true Ziryab. I thought of something though. If genes are selfish then really we have an easy solution for why people are racist. They are people who have let their more advantageous adapatations like reason and awareness be subverted by their selfish pigmentation genes. lol That is hilarious. Imagine you throw away your brain cause you have six fingers and those six finger genes are now directing your actions. I mean, to be racist after realizing that you are being controlled by pigmentation genes is just embarrassing.
Racism on live chess
Sort:
Gilded, I applaud your effort, but the fact is that many in this world today do not see it the way you do. Many will give the politically correct answer to any question about race publicly, but that may not be how they think or perceive others.
You wrote, " We discriminate all the time but judging based on color of skin is unfair because it is unmerited and therefore not efficient." While true, it still happens all the time. For example, in some countries, there is dissention between light-skinned and dark skinned black people. Pigment means nothing? What you speak of is almost Utopian-a society that we can only wish to live in. Stereotypes became stereotypes for a reason. It will be there well past our lifetimes.
Judging one on his actions and words is the only way to get close to your Utopia. And it will take generations.
@AlCzervik
True, I do not think inferior thinking disappears. Since we all start from an inferior thinking and work our way up. I just think some people forget how unprofitable it is to engage in. I would not want my friend to be unfairly prejudice anymore than I would want him to have cancer. So I am less looking for the Utopia and more talking about your latter comment. That rational people need to make sure harmful irrational gets what it merits.
ClavierCavalier wrote:
bigpoison wrote:
Inmates By Race (USA)
White: 129,682 (59.5 %) Black: 80,811 (37.1 %) Native American: 3,996 (1.8 %) Asian: 3,408 (1.6 %)Population by race (USA)
White persons, percent, 2011 (a) 78.1% Black persons, percent, 2011 (a) 13.1% American Indian and Alaska Native persons, percent, 2011 (a) 1.2% Asian persons, percent, 2011 (a) 5.0% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander persons, percent, 2011 (a) 0.2% Persons reporting two or more races, percent, 2011 2.3% Persons of Hispanic or Latino Origin, percent, 2011 (b) 16.7%White persons not Hispanic, percent, 2011 63.4%That second point...that was a joke, dude.
I can't figure out what these figures are supposed to mean. It seems like an attempt at being racist politically correctly.
Bigpoison's comment gets right to the point. It has to do with [racial] profiling.
Gilded_Candlelight wrote:
@AlCzervik
True, I do not think inferior thinking disappears. Since we all start from an inferior thinking and work our way up. I just think some people forget how unprofitable it is to engage in. I would not want my friend to be unfairly prejudice anymore than I would want him to have cancer. So I am less looking for the Utopia and more talking about your latter comment. That rational people need to make sure harmful irrational gets what it merits.
Is that what you call your inferior monologue?
Anyway, the best way to prick the bubble of a "non racist" is to have a discussion of what breed of dog they own or prefer and what lovely characteristics it has compared to other breeds.
SPARTANEMESIS wrote:
ClavierCavalier wrote:
bigpoison wrote:
Inmates By Race (USA)
White: 129,682 (59.5 %) Black: 80,811 (37.1 %) Native American: 3,996 (1.8 %) Asian: 3,408 (1.6 %)Population by race (USA)
White persons, percent, 2011 (a) 78.1% Black persons, percent, 2011 (a) 13.1% American Indian and Alaska Native persons, percent, 2011 (a) 1.2% Asian persons, percent, 2011 (a) 5.0% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander persons, percent, 2011 (a) 0.2% Persons reporting two or more races, percent, 2011 2.3% Persons of Hispanic or Latino Origin, percent, 2011 (b) 16.7%White persons not Hispanic, percent, 2011 63.4%That second point...that was a joke, dude.
I can't figure out what these figures are supposed to mean. It seems like an attempt at being racist politically correctly.
Bigpoison's comment gets right to the point. It has to do with [racial] profiling.
Just want to point out that "racist politically correctly" makes no sense.
