Using the terms "racism" and "racist" makes you look stupid

Author: MgtowDemon

Posts

Total: 185
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,073
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@MgtowDemon
Ok...... So your O.P. has been read thoroughly and my previous contention is pertinent and still stands.

The words Racism and Racist are just fine, when used appropriately....Just like the words Use and Misuse.

However your arrogance and attempts at pedanticism are beginning to make you "look stupid".

Though a pedant would argue that using the term "look stupid" in an imageless medium is stupid.

Such is the nature of semanticism.




ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 12,333
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@PressF4Respect
Welcome back
Intelligence_06
Intelligence_06's avatar
Debates: 167
Posts: 3,837
5
8
11
Intelligence_06's avatar
Intelligence_06
5
8
11
-->
@MgtowDemon
"Every use of this word is a misuse"

Lol no. Racism is no misuse when used properly. You presented an example here.
I said I wouldn't criticise the usage there, because that was racial hatred of black people. I think the term "racist" is still wrong to use, but it's forgivable there.
First off, if every use of this world is a misuse, then the word is meaningless, meaning it has no reason to exist. Why does a word that people use for the eternity of time to describe a problem that exists be completely meaningless? I guess I can try to understand you when you replace it with another term, but if you think this term is meaningless then you failed to acknowledge the problem of racism that exists in this world.

Do I even need to present that racism exists? 

MgtowDemon
MgtowDemon's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 206
0
3
4
MgtowDemon's avatar
MgtowDemon
0
3
4
-->
@Intelligence_06
First off, if every use of this world is a misuse, then the word is meaningless, meaning it has no reason to exist.
Precisely. I know you disagree with the sentiment in this conclusion, but at least we are following the same logic.

Why does a word that people use for the eternity of time to describe a problem that exists be completely meaningless?
Actually, the term "racist" has its origins in France, 1906 https://nationalvanguard.org/2015/06/on-the-origin-of-the-word-racist/ . Popular understanding (and what was once my understanding) was that the word was invent in Soviet Russia at the hands of Leon Trotsky. Although, perhaps Trotsky was the one who made the term popular. In any case, the term has not existed "for eternity".

The reason I believe the term exists is because it's very effective at expressing a feeling, and thereby slandering people with merely one word. For example, if people are researching racial I.Q. and that makes you feel bad, you can dismiss it outright and win progressive approval by labelling it as racist.

Fyi, disbelief in racial distinctions has only been popular as of recent (say the last 40 years).

I guess I can try to understand you when you replace it with another term, but if you think this term is meaningless then you failed to acknowledge the problem of racism that exists in this world.
There can't be a problem with "racism" if the term is so poorly defined and slanderous that we can't begin to critique it without being labelled a "racist".

Would you mind, in other words, what racial problem you are referring to?

Do I even need to present that racism exists? 
Absolutely, so we can determine what you really mean.




MgtowDemon
MgtowDemon's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 206
0
3
4
MgtowDemon's avatar
MgtowDemon
0
3
4
-->
@zedvictor4
The words Racism and Racist are just fine, when used appropriately....Just like the words Use and Misuse.
My whole contention is that they cannot be used appropriately. They are political weapons dripping in slanderous vitriol, of which obliterates any rational discussion people might otherwise have. They are also poorly defined so they are able to attack extreme racial hatred (e.g. justifications for a race's genocide), with scientific fact (some races are better at things than others).

However your arrogance and attempts at pedanticism are beginning to make you "look stupid".
You're entitled to this wrong opinion.

Though a pedant would argue that using the term "look stupid" in an imageless medium is stupid.
Thank you for this overly-literal, autistic take. It's such a shame metaphorical language doesn't exist.


Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,555
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@MgtowDemon
uh ok
MisterChris
MisterChris's avatar
Debates: 45
Posts: 2,897
5
10
11
MisterChris's avatar
MisterChris
5
10
11
I'm just going to inject what I've said previously on the topic of racial IQ disparity...


What means more is the way you were raised. If from the time your brain was easily malleable you were constantly fed Mozart, forced to play piano and violin, and study astrophysics while taking an IQ test every 2 months... you could potentially be the next Einstein. That is true of any race. It just happens with Asians and white people more frequently.

