# Has Cancel Culture Gone Too Far



## SG854 (Jun 28, 2020)

A famous YouTuber that's been there from the beginning Jenna Marbles made an apology video and took time off YouTube which might be permanent.



Family Guy actor for Clevland Brown, a white guy voicing a Black character says he's stepping down from the role.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cn...ke-henry-cleveland-family-guy-trnd/index.html

Simpsons says they will stop using White Actors for non white characters.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/26/entertainment/simpsons-voices-trnd/index.html

Angry Joe is getting Meetoo'd

https://www.google.com/amp/s/boundi...s-statement-in-response-to-metoo-accuser/amp/


Jimmy Kimmel took a break after videos from the 90's surfaced on the web from a parody Rap song of Snoop Dogg and immitating Oprah trying to look like her.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/news.s...rsonate-snoop-dogg-and-oprah-winfrey-12013578

There are many more examples like this.
People are looking to cancel other people in these times. It seems like everybody has something they can be canceled for.


----------



## ghjfdtg (Jun 28, 2020)

It's stupid if you ask me. Why can't a white guy be a voice actor for a black character and the other way around? Isn't the very idea behind all this that everyone is the same regardless of skin color?


----------



## SG854 (Jun 28, 2020)

They are also bringing back segregation

There is Black only segregated areas within Chaz

https://disrn.com/news/video-shows-black-only-segregated-areas-within-chaz/amp


----------



## Sonic Angel Knight (Jun 28, 2020)

What's "Cancel Culture" I assume by the context is not about cancelled video games.


----------



## morvoran (Jun 28, 2020)

Yes, cancel culture has gone too far.  I blame it on the twitterverse losers who have such easy, simple lives that they have nothing better to do than complain about the smallest of non-issues.  
For some reason, Twitter has become the moral compass of the world even though it is nothing but a leftist shithole.

Here's how cancel culture works - 
One loser complains about something on twitter that doesn't really bother them.
A couple other losers retweet and complain about the same thing.
The lame stream media writes a story about the fake outrage of these three people making the issue seem bigger than it really is.
Some corporation freaks out due to fear of retribution from less than 1% of their customer base causing them to act irresponsibly and cancel a product, ad, actor, model, etc.
The world suffers due to the actions of a few idiots.

The normal thinking people need to start a movement that counters these twitterverse idiots to let corporations know that their opinions do not reflect the feelings of most of the real world's population.


----------



## GoldenBullet (Jun 28, 2020)

I definitely think there is a double standard when Key and Peele impersonate other races in lots of their sketches and often are taking jabs at racial stereotypes. (I still love their content)
The problem isn't the people that are "cancelling" celebrities. Its the media that covers said cancellation. Harsher and surprising headlines gets more clicks and ad revenue. Readers don't need to read an article to see that -insert celebrity- made a racist joke when it is in the headline while the article states that the comment was made in the 90s or early 2000s


----------



## Jayinem81 (Jun 28, 2020)

Thankfully Simpsons have solved all the issues people were rioting about. They were mad that white people were voicing other races on the Simpsons. So now everything is back to normal and fine. Thank you Simpsons.


----------



## Hanafuda (Jun 28, 2020)

SG854 said:


> Jenna Marbles made an apology video




Jenna can apologize all she wants, but I'm not sorry.


----------



## tinkle (Jun 28, 2020)

morvoran said:


> Yes, cancel culture has gone too far.  I blame it on the twitterverse losers who have such easy, simple lives that they have nothing better to do than complain about the smallest of non-issues.
> For some reason, Twitter has become the moral compass of the world even though it is nothing but a leftist shithole.
> 
> Here's how cancel culture works -
> ...


Sit down, John.


----------



## Taleweaver (Jun 28, 2020)

Erm... Not to rain on anyone's parade, but I knew 'cancel culture' as the idea that nothing is permanent. 'I said I'd come to your party but I didn't feel like it so I canceled'. 'I didn't really want the clothes I wanted so I sent them back'. 'I broke off my engagement because we couldn't agree to what songs to play on our marriage'... That sort of thing. Not the individual actions (which might all be excusable), but the general idea that I can just walk out on whatever commitment ever.

Perhaps people around me were using the word wrong, but regardless... The situation in the op isn't less relevant. Well... It's mostly in the 'strange' phase now. 
I get that impersonating black people (or whatever color) with the idea of portraying the entire race as inferior is viewed as racist, but it's... Going a bit far. It's as if the most offended colored person is put in a position of judgment now.
I mean... In our areas, Santa Claus has competition of Saint Nicholas, who drops toys and candy through the chimneys of nice children on December sixth. However, in the tale, he has... Someone... With him. Depending on who you ask, Zwarte Piet is Either a helper, servant or a slave. And he's black. Because of his skin color or from the soot in the chimneys, another thing that's part of the discussion. In any case : he is busy disappearing from the tale, as the very controversy about it isn't something you want to bring in front of young children.

I'm really not sure what the end goal is, here. Remove any trace of recognition for people of color? This may sound contra-indicaties, but parody spreads popularity. If all white people can represent in media is other white people, that's actually worse for diversity.

Oh, and... Can anyone explain to me why 'blackface' is racist? I first heard it about controversy because Justin Trudeau wore black make - up dressed as a genius in a masquerade... Decades ago. It's easy to paint a new context and apply it on hindsight, but that doesn't prove anything aside perhaps malicious intent (I WILL portray you as a racist, so I'll just dig around until I can find something I can use for that claim)


----------



## Roamin64 (Jun 28, 2020)

Don't forget, black lives matter.


----------



## SG854 (Jun 28, 2020)

Hanafuda said:


> Jenna can apologize all she wants, but I'm not sorry.
> 
> View attachment 215317


Is that true? There is a rumor YouTubers are being trained to play a believable sob story, since YouTubers in the past look fake when they try to do it. Leaving YouTube before the angry mob comes after them and walk away with lots of cash unscathed when the purge happens. 

But Jenna Marbles is a YouTuber many people say is one of the nicest good YouTubers so is she really doing that to retire with lots of money and look good. But even if Jenna was doing a fake sob story to save herself from an angry mob, the problem is that there was an angry group of people for her to do this in the first place to save herself from. Which means cancel culture is enough of a problem for her to do this.


----------



## Chary (Jun 28, 2020)

Cancel culture is both an overcorrection of society's old inequality issues combined with the desire everyone has for drama, the mob mentality, etc. I think the Simpsons stuff is ridiculous--what is recasting a character that's been played by the same guy for 30 years going to change? Absolutely nothing. It's just a PR move to try to pander to some people. 

Once you sneeze wrong or do something viewed in a bad light, that's it. You're done. There's no room for forgiveness anymore. I think the meetoo movement is a huge deal for those who have been abused, but it's scary to see that some use the movement as their own drama platform to falsely accuse and ruin lives.


----------



## SG854 (Jun 28, 2020)

Taleweaver said:


> Erm... Not to rain on anyone's parade, but I knew 'cancel culture' as the idea that nothing is permanent. 'I said I'd come to your party but I didn't feel like it so I canceled'. 'I didn't really want the clothes I wanted so I sent them back'. 'I broke off my engagement because we couldn't agree to what songs to play on our marriage'... That sort of thing. Not the individual actions (which might all be excusable), but the general idea that I can just walk out on whatever commitment ever.
> 
> Perhaps people around me were using the word wrong, but regardless... The situation in the op isn't less relevant. Well... It's mostly in the 'strange' phase now.
> I get that impersonating black people (or whatever color) with the idea of portraying the entire race as inferior is viewed as racist, but it's... Going a bit far. It's as if the most offended colored person is put in a position of judgment now.
> ...


So basically people using whatever small excuse they can to hate. To them might not be a big deal but they just want to use any little thing they can to hate, or to walk out of a commitment they got themselves into without looking like the bad person. Even with this attitude they are still canceling people off the platform. And making the person off as a racist which is not a small thing to be considered. And divorce rates are extremely high and there are problems with child custody, so it's not a small thing that people use to walk out of engagement.


----------



## tatripp (Jun 28, 2020)

Cancel culture has gone way too far. You can get someone fired by a mere accusation. And as funny as it is to watch the left eat itself alive (Jimmy Kimmel, Kathy Griffin, etc.), it really needs to stop. If someone does something bad, let the market judge them. For example, Jimmy Kimmel is not funny. He's not entertaining. He's also clearly not a racist. His old skits don't prove that he's a racist. Dumb people shouting that he's racist so they get virtue points should not get him fired. 
Is it really okay to get someone fired for any mistake that he has ever made? What about imagined mistakes that were taken out of context? No thank you. Cancel culture is completely wrong, and I lose respect for anyone who tries to cancel people in these ways. I also lose respect when someone caves to the cancel culture mob by apologizing when they haven't done anything wrong.


----------



## tatripp (Jun 28, 2020)

Taleweaver said:


> Oh, and... Can anyone explain to me why 'blackface' is racist? I first heard it about controversy because Justin Trudeau wore black make - up dressed as a genius in a masquerade... Decades ago. It's easy to paint a new context and apply it on hindsight, but that doesn't prove anything aside perhaps malicious intent (I WILL portray you as a racist, so I'll just dig around until I can find something I can use for that claim)



-Blackface is considered racist because it was used in America in old minstrel shows. The black people were often extremely stereotypical and overly simplistic. They were portrayed as simple minded people and sub-human in a sense. I think it represents the ignorance of Americans at the time more than anything else. 

-Justin Trudeau was clearly not dressing up because he loves minstrel shows, hates black people, and thinks blacks are inferior. It was just some Halloween party or something. I'm not sure if it has the same context in Canada either. The reason it was such a big deal with Trudeau is that he is such a progressive person, this is the greatest sin he can commit even if he clearly wasn't doing it with malice. It's ironic because of how he is constantly virtue signaling about how woke he is, yet he committed the ultimate sin for a progressive.

-Many white Americans are hypersensitive to race because of slavery. White people have a ton of guilt. Many people are afraid to lose their job for saying anything that might be interpreted as racist. We have people like Al Sharpton who have had careers in blackmailing businesses so that he doesn't accuse them of racism. An accusation of racism, just or unjust, is sometimes enough to ruin your career in America or create a multi-million dollar lawsuit.


----------



## CallmeBerto (Jun 28, 2020)

This is what happens when you pander to those who look to be offended. They will always escalate. I do get why companies do so though. See the radical left will use any tactic in the book to get their way. Dox, harassment, make shit up whatever it takes to get their way. The right are high on their principles and that is why they never win. What I'm saying that it will get much worst.


----------



## notimp (Jun 28, 2020)

Sonic Angel Knight said:


> What's "Cancel Culture" I assume by the context is not about cancelled video games.




If you have 20 minutes.. 

If not: Chomsky explains it in 10: h**ps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dz_zsHLbvMQ

Or even shorter: Its shouting the other opinion/side of the argument off of any stage/trying to remove them from their job -- to win an argument, or in this case to show a presumed virtue.

Its the horrific side of liberal identity politics. 

edit: Afair the term originally comes from students trying to get talks from speakers canceled, that werent adhering to the PC principal of 'if no one says it, it doesnt exist'. So actively lobbying for them to be uninvited by the universities administerial office.


----------



## osaka35 (Jun 28, 2020)

SG854 said:


> A famous YouTuber that's been there from the beginning Jenna Marbles made an apology video and took time off YouTube which might be permanent.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



As a rule of thumb, if you're an ahole, then you're going to get called out for it. Jenna Marbles got heat as a direct result of her actions, and stepped down to avoid changing or engaging. So...what do you believe was the correct course of action for her to take?

Also, you will see a lot of token actions, so real change doesn't have to happen. Like that realty company saying they'll stop referring to it as a "master bedroom", despite it having no connection to slavery. They do that so they don't have to actually do anything of merit, like addressing the industry problem of showing people of colour lower quality houses.

I don't think it's gone too far, it's more of people not escaping the consequences of their actions, but I do think it's used as a cover. Something silly is brought up as an example so people can be outraged by the silly, and the actual horrible stuff which should be the focus is given cover.


----------



## Viri (Jun 28, 2020)

Smithers and Patty need to be played as a member of the LGBT! We need to let Fox know of this!

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Chary said:


> Once you sneeze wrong or do something viewed in a bad light, that's it. You're done. There's no room for forgiveness anymore. I think the meetoo movement is a huge deal for those who have been abused, but it's scary to see that some use the movement as their own drama platform to falsely accuse and ruin lives.


Even if you're found innocent, you're done. Nothing can save you, unless you change your name and relocate far away. 

I got pseudo #metooed in High School, when a girl who disliked me said I groped and raped her. I got suspended for 7 days, she ended up confessing, and they apologized. Everyone still treated me like I was a rapist, lol. Thankfully this was way before #metoo was a thing, lol.


----------



## SG854 (Jun 28, 2020)

osaka35 said:


> As a rule of thumb, if you're an ahole, then you're going to get called out for it. Jenna Marbles got heat as a direct result of her actions, and stepped down to avoid changing or engaging. So...what do you believe was the correct course of action for her to take?
> 
> Also, you will see a lot of token actions, so real change doesn't have to happen. Like that realty company saying they'll stop referring to it as a "master bedroom", despite it having no connection to slavery. They do that so they don't have to actually do anything of merit, like addressing the industry problem of showing people of colour lower quality houses.
> 
> I don't think it's gone too far, it's more of people not escaping the consequences of their actions, but I do think it's used as a cover. Something silly is brought up as an example so people can be outraged by the silly, and the actual horrible stuff which should be the focus is given cover.


I dont think you know much about Jenna Marbles if you think she is an A*hole.

So she stepped down to avoid changing and engaging? Usually with the premise that she's done bad. I think people with this mindset is toxic. People like to redefine definitions, and redefine the situation, and become batshit crazy over little inconsequential things.

I think the course of action she should've taken was that her comedy was meant to make people have a good time, so to stand her ground. But I understand she doesn't want to deal with the craziness that's happening right now so I understand why she would step down, especially if they are a sensitive person. Being accused of racist things when you yourself have been nothing but nice is exhausting and not good for your mental sake.

Her doing a skit of Niki Minaj was not black face. It was just her doing a comedy skit and used a tan to look like her while doing the skit. People don't see the nuance in the situation that this is different from black face. People that do black face do it with the intention of hurting for racist reasons. Jenna Marbles was not doing that. People that think otherwise are batshit crazy and need to reevaluate their lives. They are horrible fuckin people that are power hungry and abuse their power to take down others because they can. They are scaring people off the platform because they are sick in the head.


----------



## Kraken_X (Jun 28, 2020)

In an ideal world, there would be laws against doing bad things.  If you are accused of doing a bad thing, you go to a fair court and a verdict is reached based on due process and evidence.  In America, the only two courts that affect the ultra-rich are public opinion and corporate profit. 

"Cancel culture" is an appeal to the public opinion and corporate profit courts.  It's a last resort for justice in a country where there is no justice.  Initially it was effective too, with millionaires who otherwise would get away with anything being called out by #metoo.  But then the rich saw that they could harness this outrage and destroy movements by misdirecting it all while shielding themselves from it.  Remember when the director of Guardians of the Galaxy got fired for telling a raunchy joke a decade prior, when he is a comedian and that's what they do?  I would not be surprised if some of the same people behind that are driving this new outrage.  It's effective at "making the left eat themselves alive" too, because only people on the left care about this stuff.   After all, conservatives are fine with a president that paid hush money to a prostitute that he cheated on his wife with.  

The misdirection worked.  Are we talking about the actual issues that BLM cares about right now?  No, we are talking about something innocent that fake people are fake outraged about instead.  Instead of addressing the real problems in our society, our favorite shows are just going to be slightly worse.


----------



## notimp (Jun 28, 2020)

The issue why this culture is still 'a thing' is that it claims to be PC and gives the ones imposing it huge power over others. Actual power.

Professors or student assistants these days usually only get hired for short stints, and then have to hope that their research contracts are renewed, which is a problem in itself, but if they are confronted with a culture that will campaigns against someone claiming them to not be PC enough, they will go silent.

And people imposing it actually exercise power over others, so leadership and power structures form, and because they claim to be PC, they are deemed by many to be 'socially just' at first glance, and can get quite far in terms of organizing structures.

And people who just shut up, also get further in their their bow wave.

So it is self propelling.
--

Its wrong to mix it up with meetoo though, imho - even if meetoo uses cancel culture strategies of public shaming and outrage, their cause (if true) would actually be proper (at least historically, public shaming 'predators' always kind of was a thing).

Current cancel culture goes further, and imposes new societal defaults that were not universally agreed on.

(Molester always bad - is.)
--

meetoo has a different issue and that is that it can lead to mob mentality and prejudice behavior. But there is still a balance to be struck.

Cancel culture is just plain wrong, except for edge cases of one in a million, where society in general, and not just activists decides on something actually having to become a taboo,


----------



## Viri (Jun 28, 2020)

Kraken_X said:


> our favorite shows are just going to be slightly worse.


And it's a desperate attempt at getting better ratings. Hardly anyone gave a fuck about the Simpson's, Apu, and the other voice actors until all this happened. They're changing the actors, because they know people will tune in to see what the new voice actors are like. It's also getting people to talk about the Simpsons and Family Guy.


----------



## notimp (Jun 28, 2020)

Kraken_X said:


> you go to a fair court and a verdict is reached based on due process and evidence.


This doesnt work. 

Evidence can be biased or misinterpreted, due process can fail. And in the end the wrong person gets send to prison again.

You cant get arround this. Not even on the process logic level.

Thats why law and not truth or justice is spoken. There is a specific distinction that we make on purpose, to not have to answer the question if what we ended up with was the truth.

That distinction is not by chance, and it is important.


----------



## osaka35 (Jun 28, 2020)

SG854 said:


> I dont think you know much about Jenna Marbles if you think she is an A*hole.
> 
> So she stepped down to avoid changing and engaging? Usually with the premise that she's done bad. I think people with this mindset is toxic. People like to redefine definitions, and redefine the situation, and become batshit crazy over little inconsequential things.
> 
> ...


I've heard her name pop up more than once. is that only thing she's gotten heat over?

You can be an unintentional ahole. Being an ahole doesn't require intent. The road to hell is paved with good intentions and all that. it's probably better to not say she "is an ahole", but rather "did an ahole thing". I don't care one way or the other, I vaguely recall the name being someone youtube famous, but that's about it. Point was when you do an ahole thing, intentional or not, you can either try and do better and make it up to the folks you hurt, or you can bow out and just avoid the heat.

It can be difficult to move past an old mistake, especially in this day and age where everything is recorded and stored forever. I really feel people should be given a chance to show they've grown past their mistakes and can do better. And I understand the anger over folks not being given the chance to redeem themselves, but at the same time, folks don't realize just how severe of an action it was because they have no 1st hand experience.  It's understanding the severity of what was done that should be the first step towards becoming someone better.