You can't follow an adverb with another adverb. So maybe that is the reason it made no sense. I mean, if you have a different concept of grammar then it all might seem like gibberish.
astronomer999 wrote:
Gilded_Candlelight wrote:
@AlCzervik
True, I do not think inferior thinking disappears. Since we all start from an inferior thinking and work our way up. I just think some people forget how unprofitable it is to engage in. I would not want my friend to be unfairly prejudice anymore than I would want him to have cancer. So I am less looking for the Utopia and more talking about your latter comment. That rational people need to make sure harmful irrational gets what it merits.
Is that what you call your inferior monologue?
Anyway, the best way to prick the bubble of a "non racist" is to have a discussion of what breed of dog they own or prefer and what lovely characteristics it has compared to other breeds.
Lol I would totally bring up some amatuer understanding of biology using dog breeds, which are sub species, if I was an illiterate racist too! lol I get you man. You read some science over your head and now you are using pop science to refute it. I would love to see you stand up in front of a group of genetic and taxonimic experts. "Hey, he is not an ignorant racist! he is a red man! look at his face".
P.S. 1+1=2. I figured since you don't have a even a rudimentary understanding of logic we would start there! The world must be confusing when you are just making up your own ideas and they are constantly being proven wrong.
lol Maybe I jumped the gun. I should assume that Astronomer is a troll before I assume he is a racist. Since, you would have to be ignorant, crazy or a liar to be a racist. And Astronomer lives in a a country with relatively good education standard, plenty of economic opportunity and, I hear high taxes so I assume a good mental health system. So rationally I could not infer he is a racist because that should be a statistical outlier in Australia unless there is some systemic problem which supports racist. You troll, you! You are so cute.
Mar 1, 2013
0
#350
Gilded_Candlelight wrote:
So rationally I could not infer he is a racist because that should be a statistical outlier in Australia unless there is some systemic problem which supports racist.
You do not remember the international criticism of Australia's systemic oppression of Aborigines during the months prior to the summer Olympics?
Australia's legacy is not substantially different than the United States on matters of race, at least with respect to indigenous populations.
Gilded_Candlelight wrote:
astronomer999 wrote:
Anyway, the best way to prick the bubble of a "non racist" is to have a discussion of what breed of dog they own or prefer and what lovely characteristics it has compared to other breeds.
Lol I would totally bring up some amatuer understanding of biology using dog breeds, which are sub species, if I was an illiterate racist too! lol I get you man. You read some science over your head and now you are using pop science to refute it. I would love to see you stand up in front of a group of genetic and taxonimic experts. "Hey, he is not an ignorant racist! he is a red man! look at his face".
P.S. 1+1=2. I figured since you don't have a even a rudimentary understanding of logic we would start there! The world must be confusing when you are just making up your own ideas and they are constantly being proven wrong.
So help me out of my ignorance. Define what the differences are between"race", "breed" and "sub species".
And I wonder if you could use some kind of orthographic optimiser before you post your response. Just to make it more readily comprehensible to us simpletons.
Ah! lol Poor Astronomer! Using self deragatory terms to hide your ignorance! Classic maneuver! And you want me to teach you all about taxonomic classification! Alright, what are you paying me? Oh right, you dont want to pay me, this is just an attempt to have me lay out an definition so you might , just might, get lucky enough to poke holes in it. Then you will use the logical fallacy that, since, I was innaccurate in one statement it stands to reason I am innaccurate in others as well. Lol Man, this is a great day. The breeds you refer to are sub species, simpleton. Some scientist recognize race as a way to further narrow a sub species. It is a little beyond your simpleton understanding though. Because first you would have to understand basic genetics. Alleles, evolution, dominance, semi dominance. Nice try though, your tactic of trying to move the argument of science and on to me or the way I present things so you dont look like an idiot is very popular with people who ....... how do you say it....... are stupid! lol yeah that is the term I was looking for. See Astronomer, for anyone interested I have already laid out the basic concepts of genetics. Anyone following these posts could have read the concepts and soaked them in or asked questions. Unlike you, who has just made a statement and does not support it. Also, even if I did make some taxonomic mistake, which I didnt, invalidation is not inverse validation. You dont prove race exist by proving my argument is invalid. Which it wasn't, but I am having fun explaining how you can even execute your own strategy competently. Also, Astro we dont prove negatives. In other words you dont start with the idea race exist. You start with the idea it does not exist and then if you think it does (still talking about humans here simpleton, keep up) you offer proof. Your side, who believes in race, has offered proof and science took a look at it for a bit, then invalidated the argument. Do you even have a basic concept of genetics? Hey, lol, hey astro, is the world flat? For real, tell me man. lol. When you make some dog breeding argument even proponents of racism are embarrassed. By the way, you know I have at least 20 points on your IQ. That was not the start of any sort of validation or refutation, I just wanted you to know. Cause, you are kind of a moron. Slowin the team down here bud.
