CharonY

Yes, quite a few. Genetic analyses found that mutations leading to straighter or wavy (ass opposed to curly) hair arose later in outside of Africa. However, even without genetic data, looking at the likeliest scenario of the current dominance of curly hair in Africa, is that it is the original phenotype.

I actually think that German is a bit more categorical, but because of that I often feel a bit more precision and nuance due to word choice, whereas in English I often feel that things a slightly more muddled. I suspect in the latter there is more implicit meaning that I sometimes miss. It is definitely shorter to write.

That is an interesting thought. It would depend a fair bit how the term is being used in the relevant circles, I suspect. In English folks would talk about the "Laws" of Mendelian inheritance, in German they are called rules ("Regeln"). I also suspect that within a language there might be shifts in word usage over time.

I think we have fundamental misunderstanding here. As you point out yourself, the system is built on power imbalance between the castes, not the fact that there are castes to begin with. If Dalits had the same influence as Brahmins, for example, there would not be a hierarchy to begin with. I.e. if we take power imbalances out of the equation folks would, on average not suffer differently. If you were right, white folks would on average suffer similarly as black folks, but they don't. Why is that? As a last attempt for an example, do you think that a white supremacist would be able to cause a similar racial impact if he was confined to a trailer in the middle of nowhere, compared to a developer who builds a toxic waste dumps in the cheapest available locations, but because of all the systemic issues, these locations also happen to be where mostly black folks live. Does the latter situation create less racialized impact, just because there were no racist intentions behind it? Does it not cause disproportionate harm to a racialized group, just because there were no racist tendencies in enacting these developments? As long as your proposals do not explain or predict these real situations, it is not much of an explanation, is it? Anyway, I think we are circling the same issue repeatedly without coming to an understanding. I will just end with mentioning that while these issues are still under investigation, consensus has started to form maybe in the last one or two decades or so. Accordingly, there is a large body of studies to look into and I while just leave a magazine article here as a starting point: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/09/color-blindness-is-counterproductive/405037/

But let's take the caste system as an example. Imagine the system is horizontal as in all castes had the same rights, same benefits and same power, yet folks get sorted into them. Do you think the issues would be the same as in the hierarchical system where some enjoy power and others do not?

I am not sure what you are trying to say here. Do you think that folks first had discriminatory attitudes and without any power imbalance, some decided to get put into lower caste and this is what created the imbalance? Or do you think that the caste system was implemented because the British left? Can you explain what you mean?

No, power imbalance alone creates differential outcomes. That is the very definition of it. It is the mechanism through which it works. On which levels these outcomes are affected, depends on things like racism (which can but does not have to create differential racialized outcomes), class, gender etc. Ask yourself this, do you think minorities and non-white folks are inherently less racist? If not why are the outcomes better for white folks than e.g. black folks. If racism was the dominant factor, the rest would not matter, would it? The reality is it does, and there is tons of lit on it. Denying it simply would not further the discussion as it simply be separate from reality. Like discussing a spherical cow in vacuum to explain basic physiology. Also, perhaps worse, it is not actionable. Racism won't be eliminated. As we have seen through history, what really happens is people keep redefining racism in order to avoid accountability. This is where the real semantic part of the discussion is. Folks (including folks on the progressive side) pat themselves on their shoulders by not saying the N-word and call it a day. The realization that these measures do virtually nothing has created the notion of anti-racism (e.g. trying to level out the playing field actively) as opposed to just pretend to be non-racist or color-blind and then hope that for the first time in history things will work out better without any effort (same mindset that has been prevalent in terms of fighting global warming, btw.). It is basically like saying, oh in order to reduce poverty and hunger, we should just be nicer to each other. There, problem solved.

While I am repeating myself here, I just want to illustrate again why power differentials are integral to the discussion here. Assume two populations (A and B) with similar composition and access to power, money etc. Also introduce racism (or bigotry or whatever form of discrimination) against each other. Under this scenario, individuals may suffer from local discrimination, for example if an A has a discriminating B as boss and vice versa. However, while the society as a whole may be problematic, on average the population of A would have a similar outcome as B. This is because there would be a similar likelihood of a an A being a boss (having power) over an B as the reverse. This could result in segregated populations, but as long as power, access to resources etc. remains the same, the outcome (wealth, health etc.) between the populations would be similar. But this is not how most forms of segregation are in history. Rather, almost always there is a group with power over the other, enforcing the segregation. In that scenario, the group with more power and resources can create a segregated system that can isolate the other group from access to the same. So in other words, only if we have an imbalance in power between populations do we expect differential outcomes on the population level due to discrimination (again, it is not about the individual as such). In other words the claims that these are only semantics and/or that racism is the issue and not the system basically misses a key element that actually causes injustice and inequality. Conversely, it is not discrimination or racism as such that causes (large scale) inequalities, it is the interphase with power that causes it (i.e. when they create a system of sorts that can create this outcome).

