At this point you're essentially arguing that despite evolution making literally everything different, human brains were not affected.
I wasn't talking to you and that's not what I said. Straw-man much? You can do better.
Using the terms "racism" and "racist" makes you look stupid
Posts
Total:
185
-->
@Conway
Only a racist can have racial hatred, but not all racists are hateful. There is an obvious distinction.
Please present your personally preferred definition of "racist".
-->
@HistoryBuff
"the belief that different races possess distinct characteristics, abilities, or qualities, especially so as to distinguish them as inferior or superior to one another."
When you say "race" do you actually mean "skin-color"?
-->
@MgtowDemon
Voting is difficult, has a high degree of accountability, and it time-consuming.
100% THIS.
My "self-moderated" debate proposal solves this "problem".
-->
@Athias
First, objectivity is irrational; Second, regardless of the source you cite, it will be biased.
100% THIS.
-->
@Athias
What I attempted to convey to you is that skin colour alone doesn't determine race all that well. It's fine for Europeans and Africans. It's not fine for Africans and Australian Aboriginals.So "Black" is not a race.
BINGO.
-->
@Athias
Appropriate is substantiated in that, for example, lumping all Japanese, Chinese, Malaysians, Koreans etc. into Asian, isn't as accurate as dividing them further. Of course, there is infinite regression until the individual has his/her group, but the same logic applies to colours, and we take no issue calling things red, orange, yellow etc. (i.e. what is considered to be appropriate).Argumentum ad antiquitatem. The trends and traditions one indulges (i.e. parsing colors) does not provide substantiation to "appropriate."
Excellent point.
-->
@Athias
We're not writing research papers. We're having a discussion. Had you read your own source, you would've noticed where it was from, rather than accuse me of "plagiarizing" it from a source, which, by the way, you failed to identify correctly. Furthermore, if I had intended to "plagiarize," then quoting the content would've been unnecessary. I would've simply passed it off as my own unaltered.
COPYRIGHT = CENSORSHIP
-->
@Athias
I do know. I know intelligence is abstract. And that intelligence is informed by definition only.
Imagine for a moment that a tribe of Yalyuwara were to evaluate your "general intelligence" and or "general fitness".
I think most of us might look like complete idiots to them.
I think most of us might be unable to find our way back to camp by ourselves.
I think most of us might be unable to find water on our own.
I think most of us might be unable to avoid common predators and poisonous plants and insects, if left to ourselves.
When "evaluating" something (or someone) 99.99% of the "problem" is predetermined by the selection of the measuring method itself (and the creator of the measuring method).
-->
@Athias
And what does taking the "average I.Q." and juxtaposing them among your so-called "races" intend to indicate?
Great question.
-->
@3RU7AL
Imagine for a moment that a tribe of Yalyuwara were to evaluate your "general intelligence" and or "general fitness".I think most of us might look like complete idiots to them.I think most of us might be unable to find our way back to camp by ourselves.I think most of us might be unable to find water on our own.I think most of us might be unable to avoid common predators and poisonous plants and insects, if left to ourselves.When "evaluating" something (or someone) 99.99% of the "problem" is predetermined by the selection of the measuring method itself (and the creator of the measuring method).
Exactly. Your analogy is quite apt. Even the creator of the I.Q. foresaw its abuse. It's not my intention to suggest that the I.Q. can't be useful, but there's a lot mythology surrounding it.
And what does taking the "average I.Q." and juxtaposing them among your so-called "races" intend to indicate?Great question.
Historically, these indications were used to euthanize "undesirable" demographics in the early twentieth century if I'm not mistaken.
-->
@3RU7AL
You might enjoy this, [LINK]
This was an "interesting" watch. I'm not sure what a sample of six black women is supposed to help elucidate, but I suppose their geographic locations does lend itself to questioning the influence of American culture on so-called "Black" people.
I was somewhat "vexed," for lack of a better term, by one of Latreese's answers where she admits she beats her one year-old daughter, and forbids ("doesn't allow" were her words,) her husband to do same. Beating a child must only be traumatic when done by the father--not that I would endorse beating one's child. That response was reeking with "black feminism."
-->
@Athias
This was an "interesting" watch. I'm not sure what a sample of six black women is supposed to help elucidate,
Part of what I'm trying to highlight is that there is no utility in believing that all people of similar skin-tone think and act in any sort of uniform way.
-->
@Athias
Historically, these indications were used to euthanize "undesirable" demographics in the early twentieth century if I'm not mistaken.
BbbbBBbbBBbbbut it's "science"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-->
@3RU7AL
Part of what I'm trying to highlight is that there is no utility in believing that all people of similar skin-tone think and act in any sort of uniform way.