You definitely could make the case that Asians/white people are smarter on average, but I don't know why you should.

It isn't because of biology, and saying such statements is of no use to anyone. It simply fuels the egos of racists. Non-racists do not care and see no use in pointing it out.

To prove my point, take all high IQ people of all races together. What makes them high IQ? You will find a lot of similarities across all racial categories. Generally they are wealthier, have high education, play musical instruments, etc... 

So, perhaps the more productive conversation is, how can we increase wealth and education for all people?
Do that, and you will see all IQ rates rise to the point of each race matching the other. 

TL;DR: All you are doing by recounting racial IQ statistics is highlighting a wealth and educational disparity, not a biological one. 


Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@MgtowDemon
As you never responded to the very first objections:

You can be racist and not hate that other race, you can be racist and hate the other race. That's a fallacy, specifically of the false dichotomy, second of all, you only rebuked a single source in the multitude of sources that disagreed with you. Third, this was all started because you couldn't handle the fact that you couldn't convince me of your clearly definitionally racist sentiments. 
MgtowDemon
MgtowDemon's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 206
0
3
4
MgtowDemon's avatar
MgtowDemon
0
3
4
-->
@MisterChris
Now that you're behaving yourself, we can have worthwhile discussions. Albeit, *none* of what you said in *either* post about race and I.Q. is referenced. So, like your OP post on masturbation previously, your arguments here are sub-standard.

Brain size means very little when it is slight deviations. Albert Einstein had a smaller than average brain.
Firstly, I.Q. isn't determined wholly by brain size, so you're partially correct. This is a heavily studied topic and there have been 100s of studies on it (including a meta-analysis of a lot of them). Brain size and I.Q. correlate at somewhere between 0.24 and 0.4, depending on the study/studies you look at http://www.people.vcu.edu/~mamcdani/Big-Brained%20article.pdf https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2668913/ https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S014976341500250X 

Thus, "very little" isn't accurate.

What means more is the way you were raised. If from the time your brain was easily malleable you were constantly fed Mozart, forced to play piano and violin, and did nothing but study astrophysics while taking an IQ test every 2 months... you could potentially be the next Einstein. That is true of any race. It just happens with Asians more frequently.
This is absolutely incorrect.

The last 100 years has produced a lot of studies on monozygotic twins, dizygotic twins, siblings, half-siblings and parent-offspring pairs, and more importantly, how whether they grew up in the same environment affected their I.Q. So, by comparing how similar I.Q. is when they lived in the same house (i.e. same environment), and then comparing that to how similar it is if they were reared apart, and then comparing their resulting I.Q's, behavioural geneticists estimate the I.Q. variation which is determined by genes and environment. 

Reviewing more than 200 studies of twin studies, the heritability lies of I.Q. lies between 0.5 and 0.7 in correlation https://www.scribd.com/document/140571400/Bouchard-McGue-2003-Genetic-and-Environmental-Influences-on-Human-Psychological-Differences https://b-ok.cc/book/2782065/daf1e0 

Therefore, out of more than 200 studies attempting to determine the environmental impact of I.Q, zero of them support your conclusion that "what means more is the way you were raised".

You definitely could make the case that Asians are smarter on average, just as white people are smarter on average than black people. But I don't know why you should.
I'll give you the answer: you should.

It isn't because of biology, and saying such statements is of no use to anyone. It simply fuels the egos of racists. Non-racists do not care and see no use in pointing it out.
Wrong. 

I.Q. meaningfully correlates with job performance http://maamodt.asp.radford.edu/PSYC%20651/Huffcutt%20&%20Arthur%20(1994)%20Interview.pdf . Employers would benefit from being able to give potential employees an I.Q. test -- that's useful to someone.

I.Q. is a good predictor of education level, occupation level and income level https://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/uploads/Intelligence-and-socioeconomic-success-A-meta-analytic-review-of-longitudinal-research.pdf . People could take an I.Q. test and see roughly what they can expect from their lives -- that's useful to someone.

I.Q. correlates with school grades https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160289615001269 . Rather than berating a kid for doing poorly on a test, thinking that he/she simply didn't study hard enough, it could be that the kid did but simply isn't smart enough -- that's useful to someone.

