SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Over at StatNews is a story on a recent trend where low cost commercial DNA testing is resulting in a number of White Nationalists taking genetic tests, and sometimes they don't like the results that come back.
The article looks at research on how they respond to the sometimes unexpected results:
[...] In a new study, sociologists Aaron Panofsky and Joan Donovan examined years' worth of posts on Stormfront to see how members dealt with the news.
[...] About a third of the people posting their results were pleased with what they found. "Pretty damn pure blood," said a user with the username Sloth. But the majority didn't find themselves in that situation. Instead, the community often helped them reject the test, or argue with its results.
Some rejected the tests entirely, saying that an individual's knowledge about his or her own genealogy is better than whatever a genetic test can reveal. [...] Others, he said, responded to unwanted genetic results by saying that those kinds of tests don't matter if you are truly committed to being a white nationalist. Yet others tried to discredit the genetic tests as a Jewish conspiracy "that is trying to confuse true white Americans about their ancestry," Panofsky said.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by meustrus on Friday August 18 2017, @06:09PM
That would profit you, but harm society. Taking money from white supremacists to tell them they are 100% white makes them more sure of themselves and their extreme political opinions. Giving that money to anti-racism causes validates those causes and make them more sure of themselves and their (much less) extreme political opinions. This is true if even if the cause is legal advocates who uses it to win in court; court victories follow progress rather than creating progress, after all.
Put it all together and you're going to turn more alt-right people into white supremacists and more mainstream liberals into SJWs. Pretty sure that's a net negative for society.
(I'm really not trying to paint a false equivalency here; just pointing out that maaybe the problem is the idea that there are two opposing sides, regardless of how very different they are)
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?