I understand, now.
BbbbBBbbBBbbbut it's "science"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Haha.
-->
@3RU7AL
Only a racist can have racial hatred, but not all racists are hateful. There is an obvious distinction.Please present your personally preferred definition of "racist".
Race
A social construct grouping people based on inheritable traits, physically distinct from other groups of people.
Racism
Belief system in which race is a fundamental determinant of human traits and capacities, or consequently that racial differences produce some superiority of a particular race.
Racist
A person who exhibits prejudice on the basis of race, especially so as to distinguish one race as inferior to another.
Behavior of a person exhibiting the qualities of racism.
-->
@Conway
RaceA social construct grouping people based on inheritable traits, physically distinct from other groups of people.
Can you be slightly more specific?
When you say "race" are you talking about all "hazel-eyed" people?
When you say "race" are you talking about all "red-haired" people?
When you say "race" are you talking about all "deaf" people?
-->
@3RU7AL
I learned about the discrimination before I was introduced to their ancestral connotations, and my first impression was like https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04J-fKClb5I Now I have awareness on how to roll with it when a vestige of society is introduced into conversation. The worst from an emotional standpoint is the betrayal of faith in someone who's later made it known that you're fundamentally undeserving of their full respect, and it can take some time to reconcile "how could he say that?" After speaking over the years with the guy with tattoos, Susan's grandpa, and everyone in between I've only brought up race/racism/racist twice in my life.
Some years back, I got to know someone and they had been introduced to a social construct and brainwashed into hating their own race. When they literally blurted out hate one day, I can remember my jaw dropping for a moment, saying their name to convey I cared about them, followed by "That's racist". Left it at that, and then it was just time to listen. The second time was in a conversation about a presidential candidate, just to convey that in my experience people who say racist things might be getting senile. Usually I wouldn't address the subject of conversation that way from a standpoint of self respect. As we are made in the image of God just as it is intended, race has a tendency to run against my principles.
I think with situational awareness that people know on some level the degradation in subjecting yourself to the whims of man. That's sort of what it means to me.
-->
@Conway
A social construct grouping people based on inheritable traits, physically distinct from other groups of people.
The term "inheritable traits" seems inexplicably vague.
-->
@3RU7AL
The term "inheritable traits" seems inexplicably vague.
Arbitrary, not vague.
-->
@MgtowDemon
So, if whites have higher IQs than black people as what the data says, I don’t think it’s biological. For example, black people are much more likely to be raised in single motherhood houses. If your raised in a single motherhood house, your 4x more likely to go to jail because your 4x more likely to be poor. Your also going to have a lower IQ.
Even though white people tend to have higher
IQs than blacks based on the data, how much does IQ impact intelligence? My record IQ is 156, yet I’m certainly not that smart. There are also instances where people with low IQs are able to do impressive things, like solve 2^50 in their head. IQ certainly means something, but it certainly doesn’t mean everything. There may be other intelligence tests that blacks do better in than whites. They couldn’t survive for thousands of years in Africa if they were stupid.
Thoughts?
-->
@TheUnderdog
If someone were to compile the data necessary to make a map of genetic phenomena based on the .1% of chemistry people might not have in common, it would look somewhat bumpy and inconsistent. It's true that people with fair skin are smarter than people with a dark complexion, and there's a genetic component, but the opposite is also the case. People with dark complexion are smarter than people with fair skin.
-->
@TheUnderdog
The guy got banned for unwarranted systemic invective, including hate speech, personal attacks and other vitriol.
-->
@Conway
It's true that [SOME] people with fair skin are smarter than [SOME] people with a dark complexion, and there's a genetic component, but the opposite is also the case. [SOME] People with dark complexion are smarter than [SOME] people with fair skin.
-->
@Death23
What did he say that caused him to get banned?
-->
@TheUnderdog
-->
@Death23
I read the decision and his post and I don’t think saying black people are biologically inferior to white people is hate speech or ban worthy.
It’s just like me saying that men are biologically stronger than women. If I can find a source to back it up that is reliable, then it might be true.
-->
@TheUnderdog
I read the decision and his post and I don’t think saying black people are biologically inferior to white people is hate speech or ban worthy.
saying that one race is superior to another is the textbook example of racism. It is not possible to be more racist than that. He believed that black people were genetically inferior to white people. There is no constructive conversation possible with someone like that.
-->
@TheUnderdog
I'm afraid it wasn't just like that. If the post had been dispassionate, then it would be. But it was part of a larger pattern of behavior of the user consistently and repeatedly spouting anti-black propaganda. So, in that respect, it was an expression of racial hatred which had become excessive, apparently to the point of actionability under the CoC according to the mods.