A group of scientists have argued for the 'racist' term 'caucasian' to be banned
The term is obsolete but it has come to be used as a euphemism for "European" so, as long as that is understood, I doubt that it does much harm
The word 'caucasian' should be banned because it is 'associated with a racist classification of humans', according to five Cambridge and UCL scientists.
Researchers said scientists should only use the term when absolutely unavoidable but refrain from 'usage where possible'.
Authors of the article titled 'The language of race, ethnicity, and ancestry in human genetic research' said the term Caucasian was an 'old term associated with racist and pseudo-scientific classifications of humans'.
Caucasian, they wrote, is 'an 18th-century term invented to denote pale-skinned northern and western Europeans, or in other archaic connotations a wider range of people based on skull measurements, including west Asians, south Asians, north Africans and Europeans.'
The paper, published on the pre-print sever arxiv, added: 'The language commonly used in human genetics can inadvertently pose problems for multiple reasons.
'Terms like 'ancestry', 'ethnicity', and other ways of grouping people can have complex, often poorly understood, or multiple meanings within the various fields of genetics between different domains of biological sciences and medicine, and between scientists and the general public.
The paper said scientists should add quotation marks around the word when used in research, the Telegraph reported.
Authors Dr Ewan Birney, Michael Inouye, Dr Jennifer Raff, Dr Adam Rutherford, and Aylwyn Scally said their is intended 'to stimulate a much-needed discussion about the language of genetics'.
Adding they hoped it would help 'begin a process to clarify existing terminology, and in some cases adopt a new lexicon that both serves scientific insight, and cuts us loose from various aspects of a pernicious past.'
Dr Ewan Birney, deputy director of the European Molecular Biology Laboratory at the Wellcome Genome Campus in Cambridgeshire, has added terms such as 'Native American', 'Hispanic', 'White Irish', and 'European', should also be avoided.
Instead, he says, researchers should use more scientific language derived from a two-step genetic analysis.
'European', for example, would instead be 'the European-associated PCA [principal component analysis] cluster, which aims to minimise variation in non-genetic factors and genetic factors'.
The suggestion, which even Dr Birney terms 'bamboozling' for non-scientists, is intended to prioritise 'technical accuracy over concision'.
The researchers said: 'Some of these suggestions may meet with disagreement; we present them partly to stimulate discussion of these and other terms, and in the hope that this will lead to better and more accurate language conventions and less misunderstanding, particularly outside of human genetics'.
Announcing the paper, honorary Senior Research Associate at UCL Dr Rutherford said: 'I have been working on this a while: sparking a conversation about the lexicon of genetics, which continues to utilise scientifically redundant, confusing and racist terminology.'
Adding in a second tweet: 'We're definitely not prescribing or policing language, but want to prompt a dialogue with colleagues in similar and adjacent fields about our terminology, datasets and tools, and move towards a lexicon that both serves the science and frees us from a racist past.'
Among his fellow contributors, who were each given equal credit, were Dr Jennifer Graff, a geneticist and Assistant Professor of Anthropology at the University of Kansas, Michael Inouye, Principal Research Associate in Systems Genomics and Population Health, and Darwin College, Cambridge geneticist Aylwyn Scally.
*************************************
Again the Supreme Court defends religious believers. Again it's unanimous
by Jeff Jacoby
WHEN THE NATION'S highest court issued a 9-0 decision last week upholding a Catholic social-service agency's right to participate in Philadelphia's foster care program, it provoked a mordant comment from Case Western law professor Jonathan Adler:
"Supreme Court rules UNANIMOUSLY against Philadelphia in Fulton religious liberty case; opinion by [Chief Justice] Roberts," Adler tweeted. "So tell me again, who are the extremists?"
It was an apt comment. Throughout this case, Catholic Social Services and its supporters had been portrayed as the aggressors, hostile to gay and lesbian equality and outrageously demanding the right to be closed-minded and intolerant. By their unanimous verdict, the justices made clear just which side they thought had behaved outrageously. It wasn't the church.
The litigation stemmed from a decision by the city of Philadelphia to ban CSS, an arm of the local archdiocese, from providing foster services for needy children. For more than 50 years, the Catholic agency had contracted with the city to provide such services. Officials had described it as "a point of light in the city's foster care system." But when a church spokesman said that, on religious grounds, it could not certify same-sex couples as foster parents, the city pulled the plug. It refused to renew the organization's contract on the grounds that it was in violation of Philadelphia's antidiscrimination rules.
CSS hadn't actually discriminated against anyone. The church spokesman had been speaking theoretically. No same-sex couple had ever asked the Catholic agency for foster care certification; faced with such a request, it would have referred the couple to one of the 27 agencies in Philadelphia that do certify same-sex couples. Nevertheless, the city barred CSS from all further foster care work. More than that: Despite an acute shortage of foster homes, the city prohibited any child from being placed with foster parents previously vetted and certified by CSS.