astronomer999 wrote:
Gilded_Candlelight wrote:
astronomer999 wrote:
Anyway, the best way to prick the bubble of a "non racist" is to have a discussion of what breed of dog they own or prefer and what lovely characteristics it has compared to other breeds.
Lol I would totally bring up some amatuer understanding of biology using dog breeds, which are sub species, if I was an illiterate racist too! lol I get you man. You read some science over your head and now you are using pop science to refute it. I would love to see you stand up in front of a group of genetic and taxonimic experts. "Hey, he is not an ignorant racist! he is a red man! look at his face".
P.S. 1+1=2. I figured since you don't have a even a rudimentary understanding of logic we would start there! The world must be confusing when you are just making up your own ideas and they are constantly being proven wrong.
So help me out of my ignorance. Define what the differences are between"race", "breed" and "sub species".
And I wonder if you could use some kind of orthographic optimiser before you post your response. Just to make it more readily comprehensible to us simpletons.
A) only you can help yourself out of ignorance. Dont unfairly burden me with an impossible task.
B) readily comprehensible is redundant
C) Breeds are not a scientific classification like genus or species.
D) it is a non sequitur, since there is only the species of homo-sapien.
Gilded_Candlelight wrote:
astronomer999 wrote:
Gilded_Candlelight wrote:
astronomer999 wrote:
Anyway, the best way to prick the bubble of a "non racist" is to have a discussion of what breed of dog they own or prefer and what lovely characteristics it has compared to other breeds.
Lol I would totally bring up some amatuer understanding of biology using dog breeds, which are sub species, if I was an illiterate racist too! lol I get you man. You read some science over your head and now you are using pop science to refute it. I would love to see you stand up in front of a group of genetic and taxonimic experts. "Hey, he is not an ignorant racist! he is a red man! look at his face".
P.S. 1+1=2. I figured since you don't have a even a rudimentary understanding of logic we would start there! The world must be confusing when you are just making up your own ideas and they are constantly being proven wrong.
So help me out of my ignorance. Define what the differences are between"race", "breed" and "sub species".
And I wonder if you could use some kind of orthographic optimiser before you post your response. Just to make it more readily comprehensible to us simpletons.
A) only you can help yourself out of ignorance. Dont unfairly burden me with an impossible task.
B) readily comprehensible is redundant
C) Breeds are not a scientific classification like genus or species.
D) it is a non sequitur, since there is only the species of homo-sapien.
Point (A) I am ignorant of what you intend your words to signify. Further explanation is necessary
Point (B) see point (A)
Point (C) You introduced the suggestion that breeds are equivalent to "sub-species". I understand the concepts of genus and species. I'm not certain of how you go further in your classification.
Point (D) see point (C)
astronomer999 wrote:
Gilded_Candlelight wrote:
astronomer999 wrote:
Gilded_Candlelight wrote:
astronomer999 wrote:
Anyway, the best way to prick the bubble of a "non racist" is to have a discussion of what breed of dog they own or prefer and what lovely characteristics it has compared to other breeds.