----------



## SG854 (Jun 28, 2020)

Kraken_X said:


> In an ideal world, there would be laws against doing bad things.  If you are accused of doing a bad thing, you go to a fair court and a verdict is reached based on due process and evidence.  In America, the only two courts that affect the ultra-rich are public opinion and corporate profit.
> 
> "Cancel culture" is an appeal to the public opinion and corporate profit courts.  It's a last resort for justice in a country where there is no justice.  Initially it was effective too, with millionaires who otherwise would get away with anything being called out by #metoo.  But then the rich saw that they could harness this outrage and destroy movements by misdirecting it all while shielding themselves from it.  Remember when the director of Guardians of the Galaxy got fired for telling a raunchy joke a decade prior, when he is a comedian and that's what they do?  I would not be surprised if some of the same people behind that are driving this new outrage.  It's effective at "making the left eat themselves alive" too, because only people on the left care about this stuff.   After all, conservatives are fine with a president that paid hush money to a prostitute that he cheated on his wife with.
> 
> The misdirection worked.  Are we talking about the actual issues that BLM cares about right now?  No, we are talking about something innocent that fake people are fake outraged about instead.  Instead of addressing the real problems in our society, our favorite shows are just going to be slightly worse.


People have been talking about actual issue for a long time. Why do you think there was a police brutality protest. The problem why things don't change is because people disagree with each other. With stuff like police brutality statistics. One group says cops are not targeting blacks while another group says they do.

I dont know anything about this redirecting the conversation conspiracy theory. 

The people out to cancel other people act like they've never done bad in there lives. They are unhappy people that take out their anger against the world. Just like an incel that can't get a girl so he shoots people. People that are part of cancel culture over small ridiculous things are unhappy people that are trying to ruin the lives of others just to make themselves feel better. 



Viri said:


> And it's a desperate attempt at getting better ratings. Hardly anyone gave a fuck about the Simpson's, Apu, and the other voice actors until all this happened. They're changing the actors, because they know people will tune in to see what the new voice actors are like. It's also getting people to talk about the Simpsons and Family Guy.


It's a pr stunt, one that wouldn't have existed if cancel culture wasn't there to begin with. It just shows how much bad cancel culture has gotten that they can make a pr stunt like this.


----------



## notimp (Jun 28, 2020)

osaka35 said:


> You can be an unintentional ahole. Being an ahole doesn't require intent. The road to hell is paved with good intentions and


Therein lies another HUGE issue.

Cancel culture basically eats its children.

Their environments are so toxic, and so high stress, that they constantly monitor each other and even something like a bad joke can push you from a leadership position to persona non grata.

The resulting personality structures are basically people in a costant expectation to be monitored, living in constant fear of saying the wrong thing (chilling effect), and eventually PTSD. Its not fun living that life, but again, currently the issue is, that those organizations rise to power quite quickly, due to people not knowing how to deal with them properly.

And if you gain power quickly - even in university life, you must have done something right, right? Again. Self perpetuating structure.


----------



## SG854 (Jun 28, 2020)

osaka35 said:


> I've heard her name pop up more than once. is that only thing she's gotten heat over?
> 
> You can be an unintentional ahole. Being an ahole doesn't require intent. The road to hell is paved with good intentions and all that. it's probably better to not say she "is an ahole", but rather "did an ahole thing". I don't care one way or the other, I vaguely recall the name being someone youtube famous, but that's about it. Point was when you do an ahole thing, intentional or not, you can either try and do better and make it up to the folks you hurt, or you can bow out and just avoid the heat.
> 
> It can be difficult to move past an old mistake, especially in this day and age where everything is recorded and stored forever. I really feel people should be given a chance to show they've grown past their mistakes and can do better. And I understand the anger over folks not being given the chance to redeem themselves, but at the same time, folks don't realize just how severe of an action it was because they have no 1st hand experience.  It's understanding the severity of what was done that should be the first step towards becoming someone better.


There is other things which she addresses in the video.

People that are part of cancel culture don't want to give second chances. They don't want people to grow. They just want to ruin people they don't like because they are unhappy people themselves living unsatisfying lives.


----------



## notimp (Jun 28, 2020)

And one more 'but also' SJWism and cancel culture are favourite topics of the alt right, because they have correctly identified, that most folks find it atrocious. At which point all thats left to do is to say "this is what liberalism looks like", and have a neat recruitment argument.

Of course its an oversimplification (lie), but its effective as well.  And thats not me making this up, Bannon is on record saying just about that. (Dont have the actual quote at hand, currently.)


----------



## Viri (Jun 28, 2020)

SG854 said:


> It's a pr stunt, one that wouldn't have existed if cancel culture wasn't there to begin with. It just shows how much bad cancel culture has gotten that they can make a pr stunt like this.


Pretty much all companies are taking advantage of this for PR. Look at Nike, they put that kneeling Football player on their ads. In reality, he was a shit player in the NFL. During his last season in the 49ers, his team was 2-16. I wouldn't be surprised if that's why he started kneeling in the first place. He knew he was going to get cut, so needed to do something to get attention, and it worked.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_San_Francisco_49ers_season
The funny thing is, he was about to get signed by another team, but then his dumb ass GF posted a Tweet comparing the team's coach and one of their black players as a slave master and a slave. Surprise, surprise, they decided not to sign him, lol.
https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id...sign-colin-kaepernick-girlfriend-racist-tweet


Nike is well known for using slave labor to make their shitty shoes. What better way to make people forget about that then to put Colin on our ads! Just don't pay attention to the Chinese Muslims making our shoes!


----------



## notimp (Jun 28, 2020)

Viri said:


> Pretty much all companies are taking advantage of this for PR. Look at Nike, they put that kneeling Football player on their ads.


Gross mixing up of concepts this is not cancel culture.

You are being racist and looking for an excuse. (Maybe.  )

Reason why companies pick "it"up is "value attribution" explaination to follow shortly.

Also corporations would never charge their brands negatively (for them: any value statement that tells you 'something' is wrong), so they stay the heck away from cancel culture. 

edit:

Value attribution basically is, you buying a product, because you think mostly people with character trait X buy that product, which makes you be seen as having character trait X, when having that product, which is why - when buying the product you feel you now have character trait X.

Also important, you actually believe that this makes you more X. Its basically the matrix 'I now know Kung Fu' brain implant, but as a real world principal.

This is the main, and almost sole reason, why companies emotionally charge brands.

Thats a main staple of advertising for years, thats NOT companies deciding to be 'especially untruthfull all of a sudden' because of this or that. Companies are not people. None of their decisions are based on moral values. Literally none.


----------



## SG854 (Jun 28, 2020)

Viri said:


> Pretty much all companies are taking advantage of this for PR. Look at Nike, they put that kneeling Football player on their ads. In reality, he was a shit player in the NFL. During his last season in the 49ers, his team was 2-16. I wouldn't be surprised if that's why he started kneeling in the first place. He knew he was going to get cut, so needed to do something to get attention, and it worked.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_San_Francisco_49ers_season
> Nike is well known for using slave labor to make their shitty shoes. What better way to make people forget about that then to put Colin on our ads! Just don't pay attention to the Chinese Muslims making our shoes!


Just like Disney saying they are for BLM and support fighting for Black people. But when it comes to their bottom line and money making they will be more then happy to shrink a picture of Finn a black guy for the Starwars poster to make it more appealing to the Chinese audience so that they can make more money. It's all a PR hypocritical stunt.


----------



## SG854 (Jun 29, 2020)

Unilever a major corporation halts ads for the rest of 2020 because of the toxic environment. This is how bad its gotten. 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cn...ebook-instagram-and-twitter-for-rest-of-2020/


----------



## gamesquest1 (Jun 29, 2020)

SG854 said:


> Unilever a major corporation halts ads for the rest of 2020 because of the toxic environment. This is how bad its gotten.
> 
> https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cn...ebook-instagram-and-twitter-for-rest-of-2020/


yep, its places like buzzfeed that started the media slander party, instigating advertiser harassment campaigns against their competition in the advertising market, I honestly feel like it was intended to drive advertisers to places like themselves and stop people advertising on YouTube etc by creating a toxic atmosphere, then companies started doing just that, this move screwed over thousands of normal people who just made a few YouTube videos and was happy with the $10 a months for random crap....but nope Vox/buzzfeed and eventually all the mainstream media site found if they kept drumming up controversies and amplifying crazy outrage nutters who were finding some questionable YouTube with 45 total views (probably netting them $20 a year woop woop) and purposefully conflating a coke ad being on their channel as an "endorsement" everyone with a brain knows thats bullshit, but the media giants were at war and willing to do whatever it takes to get that 25 billion dollar advertising budget redirected to themselves

I genuinely believe the whole cancel culture was fostered by digital media companies as they simply wanted more money not realising they were poisoning the entire pool that they themselves were living in in the hopes of killing off all the small fry so they get more food at feeding time, and the people who took part in the "i'm so offended" mobs were literally being fed approval by media sites hoping to get that quote on twitter linked in the latest hit piece so they can gain followers and the praise and admiration of their fellow lottery layers for hitting the big time by being shared in a buzzfeed article

honestly it sounds cruel but people need to stop rewarding victims, helping pay rent for someone kicked out is one thing, or providing food for kids, but gofundmes raising $2,000,000 for some who was simply called a mean name would obviously be a massive shiny pot that some people would see as worth lying about to get, once people realise they can essentially win the lottery and bag a bunch of money if they just play victim you suddenly get cases like Jussie smollet, not content with a comfortable well paid job, fame and luxury, nope he needed more....but how can you get more in todays society......oh right, be a victim ofc, I would hope everyone could see how these hoxes that are getting more and more common are a by product of the fetishisation of victimhood, the media are bending over backwards to find americas next top victim to the point they are fooled by even the most absurd unrealistic stories because it has all the right buzzwords that they feel compelled to just blindly run with it so as to not miss out on those early reporter clicks and retweets


----------



## Seliph (Jun 29, 2020)

Racism is always wrong, and creators should be held accountable for the racism they extol but I think all of this cancel culture shit in the news is just diversionary virtue signaling so people can say that they aren't "racist like those guys" while contributing nothing significant to the Black Lives Matter movement or even working against it. It's the same thing as corporations turning their twitter icons rainbow colors for pride month, it means nothing. Obviously, white people shouldn't voice BIPOC, obviously, white people shouldn't do blackface, obviously, white people shouldn't be racist, I don't even know why this is a debate. 

Like there's no reason for people to be focusing so much on this cancel culture stuff while BIPOC are being brutalized in the streets daily by the government, that's a real issue that we should be caring about.


----------



## SG854 (Jun 29, 2020)

gamesquest1 said:


> yep, its places like buzzfeed that started the media slander party, instigating advertiser harassment campaigns against their competition in the advertising market, I honestly feel like it was intended to drive advertisers to places like themselves and stop people advertising on YouTube etc by creating a toxic atmosphere, then companies started doing just that, this move screwed over thousands of normal people who just made a few YouTube videos and was happy with the $10 a months for random crap....but nope Vox/buzzfeed and eventually all the mainstream media site found if they kept drumming up controversies and amplifying crazy outrage nutters who were finding some questionable YouTube with 45 total views (probably netting them $20 a year woop woop) and purposefully conflating a coke ad being on their channel as an "endorsement" everyone with a brain knows thats bullshit, but the media giants were at war and willing to do whatever it takes to get that 25 billion dollar advertising budget redirected to themselves
> 
> I genuinely believe the whole cancel culture was fostered by digital media companies as they simply wanted more money not realising they were poisoning the entire pool that they themselves were living in in the hopes of killing off all the small fry so they get more food at feeding time, and the people who took part in the "i'm so offended" mobs were literally being fed approval by media sites hoping to get that quote on twitter linked in the latest hit piece so they can gain followers and the praise and admiration of their fellow lottery layers for hitting the big time by being shared in a buzzfeed article
> 
> honestly it sounds cruel but people need to stop rewarding victims, helping pay rent for someone kicked out is one thing, or providing food for kids, but gofundmes raising $2,000,000 for some who was simply called a mean name would obviously be a massive shiny pot that some people would see as worth lying about to get, once people realise they can essentially win the lottery and bag a bunch of money if they just play victim you suddenly get cases like Jussie smollet, not content with a comfortable well paid job, fame and luxury, nope he needed more....but how can you get more in todays society......oh right, be a victim ofc, I would hope everyone could see how these hoxes that are getting more and more common are a by product of the fetishisation of victimhood, the media are bending over backwards to find americas next top victim to the point they are fooled by even the most absurd unrealistic stories because it has all the right buzzwords that they feel compelled to just blindly run with it so as to not miss out on those early reporter clicks and retweets


There is a decades long legal battle between Sony and other TV makers because many big name TV makers all teamed up and conspired against Sony during the CRT era. They also screwed over the customers by raising prices higher then it cost to make CRT's.

I made a thread here.

https://gbatemp.net/threads/the-crt-tv-consipracy-scam-corporate-greed.566876/

So it's not surprising that major corporations would try to screw each other over to dominate the market and get rid of there competition.

If this is the case then people are nothing but fools and pawns doing the bidding for the corporations.

Its back firing a bit though because of the get woke go broke thing going on. And companies pulling out of advertisement.


Looks like more white actors stopping to voice back characters. Its a bigger deal and not just a small thing.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/metro....rs-are-quitting-non-white-roles-12910375/amp/

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Seliph said:


> Racism is always wrong, and creators should be held accountable for the racism they extol but I think all of this cancel culture shit in the news is just diversionary virtue signaling so people can say that they aren't "racist like those guys" while contributing nothing significant to the Black Lives Matter movement or even working against it. It's the same thing as corporations turning their twitter icons rainbow colors for pride month, it means nothing. Obviously, white people shouldn't voice BIPOC, obviously, white people shouldn't do blackface, obviously, white people shouldn't be racist, I don't even know why this is a debate.
> 
> Like there's no reason for people to be focusing so much on this cancel culture stuff while BIPOC are being brutalized in the streets daily by the government, that's a real issue that we should be caring about.


People should be caring about this cancel culture stuff because people are being branded as racist for insignificant things, kicking them out of a job and cutting them off of their source of income and financial support for their family. And being black listed making it harder for them to find a job. This is why people should care about cancel culture.


----------



## Seliph (Jun 29, 2020)

SG854 said:


> People should be caring about this cancel culture stuff because people are being branded as racist for insignificant things, kicking them out of a job and cutting them off of there source of income and financial support for their family. And being black listed making it harder for them to find a job. This is why people should care about cancel culture.



If people didn't care about cancel culture, there would be no cancel culture and there would be no issue.

Realistically, who is being blacklisted? People who have been racist in the past like Jenna Marbles and Jimmy Kimmel should be held accountable for their racism, they should address their own racism and they should show growth and change, people who have done these things are not the ones getting blacklisted.

If you are called out for racism, and you double down and continue to be racist, you deserve to be blacklisted, simple as that. If you can't take accountability and grow from your actions then employers have no obligation to employ you. no one wants to hire a racist, racism has no place in modern society.


----------



## BlastedGuy9905 (Jun 29, 2020)

Cancel culture sucks. Fuck up once? Suddenly Twitter is filled with #<literallyanything>IsOverParty, and everyone's like "haha look at him he's CaNcElLeD"


----------



## CallmeBerto (Jun 29, 2020)

Seliph said:


> If people didn't care about cancel culture, there would be no cancel culture and there would be no issue.
> 
> Realistically, who is being blacklisted? People who have been racist in the past like Jenna Marbles and Jimmy Kimmel should be held accountable for their racism, they should address their own racism and they should show growth and change, people who have done these things are not the ones getting blacklisted.
> 
> If you are called out for racism, and you double down and continue to be racist, you deserve to be blacklisted, simple as that. If you can't take accountability and grow from your actions then employers have no obligation to employ you. no one wants to hire a racist, racism has no place in modern society.




Most time they were jokes that were perfectly acceptable 10, 20, 50 years ago. Holding people up to modern standards is stupid. Also there is a blatant double standard. Be racist towards white people? Nobody cares in fact these same people will throw you a party.


----------



## Seliph (Jun 29, 2020)

CallmeBerto said:


> Most time they were jokes that were perfectly acceptable 10, 20, 50 years ago. Holding people up to modern standards is stupid. Also there is a blatant double standard. Be racist towards white people? Nobody cares in fact these same people will throw you a party.


Just because something was "acceptable" 50 years ago doesn't make it okay lmao, segregation existed 60 years ago and that was deemed "acceptable" that doesn't make it okay. We should always hold people to modern standards because we live in modern times. I'm not gonna say racism is okay just because it was "acceptable" 50 years ago, that makes no sense. Of course, there is a double standard and of course, that is a problem, but BIPOC being racist towards White people doesn't make it okay for White people to be racist against BIPOC people. Everyone should be held accountable for their racism.

If you're trying to argue against the points I made, you're making a very bad case.


----------



## CallmeBerto (Jun 29, 2020)

Seliph said:


> Just because something was "acceptable" 50 years ago doesn't make it okay lmao, segregation existed 60 years ago and that was deemed "acceptable" that doesn't make it okay. We should always hold people to modern standards because we live in modern times. I'm not gonna say racism is okay just because it was "acceptable" 50 years ago, that makes no sense. Of course, there is a double standard and of course, that is a problem, but BIPOC being racist towards White people doesn't make it okay for White people to be racist against BIPOC people. Everyone should be held accountable for their racism.
> 
> If you're trying to argue against the points I made, you're making a very bad case.




I wasn't and I was taking more about jokes or comment not an actual crime. You know those things that don't harm anyone. I would disagree on holding up people to modern standards because that very same thing will happen to you in 30 years when a joke or comment that was fine 30 years ago now causes you to lose everything you ever built; to a mob that is uncaring and total hypocrites. Honestly fuck these people; they go around acting like some moral puritans yet will dox you, harass acting like the very fascist they claim to fight against.


----------



## SG854 (Jun 29, 2020)

Seliph said:


> If people didn't care about cancel culture, there would be no cancel culture and there would be no issue.
> 
> Realistically, who is being blacklisted? People who have been racist in the past like Jenna Marbles and Jimmy Kimmel should be held accountable for their racism, they should address their own racism and they should show growth and change, people who have done these things are not the ones getting blacklisted.
> 
> If you are called out for racism, and you double down and continue to be racist, you deserve to be blacklisted, simple as that. If you can't take accountability and grow from your actions then employers have no obligation to employ you. no one wants to hire a racist, racism has no place in modern society.


The first paragraph doesn't make sense. Thats like saying if blacks didn't care about police brutality there would be no police brutality and there would be no issue.

If you think Jenna Marbles was being racist and is a threat to black lives and/or is preventing blacks from achieving their full potential because of her racism then you are crazy. There is no nicer way to say it.

And if you think she is not a threat to blacks and/or not holding blacks back from social success, then why in the hell are you calling her actions racist. She is not a Karen running around yelling at black people for being black, she is not a racist person. Her actions weren't made with racist intent. A persons intent matters most. She is a person who made parody videos for peoples entertainment. She should not be anyone's concern, the white racist holding a gun against a black man and shoots at him because he's black is what you should be worried about. Not Jenna Marbles. 