In essence, officials ordered Catholic Social Services to disavow its religious beliefs or to end its exemplary foster care services. They refused to make any accommodation that would allow CSS to continue caring for children in need without violating church teaching. They insisted on rigid adherence to the law, even if that meant fewer caring homes for those children.
Progressive voices defended the city's hard line. The Philadelphia Inquirer denounced Catholic Social Services for clinging to "a bigoted view that should not be rewarded with public funds." The ACLU accused CSS of demanding "a license to discriminate against LGBTQ families" and derided its plea for an exemption as "legally baseless."
To which a unanimous Supreme Court said: Wrong.
There are many issues on which the justices disagree. Yet time and again, they have put ideological differences aside to enforce the First Amendment's command: Government may not impede the free exercise of religion absent a truly imperative reason to do so.
Philadelphia officials described Catholic Social Services as "a point of light in the city's foster care system."
The modern court is a civil rights bulwark, and its support for LGBTQ equality has been cemented in such landmark decisions as Lawrence v. Texas, Obergefell v. Hodges, and, most recently, Bostock v. Clayton County. But the court has been equally clear that religious liberty is a paramount value under the Constitution. It is not subordinate to the state's interest in upholding same-sex marriage. It may not be bulldozed aside when it's at odds with a nondiscrimination policy. When such a conflict exists, government must seek a way to accommodate religion. The issue in Philadelphia, wrote the chief justice, "is not whether the City has a compelling interest in enforcing its non-discrimination policies generally, but whether it has such an interest in denying an exception to CSS."
This is not the first time religious believers have been told that their views must bow to other government interests.
In the Hosanna-Tabor Church case in 2012, the interest in question was employment rights under the Americans with Disablities Act. In McCullen v. Coakley, it was the Massachusetts law mandating a "buffer zone" around abortion clinics. In Holt v. Hobbs, it was Arkansas's interest in maintaining a strict dress code in prisons. In Little Sisters of the Poor v. Azar, it was the government's requirement that employers subsidize contraception through employees' health plans.
In each of these recent cases, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously against the officials who refused to adapt their policy to make room for First Amendment liberties. Now, in Fulton v. Philadelphia, it has done so once more.
On today's culture-war battlefields, religious views that contradict prevailing secular dogma are often reviled as unenlightened fanaticism unworthy of legal protection. But on the Supreme Court, liberals and conservatives alike have a different view. The free exercise of religion goes to the bedrock of America's constitutional system. The justices have been saying so with increasing frequency, and they don't seem inclined to let up.
http://www.jeffjacoby.com/25486/again-the-supreme-court-defends-religious
***************************************Some Facebook users have recently reported being sent warning messages from the social media giant relating to “extremists” or “extremist content.”
“Are you concerned that someone you know is becoming an extremist?” one message reads. “We care about preventing extremism on Facebook. Others in your situation have received confidential support.”
The message also provides a button to “Get Support,” which leads to another Facebook page about extremism.
Redstate editor Kira Davis, who said was sent a screenshot of the message from a friend, wrote: “Hey has anyone had this message pop up on their FB? My friend (who is not an ideologue but hosts lots of competing chatter) got this message twice. He’s very disturbed.”
And others reported getting a warning that they may have been “exposed to harmful extremist content recently.” The message then states that “violent groups try to manipulate your anger and disappointment,” similarly offering a “Get Support” option.
“Facebook randomly sent me this notice about extremism when I clicked over to the app. Pretty weird. … The Get Support button just goes to a short article asking people not to be hateful,” another user on Twitter wrote.
A Facebook spokesperson confirmed to The Epoch Times on July 1 that the company is currently running the warnings as a test to some users.
“This test is part of our larger work to assess ways to provide resources and support to people on Facebook who may have engaged with or were exposed to extremist content, or may know someone who is at risk. We are partnering with NGOs and academic experts in this space and hope to have more to share in the future,” the spokesperson said, without elaborating.
The messages come after lawmakers have repeatedly targeted and pressured CEOs of big tech firms such as Facebook, Twitter, Google, and Microsoft, essentially accusing them of allowing “extremism,” misinformation, and cyberbullying on their platforms. Such social media companies have faced criticism from Republicans who have accused them of censoring conservative voices and limiting the reach—or outright blocking—content that portrays Democrat political figures in a negative light.
Conservatives, including former President Donald Trump, have argued for the revocation of Section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act, which serves as a liability shield for online publishers. However, the movement to rein in Big Tech was dealt a blow earlier this week when a federal judge tossed a Federal Trade Commission lawsuit against Facebook that had accused the firm of engaging in anti-competitive practices.
These warning messages, however, are sure to trigger even more negative feedback against Facebook and its CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, over fears that the company is attempting to stifle free speech. On Twitter, as screenshots of the warning messages were being shared en masse on July 1, many users expressed concern over the direction Facebook is taking.