To prove my point, take all high IQ people of all races together. What makes them high IQ? You will find a lot of similarities across all racial categories. Generally they are wealthier, have high education, play musical instruments, etc... 

So, perhaps the more productive conversation is, how can we increase wealth and education for all people?
Do that, and you will see all IQ rates rise to the point of each race matching the other. 
You haven't proven anything at all, nor have you provided any study to back *any* of yours claims.

Here, you've reversed cause and effect. Low I.Q's correlate with lower wealth and lower education. Sure, there is a feedback loop in that these lower I.Q's result in that person ending up in a worse environment, and thereby potentially further lowering I.Q. (because I.Q. is partially determined by the environment, but not nearly to the degree you suggest). But the low I.Q. is largely responsible for them ending up with lower wealth and lower education.
MgtowDemon
MgtowDemon's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 206
0
3
4
MgtowDemon's avatar
MgtowDemon
0
3
4
-->
@Theweakeredge
As you never responded to the very first objections: You can be racist and not hate that other race, you can be racist and hate the other race.
These terms aren't defined to the point of being debatable, hence this is a non-starter. You need to specify what you mean by "racist" (which you would have known had you read the OP).

you only rebuked a single source in the multitude of sources that disagreed with you.
Yeah I don't consider Youtube videos and links to Google docs rants to be sources LOL.

I'm not clicking on Death's link because he's blocked me (what's the point in conversing with someone who doesn't want a conversation?), and he could rip my I.P. address from it. If he has anything worthwhile to say, he can say it in the post, include of lazily posting random links and not explaining them at all.

I've explained why those definitions those people linked are wrong. If you still disagree purely because a random dictionary said so, you are appealing to authority and not addressing the logic/argumentation I've provided.

this was all started because you couldn't handle the fact that you couldn't convince me of your clearly definitionally racist sentiments. 
Can you actually read the OP lol

Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@MgtowDemon
No, not right now, as I don't have the time, and I using the cited definition of racism earlier, your points are semantic at best.
MgtowDemon
MgtowDemon's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 206
0
3
4
MgtowDemon's avatar
MgtowDemon
0
3
4
-->
@Theweakeredge
No, not right now, as I don't have the time
Oh yeah I'm sure 1 hour of highschool homework a day makes you very busy.

and I using the cited definition of racism earlier, your points are semantic at best.
Wow. Amazing. In me attempting to explain why the definition was faulty, you accurately stated that my points were semantic.

Who ever thought that arguing about definitions would be semantic?

Truly, you are prodigy.

Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@MgtowDemon
The terms "racism" and "racist" are inherently inaccurate words, loaded with politically charged bias. The latter is self-evident whenever you call something/someone one of these terms. The former takes a bit more explaining.

If someone said, "Blacks belong in slavery," most people will respond to that by saying it's racist. Fair enough. It expresses racial hatred. It deserves the politically charged terminology and social ostracization. I wouldn't criticize the usage of those terms ("racism" and "racist") there.
Stating "Blacks belong in slavery," is not racist because "Black" is not a race. Even if one uses it as a placeholder for "African descent," then believing the anthropologists would also have you believe that everyone is of African descent.
If someone said, "Blacks have lower I.Q's than Whites", some people will respond to that by saying it's racist. Now, unfortunately, this is a scientifically verifiable fact, and thus in responding with your hysterical, sloppy language, you're not only slandering the people making the claim, but you are engaging in anti-scientific behaviour. Whether a fact is "racist" or not is beside the point, and you're getting in the way of genuine scientific research with this nonsense term.
No, it is not a "scientifically verifiable fact." The Intelligence Quotient, i.e. I.Q., is a psychometric, which in itself is an oxymoron. Psychology isn't a hard science. That means that there are no controls, and the results aren't replicable. This is the reason that the relationship between I.Q. and overall "success" typically has a covariance of just 0.3. Not to mention, despite years of effort, a causal link between genetic inheritance and I.Q. has not been and will never be substantiated. The I.Q. is the psychologist's bar trick. It doesn't measure intelligence. At best, it gives some speculative gauge of classroom discipline. Trying to quantify intelligence is like trying quantify "dancing skills" or a person's "appearance." It's great for entertainment, but reckless when taken seriously.