Jenna Marbles had to take a break from youtube because of all the negativity she was getting. This shows you are far people are taking this. Its not a minor learn from your mistakes 10 years ago with type of content she doesn't make anymore. She a different person now. People in cancel culture are just assholes that don't want people to grow. They are people with no lives at all, constantly monitoring and diging up old stuff from way back when because they have nothing better to do and want to shit on you all day.


----------



## MasterJ360 (Jun 29, 2020)

We are in era where comedians cant be comedians with racial jokes. Thats pretty much how I see it. Jenna is getting flamed b/c she basically cosplayed a famous black woman for her parody. The "black face" bit is just an overreaction its not the same as the Halloween Black face mask incident. Are we just going to ignore the fact that Robert Downey Jr played Tropic Thunder as a black man for comedy? Which he did a great job of that character btw.


----------



## Seliph (Jun 29, 2020)

CallmeBerto said:


> I wasn't and I was taking more about jokes or comment not an actual crime. You know those things that don't harm anyone. I would disagree on holding up people to modern standards because that very same thing will happen to you in 30 years when a joke or comment that was fine 30 years ago now causes you to lose everything you ever built; to a mob that is uncaring and total hypocrites. Honestly fuck these people; they go around acting like some moral puritans yet will dox you, harass acting like the very fascist they claim to fight against.


I was talking about jokes and comments as well, not actual crime. Racist jokes and comments aren't okay, they weren't okay back then to the people they hurt and they aren't okay now either. The only difference between now and then is that society is starting to realize the effect that racist "jokes and comments" have on people.

Racists deserve everything they get, they can lose their jobs or get mobbed or anything, I could care less. They made the choice to be racist, and they face the consequences of their actions.

A simple solution to being canceled is thus: *don't be racist*. It's as simple as that, don't be racist and you won't be canceled. If you do get canceled, address where you went wrong and change and grow from that. I have no sympathy for people who refuse to grow out of their racism.


----------



## SG854 (Jun 29, 2020)

MasterJ360 said:


> We are in era where comedians cant be comedians with racial jokes. Thats pretty much how I see it. Jenna is getting flamed b/c she basically cosplayed a famous black woman for her parody. The "black face" bit is just an overreaction its not the same as the Halloween Black face mask incident. Are we just going to ignore the fact that Robert Downey Jr played Tropical Thunder as a black man for comedy? Which he did a great job of that character btw.


Apparently according to seliph yes Robert Downey Jr would be a racist that needs to repent his sins. If he thinks Jenna Marbles doing a parody of Niki Minaj is racist.


----------



## Seliph (Jun 29, 2020)

SG854 said:


> Apparently according to seliph yes Robert Downey Jr would be a racist that needs to repent his sins.


Well, Robert Downey Jr seems to be doing alright right now, he seems to have grown out of his racism so I have no problem with him.



SG854 said:


> Jenna Marbles had to take a break from youtube because of all the negativity she was getting. This shows you are far people are taking this. Its not a minor learn from your mistakes 10 years ago with type of content she doesn't make anymore. She a different person now. People in cancel culture are just assholes that don't want people to grow. They are people with no lives at all, constantly monitoring and diging up old stuff from way back when because they have nothing better to do and want to shit on you all day.


Same thing with Jenna Marbles, she has taken accountability for her racist actions and has addressed them. I have no problem with her.

Obviously cancel mobs are stupid, but if you're getting canceled, it's probably for a good reason. If you're being canceled, you should listen, evaluate what you've done, learn from it, and then demonstrate growth. I'm not saying everyone who has been canceled is a terrible person or that they should have even been canceled in the first place. It's valuable to point out racist behavior, and if someone who exhibits racist behavior chooses to continue to be racist despite being called out, they deserve all the hell they get.


----------



## SG854 (Jun 29, 2020)

Seliph said:


> Well, Robert Downey Jr seems to be doing alright right now, he seems to have grown out of his racism so I have no problem with him.
> 
> 
> Same thing with Jenna Marbles, she has taken accountability for her racist actions and has addressed them. I have no problem with her.
> ...


The difference between Jenna and Robert is Robert never apologized. So I don't get this grown out of racism. There is no racism to grow out of when there is no racist intent in the first place.

Black people dont give a shit. I was talking with my black friends the other day how they love Downey Jr role in tropic thunder, they thinks he's hilarious. Its white people that care about this more then black people. They care about actual issues, not stupid bullshit parody stuff. Have you ever seen the cartoon show Boondocks, or Key and Peele. They love this shit. Even Hispanics seeing black people like Key and Peele doing parody of Hispanics love it. Minorities don't give a shit. Unless you think Key and Peele are racist. 

Mob mentality. The angry mob isn't always right. The angry mobs that held back scientific progress in the past wasn't always right. You even admit yourself they are stupid. If you are getting canceled over a ridiculous thing its probably not a good reason.


----------



## Seliph (Jun 29, 2020)

SG854 said:


> Black people dont give a shit. I was talking with my black friends the other day how they love Downey Jr role in tropic thunder, they thinks he's hilarious. Its white people that care about this more then black people. They care about actual issues, not stupid bullshit parody stuff. Have you ever seen the cartoon show Boondocks, or Key and Peele. They love this shit. Even Hispanics seeing black people like Key and Peele doing parody of Hispanics love it. Minorities don't give a shit. Unless you think Key and Peele are racist.



Yeah, and I know BIPOC who DO give a shit, what's your point? Your black friends don't represent all black people.



SG854 said:


> The difference between Jenna and Robert is Robert never apologized. So I don't get this grown out of racism. There is no racism to grow out of when there is no racist intent in the first place.



Oh, I made the assumption that he apologized. That's my bad and I retract my statement. Robert Downey Jr's blackface was racist, and his defense of that racism is itself racist. 



SG854 said:


> Mob mentality. The angry mob isn't always right. The angry mobs that held back scientific progress in the past wasn't always right. You even admit yourself they are stupid. If you are getting canceled over a ridiculous thing its probably not a good reason.



Obviously the mob isn't always right, but sometimes they are, especially when it comes to racism because racism is very obvious and easy to point out. That's why I said, "If you're being canceled, you should listen, evaluate what you've done". Listen, because sometimes they DO have a point. If you're being called racist, it is probably for good reason and it is your job to either clarify what you've done or apologize. Racism is a serious accusation and should be treated as such.


----------



## SG854 (Jun 29, 2020)

Seliph said:


> Yeah, and I know BIPOC who DO give a shit, what's your point? Your black friends don't represent all black people.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So is it racist or not racist? If one black group says its racist and another says its not. Do we treat it as racist or not racist? Whats the correct answer? And I don't believe that your black friends actually think Downey Jr is racist. You made that up.

If you think Downey Jr is racist and don't see the satire you are a fuckin crazy person that has never seen the movie.

Do you think Key and Peele are racist for doing parody of Hispanics? A White/Black mixed comedians. You would have to.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 29, 2020)

Cancel culture isn't a thing.  It's the Twitterverse which people are taking issue with, and that only has as much power as people choose to give it.  Of course, it doesn't help that even the president is obsessed with the platform.  Cancel Twitter, I say.  And Facebook too while we're at it.


----------



## Seliph (Jun 29, 2020)

SG854 said:


> So is it racist or not racist? If one black group says its racist and another says its not. Do we treat it as racist or not racist? And I don't believe that your black friends actually think Downey Jr is racist. You made that up.
> 
> If you think Downey Jr is racist and don't see the satire you are a fuckin crazy person that has never seen the movie.
> 
> Do you think Key and Peele are racist for doing parody of Hispanics? A White/Black mixed comedians. You would have to.



After considering some things, I don't think it's racist, I didn't know the context of Robert Downey Jr's character in his movie, nor have I actually seen the movie. I never said my friends think he's racist, I just said that I know BIPOC that think he's racist for it, I've seen people on Twitter calling him racist for that, literally just search up Tropic Thunder on Twitter and you'll find Black people calling it racist.

The Key and Peele thing is satire as well, so similarly I don't think I'd call that racist.

The fact of the matter though is that *you've derailed this conversation*. I was talking about actual racism and not satire (though satire can be racist, depending on how it's done however in the above cases I do not think the satire is racist). The people who have been canceled for doing blackface like Jenna Marbles didn't do it for satire, and that's not a debate.

I'm now going to copy and paste my original argument which you failed to address:
Obviously cancel mobs are stupid, but if you're getting canceled, it's probably for a good reason. If you're being canceled, you should listen, evaluate what you've done, learn from it, and then demonstrate growth. I'm not saying everyone who has been canceled is a terrible person or that they should have even been canceled in the first place. It's valuable to point out racist behavior, and if someone who exhibits racist behavior chooses to continue to be racist despite being called out, they deserve all the hell they get.

Obviously the mob isn't always right, but sometimes they are, especially when it comes to racism because racism is very obvious and easy to point out. That's why I said, "If you're being canceled, you should listen, evaluate what you've done". Listen, because sometimes they DO have a point. If you're being called racist, it is probably for good reason and it is your job to either clarify what you've done or apologize. Racism is a serious accusation and should be treated as such.

To add onto this, I'm not advocating for cancel culture, because I do think it is harmful. What I am saying however is that just because cancel culture is generally bad, that doesn't mean we shouldn't be able to call people out for being racist and that these racist people shouldn't have consequences. Twitter is an environment where canceling is very easy to do, and the media will latch onto any info they can get that makes them money. Instead of just saying "cancel culture is stupid and ruining lives" you should also be understanding why it exists and combating that, not denying and excusing the actions of legitimately racist people who are affected by cancel culture. *Cancel culture isn't your enemy, it's the social media and news media that perpetuates cancel culture that SHOULD be your enemy.*


----------



## SG854 (Jun 29, 2020)

Seliph said:


> After considering some things, I don't think it's racist, I didn't know the context of Robert Downey Jr's character in his movie, nor have I actually seen the movie. I never said my friends think he's racist, I just said that I know BIPOC that think he's racist for it, I've seen people on Twitter calling him racist for that, literally just search up Tropic Thunder on Twitter and you'll find Black people calling it racist.
> 
> The Key and Peele thing is satire as well, so similarly I don't think I'd call that racist.
> 
> ...


So your opinion that Black people thinks Downey Jr is racist doesn't actually comes from real experience with black people but stuff you hear on the internet.

And there goes your problem. And there goes every white persons problem that tries to act like a white knight. They get a small opinion that is over exaggerated on the internet, because the internet makes things bigger then they actually are, probably a white person claiming to be black, just to justify their bullshit.

I knew you were talking out your ass and didn't see the movie when you were calling Downey Jr a racist. Considering the fact that I work with lots of real black people everyday and know what they say, and not internet black people. I'm not stupid and I can catch this shit.

Being a Hispanic minority myself and having the powers invested in me by the Cancel Culture mob that white knight for me over insignificant stuff, I can tell you one thing, we don't give a shit.

And I already explained to you the part you said I didn't address. Jena Marbles parodying Niki Minaj, she is parodying a rapper, people parody rapers all the time. This is what this whole thread is about. People getting canceled for ridiculous reasons. Obviously if someone is actually racist then we should call them out, that is a given. And of course just because cancel culture gets ridiculous doesnt mean we cant call out actual racism. Its so obvious that it shouldn't be said. This is not what this thread is about, it isn't about actual racists. Its about if this has gotten to far and calling out non racists, over very minor things. I know because I made the thread.


----------



## Seliph (Jun 29, 2020)

SG854 said:


> And I already explained to you the part you said I didn't address. Jena Marbles parodying Niki Minaj, she is parodying a rapper, people parody rapers all the time. This is what this whole thread is about. People getting canceled for ridiculous reasons. Obviously if someone is actually racist then we should call them out, that is a given. And of course just because cancel culture gets ridiculous doesnt mean we cant call out actual racism. Its so obvious that it shouldn't be said. This is not what this thread is about, it isn't about actual racists. Its about if this has gotten to far and calling out non racists, over very minor things. I know because I made the thread.



Jenna Marbles parodying Nicki Minaj IS racist. There is no satire in that, she is not making any statement about racism or blackface. If you dress up as a Black person to mock them, that is racist. That is actual racism. You are excusing actual racism.

The difference between RDJ's blackface and Jenna Marble's blackface is that (as far as I can tell) RDJ's is intended to be a critique on Hollywood racism, Jenna Marbles' blackface is just used to mock and caricature Nicki Minaj, which is racist. Jenna Marbles has also done other racist things on YouTube as well, she's made derogatory comments mocking an Asian man. You can look this up. This is blatant racism, and it is indefensible.

Now Jenna Marbles has gone on record publicly apologizing for this, and obviously her racist actions in the past do not appear to represent who she is now so I forgive her. However, what you're doing is you're denying that the racist things she did were racist, and that's the problem. What Jenna Marbles did was actual racism no matter how you spin it.


----------



## ChronoTrig (Jun 29, 2020)

This thread just shows me comedians are f##ked for being able to even make an act with how everyone is so quick to snap a challenged opinion on them when they're meant to be funny, enjoyable.


----------



## Iamapirate (Jun 29, 2020)

I look forward to having no more superhero films, since you can't play the role of someone/something you aren't.


----------



## ChronoTrig (Jun 29, 2020)

Seliph said:


> Jenna Marbles parodying Nicki Minaj IS racist. There is no satire in that, she is not making any statement about racism or blackface. If you dress up as a Black person to mock them, that is racist. That is actual racism. You are excusing actual racism.
> 
> The difference between RDJ's blackface and Jenna Marble's blackface is that (as far as I can tell) RDJ's is intended to be a critique on Hollywood racism, Jenna Marbles' blackface is just used to mock and caricature Nicki Minaj, which is racist. Jenna Marbles has also done other racist things on YouTube as well, she's made derogatory comments mocking an Asian man. You can look this up. This is blatant racism, and it is indefensible.
> 
> Now Jenna Marbles has gone on record publicly apologizing for this, and obviously her racist actions in the past do not appear to represent who she is now so I forgive her. However, what you're doing is you're denying that the racist things she did were racist, and that's the problem. What Jenna Marbles did was actual racism no matter how you spin it.



You ever seen the movie White Chicks?
Are the Wayans' bros racist? lol


----------



## slaphappygamer (Jun 29, 2020)

I’m canceling my reply.


----------



## Seliph (Jun 29, 2020)

ChronoTrig said:


> You ever seen the movie White Chicks?
> Are the Wayans' bros racist? lol


No, I haven't seen it but I've read it's problematic for a whole lot of reasons and whiteface isn't one of them.

Here's a link to a quote from Nick Cannon that I think sums up the matter pretty well. And here's another article on the subject.

Of course, Black people can be racist to White people in several ways, but whiteface isn't one of them. There are dangerous, racist roots in blackface that go back to the days of slavery and Jim Crow. There are no such roots in whiteface. Whiteface was created to directly counter and oppose the racism of blackface.


----------



## ChronoTrig (Jun 29, 2020)

Seliph said:


> No, I haven't seen it but I've read it's problematic for a whole lot of reasons and whiteface isn't one of them.
> 
> Here's a link to a quote from Nick Cannon that I think sums up the matter pretty well. And here's another article on the subject.
> 
> Of course, Black people can be racist to White people in several ways, but whiteface isn't one of them. There are dangerous, racist roots in blackface that go back to the days of slavery and Jim Crow. There are no such roots in whiteface.



So if they dress up as full white it's not "white face"? Got it. Mind you, when all these people who don themselves with black face and pretend they're someone, it's intended as comedy, just as every race/culture does the same; it's intended to make the audience laugh. You can't appease everyone, unfortunately.

And that Nick Cannon link; because of whiteface; is more or less tit for tat even if he doesn't say it. Why continue to do something if not everyone can do it? Isn't that the whole point of this all?  this is about moving forward in the future, not begrudging and then making one race to suffer because someone else did "60 years ago" as you stated and then make the new generation suffer for it.

Everyone, or just many people bandwagon and become hyperbolic to trying to ruin people, because XYZ. You're essentially wanting them to off themselves and not exist. Even Kevin Hart got beat up for comments he made years ago. No one can give their real opinion anymore either with that being said. You have to bandwagon or be stoned to death.


----------



## Captain_N (Jun 29, 2020)

Cancel culture is around because the little crybaby noobs are getting their way. Its just like when you wrek a noob on some first person shooter and they rage like the salty little babies they are. Now you see what happens when the noobs are i control.


----------



## Seliph (Jun 29, 2020)

ChronoTrig said:


> So if they dress up as full white it's not "white face"? Got it. Mind you, when all these people who don themselves with black face and pretend they're someone, it's intended as comedy, just as every race/culture does the same; it's intended to make the audience laugh. You can't appease everyone, unfortunately.
> 
> And that Nick Cannon link; because of whiteface; is more or less tit for tat even if he doesn't say it. Why continue to do something if not everyone can do it? Isn't that the whole point of this all?  this is about moving forward in the future, not begrudging and then making one race to suffer because someone else did "60 years ago" as you put it and then make the new generation suffer for it.


I was just about to edit my post. Whiteface is racist, and shouldn't be excused. Blackface is racist and shouldn't be excused. The difference is that blackface is significantly more prevalent than whiteface. I shouldn't have a double standard just because of this.


----------



## ChronoTrig (Jun 29, 2020)

Seliph said:


> I was just about to edit my post. Whiteface is racist, and shouldn't be excused. Blackface is racist and shouldn't be excused. The difference is that blackface is significantly more prevalent than whiteface. I shouldn't have a double standard just because of this.



Since it's hard to find people who are actually explaining themselves without insults.. Why are you so black and white about it instead of some grey (an in-between instead of a far left or a far right opinion)? And whiteface should be just as insulting due to the situation of how sensitive people have become and not a one-way thing, because that gives exceptional treatment to another race more than other's.
I'm sure if you YouTube or look up comedy skits whiteface is a thing, just not as pointed because the blackface situation has taken hold and is made to be the hot topic by the media, unfortunately when both exist. It creates the wrong kind of diversity, when both can be considered wrong.

With that said, American media LOVES the race button and getting clicks.


----------



## notimp (Jun 29, 2020)

Viri said:


> Hardly anyone gave a fuck about the Simpson's, Apu, and the other voice actors until all this happened.


Watch that:
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2113683/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Know_That_Voice

Then give a f.


----------



## Viri (Jun 29, 2020)

Seliph said:


> BIPOC


What does that even stand for? I never seen that term until this thread, lol.


----------



## Seliph (Jun 29, 2020)

ChronoTrig said:


> Since it's hard to find people who are actually explaining themselves without insults.. Why are you so black and white about it instead of some grey (an in-between instead of a far left or a far right opinion)? And whiteface should be just as insulting due to the situation of how sensitive people have become and not a one-way thing, because that gives exceptional treatment to another race more than other's.
> I'm sure if you YouTube or look up comedy skits whiteface is a thing, just not as pointed because the blackface situation has taken hold and is made to be the hot topic by the media, unfortunately. It creates the wrong kind of diversity, when both can be considered wrong.