***********************************
An imported woke leftist culture is 'racialising' France, causing splits in society and holding back ethnic minorities, President Emmanuel Macron has claimed
Macron said the political left's insistence on defining their countrymen by their ethnicity and depicting them as victims is causing rifts, and blamed social science ideas that have come from the United States.
'I see that our society is becoming progressively racialised,' Macron told Elle magazine in an interview published this week, going on to say that he believed ethnic minorities have been placed 'under house arrest' by left-wing ideology.
He also pointed blame at feminists and black rights activists for seeking to define people according to their gender and their skin colour, arguing that such views cause rifts in French society and limit social mobility among ethnic minorities.
A new generation of younger French activists are increasingly vocal in denouncing the problem of racism in France and the legacy of the country's colonial past in Africa and the Middle East.
But their opponents see the focus on race and the past as opening up unnecessary divisions and encouraging a culture in which minorities and women see themselves as constantly oppressed and discriminated against.
Movements against racism over the last year such as Black Lives Matter, which resonated in France after arriving from the US, have led to fears among some critics that the country is importing American racial and identity politics sometimes labelled as 'woke culture.'
Macron took aim in particular at the idea of 'intersectionality' - popular among left-leaning U.S. academics - that seeks to explain discrimination and poverty by examining the role played by race and gender in affecting an individual's life chances.
'The logic of intersectionality fractures everything,' he said. 'I stand for universalism. I don't agree with a fight that reduces everyone to their identity or their particularity.
'Social difficulties are not only explained by gender and the colour of your skin, but also by social inequalities,' he insisted.
'We had freed ourselves from this approach and now we are once more categorising people according to their race and by doing that we are totally placing them under house arrest,' the head of state added.
The 43-year-old added that he could think of young white men in his hometown of Amiens or nearby Saint-Quentin in northern France 'who also have immense difficulties, for different reasons, in finding a job'.
'Social difficulties are not only structured by gender and by skin colour, but also by social inequality,' he said.
Macron's comments have been interpreted as an attempt to appeal to mainstream voters and regain ground in the centre of France's politics ahead of presidential elections in April.
People have also seen it as an attempt by Macron to paint himself as the defender of a French social model against ideas perceived as left-leaning that have gained ground in U.K. and U.S. universities, according to The Times.
The President also defended his decision to appoint Gérald Darmanin as France's Interior Minister. Darmanin is a hard-line right-winger facing an inquiry into allegations that he raped a woman in 2009, which he denies.
'I am not going to give in to the ambient madness, which consists in saying that anyone who faces an accusation is necessarily guilty,' Macron said.
'I defend the presumption of innocence. For years, we dealt badly with the victims of violence. The risk now is to enter into a society of absolute victimisation. If the voice of the victim covers all the others, you are no longer in a society of justice but of vengeance.'
Macron attempted to win over French feminist groups by saying he had been the first mainstream leader to put domestic violence on the country's political agenda.
He also promised to improve protection available to women with violent partners and husbands.
However, Macron said he rejected extending the time limit for abortions in France from 12 to 14 weeks, saying the 'trauma' for women was increased after this period.
In the interview timed for the start of a UN-sponsored summit on gender inequality in Paris, Macron also promised to do more to combat domestic violence and women's health problems such as endometriosis.
He also backed his education minister, Jean-Michel Blanquer, who has spoken out against girls wearing crop-tops in schools.
'I'm in favour of "dressing properly" at school, for girls as well as boys,' Macron said. 'Everything that is a marker of identity, or a desire to shock or stand out, shouldn't be at school.'
Blanquer demanded that French pupils, who do not wear uniforms, come to school in 'republican dress' last September amid protests over bans on crop-tops or mini skirts at some establishments.
'School is not a place like any other,' the minister said. 'You don't go to school as if you're going to the beach or to a nightclub.'
Macron's interview has been published in the wake of his party LREM (The Republic on the Move) experiencing a wipe-out in local elections on Sunday, as it failed to win a single one of the country's key mainland regions.
Despite an appalling turn-out of around a third of the country in the second round of the regional elections – the first took place a week earlier – the results are seen as key indicator of how both Mr Macron and Marine Le Pen's far-Right National Rally might do in presidential elections next year.
The principal winners on Sunday were the mainstream conservative right, in the form of the opposition Republicans party.
Nationally, Mr Macron's LREM (The Republic on the Move) won less than 10 percent of the vote. Sunday's nationwide poll was also a disaster for Le Pen, whose party also failed to make any breakthroughs.
***************************************
My other blogs. Main ones below:
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com TONGUE-TIED)
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://john-ray.blogspot.com (FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
https://heofen.blogspot.com/ (MY OTHER BLOGS)
*****************************************
/>
Kristina Pimenova, once said to be the most beautiful girl in the world. Note blue eyes and blonde hair
Bliss: What every woman wants: to feel safe and secure in the arms of her man. Robert Irwin and Rorie Buckey. See
No comments:
Post a Comment