacking”? I don’t think the point of this thread has anything to do with Trump, but you may like to frame it as such.
Can we procede with the science and cultural theory involved? It seems not becasue Wolf attempted to do so and was quickly beaten down.
Are we to conclude that ancestory has no connection to gentics? That would seemto me to be a appalling anti-scientific claim. Are genetic markers conclusive? No. Are they helpful in determining someone’s ancestory and geographical origin? Yes. Are ancestory and culture the same thing? No, it would seem not. Does the term “ancestory” perhaps need some analysis before moving forward? Seems like a rational approach.
Here is someone (not a geneticist) saying that your genes can tell you something about your “ancestory” but not about your “race.”
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MQlmX7gvYRAAll that Trump revealed was a provacative joke aimed at someone claiming identity as justification to take the moral high ground - strangely it seems more than a little trite coming from Trump, but that doesn’t make the ridicule and mocking of Warren any less revealing - or saldy, it appears it does because people are quicker to call “racist” than to consider the possible intent behind the words (be they uttered by someone racist or not.)
The most disgusting and immoral human being is still capable of saying something revealing, and in fact they are likely to point out uncomfortable truths being blunt and arrogant with it, whee others would never consider even suggestig such a thing.
So we cannot avoid a discussion of genetics, race and ancestory if we’re to get into the OP. What is also unavoidable is the need to address identiy politics and general human behavior in regards to wishful thinking and adherance to social norms and what is culturally deemed “acceptable” in common discourse apart from what is unacceptable and difficult.
You may be of the opinion that we shouldn’t talk about it, but the OP would suggest otherwise or that you wished to hear others opinions about it? I don’t know. You may not have even understood the underlying implications of such a “snipe” at Trump (who hardly needs to made to look arrogant or foolish, becasue he tends to play on this and enjoys manipulating pop media.)
Crying and being sad are nto the same thign either. That doesn’t mean there is no common ground between them. This plays into huma nature and our need to map out the world as black and white for convenience. When it comes to politics people will always play into the hands of public opinion becasue the public decide who to choose (at least more easily in more democratic countries.)
What we do know when it comes to statistical data is that the larger the data set the more accurate the information tends to be. This is why in DNA test kits there is generally a greater degree of PREDICTIVE’ accuracy fro Europeans, given that most people taking these tests likely stem fro a European ancestory given the collonial rule and global spread of Europeans to the far reaches of the globe.
I am really interested in how and if tribalism ca be traced to any particular biological structure with any degree of accuracy. Such things fascinate me and scare me.