I'm not black and white about everything, but when it comes to race, I am.

Imo, you're either anti-racist or you're racist. There's no in-between. As I see it, you either have to be consciously working against racism (anti-racist) or you have to be consciously/unconsciously working for racism (racist). To be racist is to contribute to racist power structures, whether you knowingly contribute to them or unknowingly contribute to them due to ignorance or apathy. To be anti-racist is to fight these racist structures. Now, people can do anti-racist things and still do racist things (consciously or unconsciously), but I don't think there is an in-between when it comes to race.

Blackface is racist because it caricatures and mocks Black people, simple as that. Whiteface is racist because it caricatures and mocks White people, simple as that.

I don't think it's possible to be in between on the issue of racism, because realistically, what would an in-between even look like? I don't see how an in-between would exist, I don't think there is such thing as a centrist position when it comes to race.

Here is a resource on anti-racism if you wanna read more.


Viri said:


> What does that even stand for? I never seen that term until this thread, lol.



Black and Indigenous People of Color, it's a pretty common term used in leftist circles nowadays.


----------



## Viri (Jun 29, 2020)

Seliph said:


> Black and Indigenous People of Color, it's a pretty common term used in leftist circles nowadays.


What? Why? Why single out blacks and Native Americans? Aren't they POC?


----------



## ChronoTrig (Jun 29, 2020)

Seliph said:


> I'm not black and white about everything, but when it comes to race, I am.
> 
> Imo, you're either anti-racist or you're racist. There's no in-between. As I see it, you either have to be consciously working against racism (anti-racist) or you have to be consciously/unconsciously working for racism (racist). To be racist is to contribute to racist power structures, whether you knowingly contribute to them or unknowingly contribute to them due to ignorance or apathy. To be anti-racist is to fight these racist structures. Now, people can do anti-racist things and still do racist things (consciously or unconsciously), but I don't think there is an in-between when it comes to race.
> 
> ...


See, that's the problem. You're making people choose to be either racist or anti-racist. You're making people see color which shouldn't be even be a thing-- it's just mostly an American thing.  What's that do for people who class themselves as unidentifiable or non-binary and not just male / female? Does your standard then change?

Blackface can be used in a comical sketch; like you said, RDJ on Tropic Thunder; but it's also a movie, however, if a YouTuber does it in a comical sketch to portray who they're displaying it's wrong? It's just-- there's no defined line and a lot of contradictions.

An in-between would be someone who isn't American because they wouldn't give a crap what race you are, as long as you have a good moral standing. Period. As I noted, only Americans really focus on this issue hard and it all goes back to the slavery topic that happened years ago (it still occurs in the middle east and elsewhere where people can't see).


----------



## Seliph (Jun 29, 2020)

Viri said:


> What? Why? Why single out blacks and Native Americans? Aren't they POC?


Yes, Black people and Native Americans are also POC, but BIPOC is used to emphasize that point. It's used in relation to the United States where Black and Indigenous people have suffered the most under colonialism.


----------



## ChronoTrig (Jun 29, 2020)

Seliph said:


> Yes, Black people and Native Americans are also POC, but BIPOC is used to emphasize that point. It's used in relation to the United States where Black and Indigenous people have suffered the most under colonialism.



Native Americans are still suffering. They're losing native land due to the American Govt and due to big oil trying/forcing to build pipelines over the sacred burial grounds of their ancestors. Fact.


----------



## Seliph (Jun 29, 2020)

ChronoTrig said:


> See, that's the problem. You're making people choose to be either racist or anti-racist. You're making people see color which shouldn't be even be a thing-- it's just mostly an American thing.  What's that do for people who class themselves as unidentifiable or non-binary and not just male / female? Does your standard then change?
> 
> Blackface can be used in a comical sketch; like you said, RDJ on Tropic Thunder; but it's also a movie, however, if a YouTuber does it in a comical sketch to portray who they're displaying it's wrong? It's just-- there's no defined line and a lot of contradictions.
> 
> An in-between would be someone who isn't American because they wouldn't give a crap what race you are, as long as you have a good moral standing. Period. As I noted, only Americans really focus on this issue hard and it all goes back to the slavery topic that happened years ago (it still occurs in the middle east and elsewhere where people can't see).



I agree race shouldn't be a thing, but in the US you can't be color-blind. The US was built on several structures specifically designed around racism and specifically designed to harm Black and Indigenous people. If you are color-blind in the US, you ignore this fact. Until these racist structures are undermined and destroyed you can't be color-blind. You can't just say "I don't see race" because you ignore the culture and politics of racism that the US was founded on.

I would love for Americans to not have to see color, but that ain't gonna happen until we dismantle the institutions based around racism that are a part of the US's foundation. This is why I say in the US you're either anti-racist or racist because you're either fighting the racist power structure or you're aiding it by being color-blind and saying race doesn't exist within our institutions because then you ignore the rampant racism all around the US.

The source I put in my last post elaborates on these points btw.

The only way you can be in-between is in a place where institutionalized racism doesn't exist, and the US isn't that kind of place.


----------



## ChronoTrig (Jun 29, 2020)

Seliph said:


> I agree race shouldn't be a thing, but in the US you can't be color-blind. The US was built on several structures specifically designed around racism and specifically designed to harm Black and Indigenous people. If you are color-blind in the US, you ignore this fact. Until these racist structures are undermined and destroyed you can't be color-blind. You can't just say "I don't see race" because you ignore the culture and politics of racism that the US was founded on.
> 
> I would love for Americans to not have to see color, but that ain't gonna happen until we dismantle the institutions based around racism that are a part of the US's foundation. This is why I say in the US you're either anti-racist or racist because you're either fighting the racist power structure or you're aiding it by being color-blind and saying race doesn't exist within our institutions because then you ignore the rampant racism all around the US.
> 
> The source I put in my last post elaborates on these points btw.


Once again, you're forcing people to bandwagon or be considered a racist. That's basically dictatorship and not free-will. Do people not have enough in their lives going on to be continually fighting the power? There's also individuals who are passive and have a dislike for confrontation who won't fight because they don't like conflict.

And what do you consider the racist structures?
I have friends from Africa who absolutely abhor being called African American because someone PC'd that all blacks are considered African American.


----------



## Seliph (Jun 29, 2020)

ChronoTrig said:


> Once again, you're forcing people to bandwagon or be considered a racist. That's basically dictatorship and not free-will. Do people not have enough in their lives going on to be continually fighting the power?
> 
> And what do you consider the racist structures?
> I have friends from Africa who absolutely abhor being called African American because someone PC'd that all blacks are considered African American.


From the source I linked:

Institutional racism occurs in an organization. These are discriminatory treatments, unfair policies, or biased practices based on race that result in inequitable outcomes for whites over people of color and extend considerably beyond prejudice. These institutional policies often never mention any racial group, but the intent is to create advantages.

_Example: A school system where students of color are more frequently distributed into the most crowded classrooms and underfunded schools and out of the higher-resourced schools._

Structural racism is the overarching system of racial bias across institutions and society. These systems give privileges to white people resulting in disadvantages to people of color.

_Example: Stereotypes of people of color as criminals in mainstream movies and media._
These are some examples of racist structures, and again the source elaborates on this.

Other things I could list off

The entire criminal justice system (watch the documentary 13th on Netflix)
Voter ID laws
Gentrification
Healthcare
Gerrymandering
Look up the southern strategy. This is a very good example of systemic racism. The link here also has several examples of systemic racism.

And what I'm saying isn't dictatorship, people have the free will to be anything they want to be but in the US they're either racist or anti-racist and there's no two ways about it (again read the source I linked, I'll even link it again). How can you not be racist if you don't oppose these racist structures?

In regards to your last point about African Americans, that isn't PC, that's just stupid. African American is a term used to describe American citizens with African heritage. It makes no sense to describe a Black person as African American if they aren't an American citizen so whoever said that just didn't know what they were talking about.


----------



## ChronoTrig (Jun 29, 2020)

I also firmly believe to choose the best candidate possible for a position not based on skin color, race, religion or whatever else there is now to try and segregate people from not being the same. I also think it's messed up if people are forced to hire someone to meet a quota even if the candidate isn't the most qualified.

I grew up in the north, so I'm not extremely privy to the southern techniques, but I have seen it first hand when I was down in Mississippi-- which completely caught me offguard.

What you're saying is a dictatorial idea: You say free will to be anything yet in the US you say you're racist or anti racist instead of they just don't care for the issue and want to live their life as-is because they have larger concerns of their own that are impending. i.e. health, cancer, homeless, etc.   They're literally fighting to even exist, yet you demand they choose a side. As someone stated before that's mob mentality.

The last part: Then tell that to a bunch of upcoming lawyers I was in class with (classroom full). It turned into a good hour debate with a professor to speak to after the class if you were upset/distraught by the conversation.


----------



## Seliph (Jun 29, 2020)

ChronoTrig said:


> I grew up in the north, so I'm not extremely privy to the southern techniques, but I have seen it first hand when I was down in Mississippi-- which completely caught me offguard.
> 
> What you're saying is a dictatorial idea: You say free will to be anything yet in the US you say you're racist or anti racist instead of they just don't care for the issue and want to live their life as-is because they have larger concerns of their own that are impending. i.e. health, cancer, homeless, etc.   They're literally fighting to even exist, yet you demand they choose a side. As someone stated before that's mob mentality.
> 
> The last part: Then tell that to a bunch of upcoming lawyers I was speaking with (classroom full). It turned into a good hour debate with a professor to speak to after the class if you were upset/distraught by the conversation.


In regard to the second paragraph, the thing is, race permeates every aspect of life in the US, there's no way you can ignore it. Homelessness disproportionately affects BIPOC, healthcare is disproportionately unavailable to BIPOC. The same people who are affected by homelessness, healthcare etc are a lot of the same people who end up fighting the racist power structures. I'm not saying that to be anti-racist you have to be marching on the streets 24/7 or getting in political debates or anything, anyone can oppose racism no matter who they are (unless they're in a coma or dead, obviously), anti-racism can be as little as writing a few anti-racist phrases or as big as toppling the US government (that statement probably put me on a watchlist).

Anyone can be anti-racist, so not caring about the issue isn't an option because the issue of racism is embedded in every facet of American life. Literally buying a coffee from Starbucks can be considered racism because Starbucks uses prison labor, which is modern-day slavery (again, watch the Netflix documentary 13th). I know that sounds absurd but that's because the system is absurd, there is no ethical consumption under capitalism. Literally anti-racism can be growing and making your own coffee instead of buying from Starbucks, it's that easy. Anti-racism can be simply choosing not to support racist companies, it's that easy.

It's not dictatorial because I'm not forcing anyone to do anything or be anything, nor are anti-racists. I'm just defining the reality of the anti-racist/racist "spectrum" in the US as understood by anti-racists. You can choose to be anti-racist, or you can choose to be racist. To choose to be racist is to choose to buy from Starbucks knowing that they use slave labor, to choose to be anti-racist is to choose not to buy from Starbucks knowing they use slave labor. 

In this world, you either buy from Starbucks, or you don't. There's no in-between.


----------



## ChronoTrig (Jun 29, 2020)

Seliph said:


> In regard to the second paragraph, the thing is, race permeates every aspect of life in the US, there's no way you can ignore it. Homelessness disproportionately affects BIPOC, healthcare is disproportionately unavailable to BIPOC. The same people who are affected by homelessness, healthcare etc are a lot of the same people who end up fighting the racist power structures. I'm not saying that to be anti-racist you have to be marching on the streets 24/7 or getting in political debates or anything, anyone can oppose racism no matter who they are (unless they're in a coma or dead, obviously), anti-racism can be as little as writing a few anti-racist phrases or as big as toppling the US government (that statement probably put me on a watchlist).
> 
> Anyone can be anti-racist, so not caring about the issue isn't an option because the issue of racism is embedded in every facet of American life. Literally buying a coffee from Starbucks can be considered racism because Starbucks uses prison labor, which is modern-day slavery (again, watch the Netflix documentary 13th). I know that sounds absurd but that's because the system is absurd, there is no ethical consumption under capitalism. Literally anti-racism can be growing and making your own coffee instead of buying from Starbucks, it's that easy. Anti-racism can be simply choosing not to support racist companies, it's that easy.



As noted, you must put a lot of thought and time into all of that when many people simply don't have the time whatsoever. Your life must be very difficult if you're really overthinking getting a Starbucks; then again, it's cheaper to purchase and grind your own in the long run.

It's like someone being hit in a car accident and a bystander being late for whatever instead of sticking around they go to what's very important instead of sticking around. People don't have time to stick around for all of it. Which is why the demanding of choice is unruly. The reason for the droves of protest right now is it's summer.. All the college kids are out, teachers and many people unemployed. The whole thing has become such a mess. It goes from one thing to another to another; on top of that, coronavirus is skyrocketing and killing people off by the dozens. And now the dust storm.. It's just one thing after another.

With the current cancel culture it's basically a do or die which is what your view on racist or anti-racist is. There's no grey. It's super mob mentality and it's caustic to people's health/well-being. I feel bad for all the people losing their jobs because of all these drastic changes when they can give a character a voice which is familiar to them and already well-known. People state they want to save everyone but this is showing otherwise and now you're putting them back out to struggle.. or worse.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Jun 29, 2020)

Any amount of cancel culture is too far.


----------



## Seliph (Jun 29, 2020)

ChronoTrig said:


> As noted, you must put a lot of thought and time into all of that when many people simply don't have the time whatsoever. Your life must be very difficult if you're really overthinking getting a Starbucks; then again, it's cheaper to purchase and grind your own in the long run.
> 
> It's like someone being hit in a car accident and a bystander being late for whatever instead of sticking around they go to what's very important instead of sticking around. People don't have time to stick around for all of it. Which is why the demanding of choice is unruly. The reason for the droves of protest right now is it's summer.. All the college kids are out, teachers and many people unemployed. The whole thing has become such a mess. It goes from one thing to another to another; on top of that, coronavirus is skyrocketing and killing people off by the dozens. And now the dust storm.. It's just one thing after another.
> 
> With the current cancel culture it's basically a do or die which is what your view on racist or anti-racist is. There's no grey. It's super mob mentality and it's caustic to people's health/well-being. I feel bad for all the people losing their jobs because of all these drastic changes when they can give a character a voice which is familiar to them and already well-known. People state they want to save everyone but this is showing otherwise and now you're putting them back out to struggle.. or worse.


Don't forget that I said this "anti-racism can be as little as writing a few anti-racist phrases or as big as toppling the US government (that statement probably put me on a watchlist)." Anyone can be anti-racist if they want to be, I was just using Starbucks as an example. The people who have the time and ability will put their work into a large part of anti-racist action (maybe you'd call it ANTIRA) and anyone else who has the ability to can contribute as well, no matter how small. Again, a lot of the unemployed people, homeless people, teachers students etc are the exact people who are taking part in anti-racist action. The whole reason why people are participating is exactly because of all the reasons you listed, including the fact that Black people are being killed by police. Cancel culture is ultimately an insignificant corner of twitter. 

I don't advocate for cancel culture, I don't think anyone should be canceled, but the best vaccine for cancellation is anti-racism. All of these people who have been canceled are prominent, privileged people, their lives aren't being ruined. They could very easily be anti-racist if they choose to be. 

I've seen homeless old people participating in protests, I've seen people in wheelchairs hooked up to oxygen at protests, I don't see why you're trying to justify inaction when I've given ample evidence for why action is so easy and accessible. This video gives even MORE reasons if you want to check it out. There's simply no excuse for inaction.


----------



## notimp (Jun 29, 2020)

Seliph said:


> Don't forget that I said this "anti-racism can be as little as writing a few anti-racist phrases or as big as toppling the US government


Thats convenient!


----------



## notimp (Jun 29, 2020)

Uh and I was wrong on the term cancel culture, wasn't i? It comes from canceling your friends friendship status on social media, right?


----------



## FGFlann (Jun 29, 2020)

The biggest red flag for what nonsense concepts institutional and systemic racism in America are, is that they are predicated entirely on per capita demography, completely ignoring all other circumstances. You could pick any characteristic that is overrepresented in statistics and call it systemic-whatever. Men are overrepresented in criminal convictions by  90+%, proving that the criminal justice system is systemically misandrist or some other such nonsense.


----------



## CallmeBerto (Jun 29, 2020)

FGFlann said:


> The biggest red flag for what nonsense concepts institutional and systemic racism in America are, is that they are predicated entirely on per capita demography, completely ignoring all other circumstances. You could pick any characteristic that is overrepresented in statistics and call it systemic-whatever. Men are overrepresented in criminal convictions by  90+%, proving that the criminal justice system is systemically misandrist or some other such nonsense.



I came here to say the same thing. One thing that people fail to take into account are other factors such as culture and individual choices people make that lead to different outcomes. Just like you said people see uneven outcomes and think it is sexism or racism. As Thomas Sowell says a lot "Where is your evidence?"


----------



## notimp (Jun 29, 2020)

FGFlann said:


> The biggest red flag for what nonsense concepts institutional and systemic racism in America are, is that they are predicated entirely on per capita demography


Its not? Have you ever heard someone say that racism is prevalent in a region because there live that many white and black folks there? I havent. You are making stuff up.

The closest thing I've come across are factors of social cohesion, within sizeable minority communities. F.e. if you have a large part of town, thats income poor, and that has been lived in by predominantly one race, generationally, and that is part of a larger more affluent community - then you'd expect to find more racism in the border zones.

But apart from that?

What you are doing very likely is reading an overgeneralization someone made, and now complaining about that it is an overgeneralization.

In city/community planning, nor in sociology no one is dumb enough to just straight out say, that racism is a factor of population numbers alone...

Thats just not true.


At the same time, the entire concept is entirely unrelated to 'if there is such a thing as institutional racism'. You find that out, by f.e. screening incident reports, or looking at arrest figures vs. what would be a statistical normal.

And if you think that the guys and gals doing those analyses dont look at factors like 'are there other direct potential influences', you are stupid.
-

But then the main thing you are doing is actually pretty problematic in its own right, because you seem to assert, that certain "character traits" associated with skin color are why f.e. there is a higher arrest rate of black people, that cant be statistically explained.

And thats entirely bull.

There have been many problematic experiments in the past, where children of native rural populations where taken from their parents and 'civilized' (brought up by foster parent), and the outcomes always were that those children basically were culturally assimilated.

The black n**** gene, that makes them more aggressive, doesnt exist, even though you want to imply that in so many words.

You are just entirely wrong on that.

No - if you have arest figures 10x higher for black populations than for white populations in the same city, thats structural racism (can also be in 'targeting' doesnt _have_ to be the individual police man, but then if you already have a 'speak out and keep fellow officers in check' rule, and five people stair holes in the air, while a black dude is kneeled to death, thats either - human decision failure in five cases simultaniously, or systemic racism. ('We against, the ones out there' think). So no, none of thats bull.