Actually, light sensing arose way before skin was developed. The earliest organisms with light sensing capabilities and phototaxis were bacteria.

I have heard of the study way back and it might be taught in neurophys classes. However, if it was called a law because it is because it challenged some rather long-held assumptions. Yet with better technology and data we know that we have a larger cellular diversity than previously appreciated. The fact that they are not interchangeable is not something that I (think at least) nowadays would be surprised about. I may be wrong, but I think it has become more of a historic aspect rather than a law that sees any application in research or even teaching. I actually do not think that I even heard of it in neurology classes when I was studying (but then maybe I just forgot). Edit: Actually, while I have read the seminal paper back then, I do not recall that the conclusions were ever called a law. It may be just my ignorance, but I am wondering where the notion of it being called a law may come from. The wiki article does not really say.

I don't think that we use the term much and often in a fairly limited scope. For example, we tend to teach Mendelian laws of inheritance, but quite frequently then discuss how these laws are violated. In the 2000s a power law for biological networks was proposed and while it was a hot topic for years after years, rigorous statistical analyses suggest that they really are not valid. There is also the so-called central dogma of molecular biology. In a way it was called that, because at that time folks assumed that this is how it worked, despite a lack of unequivocal evidence. But now with better understanding of the processes involved, the dogma is not that particularly useful anymore, except as a starting point (similar to Mendelian inheritance). I think biology is as as whole less axiomatic and does not lend itself easily to something like laws. I think we are more comfortable using terms like principles, concepts or frameworks rather than claim a law, as almost always there is something, somewhere which violates them. This often confuses laymen, who sometimes think of biological entities in an ordered Linnaean way. But in truth, biology tends to be messy.

In addition to what swansont said, it also takes a while for something to establish itself as sufficiently robust before folks are even considering it a law. And with more and more detail work (as mentioned) it is going to become less likely. Another thought is that scientific work (especially in the experimental realm) is increasingly collaborative and a bit less elitist (as in having only few folks in a particular field). Findings are therefore more commonly shared between folks and are less likely to be associated with a singular name. Also, in biology folks are hesitant to use the term "law" as there is always the chance that someone finds something down the road that works differently....

! Moderator Note The common language on this board is English, so please provide a translation so that others can participate. That being said: most mutations are are assumed to be neutral are not under strong selection see e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutral_theory_of_molecular_evolution for an intro. Even if under positive selection, it is well known that no all alleles will become fixed, as there are obviously stochastic effects at play. And finally with regard to time, there are is a lot of work (Kimura being probably one of the best known) that model the time dimension. The concept of molecular clocks derives from these approaches. So yes, the work is mostly quantitative.

The issue is that if you simplify things too much, they do not make sense anymore. We know that to be true in natural sciences, where at certain points these simplifications just do not allow an accurate description of nature. Just repeating that racism is the issue, but not the system in which racism creates injustice is simply omitting the very factor that can and needs to be tweaked. Thinking up analogies that similarly omit this issue are not helpful. It is like having folks getting sick, but instead of identifying the pathogens involved and prescribing treatments, we talk about how a healthy lifestyle might have prevented it in the first place. Yes not having racism would be great, but not mentioning race anymore is not the same as ending racism (it is like hoping infections go away if we do not focus on bacteria or viruses anymore). We can deal with the actual factors leading to disease (or injustice) but it is way harder to envision a system where racism (or diseases) magically disappear. As I said repeatedly, the issue is context. If we can create a system where racial biases cannot (or at least have a harder time) to result in injustice, that is the first and most realistic step to take. If over time, the idea of racism vanishes, so much the better. But as the joke goes, in order to get to that point we would likely need the population to mix so much so that we all just become a similar shade of brown. And just to emphasize the same point over and over again over dozens of threads, the issue is the context in which racism could create injustice. And it can also include unintentional harm that is not based on racist ideology. This can be lawmakers who are inexperienced with specific situations of racial groups, because the folks they are talking to have a very homogenous background. No one in this scenario is necessarily a racist, but this lack of knowledge can create racial injustice. And there are plenty of examples of why certain folks have less access or input into these types of decisions. Conversely, individuals with no access to power can be as racist as they want, they will have a hard time (even if they wanted to) to create a system that is similarly harmful.

You are decoupling the effect (fire) with the cause and create a strawman scenario where folks are fighting about semantics. While it is very on-brand about how we often talk about racism and its ongoing impact, it is not very helpful. Essentially the argument appears to be that talking about racism is the real issue, as it causes all the problems, therefore the only reasonable thing is to do what we do nothing and obfuscate matters.

Is your argument that the issue is one of semantics without real life impact? If so, I feel you may have missed the point of the discussion. We have the discussion because the house is on fire/flooded (i.e. we see the impact) and it is about figuring out what to do about. Whatever we want to call the issue is mostly secondary.

