[_8j50]

Still is? The AI is correlating biological features with self reported race. There are biological differences between people who have different ancestors. Finns are different from brits. The spanish are different from russians. Nigerians look different than somalians. The Japanese look differnet than filipinos.

Race picks specific and arbitrary differences , for example hispanic is a different race in US society but black and white based on skin color are as well, indians and east asians are also one "race".

Ethnicities are not social constructs but race is. The AI finds ethnic differences and correlates them with self-percievied social/racial classification.

"Race" as the evil social construct it is, takes ethnic differences and intrprets them to mean some ethnicities are different races of humans than others as in not just different ancestors but differently created or evolved despite all evidence and major religion saying all humans are one species (homosapiens) that have a common homosapien ancestor.

I thought all this was obvious but the social climate recently is very weird.

[dijit]

I believe you’re inverting race and ethnicity.

From national geographic: “Race” is usually associated with biology and linked with physical characteristics such as skin color or hair texture. “Ethnicity” is linked with cultural expression and identification.

[_8j50]

I am not. Historically ethnicities and ancestoral lines aligned so ethnic differences and biological differences due to generational mating choices largely influenced by the culture that is a component of the ethnicity are aligned as well. Race is not a biological classification because it is appearance based but arbitrary. Appearance is not the same as biology. A husky appears similar to a small wolf but it might be correct to consider them (dogs) a race of wolves.

The deceptively evil part of the concept of race is, it does not simply differentiate biological features but it goes on to impose a fork at the root of the ancestoral tree where people of that race share the same origin and same differences. In reality biological differences are a result if what a culture considers attractive multiplied by mutations that help people adopt to different environments (e.g.: skin color being a result of adaptation to sun light and vitamin d levels instead of a being a feature that shows ancestoral forks in creation or evolution).

It is simply inaccurate to label people by race but it is useful to impose social evils. But biological differences due to mating and cultural choices are very real and can be examined at a granular level that takes the actual factors for the differences into account instead of the lazy+evil correlation that is the concept of race.

Ethnicity is not what culture you identify with. You don't become ethnically african american because you like african american culture and grew in a specific neighborhood. It is the marriage of culture and ancestry.

[nradov]

Medical software used in the US classifies Hispanic as an ethnic group, not a race. Those are separate fields in a patient's chart. Here is the official federal government guideline.

https://www.healthit.gov/isa/taxonomy/term/741/uscdi-v2

https://www.healthit.gov/isa/taxonomy/term/746/uscdi-v2

(I'm not claiming that this is an optimal approach, just pointing out how it works in most software today.)

[_8j50]

Yes, but socially when you ask people their race they will say black or hispanic or white. And with little consitency. It is more of a way to justify and impose social classes.

[towaway15463]

So isn’t the “evil social construct” part actually the invalid extension of the theory that biological or phenotypic differences mean that someone is more or less human? You can remove that part and still acknowledge that there are biological differences between people based on their genetic lineage without invalidating their basic humanity.

[_8j50]

The evil part is not differences but considering people as part of a different race of humans because of those differences.

[fullstackchris]

Race as an entire concept to me has always been stupid at best. Sure, there are vast swaths of biological similarities (typically, though not necessarily) according to general geographic regions of the globe, but the real mistake was trying to give this vague concept a label. Can anybody give a definition of what "white" or "black" REALLY means? It's an impossible task. If we're talking just visually about skin color, congratulations, that represents citizens of some 100+ odd countries on the planet and just as many (if not many more!) cultures and languages. But leave it to humans to try and over optimize and try to denote evermore meaningless abstractions...

Let the social "culture war" rage on. The only war I see going on in the west (U.S. mostly) is a _lack_ of culture.

[_8j50]

To me it is the epitome of laziness. The ultimate expression of the banality of evil.

Similar to prejudice and stereotyping or the worst of lies there is some truth in its reasoning but the untrue part, the lazy part allows people to commit evil and be unjust. A reason to harm others with minimal conscious discomfort.