----------



## Taleweaver (Jun 29, 2020)

(Christ...five pages? I haven't kept up with this thread  ).

Something that sort of boggles my mind: when hundreds of thousands protest against police brutality, a meaningful reform appears unlikely. But when a few random guys complain, often from behind their computers, celebrities and top businessmen immediately fold. What the hell is wrong with this planet?


----------



## notimp (Jun 29, 2020)

Businessmen folding is the easy thing to do. (Brands dont want to be associated with controversy and always pick the majorities position (within their brand consumers) on any issue, as quickly as they have identified it.  With very, very few exceptions.)

Police reforms are hard.

Easily explained.. 

For why are people value signaling (to the extent it is going on in todays society): Social media.. 

edit: On the celebrities point, they are modelling/optimizing public personas, they basically do the same as companies. (Also have social media teams whose job it is only to optimize image. And of course, if you are referring to movie stars, and most of the live in LA, within a liberal scene (because movie stars), what do you expect? People not adopting their neighbors behaviors?  )


----------



## Jokey_Carrot (Jun 29, 2020)

ghjfdtg said:


> It's stupid if you ask me. Why can't a white guy be a voice actor for a black character and the other way around? Isn't the very idea behind all this that everyone is the same regardless of skin color?


White people make a fuss about things like that because they want some sort of moral superiority.


----------



## CallmeBerto (Jun 29, 2020)

Taleweaver said:


> (Christ...five pages? I haven't kept up with this thread  ).
> 
> Something that sort of boggles my mind: when hundreds of thousands protest against police brutality, a meaningful reform appears unlikely. But when a few random guys complain, often from behind their computers, celebrities and top businessmen immediately fold. What the hell is wrong with this planet?



It's complicated. I know thats not the answer you want to hear but that is most likely the reason. It's very easy for a corporation to bend the knee since they really don't have to do anything beyond that.

However lawmakers need to find a balance between police reform and over reach. Where that line lies is where our elected officials disagree on.


----------



## FGFlann (Jun 29, 2020)

@notimp

Correct me if I'm interpreting your questions incorrectly. As always I do my best to understand what you are saying.



notimp said:


> Have you ever heard someone say that racism is prevalent in a region because there live that many white and black folks there? I havent. You are making stuff up.



Have I ever heard someone say that racism is prevalent because people of different races live in close proximity? Yes. This isn't unusual in any way. Racism is a facet of human nature and is present anywhere those of different backgrounds cohabitate.

What we are interested in is that in order to prove the concept of systemic racism, racism must be proven as the causal factor in institutions.



notimp said:


> But then the main thing you are doing is actually pretty problematic in its own right, because you seem to assert, that certain "character traits" associated with skin color are why f.e. there is a higher arrest rate of black people, that cant be statistically explained.



Let me be absolutely clear: This is the conclusion that YOU have come to. I would never make the claim that people are predicated toward certain behaviours by virtue of race.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 29, 2020)

CallmeBerto said:


> It's complicated. I know thats not the answer you want to hear but that is most likely the reason. It's very easy for a corporation to bend the knee since they really don't have to do anything beyond that.
> 
> However lawmakers need to find a balance between police reform and over reach. Where that line lies is where our elected officials disagree on.


Unfortunately those same feckless corporations own most lawmakers, which is why you'll see them commit to symbolic legislation like writing 'Black Lives Matter' on streets rather than actually turning their sights against police brutality and corruption.  Colorado being one of the few exceptions ahead of the curve, as usual, where we've already eliminated qualified immunity and put some strict regulations on the release of body cam footage.  Our governor Jared Polis is a BAMF.


----------



## Seliph (Jun 29, 2020)

notimp said:


> Thats convenient!


It is! Anti-racism is very convenient and easy.


----------



## notimp (Jun 29, 2020)

Jokey_Carrot said:


> White people make a fuss about things like that because they want some sort of moral superiority.


Dangerous overgeneralization. Trolling. 

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Seliph said:


> It is! Anti-racism is very convenient and easy.


Meaning, if any concept can be called the same regardless if you just make a sh'tpost online, or if you topple a government, chances are, that you've been had.  Human language is capable of more differentiation. 

Meaning: You are likely sold 'you be part of a revolution' but be expected to just sit in front of your PC and make social media posts, which nobody cares about. 

(Brands positions will change, if/when public opinion changes again, to have something more lasting, you basically need legal or structural reforms. And looking at NGO demands on the black lives matter front, most of those demands are - lets say hard to implement legally. ('Somewhat irrational, and not very well thought out') Others might very well be, but those currently dont get popular support. You have a stupid people cant organize problem, essentially. Imho  (playing devils advocate - at least a little..  )))


----------



## Seliph (Jun 29, 2020)

notimp said:


> Dangerous overgeneralization. Trolling.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...



Well, I'm not saying an anti-racist shitpost is the same thing as toppling the government, that's dangerous overgeneralization on your part. I'm just saying that both of those things could be considered anti-racist. If all someone is able to do online is make anti-racist shitposts, that's their choice, if someone wants to overthrow the government, that's their choice, I never said these things are equivalent. I can call both of these things anti-racist, but I'm not going to say that they're of equal importance or gravity because obviously that makes no sense. 

People do care about social media posts, otherwise cancel culture wouldn't be a thing. Any little bit helps.

Also, you don't need legal reform, that's usually ineffective anyways. What most people are trying for is revolution, not reform.


----------



## notimp (Jun 29, 2020)

FGFlann said:


> Have I ever heard someone say that racism is prevalent because people of different races live in close proximity? Yes. This isn't unusual in any way. Racism is a facet of human nature and is present anywhere those of different backgrounds cohabitate.


Colloquially (as in what your neighbor says while flipping burgers), sure. But anyone actually involved in setting up planning structures to prevent lets say 'civil unrest' usually isnt talking that way. They all acknowledge other factors. (Social mobility, education, ethnic mix over time within a district, unemployment numbers, ...). On that level the problem should not be that people just call something 'structural racism' because of an absolute numbers race ratio.

Calling something structural racism because of the case number compaired to a statistically normal distribution ist OK, or might be ok, if you havent forgotten other important factors.

But then again, there is no 'black gene for agressiveness' - so that factor doesnt exist. (Cultural factors (poor black neighborhood for decades) do.) Those you'd tackle with social programs.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Seliph said:


> Well, I'm not saying an anti-racist shitpost is the same thing as toppling the government, that's dangerous overgeneralization on your part. I'm just saying that both of those things could be considered anti-racist.


And I'm saying thats very convenient, because that way many/most people can 'feel' as anti racists, even basking in a 'rebellion' aura, while essentially nothing happens. (If all they do is stick to social media posts).

So I'm not saying you are logically wrong in what you stated - im just pointing at that logical fallacy (different angle).


----------



## FGFlann (Jun 29, 2020)

notimp said:


> Colloquially (as in what your neighbor says while flipping burgers), sure. But anyone actually involved in setting up planning structures to prevent lets say 'civil unrest'. They all acknowledge other factors. (Social mobility, education, ethnic mix over time within a district, unemployment numbers, ...). On that level the problem should not be that people just call something 'structural racism' because of an absolute numbers race ratio.
> 
> Calling something structural racism because of the case number compaired to a statistically normal distribution ist OK, or might be ok, if you havend forgotten other important factors.
> 
> But then again, there is no 'black gene for agressiveness' - so that factor doesnt exist. (Cultural factors (poor black neighborhood for decades) do.) Those you'd tackle with social programs.


So we agree that there are a multitude of potential causal factors that need to be taken into account. If that is the case, we have no quarrel and can move on.


----------



## notimp (Jun 29, 2020)

FGFlann said:


> So we agree that there are a multitude of potential causal factors that need to be taken into account. If that is the case, we have no quarrel and can move on.


With the added byline, that 'genetical preposition for violence based on skincolor' can't be one. Yes. 

I.e. claiming structural racism isnt stupid "because there are so many factors".

Sure we can debate over how to exactly define it (what aspects would have to be included), but to just say 'its complex, so it cant be a thing'...


----------



## FGFlann (Jun 29, 2020)

notimp said:


> With the added byline, that 'genetical preposition for violence based on skincolor' can't be one. Yes.
> 
> I.e. claiming structural racism isnt stupid "because there are so many factors".
> 
> Sure we can debate over how to exactly define it (what aspects would have to be included), but to just say 'its complex, so it cant be a thing'...


Again, genetic predisposition was a conclusion of yours, not mine. It doesn't factor into my thinking.

The presence of many potential causal factors renders the use of the word racism unsuitable, since it carries an emotional weight to it and its specific definition places unfair stigma on the people involved in the various institutions that receive the accusation of being complicit in it.

The term "structural inequality" would be a better catch-all to use in the phase where the idea is being explored.


----------



## notimp (Jun 29, 2020)

FGFlann said:


> Again, genetic predisposition was a conclusion of yours, not mine. It doesn't factor into my thinking.


K, then its out of our debate. Sorry for bringing it in.. 

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Seliph said:


> People do care about social media posts, otherwise cancel culture wouldn't be a thing. Any little bit helps.


I have to think about that a bit more.. 

Impulse response would be, but the unintended consequences though (raises hate, has people retract within bubbles, ...). That way you are basically designing the backlash.. 

But I have heard that argument made by proponents of SJW culture before. And its not obviously wrong. My issue is just with what all that virtue signaling and cancel culture does to your broader society.

You could then argue, that most people aspire to be bullshitting drones, and mimic ingroup behavior, to f.e. maximise facebook popularity, regardless how stupid it is, and you'd probably be right. Thats a tough one.. 

On the other hand, at least Bannon seems to believe, that this drives most of the working class towards the alt right. 

edit: I think I'm coming at this from an "the social media revolutions never worked" theoretical angle mostly.  Until the first one does, I guess. But you dont have staying power on social media, you cant develop arguments on social media, you...So ultimately, there have to be other components as well. 

But then we have to look at why 'its promoted, that you can be part of it with just a posting' - when those peoples voices never matter for anything other than raising profile. ('Look how important we are'.) And I think I then have a problem with advertising to people that 'you can change the world with a click or a posting' ('its never been easier to feel like you are part of something important'). Because - again, historically you cant. And whatever those people think in particular will never matter.

And I have a problem with the fact, that this is how facebook works. Giving outrage a high spread potential (goes viral), but then having the same issue dying down just as fast, because there is no staying power of any discourse in an ever scrolling feed (advertisers very glad, can advertise again after all the controversy is over, they are estimating six months currently, correct ), and you can only topple that many statues for instagram pictures.. 

edit: Differing oppinions are possible: https://www.forbes.com/sites/gregsa...has-changed-the-world-take-a-look-at-ukraine/

(Allthough I wouldnt call what happened in the Ukraine a big success..  (article is from 2014).)


----------



## ChronoTrig (Jun 29, 2020)

Seliph said:


> Don't forget that I said this "anti-racism can be as little as writing a few anti-racist phrases or as big as toppling the US government (that statement probably put me on a watchlist)." Anyone can be anti-racist if they want to be, I was just using Starbucks as an example. The people who have the time and ability will put their work into a large part of anti-racist action (maybe you'd call it ANTIRA) and anyone else who has the ability to can contribute as well, no matter how small. Again, a lot of the unemployed people, homeless people, teachers students etc are the exact people who are taking part in anti-racist action. The whole reason why people are participating is exactly because of all the reasons you listed, including the fact that Black people are being killed by police. Cancel culture is ultimately an insignificant corner of twitter.
> 
> I don't advocate for cancel culture, I don't think anyone should be canceled, but the best vaccine for cancellation is anti-racism. All of these people who have been canceled are prominent, privileged people, their lives aren't being ruined. They could very easily be anti-racist if they choose to be.
> 
> I've seen homeless old people participating in protests, I've seen people in wheelchairs hooked up to oxygen at protests, I don't see why you're trying to justify inaction when I've given ample evidence for why action is so easy and accessible. This video gives even MORE reasons if you want to check it out. There's simply no excuse for inaction.



Your last statement is basically silence is violence which is the mob mentality. As I noted, some people don't have to have their views out there for the world to see; f.e some people are passive or don't want to deal with confrontation-- they have enough going on in their home and like I said, unemployment is huge right now... Mind you, you're stating all these people out there with disabilities..... which is a bit irresponsible since Coronavirus is swarming out there and protests are big mobs.. Those people on oxygen tanks are likely to die if they get it....
Like I said, you're hard edged on making someone choose a side or demand they voice their side is dictatorial and you will get many people who will then "fake" what they are .. because you may be able to crumble / destroy / change all your systemic / structural racism but people will always have their own thoughts and opinions.. Especially the south since the racism seems to be much stronger down there than where I'm from in the north. You can not change people, they have to want to change themselves.


----------



## GBAer (Jun 29, 2020)




----------



## Viri (Jun 29, 2020)

Jokey_Carrot said:


> White people make a fuss about things like that because they want some sort of moral superiority.


I wouldn't give a flying fuck if a white guy is played by a black guy, and vice versa. As long as he does a good job, and makes a good voice actor. Voice actor changes kill a show for me. I couldn't watch the later episodes of Dexter's Lab, because they had to change the voice actor for Dexter. The lady who played him wanted to retire, and later died, so I cannot blame them. But it still killed the show for me as a kid.

Like wise with Pokemon. The new voice actors sound so damn strange. Oh right, I guess having a white lady play an Asian guy is a big nono, so I guess Ash will get his voice actor changed again.


----------



## SG854 (Jul 1, 2020)

Seliph said:


> Jenna Marbles parodying Nicki Minaj IS racist. There is no satire in that, she is not making any statement about racism or blackface. If you dress up as a Black person to mock them, that is racist. That is actual racism. You are excusing actual racism.
> 
> The difference between RDJ's blackface and Jenna Marble's blackface is that (as far as I can tell) RDJ's is intended to be a critique on Hollywood racism, Jenna Marbles' blackface is just used to mock and caricature Nicki Minaj, which is racist. Jenna Marbles has also done other racist things on YouTube as well, she's made derogatory comments mocking an Asian man. You can look this up. This is blatant racism, and it is indefensible.
> 
> Now Jenna Marbles has gone on record publicly apologizing for this, and obviously her racist actions in the past do not appear to represent who she is now so I forgive her. However, what you're doing is you're denying that the racist things she did were racist, and that's the problem. What Jenna Marbles did was actual racism no matter how you spin it.


Yes she is mocking her. She is mocking her as a rapper. It's different from blackface. No I am not excusing actual racism, as this is not racism. Jenna marbles isn't burning crosses and making blacks sit at the back of the bus. She will never do that. She is the least of black peoples worries. 

The asian thing is iffy. But then there is this. People make asian jokes all the time. Where is the line that's crossed thats makes it considered racist? A joke compared to actual racism like putting Asians in internment camps during World War 2.


----------



## SG854 (Jul 1, 2020)

notimp said:


> With the added byline, that 'genetical preposition for violence based on skincolor' can't be one. Yes.
> 
> I.e. claiming structural racism isnt stupid "because there are so many factors".
> 
> Sure we can debate over how to exactly define it (what aspects would have to be included), but to just say 'its complex, so it cant be a thing'...


Would you ever consider genetic predisposition as a possible factor?  For any thing sex and race related. Even if its different aggression levels between men and women. Men being more aggressive (which is more acceptable to say if it's towards men, but anything towards women and you would be called a sexist) You would have to be biased to not consider genetics a factor.

If in the animal kingdom different animals have different predisposition to aggression wouldnt this also apply to humans since we are animals, we are evolved apes.

This is very noticeable among dogs. Different breeds have different levels of aggression, pit bulls are banned from certain parts of Europe because they are more aggressive and violent. They are banned for their genetics. And this is the same species, dogs, where aggression varies. Even though dogs evolve faster then humans, different races of humans have been apart long enough to evolve different colors of skin, and different noticable genetic differences. The medical field has to medically treat races differently to give the most effective treatments because we have different predispositions to sicknesses and diseases (but some crazy people out there likes to claim the medical feld is racist).

So you would have to be intellectually dishonest if you think all humans are the same genetics wise. And not doing actual science to avoid such topics, like when religious people held back scientific progress because they didn't like what they were hearing.


----------



## SG854 (Jul 1, 2020)

@notimp

The Pit Bull breed dominates the charts as a dog that attacks people. Many places wants to ban them. You can't write this off as social construction, how dogs are trained. Social construction has some impact, you can call a dog whisperer to tame your dog, but genetics is also another component that plays a big factor. Wouldn't this also apply to humans. Since we are animals that evolve.

https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/dog-bite-laws-in-texas-why-pit-bulls-need-regulation-29388#:~:text=Pit Bulls are banned in,breeds is disheartening and disturbing.


----------



## SG854 (Jul 1, 2020)

@notimp

I just found this video. So I guess I would have to redact my statement about putbulls? It looks likes statistics are screwed against pitbulls. Nice to know pitbulls aren't the problem and the trainer is.


----------



## notimp (Jul 1, 2020)

Are you comparing people to pitbulls? End of argument, oh - and you lost, btw. 

As for overgeneralizations, here, watch this video:


The point is not that that guy is right, or all the philosophers that came before him, but that this kind of thing always breaks, because its an overgeneralization.

When was the last time you bred humans the way you did pitbulls for generations? (And then still do, when breeding them today?) There is a severe difference in the terminology of race here.

Most of the US prison population is in there for non violent crimes, still disproportionately black. What about that fact?

Also black culture seemingly has a cultural component by now, where they tell their kids, when dealing with the police, lay on your back with your hands in the air, or they will shoot you. That already is a cultural response on the basis of 'you are perceived more as a threat than others' which to me seems so flipping wrong.

Its as simple as - we dont want people to think in those categories, because it only leads to bad outcomes. People cant change the race they are born with - so anything you'd attribute to race they cant defend against. Because there is the tendency to make behavioral attributions based on looks, and we know how willing humans are to take ideological shortcuts, that always leads to overgeneralization and prejudice. That part is pretty obvious.

So we need to employ that process level scrutiny to have something that counteracts our own biases.

At which point you jump in with your great Idea of - but wait, what if racism can explain this better, humans are inherently neutral in behavior - and to make sure we can keep it this way, how about we dont do those internal statistical and behavioral testing, because everything always works out great as is? Seems wrong.


----------



## SG854 (Jul 2, 2020)

notimp said:


> Are you comparing people to pitbulls? End of argument, oh - and you lost, btw.
> 
> As for overgeneralizations, here, watch this video:
> 
> ...



I am always open to the possibility that genetics can play a role. I'm not close minded. The fact that you said you lost means you already had your mind made up before the research came, that research came after your hypothesis and its just there to confirm your biases. Which you would be a horrible scientist that would be laughed out if you were one.

And my question to you was that will you ever consider genetics, will you be open to that possibilty, not what I actually believe is the cause of differences between the races right now. I just wanted to see if you were biased as I was picking that up from you from your previous posts. And behavioral studies are important to psychology. If dogs can evolve to look different from each other, humans can evolve to look different too. And that's exactly what we see, so yes I am comparing humans to dogs, im comparing the were are both an evolving species. We wouldn't see different physical traits like skin color if were weren't. We see a whole medical field that treats races differently for certain race specific medical problems.