I feel the analogy does not really capture the systemic issue and it conflates fundamental with the proximate causes. Racism does not cause the leak, it is at least once (or more removed). To work with you analogy, racism would be more something ephemeral, like for example architectural thoughts on how houses are supposed to be built. Then derived from those more nebulous thoughts are specific building codes. For most those are fine. However, let's assume that due to water quality for a particular subset of homes the code facilitates or allows installations that are prone to leaking. So having a better building philosophy that ensures that everything works out would be great, but may not be very actionable. Fixing the building code would be a more obvious longer-term solution. But in the short term, providing folks with means to fix the leak rather than waiting for the code to be fixed would be the immediate band-aid.

Also, it is interesting to note that redlining lawsuits were successful by looking things from a racialized view. I.e. if one tried to omit race from the whole thing, there were no issues. Most mortgages were granted based on the financial situation. Only if you investigate it based on racial outcomes, then there was a case. I.e. it is not that folks had a simple way to get compensated and much of it went into a fund that subsidizes general funds that are specific for residents of black and Hispanic neighborhoods (though one could argue that it is a racialized distribution that some folks here migth again object to). That is a key mechanism of redlining. The government not only supported it, but created specific mechanisms that would encourage targeted lending by the banks. I.e. it is not just banks doing shady things. It was policy and part of the governmental system. As folks in this thread has mentioned, it is not just a single act of sorts. It is a systemic issue on many, often interacting levels. I am sure there are easily digestible articles out there, but I can dig one out when I got a couple of minutes.

Well, I guess you just don't know much about this part US history, which is fine. But the US government has a long history of providing funds for housing and education- but often only white folks were eligible. Also an important part of redlining was to refusal to insure mortgages in and near black neighborhoods, plus subsidizing home-building, but again only for white folks. This is potentially a bigger reason why whole areas in the US are underdeveloped and folks living are not only of a certain skin color, but also suffer worse overall outcomes in many measures. So that particular premise is demonstrably wrong.

That won't ever happen. Look, polls going back well into the Jim Crow era have shown that the majority of folks on all side of the issue are against racism or have at least a negative attitude towards it. Yet those laws were enacted. Why? Because folks did not consider their own attitude as racist or harmful. This is the whole issue with racism. It is not the attitude itself that does the harm per se, but the creation (and insufficient dismantling) of a system that creates harm. We we right now everyone on Earth decides to be non-racist and eliminates all racial references in all laws on the book, we still will have racial sorting of outcomes. It is not because that mentioning of race being the issue, it is because laws, even if not specific with racial discrimination in mind (though again, there are still examples of those, such as the voter suppression tactics that specifically target minorities without mentioning them) won't be equitable (i.e. affect or benefit racial groups similarly), because the system already have them in different boxes. By simply not ignoring them, we will have the same system as we have before and the same inequity that is going with all the demonstrable harm it has (including life expectancy). And realistically, this is the same argument that has been made by the public against the civil rights act and to some degree why Martin Luther King was disappointed with what he called the white moderate. It has been much said here that folks are in general agreement that people should have the same opportunities. Yet the assumptions seems to be that we are already there and can now proceed in a color-blind fashion. Yet, data clearly shows that outcomes are heavily racialized. Now, there is also the discussion about equal opportunity vs. equal outcome. But here I want to ask something: What do you think leads to these different racialized outcome if opportunities are actually the same? Even 20 years back there were rather clear opinions on why this is the case, I am curious to see what explanations folks have now.

Also, Chat GPT is a language model, it is not source for data or information, especially as it is prone to make things up (aka hallucinations). But in other words, folks not only consider it possible but also acceptable to have companies and governments pay up for past regressions. And if so, it then means that we can continue to examine what other elements have led to systematically disadvantage folks and compensate them, right?

Ack, well perhaps that works, too. Considering that much of it appears to be a huge dick-waving contest in the first place...

And this again suggests that the issues are those of the past and not ongoing (which is where I took my queue that racism is fixed). Unless you are for laws that repays families that fell victim to redlining and predatory mortgages? As well as municipalities to pay for underserved communities and schools and keeping them from getting higher degrees? Punishing health systems that create worse outcomes for certain folks? I am sure there won't be any pushback for that.

I think the most realistic scenario pointed out by various analysts is a blockade, rather than outright invasion of Taiwan. However, right now with worldwide reliance on Taiwanese production, they would be shooting themselves in the foot. I think I have heard it referred to as "silicone shield". There are reports that Xi wants to have military ramped out to be ready for an invasion in a few year's time, suggesting that they do not consider themselves fully operational for that purpose yet.

Sure, let's again ignore all the measures in place to suppress black voters and blame it on their lazyness. I mean, it is funny how this post kind of validates the assumptions of the paper better than the paper itself.