I think science is hard for MrDibble. In case anybody cares about the science behind African Americans and kidneys, here’s what DaVita (a huge dialysis company) says:
and to drive this post home, here’s what The Renal Association says on the GFR calculation:
“Black” is a sloppy term, but it’s used a lot without being racist. And sometimes it’s science!
So, Karrius; nice of you to admit you’re full of crap.
People seem to get hung up on the term “concentration camp” when the name does not matter, it is just a prison or prison camp. And the USA already runs plenty of those. The question in reality is not whether the USA has huge numbers of people in prisons but rather if the people have been imprisoned for just cause and after due process of law. That is the point. Whether you call it “concentration camp”, “jail”, etc. is irrelevant.
America imprisons more people per capita than any other advanced country and many are imprisoned with no due process or very questionable process.
Immigrants “awaiting deportation” are imprisoned indefinitely without due process and without having committed a crime when
Thousands of persons are held indefinitely, sometimes for years, without due process. They just don’t call it “Concentration camp” or even “prison”, just “administrative detention”.
American practices with immigrants have been criticized by the ACLU and Human Rights organizations.
You can use any WORD you’d like. “Bicycles,” “Freds,” “Axaxaxas mlö”. Doesn’t change how wrong you are, conceptually and factually.
How am I wrong?
ETA:sailor that was a great post. A bit non-sequitorial (is that a word? I think that’s a word), but close enough to the main topic of Der Trihs.
True, certain medical companies will assist customers in making quick, back-of-the-envelope calculation adjustments. In these situations, everyone assumes that referring to generalized categories with fuzzy boundaries does more good than harm, and that’s probably true. These quick-and-dirty adjustments are BASED on studies which (some more than others) use scientific methods, but they are not themselves “science.” The peer-reviewed articles they draw from do use the correct, accurate phrasing noted in a previous post. And, any individual patient might START their drug treatment at the levels suggested, but they and their doctor will often adjust those levels later to suit that INDIVIDUAL.
This should be obvious to you. Thanks to certain arbitrary cultural-historical developments, many folks in the US who have, say, one-eighth “pure African ancestry” (even that is almost meaningless in some contexts, but useful here) are self-identified as “Black.” Would they “add 21%” to that pharm company’s formula? Probably. Would they and their doctor later adjust their dosage downward? In some cases, sure. Or upward, even. Because that person is an INDIVIDUAL.
Trust me, darling, it is. I felt like I needed to give a quick and dirty science class to Mr Dibble. That’s all. I have no desire to debate the specifics of how DaVita calculates GFR.
The guy said that anytime somebody uses science to talk about race, they were racist. I think that’s ridiculous, and I tried to explain why using real world examples.
Aside from the problems with your statements that others have already pointed out (some on your side, I’ll note), you said this:
And when asked for a cite, you offered this as proof:
Do you see a problem there? Do you not see it as a problem? Shall we call you and Der Trihs the Broad Brush Duo?
“Blacks have skin with a higher amount of melanin?” Racist?
“Blacks tend to have kinkier hair than whites?” Racist?
So, as I’ve pointed out in other threads, this is a cute little game you play. On the one hand, you enjoy having the cudgel of “racist” to (rightly) identify people and statements that are of the KKK “the only good nigger is a dead nigger” variety. You want the word to have the power to identify and condemn such ignorance and hate.
But at the same time you want to be able to use the word whenever racial statements are made. That’s asinine. A cute trick until you get called on such rank nonsense. It’s like using “pedophile” to characterize both people who have sex with 5-year-olds and someone who says “you have a beautiful little girl”.
Well… if that someone seemed oddly obsessed with the theory that little girls have softer skin and higher voices, and are genetically predisposed to activities like jumping rope and sitting in laps… I wouldn’t necessarily think “pedophile,” but I’d certainly wonder what the fascination was.
I’ll keep in mind that it’s considered “biased” to link directly to what Republicans say to see what Republicans say.
The saying “truth has a liberal bias” is meant to be pithy, it’s not meant to mean that linking to things that are true means you’re linking to things that are biased towards liberals.
ehh
I think context counts for more than you are allowing. A lot of studies used in the U.S. show up in the popular press or in PSAs with the population descriptor reduced to “blacks” or “African Americans.”
I have a problem when some “racial realist” works backward from that statement to wrongly claim that “medical science” has proven something about “black” people when the reality is that the medical community in the U.S. is simply providing some quick-and-dirty guidelines for doctors and patients in the U.S. where the overwhelming majority of blacks have strong ethnic ties to a limited number of ethnic communities from a specific region of the west coast of Africa.
(I realize that one of our “racial realists” has made it a cottage industry to expand limited declarations from U.S. specific medical literature into grand pronouncements of “racial realty” and another of our (not well disguised) closet racists posts that sort of drek a lot. However, they can be called on their specific errors without throwing the label “racist” at everyone who uses the word “black” in a “scientific” context.)
A claim that all such comments are racist when the vast majority of the speakers and audience are aware that the context is limiting the statement to black people currently living in the U.S. seems to be extreme.
The problem for me is ignoring the context those “race realists” came with. They continue to peddle and defend the debunked work of Rushton and other Pioneer fund stooges, even in the latest GD thread. There is plenty of evidence to show that early some of them posted cut and pasted the same links on separate threads from hate places like VDARE and now are acting like if that never took place.
What I’m saying here is that many are aware of the hatred and racism of “our” “racial realists” but we are then playing a game of pretend with our resident “scientific racists” and I’m beginning to get tired of that.
Rushton ideas should had died with him as academics and others around the world do when they already looked at their ideas and found them to be unscientific.
http://www.lfpress.com/2012/10/04/rushtons-ideas-died-with-him
Ignoring that background and continuing to allow them to press on that evidence with no notice or repercussions, ignoring on purpose the repeated debunking and real support Rushton and others have nowadays in academia only demonstrates to me that “our” “race realists” should take their propaganda and hatred elsewhere.
There are two issues, here.
First: you are shifting the discussion from one that labels or declines to label any statement as “racist” that used the word black in what might have been employed in a “scientific” context to a separate discussion regarding the particular actions of specific posters.
Second: you are back to arguing that this board should permit, (perhaps even encourage), the shouting down of a particular discussion because it happens to be one in which you are firmly lodged on one side.
That is not going to happen. If you don’t have sufficient facts and logic to defeat such posters in civil discussion, then you need to hope that someone with better arguments takes up your position. We are not going to allow insults just because you are frustrated.
Buy I already did, in the GD discussions I see that others have it and there is no need for me to go there again, the point stands, just like in the case of Lekatt or Handy there comes a time when ignorance has to be told to stop going to the same rotten wells of information. **Specially when it runs into the hate speech area. **
Evidently not. See his post just above.
Not enough alliteration. How about Broad Brush BS Bros?
Thank you, Monty, for getting us back to the real issue at hand.
Whatever our differences, I think we can all agree that Der Trihs is sometimes a poopyhead.
And after all, isn’t that what matters?
Blacks belong to the species H. sapiens.
Can I has racist now?
A black person may be more likely to benefit from a blood transfusion from another black person if the recipient has sickle cell disease.
I get my racist membership card now?