Though with that said, I do lean more towards that most differences is cultural between the races, more then genetics. Even though we're are genetically different in some ways, we are still roughly the same in many ways from the research I read. Like IQ, Thomas Sowell does a good job debunking that Black's have inherently low IQ, and good education will raise their IQ to be equal or greater to whites.


----------



## notimp (Jul 2, 2020)

SG854 said:


> The fact that you said you lost means you already had your mind made up before the research came, tha


No, I'm telling you - in a conventional setting, where people would pull on social queues wether you win an argument or not, you had lost at this point. All the other side arguing has to do from this point forward is to remind the audience once in a while, that you compared humans with pitbulls in a race argument - and you'd be ostracized.

I basically told you never to do that, and then still interacted with you as if nothing had happened. 

Also that is the first time, someone construed believing in "genetics determining peoples behavior" (even in aggregate), as open minded, I believe..


----------



## SG854 (Jul 2, 2020)

notimp said:


> No, I'm telling you - in a conventional setting, where people would pull on social queues wether you win an argument or not, you had lost at this point. All the other side arguing has to do from this point forward is to remind the audience once in a while, that you compared humans to pitbulls - and you'd be ostracized.
> 
> I basically told you never to do that, and then still interacted with you as if nothing had happened.
> 
> Also that is the first time, someone construed to believe in "genetics determining peoples behavior" (even in aggregate), as open minded, I believe..


I see nothing wrong with the comparison, there is nothing wrong.

We shared a common ancestor with pitbulls. Or is it bad to say this too? We have two eyes, because we had a common ancestor that had two eyes.

Your reasons is pretty stupid and the people that get turned off by the comparison will do it for pretty stupid reasons too. Humans get compared to chimpanzees too, and reaserchers study chimpanzees to learn more about humans too. Or should scientists be ignored because we are not chimpanzees!


"I basically told you never to do that, and then still interacted with you as if nothing had happened."

Oh puhlease you are giving your argument too much credit. I will continue to compare us to animals because we are animals. People use to laugh at scientist for saying the universe didn't center around the sun. This argument literally means nothing to me, because I don't give a shit what people think when their arguments are ridiculous.


We evolve? Yes or No?
We had a common ancestor with dogs yes or no?
Behavior and traits evolve for our survival yes or no?

I really don't see the problem comparison with humans and dogs, its not like I'm saying we are dogs exactly. Im being very specific about my comparison. And you are ignoring this very specific comparison to write off the whole argument. 

Its like me saying we eat food just like dogs do, we both need to eat to survive like dogs do. If somebody then says ha you are comparing us to dogs therefore I don't have to listen of engage with you, eat food like dogs? Who is this wacko comparing us with dogs, and all I have to do is bring up the fact that you are comparing us to dogs for me not to take you seriously.

If they use this as an argument they are using a stupid argument.


----------



## osaka35 (Jul 2, 2020)

ooo I know about this topic.

When comparing species, the important thing is to compare like with as-close-to-like-as-possible. Like, when comparing the eyes of humans and dogs, there are a lot of differences. While we share an ancestor quite a long time ago (mammals and all that), their eyes have developed a lot differently over the years. Their structure and whatnot are different than ours. They, for one, don't see as many colours as we do, and probably have other features. What caused these differences were environmental pressures over generations, influencing which wolves were able to breed more successfully than others. Or those who had traits which more successfully bred just happened to carry these particular genetic traits. It's not always a direct pressure, some traits just get lucky.

I say that to say using a "it's how nature works" argument is usually not the strongest argument. Especially when you're trying to compare things from different species which have evolved very differently (in this case, the canine brain and the human brain). This is why when folks who specialize in this stuff want to compare humans to other species, they go with our closest cousins, apes. Bonobos, chimpanzees, etc. Their brain structure is much closer to ours, so there are some things we can get from those comparisons...not so much dogs/wolves.

When you can't separate nature from nurture, it tends to boil down to "well who knows exactly how much nature plays a part, but let's focus on the nurture part so we can mitigate any influence nature has". And generally, when you're thinking about nature, you're really just talking about nurture, especially when you're talking about behaviour. There's also the problem of people taking natural tedencies to mean natural certainty. if 51% of men have generally better eyesight than women (made up for this example), some folks will take that to mean "mean have better eyesight than women!" When really it just means "you have a 1% chance as a man to having eyesight better than the average woman".

This has been osaka35 and thank you for coming to my Ted-talk.


----------



## notimp (Jul 2, 2020)

SG854 said:


> I see nothing wrong with the comparison, there is nothing wrong.


So you breed humans based on behavioral characteristics, so you get pedigrees of the most agressive ones, and until their mouths turn to larger fangs, their muscle mass doubles, and they get something like Robinow syndrome?

And why do you use Bulldogs when comparing dogs to black people, and not chihuahuas?





The problem with the internet is, that people cant take a clue. And still call themselves, argumentative geniuses, that are entirely on the up and up, in the middle of a racial epitaph, which for some reason they want to have identified as open minded.

Behavioral attribution using genetics is not a science. Its your uncles idea of how the world works. You know that open minded uncle, that everyone but you calls racist? Because he claims he can identify how another person behaves, based on their race?


----------



## SG854 (Jul 2, 2020)

notimp said:


> So you breed humans based on behavioral characteristics, so you get pedigrees of the most agressive ones, and until their mouths turn to larger fangs, their muscle mass doubles, and they get something like Robinow syndrome?
> 
> And why do you use Bulldogs when comparing dogs to black people, and not chihuahuas?
> 
> ...


Now you are being disingenuous to my original argument. I never said we were bread like dogs for very specific traits.

My argument is that if animals can evolve certain behaviors then humans can evolve to have certain behaviors also, thats the basis of it.

You don't have to be breed like dogs to evolve, there is a thing called natural selection, you are clearly ignoring that we have different colors of skin using your fangs mouth comparison. Evolution is a thing we have in common and that is the basis of my point and comparison because people like to think we are special from animals when in reality we are not. But natural selection does make us evolve traits, like walking upright and different facial structures from our proto human ancestors, just like dogs evolve different facial structures, differences in fur color, humans different skin color.


And two, i'm comparing dogs to humans in general. I never specifically said black people. And I never said anything about black people having evolved inferior traits, or anything, thats just you projecting your preconceived notions on how you think this type of argument will usually go down.

All I said is that I'm open to the possible idea that behavior might have genetic components to it, but I also said that I believe from the research I read most differences is due to culture not genetics, did you miss that part.

I'm just saying if research came out to prove otherwise that there is a huge difference in behavior will you accept it? Or will you ignore it because you don't like what it says and are afraid of being called racist? It seems to me from the last sentence that yes, you are biased, that you will ignore it because you don't want to be called racist. You are not doing actual science.

Also you are wrong, behavior is studied in psychology, it is a science that is studied. It's called Behavioral Psychology.


----------



## CraddaPoosta (Jul 2, 2020)

I've gotten banned, blocked, reported, censored and cancelled multiple times. Right here on GBAtemp, among other places. 

If you're not a leftist snowflake alphabet-gendered liberal Millennial who despises cisgender white males, you're not allowed to have an opinion in 2020.

Being a victim is somehow the status that this nation is desperately striving to achieve. Once you can claim victimhood, for ANY reason, regardless if it has merit or evidence to support any harm against you, you automatically cease to suffer any responsibility for your own words or actions.

Once you have that shield of victimhood to hide behind, you can berate, attack, insult, denigrate or even assault anyone else who doesn't agree with you, and people will applaud you and call you brave.

We only receive what we demand, folks. You all asked for this. You wanted this. This is what you got.


----------



## notimp (Jul 2, 2020)

Neo Draven said:


> If you're not a leftist snowflake alphabet-gendered liberal Millennial who despises cisgender white males, you're not allowed to have an opinion in 2020.


You are bringing this argument in the middle of an exchange where someone tried to argue, that it should be ok, to bring back racist character tropes, like "black people are like pitbulls", cared to see none of that - but complained, that you are not allowed to hold your opinions anymore in todays society.

How about you acting like a responsible human being first, and then we look at your whining about being called the opposite of a snowflake?

Or is this just 'I post me feelings as truths' fridays and everyone has to deal with them again?


----------



## CraddaPoosta (Jul 2, 2020)

notimp said:


> You are bringing this argument in the middle of an exchange where someone tried to argued, that it should be ok, to bring back racist character tropes, like "black people are like pitbulls", cared to see none of that - but complained, that you are not allowed to hold your opinions anymore in todays society.
> 
> How about you acting like a responsible human being first, and then we look at your whining about being called the opposite of a snowflake?
> 
> Or is this just 'I post me feelings as truths' fridays and everyone has to deal with them again?



You really, REALLY like to hear yourself talk. 

I was responding to the original post, not to your attempt at "debate". Not everything is about you, champ.


----------



## notimp (Jul 2, 2020)

Neo Draven said:


> You really, REALLY like to hear yourself talk.
> 
> I was responding to the original post,


Yes, could you acknowledge the reality on the ground first, please - before just out of context "responding to the first posting" with a "you cant hold an opinion anymore these days" complaint?

You know - check how it fit into the current progression of this discussion first?

You know, show some responsibility?


----------



## CraddaPoosta (Jul 2, 2020)

notimp said:


> Yes, could you acknowledge the reality on the ground first, please - before just out of context "responding to the first posting" with a "you cant hold an opinion anymore these days" complain?
> 
> You know, show some responsibility?



I have a hard time receiving a lecture from an individual incapable of an intelligent discourse without condescension and reducing himself to ad hominem by calling others idiots and outrageous morons, and impotently claiming to have "won" the argument whilst no one else is actually agreeing with him.

But, do carry on. Teach me, O Wise One.

What responsibility do I lack in responding to the original post? Are you just that filled with conceit that you believe that responding to your side-argument is the only valid input that a person can provide as an answer to the original question asked? 

"Out of context"? I was ANSWERING THE QUESTION. How is that "out of context"?

I was simply not paying you the attention you feel that you deserve. You took a dump on the carpet, and you're mad that I walked by it without comment.

You're feeling yourself a bit too much there, buddy. You're not as good a debater or writer as you think you are. I'm being nice.


----------



## notimp (Jul 2, 2020)

@SG854:
This (ambiguity) is the best we can go for -

Imho. Because as soon as you introduce actions based on ideologies that cover such a large part of humanity as in 'a race' - you are far too likely for it to topple over into 'actions based on prejudice'.

Lets say we entertain the thought that there would be a genetic portion to your believe of 'black people might be more agressive', what if that accounts for 2% more arrests over the average, but the simple act of telling police officers that, accounts for 10% more arrests in that bracket.

Because we know what thinking along those lines does to people ('tribalism'), we have to try to minimize it - or go for ultra right believes like 'cultural nativism' ('send them all back'). If we are talking about people of a certain race as 'one cohesive unit' which they arent.

I dont see a middle ground here.

Hence racism is a taboo.


----------



## SkyPioneer (Jul 2, 2020)

Just like to say that I'm glad to see civil discussion on both sides. This sort of discourse is so rare in today's internet.


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Jul 2, 2020)

I have followed the discussion between notimp and SG854 and would like to chime in.
I am not going to resort to name calling and expect the same from others.
Notimp, one can lose an argument only if there are better arguments. Unless you define argument as "fight" and just hit the other person because you do not like his/her opinion. You called yourself the victor just because you were offended. Not an argument.



notimp said:


> So lets entertain for a moment the thought, that your idiotically racist positions would be true, and say black people are just more agressive, because of race.


Let´s entertain the idea that for whatever reason there are no genetic differences at all (magic? God?) between groups of people (e.g. sex, race). Therefore women are not actually worse at sports than men. It is oppression by men. Therefore violence is justified against men.
Then differences in wealth between e.g. European Americans and African Americans must be due to oppression. Violence is justified. Oh wait, we don´t have to imagine it. It happens right now in the streets and there are hundreds of videos about this online (just random people attacking random people for perceived oppression).

So I do not even grant you the moral victory, let alone the scientific one.

*That said, I also believe that culture is more important than genetics because all human ethnic groups are very similar to one another.* However culture and genetics influence each other: a certain culture will select certain genes (let´s imagine a culture that teaches red-headed people are demons - their genes would be selected against) and vice versa.

I believe it was you who asked whether we breed people across generations. We absolutely do, namely by culture. Traditionally the richest people had the most children. Today it is the other way around. E.g. in Germany there are families of wellfare recipients across generations. Let´s zoom out a bit more (on the time scale): Pop stars in Korea are very feminine. Could it be that Korean women have had a different taste in men (and possibly the other way around)? They were not bred in cages, obviously. But to assume that selection does not affect humans would be insane - I hope you agree.

I need to correct SG854 in terms of the use "aggression". A female-looking male Korean popstar is not less aggressive than Hulk Hogan. But he has probably less testosterone. "aggression/aggressive" is not a well-defined term. I do not know (or care) about dogs but testosterone levels vary between ethnic groups, it´s a fact. And an important one (for medical healthcare).




notimp said:


> What do we do from there? Lock them away in ghettos? Medicate them?


You sound very extreme.
We do not need to do anything. If a group of people wants to improve, they will do so through self-reflection and cultural adjustments. But if they have other groups of people to blame, they choose the easy way out by finding excuses. I am neither German nor Chinese and do not want to reveal my ethnicity. But all I can say is that my ethnic group has made a lot of progress because we didn´t have this excuse. Believing in magical premises prevents progress.

Let me put it this way: Chinese people are bad at soccer. A nation of 1,4 billions is worse than all European nations, including the small ones. They might have a genetic disadvantage (e.g. height - very important for goal keepers and defenders, for example) but their main "problem" is a lack of interest in the sport (culture). They might never be number one, but they could be good enough (if they wanted to).


----------



## notimp (Jul 2, 2020)

Still easy to argue against, I find.

But first - I used harsh words, because It got me emotionally, but even in retrospect I think that you 'defend' the taboo around 'racism' with emotion, so it projects, that people will do so with moral fervour.
--

As for the counter arguments. There can be genetic differences - which amongst 'race' usually should be superseeded in effect by cultural ones.

The issue why you cant make an argument like in the pitbull case is still twofold. First, I always argue behaviorally, so

- There would be no way to express a small (lets say it is small) difference, in a way - that it would lead to public action that would actually represent that small difference. There would always be prejudice that kicks in. And it would be the very bad kind - because of presumed tribalism tendencies. So you have to go with the zero sum option of 'always keep it a taboo'. ("We have none of it.")

And even if not (lets take the Harvard case of them adjusting the entry point goalposts for asians (see video)), complexity kills you here (how would you argue for an adjustment on the non public level, between races to be just). So again, its back to the other option 'always keep it a taboo'.

- On social 'breeding' due to culture, I somewhat disagree. Wealth is not a good indicator for any common characteristic. (Getting into an Ivy league college would be a better one.  ) Also it should be much, much harder to keep lines (over several generations) 'as you'd want them' to achieve anything close to our Chihuahua result.

Also we can look at this in practice on said Harvard case (see video) - where they actually acted on the incentive to keep student populations 'culturally diverse', and looked for larger clusters of 'more intelligent' people, which in our case turned out to be 'asians', then actively tried to reduce their number - with the desired effect of not introducing too much of a racial bias (side effect - also into the gene pool).  

(All stupid theoretical arguing. In case this wasnt obvious..  )

The last argument - that also works agains your "our culture made so much progress in that regard" is, that the average doesnt matter at all. Individual action matters. (Faster to next Einstein should not be achievable by raising the average.  (US has modeled their entire education system around that I believe..  ))

And with that we get into how would a certain trait within a population be statistically scattered?
And then you take this question - and ask yourself how you make a behavioral guideline out of it for an average policeman.
Answer you dont. So back to 'always keep it a taboo' and 'we have none of it'.


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Jul 2, 2020)

notimp said:


> But first - I used harsh words, because It got me emotionally, but even in retrospect I think that you 'defend' the taboo around 'racism' with emotion, so it projects, that people will do so with moral fervour.


If sb states "women and men" are different, this person is a) not automatically a sexist and b) not emotional about it.

I hope you do not consider this an ad hominem, but could it be that you are lying to yourself because you are afraid of your own thoughts? Never in my dreams would I come up with sick thoughts like giving people medication.



notimp said:


> As for the counter arguments. There can be genetic differences - which amongst 'race' usually should be superseeded in effect by cultural ones.


Should? Are you argueing from morality again? It depends what you are measuring. But I am glad we come to an agreement: there are genetic differences. And we agree that they are not strong enough to justify different treatment, e.g. by a university. (Hope I did not misunderstood you)



notimp said:


> - There would be no way to express a small (lets say it is small) difference, in a way - that it would lead to public action that would actually represent that small difference. There would always be prejudice that kicks in. And it would be the very bad kind - because of presumed tribalism tendencies. So you have to go with the zero sum option of 'always keep it a taboo'. ("We have none of it.")


I don´t agree that we have to keep it a taboo. Nature is neither fair nor equal. People vastly differ in beauty, for example. I am against shaming anyone for sth they cannot change (e.g. my nose) but we should not keep up the delusion that everyone is equally attractive either.



notimp said:


> And even if not (lets take the Harvard case of them adjusting the entry point goalposts for asians (see video)), complexity kills you here (how would you argue for an adjustment on the non public level, between races to be just). So again, its back to the other option 'always keep it a taboo'.


So are you for or against Harvard´s racism against Asian Americans? Sorry, I don´t understand this statement.



notimp said:


> - On social 'breeding' due to culture, I somewhat disagree. Wealth is not a good indicator for any common characteristic. (Getting into an Ivy league college would be a better one.  ) Also it should be much, much harder to keep lines 'as you'd want them' to achieve anything close to our Chihuahua result.


I would like to move away from the dog topic as I do know much about it. Generally though, your "opponent" was correct that evolution applies to us just as to any other animal. If there is separation (e.g. a busy street suddenly separating on kind of insects) evolutionary paths diverge.



notimp said:


> The last argument - and that also works agains your (our culture made so much progress in that regard) is, that the average doesnt matter at all. Individual action matters. (Faster to next Einstein should not be achievable by raising the average.  (US has modeled their entire education system around that I believe..  ))


Extremes matter for inventions (inventors tend to be extremely intelligent) in the positive sense and crime rates in the negative sense. That´s why women are underrepresented in both aspects (females are less "extreme" than men for obvious biological reasons). But averages do matter if we are talking societies. You shouldn´t treat individuals before you know them though. (otherwise you might dismiss Yao Ming as a basketball player)


----------



## notimp (Jul 2, 2020)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> If sb states "women and men" are different, this person is a) not automatically a sexist and b) not emotional about it.
> 
> I hope you do not consider this an ad hominem, but could it be that you are lying to yourself because you are afraid of your own thoughts? Never in my dreams would I come up with sick thoughts like giving people medication.