Instead of using these stupid terms, when you hear things like "6 million was not enough" or "all Asians eat dogs alive", use the term "racial hatred". It's far more accurate, it doesn't screw up science and demographic observations, and, most importantly, you don't look like a bloody idiot.
Not necessarily. Chauvinism isn't necessarily informed by hatred. And yes, chauvinism would be the more apt term.

Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,567
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Athias
In a meritocracy, skin color means nothing. Either you can do a task competently or you can not.

No DNA testing required.
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@Greyparrot
In a meritocracy, skin color means nothing. Either you can do a task competently or you can not.

No DNA testing required.
I'm not attempting to evaluate the morality of racism; I'm only attempting to quell the delusions about it. And as admirable as your statement is, Greyparrot, does it always apply?

Engage this thought experiment with me: if a heterosexual male encountered a "Hispanic" woman, and a so-called "Black" woman, and they both offered to have sex with him, would he be "wrong" to decline the so-called "Black" woman on the sole basis that she's "black"? What if past-experience dictates that she's a better "fuck" than the "Hispanic" woman?

Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,567
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Athias
It's verifiably hard to reliably determine anything about the DNA of a person from skin shade alone. Skin color is an isolated phenotype of millions of other traits.
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@Greyparrot
Agreed.
PressF4Respect
PressF4Respect's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 3,159
3
8
11
PressF4Respect's avatar
PressF4Respect
3
8
11
-->
@ILikePie5
Thanks!
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,567
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@PressF4Respect
Hi F4
PressF4Respect
PressF4Respect's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 3,159
3
8
11
PressF4Respect's avatar
PressF4Respect
3
8
11
-->
@Greyparrot
Sup dude hows life
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,567
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@PressF4Respect
Lockdown making me really fat and bored.
MgtowDemon
MgtowDemon's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 206
0
3
4
MgtowDemon's avatar
MgtowDemon
0
3
4
-->
@Athias
"Black" is not a race. Even if one uses it as a placeholder for "African descent," then believing the anthropologists would also have you believe that everyone is of African descent.
This is incorrect. What you have committed is the continuum fallacy in that you've implied that because it's possible to place all races into a broad category of "African descent" (which is debatable anyway), then there are no phenotypical distinctions if we sub-divided into "race". This fallacy is best understood by the layman when it is compared to colours. Sure, red, blue, green, orange etc. can be broadly defined as "colours" (the human race), but that doesn't mean we are not able to divide them into smaller groups of shades of the same colour (races). Similar to how it makes no sense to say there are distinctions between colours therefore we can't divide them, the same logic can be applied to human races.

This study breaks down those broad generalised genetically distinct groups (African, European and East Asian) into smaller genetically distinct groups  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1180234/ . Notice how "African" is a distinct category amongst "European" and "Asian", which shows that we can have racial classifications that are not solely "African descent". Figure 4 shows a further breaking down of "African, European and East Asian", and even African has distinct racial groups within it.

All of this is to ignore the fact that differing groups of humans evolved in different geographical regions throughout the world, and expecting them all to be precisely the same is belief in magic.

No, it is not a "scientifically verifiable fact." The Intelligence Quotient, i.e. I.Q., is a psychometric, which in itself is an oxymoron. Psychology isn't a hard science. That means that there are no controls, and the results aren't replicable. This is the reason that the relationship between I.Q. and overall "success" typically has a covariance of just 0.3. Not to mention, despite years of effort, a causal link between genetic inheritance and I.Q. has not been and will never be substantiated. The I.Q. is the psychologist's bar trick. It doesn't measure intelligence. At best, it gives some speculative gauge of classroom discipline. Trying to quantify intelligence is like trying quantify "dancing skills" or a person's "appearance." It's great for entertainment, but reckless when taken seriously.
Whether I.Q. is a psychometric, and whether it's a hard science or not, isn't particularly relevant. There is no doubt that the science shows us I.Q. isn't a perfect measurement of intelligence, but that's besides the point. What we're interested in whether I.Q. probably measures something of practical importance, and the answer to that question is 'yes'.

