> and then when you check what they were banned for there's a tirade of racial slurs directed at other members of the community.
This isn't always true. I don't want to derail the topic of this thread, but I certainly find I cannot talk seriously about the causes of disproportionate violence and rape from certain segments of the population without getting banned. Even though, looking deeply into the science, it doesn't support the mainstream viewpoint. If I can't trust the media and even websites like HN to be honest on something so basic, why should I trust them for anything else?
> The news typically gets the literal basic facts right, but they tend to distort and omit facts to fit their narrative.
> The mainstream news may distort and omit facts, but they do get the literal basic facts right, so if one's worldview contradicts the literal basic facts, then that person is wrong.
Without clarity as to what constitutes literal basic facts vs facts that are distorted, this is just more plain bullshit.
I disagree. We can't argue with formal precision here (unfortunately) but we should be permitted to try analyzing, anyway. Roughly speaking, the "objective" observations made in traditional mainstream news outlets tend to be correct, but the more an article strays from those objective observations (and becomes opinion, value judgement), the more contestable the inferences that the writers draw from these objective observations becomes (and the more divisive the article tends to become, in particular in the US).
Nothing in this paper seems surprising. Of course self-reported race/ethnicity corresponds very well to ancestry, and ancestry is related to different traits, and these traits are detected in medical images. The social justice concerns brought up do not really seem relevant, the system is operating as expected.
Genetic ancestry is not just a fantastical vanity construct. Genetic ancestry from different populations is real, and while it doesn't correspond exactly to our social "race" categories, it often does. We need to be careful about how we define these ancestral groupings and limit potential negative social impacts from acknowledging their differences, but we can't deny their existence.
White Europeans are not Caucasian, because they are not from the Caucasus. There are actual Caucasians so stop abusing that term which was incorrectly applied to Europeans and others based on some outdated pseudoscience. And even if you do use it in the absurd old "Caucasoid" sense, it includes many people like Middle Easterners, Indians etc.
This isn't always true. I don't want to derail the topic of this thread, but I certainly find I cannot talk seriously about the causes of disproportionate violence and rape from certain segments of the population without getting banned. Even though, looking deeply into the science, it doesn't support the mainstream viewpoint. If I can't trust the media and even websites like HN to be honest on something so basic, why should I trust them for anything else?