Sick thoughts? Please ask yourself historically what we did to racial minorities, and then understand where I'm coming from. How are you turning this against me, when I tried to make racial targeting outrageous ('no one could be in favor of that') using that very example?


UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> Should? Are you argueing from morality again?


No statistically. How could the difference between lets say an average caucasian and an average black person be larger than the difference between the worst and best person within either ethnicity in any characteristic (different cultures within an ethnicity)? To me it seems obvious that it cant be. But I cant prove it, so I used should. It should be a truism though. (Should in front of truism does not hint at a moral argument).


UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> I don´t agree that we have to keep it a taboo. Nature is neither fair nor equal.


Who cares about nature? Have you missed the internment camp craze around the second world war? I'm interested in keeping societies at a point where we dont start to lock people away again, or have racial prejudices become usable as part of our daily language again. Because people cant change race.


UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> So are you for or against Harvard´s racism against Asian Americans? Sorry, I don´t understand this statement.


Against - if it is just to keep 'students more diverse'. For - if it would have societal planning implications. Which I made up - and am not at all sure, if it does. This only makes me a theoretical hypocrite.. 


UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> I would like to move away from the dog topic as I do know much about it. Generally though, your "opponent" was correct that evolution applies to us just as to any other animal. If there is separation (e.g. a busy street suddenly separating on kind of insects) evolutionary paths diverge.


I didn't argue, that I wouldnt acknowledge evolution, I argued that 'dog races' are in an entire different category in regards to the definition of race, because of selective breeding efforts that went on over generations.


UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> Extremes matter for inventions (inventors tend to be extremely intelligent) in the positive sense and crime rates in the negative sense. That´s why women are underrepresented in both aspects (females are less "extreme" than men for obvious biological reasons). But averages do matter if we are talking societies. You shouldn´t treat individuals before you know them though. (otherwise you might dismiss Yao Ming as a basketball player)


I actually personally agree. I'm not in favor of the US education system. 

But for our policeman example, you only could give him a rough ('racial') guideline based on an average -- when individual decisions matter much more, in his case (work day). (He's more interested in 'who would react extremely violent'.) So you dont give him a 'simplification' along the line of a prejudice.


----------



## Hanafuda (Jul 2, 2020)

https://www.thecollegefix.com/schol...d-police-shootings-not-biased-against-blacks/


----------



## CraddaPoosta (Jul 2, 2020)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> I have followed the discussion between notimp and SG854 and would like to chime in.
> I am not going to resort to name calling and expect the same from others.
> Notimp, one can lose an argument only if there are better arguments. Unless you define argument as "fight" and just hit the other person because you do not like his/her opinion. You called yourself the victor just because you were offended. Not an argument.
> 
> ...



You earned a tearful slow clap from me for this, brother. Well done. One tear. A MAN tear.


----------



## CallmeBerto (Jul 2, 2020)

Hanafuda said:


> https://www.thecollegefix.com/schol...d-police-shootings-not-biased-against-blacks/



Not the first study that has debunked this crap. Won't stop people repeating the same nonsense that has been debunked 100x already.


----------



## CraddaPoosta (Jul 2, 2020)

I thought this discussion was about cancel culture, not derailing into whether or not systemic racism exists in America. 

Correct me if I'm wrong.


----------



## Viri (Jul 2, 2020)

Spoiler








Looks like cancel culture sometimes hits the other side. I wonder how many people she personally cancelled her self. Fucking raycis trump supporters getting me fired for saying I'm gonna stab people!


----------



## CraddaPoosta (Jul 2, 2020)

Viri said:


> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> ...




This video has been added to my playlist including compilations of Hillary supporters crying over Daddy Trump being elected. I go back to this whenever I am having a bad day, and it never fails to brighten my day.


----------



## CallmeBerto (Jul 2, 2020)

Neo Draven said:


> You earned a tearful slow clap from me for this, brother. Well done. One tear. A MAN tear.



That guys job was canceled for have an opinions that differs from the left.


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Jul 3, 2020)

notimp said:


> Sick thoughts? Please ask yourself historically what we did to racial minorities, and then understand where I'm coming from. How are you turning this against me, when I tried to make racial targeting outrageous ('no one could be in favor of that') using that very example?


What will we do to e.g. Jews if we argue that all groups of people are exactly the same? Therefore Jews must be cheating and their "privilege" removed. This is also dangerous. I am not saying these differences should be taught at school, but to activly teach that there must be equality and non-equality is the result of racism is also dangerous and simply wrong.



notimp said:


> Who cares about nature? Have you missed the internment camp craze around the second world war? I'm interested in keeping societies at a point where we dont start to lock people away again, or have racial prejudices become usable as part of our daily language again. Because people cant change race.


The internment camps in the USA were targeted at Japanese people, not Asians in general. The reason is simple: the US was at war with Japan. Does it make it right? No. But it is not racial in nature. German minorities (esp. after the war) were not treated well in other countries either (for obvious reasons: fear of  treason).



notimp said:


> But for our policeman example, you only could give him a rough ('racial') guideline based on an average -- when individual decisions matter much more, in his case (work day). (He's more interested in 'who would react extremely violent'.) So you dont give him a 'simplification' along the line of a prejudice.


I wouldn´t give the police any guidelines on this topic. Punish mistreatment (like in the case of Floyd) and don´t call them racist just because a white person shoots at a black person (the case in Atlanta). Racial profiling sadly reflects reality. A police officer usually doesn´t go out there to be racist (though there might be excecpti

Regarding the rest of what you wrote we are in agreement, it seems. Thank you for having a polite discussion about a difficult topic. Remember though: If you think racist policies (like Harvard´s) are bad, perpetuating the myth of equality is contradictory (because it is used to force equity).


----------



## notimp (Jul 3, 2020)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> What will we do to e.g. Jews if we argue that all groups of people are exactly the same? Therefore Jews must be cheating and their "privilege" removed. This is also dangerous. I am not saying these differences should be taught at school, but to activly teach that there must be equality and non-equality is the result of racism is also dangerous and simply wrong.


Thats outright dumb, imho. If groups self identify as groups, thats fine - let them. If you need information of f.e. the size of a religious group (think census), thats fine in todays world as well. You can get that.

What is not fine is 'character trait attribution' (actually positive or negative - although with positive ones you have leeway, if you are part of that group), based on race 'characteristics' - thats where we put the taboo.

And it has nothing to do with 'neglecting nature', or 'forcefully making everyone equal', it has to do with the next step - if we allow it, culturally character attributions get out of hand quickly (people go into this whole my group vs yours routine - as they always do).

And even that would be fine, if people could change group identities, like they can with jobs. But they cant. Therefore the taboo is in place. (Because dang nabbit, one group always has to be the minority..)

Its really, really hard to argue, that people will 'get better at character trait attribution, based on race' without this ending up as oversimplified prejudices again.

In our own theoretical example, it is unthinkable, that f.e. a policeman would navigate "on average 3% more likely to have that character trail" in daily life.
--

Theoretically you could build your own scientific theories around trait attribution right at this threshhold, but you are discouraged from doing so, because this will be used as legitimization, and as a slippery slope for race ideologies.

Having this taboo - literally prevents, that we have a 'the ones that look like this are better at that' and 'the ones that look like that are better at this' mindset in daily life.

Sure its a social construction, but its there for a reason. And in any case better, than your approach of 'what nature meant to say with this was, ...' ideology. Because you can make up several ones of those as needed, and all they serve as are smokescreens (has the word nature in it, so it mast be irrevokably true!) to the fact that they are ideology as well.
--

I dont see the part where this becomes 'unfair', because having those distinctions as part of our daily lives would be 'helpfull' (or 'needed').

You are alway arguing how unfair, and how unnatural it is, that we have a societal taboo - but whats your reason for getting rid of it? It actually prevents more tribalism, which we know leads to bad outcomes if people engage in it 'enthusiastically'. (And the outgroup has a fixed identity they cant change.)
--



UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> The internment camps in the USA were targeted at Japanese people, not Asians in general. The reason is simple: the US was at war with Japan. Does it make it right? No. But it is not racial in nature.


You are joking right? This one even was racial at the planing level. Because they served no purpose other than 'keeping your populations morals up' during wartime. So they had something to shout at. The whole idea for implementation was 'playing with structural racism' (Populist politics (see Trump..  ) .



UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> I wouldn´t give the police any guidelines on this topic. Punish mistreatment (like in the case of Floyd) and don´t call them racist just because a white person shoots at a black person (the case in Atlanta). Racial profiling sadly reflects reality. A police officer usually doesn´t go out there to be racist (though there might be


As long as there is this understanding, why we cant (shouldnt) haveit at the individual decision level (policeman at work), we actually really only are talking about structural racism at the planning level and if that is sometimes justified or not.

The answer there should be, we need good, proper unbiased metrics to decide. But we also need scrutiny to correct where we are messing up. (The entire google (?) pulling facial recognition algos, because they didnt work so well on black faces, and anyone using that tech not being able to deal with that as just an added complexity..)
--

The answer why we dont discuss that stuff openly - usually lies in 'how you preserve a taboo'. If people get an idea, that 'you can always debate a thing' - taboos dont work anymore. So discussions like these are problematic, as the legitimize the position we try to get rid of with a taboo.

But once in a while we can have one, just to look at the process logic I guess..  Having the taboo there, imho is logical. And not 'unfair'.


----------



## Deleted member 412537 (Jul 3, 2020)

Hmm.. I'm trying to think of something to say about Cleveland.  beyond recognizing the voice of Meg from That '70s Show, I never truly paid attention to anything until I read the casting listing one day.  Not like Cleveland's character felt offensive to me in general either. Based on my memory from viewing old episodes, he was mild mannered to me. [I think the spinoff fucked him over.] Anyway, its a shame the voice actor can't stay on until the series ends permanently.  For once I think cancel culture may have ruined something pretty tame? Perhaps maybe the new voice actor won't do much damage in terms of turning people off? Anyway, I dunno anything about the rest of the people you mentioned. 

Sorry if this post may offend somebody in the end...: /


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Jul 3, 2020)

notimp said:


> You are alway arguing how unfair, and how unnatural it is, that we have a societal taboo - but whats your reason for getting rid of it? It actually prevents more tribalism...


My reason is truth.
Speaking of tribalism... denying truth boosts tribalism as we can see today in the US.

The truth is, African American (men) are overrepresented in violent crimes and are more dangerous to cops than any other group. The average American comes across African Americans 14% of the time, but a police officer (when called to investigate a violent crime) around 50% of the time.
The truth could fix it (self-reflection; adjustment to the culture; e.g. less single-motherhood) whereas the lie (which is perpetuated by you and 99% of media; which you even admit is a lie? i.e. "taboo") causes more tension between ethnic groups and leads to more violence.

I suspect (though it is merely a suspicion) that people who prevent the truth from coming to the surface ("taboo") are the actual racists who believe African-Americans are not capable of changing. I have said in my first post that genetic differences (though they are real) are insignificant. Culture can make create day and night differences (see e.g. North and South Korea).



notimp said:


> But once in a while we can have one, just to look at the process logic I guess..  Having the taboo there, imho is logical. And not 'unfair'.


You have confirmed that you disapprove of Harvard´s limitation of Asian students. Why do you dislike it? Is it not unfair? They try to create equity - after all, differences in scores are founded on oppression and unearned privilege. Seems like there is a contradiction going on in your mind. Please explain.


----------



## CallmeBerto (Jul 3, 2020)

@UltraDolphinRevolution 

Welfare completely destroyed the black community. 70% of black children don't have a father in the home. The welfare state incentives black women to marry the state and black men to abandon their moral and finance responsibilities.


----------



## notimp (Jul 3, 2020)

CallmeBerto said:


> Welfare completely destroyed the black community. 70% of black children don't have a father in the home. The welfare state incentives black women to marry the state and black men to abandon their moral and finance responsibilities.


What a horrible piece of BS.

How? Why doesnt that happen to other races?

How is the wellfare state responsible for declining family structures? (Because something is a sh*t option (lets fuck over my family), now everyone has to take it?)

Boy the people you are listening to for information, really have your brain fried in a pan.

Here is how this actually went. Wages are declining, because corporate America wanted/needed a productivity increase. (In a globalized economy, where other, poorer, parts of the world are connected to your supply chain, you need higher productivity levels to compete, while retaining the same, or a similar share of world GDP.) The way to do that was to tap into the entire part of your population that - at one time wasn't working yet. This severely altered family structures. If you dont have family (and community (think churchwork, which also takes effort/time (honorary work))) to rely on - because you need people to be productive in the workforce, you need something to offset that - hence 'wellfare'. Hence communal child care.

Now was that all bad? No - because half of the population actually became financially independent in the process, which reduced dependency structures, that werent always rosy as you described them, and this also increased divorce rates.


Now to the most important part. YOU WILL NEVER GET BACK, WHAT YOU HOLD SO DEAR, your fantasy version of the family as a more important and more depended on social structure.

Why? Because the country wouldnt be financially competitive.You will never, never, ever have enough power as a social movement to change this back, against the will of half of the population, and all of corporate america.

Your 'paradise' (or believe of 'what is right'), is a pipedream, that is over.

Sorry to tell you.

edit: To soften the blow a little - a pipedream that is over, as a model for the majority of society. You still can and will find likeminded people, and construct your own communities, and live happy and fulfilled lives within that.  Just please dont advocate BS like 'wellfare is splitting up families' to the rest of society, while you are at it.

edit: Oh, and because I'm certain you just like to kick people of lower social status than you - as a lifegoal, really -- your alternative version of

- family doesnt exist anymore,
- church is all but over, because no one has time, scandals, and it only being something for 'a certain part of your population'
- lets take away wellfare

and your 'solution' of - force black women not to divorce, this will produce more family dependant social structures, which on its own will raise black communities out of structural poverty (and you are only talking about those with structural powerty, and laugh about those, because you get off on it) - is, flankly utterly insane, would never work, cant never work economically, has no logical component that would explain, why it would ever be working (Wishfull thinking? Family values will fix everything from the economy, to poor neighborhoods, to education ...).

Actually the opposite is true. The more you 'hammer in' family values, which strangely ALWAYS is connected with an anti education mantra, the more you keep those populations poor and dependent. Catholic "mission work" - is an entire worlds history of - just that (colonialization).

Larger family structures, will never solve an economic issue in todays world. Never. In fact, if you want them, today - you are effectively deciding to become structurally 'less well off' (but maybe happier  ). So that you promote them as an alternative to wellfare - simply is outrageous.

Luckily - magic thinking saves the day, because at that point of your argument 'family values' come in, and solve everything, right? Wrong.


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Jul 4, 2020)

What CallmeBerto said is true. You don´t need to get emotional about it, Notimp.
This trend has affected all ethnic groups but it is the most pronounced in the African American community. The reason is a lower threshold for the state to be able to replace the father because the average income of African American men is lower.
Some people have also suggested that people* in* Africa are less patriarchal, i.e. children are brought up by the extended family and rely less on the father. I have not looked into it, just throwing it out there as a hypothesis by some.

I don´t know if you have watched American talkshows (I once used to when I tried to improve my English listening skills), but there was an episode in which the claim was made that there is an apartment complex which is full of single-mothers who were impregnated by the same African American. A true alpha male - except that he was poor. This is only possible because of (in essence) women marrying the state.

If you have time, I would still like you to respond to the last paragraph I made in my last post (your contradiction - in my view).


----------



## Viri (Jul 4, 2020)

Neo Draven said:


> The same mods are ignoring the fact that notimp has directly insulted another user, flamed him and used ad hominem.


Lol, I blocked him months ago, because his posts were always really long for no good reason. Some of his post hurt my head, because it felt like I was reading a bot using Google translate.


----------



## kineticUk (Jul 4, 2020)

There’s nothing wrong with striving for perfection but when people start talking about erasing history I can’t help but stop listening... the world has gone f-in’ mad imo.


----------



## notimp (Jul 4, 2020)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> What CallmeBerto said is true. You don´t need to get emotional about it, Notimp.
> This trend has affected all ethnic groups but it is the most pronounced in the African American community.


Correlation is not causation.

If you want to make this the fault of 'unethical black women, which are now divorcing more often, because they can' (men leaving families is nothing new, and certainly never was informed by á "oh they are getting wellfare, so I can just stroll off" thought process - in mass (there is an emotional bond, you know, and a social one, thats still in place)), you are taking the data, und you are willfully misinterpreting it.

Family structures changed (and to some extent eroded), when one salary wasnt enough anymore to bring up a family, because of economy required productivity increases.

It is that which both caused family structures to change, and made welfare a necessity. (Church or other 'traditional' social institutions, simply didnt have the capacity anymore - with no one donating their work, as everyone was expected to work for productivity gains..)

Women becoming financially independent then also (obviously) raised divorce rates.

Not the other way around (first there was welfare out of the blue, and then because of welfare women started to ruin family structures, because they could), you outrageous human being.


And again - the proposed "solution" of 'give them more family values again' doesnt work. The US cant finance that (one persons salary being enough to raise a family), at current (or boomer  ) standards. (No western country can.)

In fact the proposed solution would do the opposite, and ensure, that those poor black communities you love to talk about would stay poor for generations to come. Thats why the alt right loves the idea, I assume.

(And to go over this one more time - the argument that financially independent women 'ruin families more often' is effing cynical. Because you basically say - 'if only they could be made more 'dependent'' it would 'save marriages'.  *brrr*)


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Jul 4, 2020)

notimp said:


> Correlation is not causation.


In this case though, it is a cause. Besides other causes you have correctly named. I know Europeans who have done the same. The father did not want to take responsibility and the mother did not tell the government who the father is. Therefore she got more money.



notimp said:


> If you want to make this the fault of 'unethical black women, which are now divorcing more often, because they can' (men leaving families is nothing new, and certainly never was informed by á "oh they are getting wellfare, so I can just stroll off" thought process


Please don´t use quotation marks that suggest these are my words.
I have not called "black" women unethical. Men have the natural desire to spread their seed and are risk-taking. Women are risk-averse and have to deal with the consequences of sex much longer (and they can´t spread their genes as quickly).
Therefore women are more careful. But if they don´t have to be careful (because the state takes care of them no matter what) they will not be as careful.
Please tell me the error in this logic.



notimp said:


> Not the other way around (first there was welfare out of the blue, and then because of welfare women started to ruin family structures, because they could), you outrageous human being.


Strawman argument, you outrageous human being. The order is irrelevant. The fact is, men are more likely to leave the child behind (because they can just produce many more with little effort) and women depend less on men if there is welfare. Before welfare careless women were shamed by the community because if the man disappears, the community would have to support her.




notimp said:


> And again - the proposed "solution" of 'give them more family values again' doesnt work.


I don´t think I mentioned the solution. But if you are interested: track the father (with DNA tests) and let him pay. If he can´t pay, let him work in prison. The salary goes to the child.



notimp said:


> The US cant finance that (one persons salary being enough to raise a family), at current (or boomer  ) standards. (No western country can.)