The question then becomes how accurate is I.Q. is in determining that. Whilst you've failed to reference any scientific material, I've already written an OP on covering the correlation between "success" and I.Q. On the validity of I.Q. as a measurement of intelligence (debateart.com) . Depending on what you define as success (education level, job title, income level etc.), the correlate varies and isn't a static "0.3" as you've asserted without a shred of evidence.


Clearly, despite there not being a perfect causal link, I.Q. most likely measures intelligence. Thus, what is more "reckless" is to ignore statistical probability.


PressF4Respect
PressF4Respect's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 3,159
3
8
11
PressF4Respect's avatar
PressF4Respect
3
8
11
-->
@Greyparrot
Lockdown making me really fat and bored.
Can relate

MgtowDemon
MgtowDemon's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 206
0
3
4
MgtowDemon's avatar
MgtowDemon
0
3
4
-->
@Greyparrot
In a meritocracy, skin color means nothing. Either you can do a task competently or you can not.

No DNA testing required.
This loses hard to racial in-group bias. If races are only bothered whether their "own kind" gets into power/get resources/wins, and you're worried about having an even playing field, eventually you'll lose on the even playing field, a member of the racial in-group gets into power, and then gives his/her "own" a lot of free stuff and advantages, and thus destroy the even playing field. Apart from people who have been brainwashed into believing in individualism (mostly White people), this is how people behave.

Take for example Jewish people. Keep in mind this isn't to bash Jews, because every other racial group would do this if they could. Jews are the most competent race in the world, in regards to intelligence, with an average I.Q. ranging from 108-115, depending on the study you look at. This often makes them the best candidate for jobs, in meritocracies, particularly the more cerebral ones which tend to attract a lot of power. Then they get the job, start practicing racial in-group bias for their own kind, and suddenly you end up with a case like America's where Jews own 50% of the largest corporations in America, despite being 2% of the population. Then the other racial groups gets mad that Jews control everything, then they make up stuff like "Jews are Satanic" or "All Jewish people are scamming liars", not understanding at all what happened, and so the Jews get kicked out of the country (or worse).

This has happened over 100 times in history just with the Jews alone, and will continue to happen with any person with a racial in-group bias that gets into power because people, like you, don't understand why meritocracies don't work.



Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,567
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@MgtowDemon
Meritocracies work just fine in Jingoist nations where there is only one tribe comprised of one nation.
MgtowDemon
MgtowDemon's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 206
0
3
4
MgtowDemon's avatar
MgtowDemon
0
3
4
-->
@Greyparrot
Meritocracies work just fine in Jingoist nations where there is only one tribe comprised of one nation.
That's actually fair enough. Perhaps you do understand after all.

Trouble is, how do we get these Western nations to this stage? Promoting a 'White America policy' isn't something non-whites will readily accept.

Death23
Death23's avatar
Debates: 24
Posts: 618
3
4
7
Death23's avatar
Death23
3
4
7
Transracial adoption studies show that the alleged IQ genetic inferiority stuff is pretty garbage. See for yourself https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Transracial_Adoption_Study
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,567
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Death23
I guess disrupting the western family as BLM advocates isn't such a great idea according to your study.
MgtowDemon
MgtowDemon's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 206
0
3
4
MgtowDemon's avatar
MgtowDemon
0
3
4
-->
@Greyparrot
I guess disrupting the western family as BLM advocates isn't such a great idea according to your study.
Whoah slow down. Don't expect a known shit-poster to have any kind of consistency with his political views. All he wants to do is copy-paste Wikipedia, Youtube and some imgur memes. He actually didn't just post his hyperlink by itself this time (a truly rare feat for him), and instead wrote a whole sentence to accompany his copy-paste, including a bonus half-sentence to introduce his hyperlink.

If you ask for logical consistency with what he shit-posts with, you might accidentally turn him into a worthwhile poster, and we certainly don't want that.



Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,567
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@MgtowDemon
If you ask for logical consistency with what he shit-posts with, you might accidentally turn him into a worthwhile poster, and we certainly don't want that.

I'm not going to feed any gossip about users on this site. I just address the ideas and content.