[ganeshkrishnan]

>It’s probably the place where discussing race has the least social tolerance.

No. the rest of the world doesnt discuss it because it makes the least sense. I gave you examples above. It doesnt make sense to put an Aussie and Canuck in same bracket, neither does it make sense to put a Thai and Japanese in same bracket for whatever data point you want.

Even within India a sikh has nothing in common with naga has nothing in common with Tamils.

Race is an absurd abstract. Why not hair color? or eye color? or eye shape?

[liontwist]

Hair color, eye shape, eye color, are all noticeable traits that contribute to the family resemblance of ethnic groups. What are you suggesting?

> It doesnt make sense to put an Aussie and Canuck in same bracket,

Of course it does? If you’re talking about their common ancestors groups.

[fuzztester]

Yes, indeed. Why not phrenology next, that absurd Victorian pseudo-science.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrenology

[liontwist]

Notice that a charged label on a Wikipedia page is enough for you, a skeptical person, to make an absolute conclusion.

And that’s true for most people which is why editors fight so hard to control it.

If it’s so obviously false, can you share the landmark study or experiment that disproved it?

[fuzztester]

Why the heck should I, when you are not bothering to provide any evidence for your own statements, like this one I linked below?

>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42384308

And I quote two of your words from that comment:

"trivially" and "probably"

to show what I mean. See those words in the context of the sentences in which they occur, and it can be seen that you are not giving any evidence for your claims either.

Do your own research, if my comment is so important to you.

Also this is HN, a forum, not a court of law. Tons of other users on here, regularly and casually make comments which may seem false to others, without giving evidence for their statements.

[fuzztester]

>Notice that a charged label on a Wikipedia page is enough for you, a skeptical person, to make an absolute conclusion.

Don't try to mislead, by using words like "charged label". The conclusion is clearly made by the Wikipedia page, not by me. I merely quoted it. Anyone who doubts that can go read it first, before making "absolute conclusions".

[fuzztester]

>Notice that a charged label on a Wikipedia page is enough for you, a skeptical person, to make an absolute conclusion.

Notice what charged label on the page [1]? By common sense logic of conversation, if you considered that I was using a "charged label" (whatever the heck that means) in my argument, the onus was on you to, at a minimum, mention that label, which you clearly did not do, although I think I can guess which one you mean.

>If it’s so obviously false, can you share the landmark study or experiment that disproved it?

How about you first sharing "the landmark study or experiment" that proves it?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrenology

And I wonder if you read the whole article, seeing that the word "discredited" (referring to phrenology) appears at least 5 or 6 times in the article, in many cases with citations.

[fuzztester]

From the above Wikipedia page:

Phrenology is a pseudoscience that involves the measurement of bumps on the skull to predict mental traits.[1][2]