Lol I would totally bring up some amatuer understanding of biology using dog breeds, which are sub species, if I was an illiterate racist too! lol I get you man. You read some science over your head and now you are using pop science to refute it. I would love to see you stand up in front of a group of genetic and taxonimic experts. "Hey, he is not an ignorant racist! he is a red man! look at his face".
P.S. 1+1=2. I figured since you don't have a even a rudimentary understanding of logic we would start there! The world must be confusing when you are just making up your own ideas and they are constantly being proven wrong.
So help me out of my ignorance. Define what the differences are between"race", "breed" and "sub species".
And I wonder if you could use some kind of orthographic optimiser before you post your response. Just to make it more readily comprehensible to us simpletons.
A) only you can help yourself out of ignorance. Dont unfairly burden me with an impossible task.
B) readily comprehensible is redundant
C) Breeds are not a scientific classification like genus or species.
D) it is a non sequitur, since there is only the species of homo-sapien.
Point (A) I am ignorant of what you intend your words to signify. Further explanation is necessary
Point (B) see point (A)
Point (C) You introduced the suggestion that breeds are equivalent to "sub-species". I understand the concepts of genus and species. I'm not certain of how you go further in your classification.
Point (D) see point (C)
A) I am not your Mum
B) I am not your Dad
C) I am not your english or science teacher
D) My words dont signify anything, they are written in plain english, if you don't understand then it is because you are not familiar with the subject being discussed. I didnt suggest that breeds are equivalent to sub-species I flat out stated that as a fact, which it is. If you dont understand race and species and sub-species, perhaps you should not be a racist. Since that is like being the D&D Dungeon Master and not understanding role playing. In fact, it is almost exaclty the same thing (Sorry, D&D players, your fantasies are not nearly as bad as racist fanatasies about how the world exist).
E) readily is redundant when you say comprehensible
1.com·pre·hen·si·ble
/ˌkämpriˈhensəbəl/
|
Adjective
|
|
|
Synonyms
|
2. re·dun·dant
/riˈdəndənt/
|
Adjective
|
F) I can state it no clearer than I have, race is not applicable in a taxomic sense (that is the classifaction system we use to distinguish actual innate differences between organism) to homo sapiens. It is highly improbable that your genetic counterpart lives within your population. That is to say, the guy who is your match for genetic information, most likely is not your color.
G) Non sequitur is latin for "does not follow". I am saying it has nothing to do with anything.
Hey joe! were you feeling left out or just wanted to get your comment in before they locked the forum?
joeschmo123 wrote:
just wanted to see some bigots explain their racist ideology. This forum could have been way more amusing.
No bigots have stepped up to argue the scientific reasons they are racist. I think it must hurt one's pride to realize how irrational the belief is.
Whitewater_IPA wrote:
No bigots have stepped up to argue the scientific reasons they are racist. I think it must hurt one's pride to realize how irrational the belief is.
That is totally untrue. In the nineteenth century and early twentieth century, racism had a very "scientific" component. There were many scholarly books written about the genetic and scientific aspects of superiority and inferiority of different racial archetypes. Remember this was also a time where mandatory sterilization of undesireables was offical government policy in many leading nations, including the USA.
The leading anthropologist in the United States who advanced a scientific justification for racial inferiority was Dr. Carleton Coon, if you are interested in reading about him.
This all fell out of vogue after the Second World War, for obvious reasons.
I was referencing this forum ... where it in fact is totally true. And the "science" used in the past is still used even though it is outdated. If you really want to see something funny, explain how arayans are from Northern India to a white supremacist. But I dont want to pick on white people. I have met racist from every race! lol that is joke for the people who still dont get what race is.
Imagine a world where people were judged on merit, and every individual was afforded the opportunity to educate and improve upon himself. It would be great, and we would call it .............. Gattica! lol, no joking. It would actually be really nice. In a way though I shouldn't complain, it really is a complaint about being a head of the curve.
Nonetheless, socially constructed realities continue to have material consequences.