The US can finance the largest military in the world by far. On the other hand, it cannot actually finance the current situation either. Bush doubled the US debt, Obama doubled that one and Trump doubled the debt once more - almost exponential growth. But that´s a different topic.



notimp said:


> (And to go over this one more time - the argument that financially independent women 'ruin families more often' is effing cynical. Because you basically say - 'if only they could be made more 'dependent'' it would 'save marriages'.  *brrr*)


Another strawman. Women are dependend! The state has replaced the father in many cases. How can you call welfare recipients independent? The current version of dependence is even worse because it takes money away from tax payers (who were not asked whether they want the respective woman to have children) instead of from the father.


----------



## notimp (Jul 4, 2020)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> In this case though, it is a cause. Besides other causes you have correctly named. I know Europeans who have done the same. The father did not want to take responsibility and the mother did not tell the government who the father is. Therefore she got more money.


Look (pause  )... it is not

and to be very frank about this, this argument is the key to both our ideologies.

Because while you are arguing, that this is mainly because of a decline based in 'ethics' or 'family values' - I'm saying, make your argument for what ever small percentage of 'badly behaved' single mothers on welfare you can find -- but the reason why we got welfare is because of a bigger change than that.

Regardless of if your father figure of choice always told you, that people 'should just get jobs', and the issue for 'anti social behavior' was inpropper family values - because I can see that, thats a 'logic' system in its own. But its not 'why we got welfare, and it also isnt what will break wellfare ('abuse of that'). Maybe there is a percentage of abusers in young women mothers, but you are missing the entire bigger point.
--

Now let me move forward a little in my argument. 

If declining family structures are a consequence of declining wages (both parents have to work now). And if declining wages are a consequence of globalization (globalized supply chains).

Answer me this riddle - why is every Magahead being sold cheap merchandise made in china, while Trump makes free trade agreements with india and south east asia?

Thats by definition, making families worse off in america - for accumulation of personal wealth.

Now there are several ways to argue for that. Maybe the first one - we need to. Our 'organisation' needs funds, to be able to act politically, to be able to make all better, .. etc...

But there is also another way to see this.

You tap in into peoples emotions on how to get the 'better life back - when families meant something'. You have no clue how to do it. You funnel in donations via the gift of the gab, and then you sell out to financial interests that gladly take whatever gifts you give them, but do nothing at all to change globalization (maybe change partners around a little). You get rich in the process - everyone gets shafted - EXCEPT, the people that were with you early on, because drive to power, the first ones being able to sell a new ideology always get more than the rest of the movement.

But the issue still remains, you have no idea how to solve the thing that actually caused your followers to become mad.

You then say, its because of the people abusing welfare, or because of those foreigners, or because of a lack of family values - but it isnt, isnt it?

Its because today both parents have to work, for a family to make a decent living. (Except if you are rich.  )

If you get that - it should somewhat break your believe system..  So start small, one step at a time. Try to find the logic error in my argument.


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Jul 4, 2020)

notimp said:


> Regardless of if your father figure of choice always told you, that people 'should just get jobs', and the issue for 'anti social behavior' was inpropper family values - because I can see that, thats a 'logic' system in its own. But its not 'why we got welfare, and it also isnt what will break wellfare ('abuse of that'). Maybe there is a percentage of abusers in young women mothers, but you are missing the entire bigger point.


Do you mistake me for somebody else? I never claimed that we got welfare because of a decline in family values.



notimp said:


> If declining family structures are a consequence of declining wages (both parents have to work now). And if declining wages are a consequence of globalization (globalized supply chains).
> 
> Answer me this riddle - why is every Magahead being sold cheap merchandise made in china, while Trump makes free trade agreements with india and south east asia?
> 
> Thats by definition, making families worse off in america - for accumulation of personal wealth.


Again, I never argued against these points. 
The American elites have ruined the middle class (see COVID19 treatment of small businesses as the latest example) for a largely fictional booming stock market. Chinese people work hard and for a salary Americans would not want to work. In exchange, the American lower classes are kept from rioting by being able to afford cheap products from overseas. It is a weird symbiotic relationship but it´s a different topic.




notimp said:


> You tap in into peoples emotions on how to get the 'better life back - when families meant something'. You have no clue how to do it. You funnel in donations via the gift of the gab, and then you sell out to financial interests that gladly take whatever gifts you give them, but do nothing at all to change globalization (maybe change partners around a little). You get rich in the process - everyone gets shafted - EXCEPT, the people that were with you early on, because drive to power, the first ones being able to sell a new ideology always get more than the rest of the movement.


Who is this "you" in this paragraph? I don´t understand. Please explain.





notimp said:


> Its because today both parents have to work, for a family to make a decent living. (Except if you are rich.  )
> 
> If you get that - it should somewhat break your believe system..  So start small, one step at a time. Try to find the logic error in my argument.


It doesn´t break my believe system because I never argued against this point. Yes, globalization has increased the pressure on workers in the developed world. In Asian American communities women also usually work but it hasn´t let to disasters like 70% single-motherhood. They tend to study harder, stay in school longer, start relationships later, have less single mothers etc.
If welfare is high and the income of the potential husband is low, there is more incentive for both father and mother to be responsible.

May I come back to the Hardvard question? Why are you against discrimination of Asians (who need higher scores) even though it is in line with making communities more equal.


----------



## notimp (Jul 4, 2020)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> Do you mistake me for somebody else? I never claimed that we got welfare because of a decline in family values.


Are you now playing with me? Thats my argument. Family values couldnt be held up to the extent they served a social function before, thats why we had to increase (reliance on) welfare.

You are just saying all the time, that welfare kills family values, for no reason whatsoever. So I responded, that you probably are motivated by your parents parenting advice of 'people who cant get a job are lazy', and if you have family problems 'you tough them out and shut up (wife will stay)' and this would be your 'ideal society' that you'd want to return to - but cant.

(As women got more financially independent, divorce rate went up.)


UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> Who is this "you" in this paragraph?


Republican party strategists.


UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> They tend to study harder, stay in school longer, start relationships later, have less single mothers etc.


Those to me seem all like factors of parenting that believes in 'their kids having it better than them one day' (first and second generation migrants, maybe also some kind of 'asian' ethics - I'm no too familiar with ("Tiger-mom" trope is my only point of reference here).

While in towns (Detroit?) or parts of towns, where you see no growth and almost no upwards mobility over several generations, you cant solve this by telling people to parent better. Or reduce their welfare, and hope for the best.

Reference would be https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Lazarsfeld
(Marienthal study.)

I also dont think that race would be a deciding factor in parenting strategies...
-

You need to get some other references instead of 'our community' compaired to 'the other commuity' - by race.

In Ethiopia they are on the verge of another war between their ethnic groups again (first time in years) https://www.google.com/search?q=Hundessa

There it is Tigrayer vs. Oromo vs. Amhare which one of them has the better parenting strategy?  Same issue, its also a certain kind of racism there. Same color of skin though.


----------



## Pokemon_Tea_Sea_Jee (Jul 4, 2020)

I do not think that it has gone too far. Actually, as a matter of fact, it has not gone far _enough_.


----------



## FAST6191 (Jul 4, 2020)

Seems I am a bit late to the party to start quoting things. Some very odd statements and perceptions of the world appear to be being exhibited though.

To answer the question of the title
In an ideal world sense?
Yes, no due process, no harms being rectified, discourse being stymied, comedy a troubled field...

In a practical sense?
No. Push it to the max and then some more.
If I called you a jay would you care? Probably not, might not even have a clue. Now look up the history of the term jay walking, which is to say it was once a great insult but today most would probably think it some inside joke about a person known to the parties and their name being a byword or shared reference.
As it stands people are increasingly not giving a shit about accusations of racism as it seems to be applied to everything, being accused of not being a feminist might actually be a positive these days, being called gay probably means you are being insulted by a 6 year old, in general people are once again demanding proof for things (believe all ninjas being shown to be absurd)...

If people want to back off and become sensible and go back to nice principles then absolutely fantastic. If not then the only way out is not through but it is a path that will do it.
In my case I figure I am fucked anyway (I could return to being a ghost on the internet, indeed I was for many years before I decided to join a forum, but that would take some effort and I do actually like sharing the results of my pulling things apart), be it for something I said (and might still hold to) or said and time/increasingly plumbing the depths of bizzaro logic will make me super king arsehole so in turn that leaves me free. I then have nothing to lose and you don't really want too many people with that kind of mindset (my lack of ambition/desire/passion tempers the dangers of that one for me, many do have such things though).


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Jul 4, 2020)

If you think about it, "cancel culture" is actually part of an ongoing 50-years-old cultural revolution. 

It could also be described as another Christian reformation: The doctrin of equality is brought back to center stage. Even though this new religion is somewhat atheistic (which btw was an accusation of the Romans about Christianity before Christianization), it has many elements of said religion. There are videos of people confessing their white privilege and asking for forgiveness, sitting or kneeling in large groups and repeating sentences, etc. Even the term hate speech is actually nothing more than a new word for heresy.
Exciting times for future historians.


----------



## FAST6191 (Jul 4, 2020)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> Exciting times for future historians.



Not so much for current ones though



I should then stand in solidarity. Slavery is not the same thing as genocide, and I am not sure how anybody could look at the definitions and practices thereof and come to that conclusion, save maybe for those places that routinely castrate people and otherwise disallow breeding. I will also take the further radical step of saying I don't much care for either though and would rather neither happen again, or continue to happen if there is some ongoing one somewhere (modern day slavery is a thing and there have been various genocides over living memory).


----------



## notimp (Jul 4, 2020)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> May I come back to the Hardvard question? Why are you against discrimination of Asians (who need higher scores) even though it is in line with making communities more equal.


On the public front - keeping the simple narrative, and congruence. If its just for 'style points' on part of the institution. If you would go into 'societal impact' (not sure if the institution would argue along those lines) question becomes more complicated, and I think (have a feeling), that I would switch sides (on the argument, as said before). But I'm not sure.

For someone entering college to have to face 'discrimintation' on "but you have to think about the societal impact" grounds, I imagine to be all kinds of anger inducing. Especially if you then arent picked. Keep it simple.


----------



## FGFlann (Jul 4, 2020)

FAST6191 said:


> Not so much for current ones though
> 
> 
> 
> I should then stand in solidarity. Slavery is not the same thing as genocide, and I am not sure how anybody could look at the definitions and practices thereof and come to that conclusion, save maybe for those places that routinely castrate people and otherwise disallow breeding. I will also take the further radical step of saying I don't much care for either though and would rather neither happen again, or continue to happen if there is some ongoing one somewhere (modern day slavery is a thing and there have been various genocides over living memory).



I'm honestly surprised it took them this long to come for David Starkey as he's never been afraid to tell the screechers the truth. I suppose it's a testament to how hyper emotional everyone is right now.


----------



## notimp (Jul 4, 2020)

Especially that 'newscaster' in the video, that gets a facial orgasm, while reading what he interprets as dogwhistling he can forward to his audience.


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Jul 5, 2020)

Notimp, I don´t understand your answer.

I asked you why you do not support things like Harvard´s race-based entry desicions (which contradicts your overall way of thinking because it actually helps African Americans).

Let´s just agree to disagree... I guess.


----------



## notimp (Jul 5, 2020)

And this is the second time you (purposefully) didnt unterstand an answer, or all of a sudden were proud to hold the position you always held, and blamed me for it.

Also, if you dont understand something, you dont end with 'I guess we agree to disagree' unless you'd want to try to discredit the other persons position.

As a result, we have two pages of postings here that do nothing but serve as padding after a debate, 'why racism taboos are not cancel culture gone too far', where you acted very interested in trains of thoughts - and then just dropped all of them mid argument.
--

I explained, why I'm against Harvards policy to have less slots for asian americans, relative to the scores they reach - bringing forward a public argument, that 'otherwise they'd have too many asians on the campus' to which you responded - "but why? Isnt that against your agenda to want to help black folks?"

I even said, that should this measure turn out to be more than just superficial posturing, that Harvard promotes 'equality in race', and have actual implications on the societal level (I.e. what happens, if you prevent a proportional amount of students from each demographic to reach the highest education level), I would most likely swap my position, although I havent heard the argument for that yet, because nobody is making it.

Harvard has limited slots each year. Do you optimize for 'the best possible quintile' or do you optimize for the best possible racially equal set?

To which my response was, keep it simple, optimize for the best possible candidates, regardless of race, unless - in private you have a better argument for why maintaining roughly equal access for all races is a more important approach. Again, I havent heard that argument.

But for instance - if your policy would mean (in an extreme), that you'd now statistically never get any black alumni working in economically depressed black communities anymore, or never a viable black candidate for the supreme court, I'd understand that you'd change the selection criteria.

For the specific asian student that tries to get into Harvard in our case, this is structurally unfair, but we would then tell them - its needed societally. My point was - I'm not sure if you would want to bar people entry from a better higher education using that argument in public. I expect that it would trigger outrage. (Because its very unfair, and indeed - racist, when looked at it from an individual level.)

Now that you understand my point - you can go back to ignoring all of them.


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Jul 5, 2020)

I always tried to understand your posts. But I had to read some paragraphs multiple times and still didn´t get it. I think if it is a two-person dialogue it is probably not interesting for others.

So you acknowledge that university entries based on race are unfair. However, you would accept it in some cases and just not tell the public. Wow, that´s some elitist mentality right there.

BTW it is not possible to purposefully not understand something. Either I do or I don´t.
If there is anybody who is dishonest, it is you. I agreed that international pressure (through competition) has made it necessary for many married couples to have two (or 1.5) jobs. 
But you got outraged when I pointed out (or rather agreed with sb else) that welfare also adds to the destruction of the family if the state replaces the husband. Do you deny this effect?


----------



## notimp (Jul 5, 2020)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> and just not tell the public. Wow


No.

Thats not what I would do. I just know, that such an argument could never be made as a public argument. And would be weird to make. And that currently noone is making it. But that Harvards public excuse for implementing 'progressive scoring' for asians is lame. (So my mind wonders into 'what if they...' territory..  )

So in case, there was a non public deliberation, I'd have to hear that first, before being able to make a decision.

I acknowledged, that I could see reasons for why you would want to 'optimize' entry into a university not just for 'best of the best', but also for 'racially diverse, and then best'.

Stop slandering my position.  I think it is fair.. 

Also - you are not hiding the fact from the public (they still see the result, and currently even are suing against that practice), you just maybe arent giving the full explanation (/reasoning), small, but important difference. Also, none of that is real, as far as we know it. So I'm now a bad person for not always optimizing for 'highest test score' people, in theory, in a thought experiment (even with an added maybe)? 

Sorry for attacking on the personal level as well, I thought our exchange was fair/good, lets not get into namecalling (like it always happens on the internet..  ).


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Jul 5, 2020)

notimp said:


> I acknowledged, that I could see reasons for why you would want to 'optimize' entry into a university not just for 'best of the best', but also for 'racially diverse, and then best'.


You say my way of thinking leads to tribalism (as if BLM is anything but tribalism) but you have a more tribal way of thinking than I.



notimp said:


> So I'm now a bad person for not always optimizing for 'highest test score' people, in theory, in a thought experiment?


You are not bad but confused. This is not just a thought experiment. It actually affects people. You instinctively find it unfair but you still accept tribal demands (while at the same time denouncing tribalism).


----------



## notimp (Jul 5, 2020)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> You are not bad but confused. This is not just a thought experiment. It actually affects people.


I dont know, if that is Harvards reasoning (we do it to prevent societal problems), thats why I call it a thought experiment. Officially they are doing it, because cultural diversity is something you'd want to see on campus.

Why I've said, that I could see valid reasons for doing it, has to do with me thinking, that alway optimizing societies for the maximum best outcome in a narrow field also produces drawbacks - and I wanted to see/hear/read those (if the societal argument for why its done actually exists) arguments first.

In short - there is no human right to 'best possible education', and there is no natural right to 'people with the best test scores get picked by the best colleges'.

If Harvard introduces other factors - people can sue under anti-discrimination laws, and they are doing so currently.

But at some level 'doing the best societally' is not as simple as 'always let the best people excel'.

(Lets get into how test scores represent different forms of intelligence ('book smarts', 'volume learning', ..) next..  )
-

But I fully understand, that this is as sh*tty as can be from the individual perspective of someone that is forced into a progressive testing scheme, based on race - and then fails it, only because of race.


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Jul 5, 2020)

Please tell me, you are of European descent. My goodness.


----------



## notimp (Jul 5, 2020)

I dont argue that way because I'm racist.

And I'm sure Harvard doesnt either.

I would argue the same, if it went against my race. Because I couldnt care less about my race (which means, yes I'm in the majority race bracket where I grew up).


----------



## Coto (Jul 5, 2020)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> Please tell me, you are of European descent. My goodness.



It's OK. I fully agree with your thoughts. It's great for me right now to see Chinese people being aware of the big picture and how things are ongoing right now, you are not the only one, I have other chinese friends and they also are worried about this whole situation. Do not fall under the ignorance "liberal/rainbow/whatever" people love to try to shove out of their mouths anyway. If you said something they are pissed off probably you hit them with something they may find dangerous to their ideologies.

Peace!


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Jul 5, 2020)

notimp said:


> I dont argue that way because I'm racist.
> 
> And I'm sure Harvard doesnt either.
> 
> I would argue the same, if it went against my race. Because I couldnt care less about my race (which means, yes I'm in the majority race bracket where I grew up).


So are you "white"? If not, are you by any chance Christian?

Your way of thinking is rare among Non-Christians and Non-Europeans.

@Coto: I am not Chinese. I only live there. I was raised (as a minority) in Germany. But I agree with your judgement.


----------



## Coto (Jul 5, 2020)

oops. My bad.


----------



## IFireflyl (Jul 5, 2020)

I'm not reading all 8 pages of replies. While skimming it seemed that it was mostly just people attacking people instead of a civilized discourse. Maybe I'm wrong, but I got tired of reading what I was reading in the other posts. I'm just leaving my $0.02 on the original topic.

Cancel culture has gone too far. Honestly, for the past decade we have been letting people play the victim card more and more, and it has gotten to a point where there are far too many things you can say and do that can be found as offensive. People have the right to feel the way that they feel. If they feel offended the only thing the "offender" can do is look at what was said and done, and then decide if what they did was intended to be offensive. If it wasn't intended to be offensive, then there is nothing further that needs to be done. If it was intended to be offensive then there should be some sort of reparation, usually in the form of an apology (not cancel their TV show, get money, etcetera).

To be clear, the intent normally matters, but not always. If someone says rape should be socially acceptable, and then they say they weren't trying to be offensive, that's not okay. Part of what I said requires the use of common sense, and that is something that I feel is sorely lacking in this day and age. People got mad at Jimmy Kimmel for black face a long time ago. He wasn't being offensive. He was a comedian being funny. Jimmy Kimmel worked with Adam Carolla and they had some (what would now be considered) very offensive material. It wasn't meant to be offensive. It was meant to be comedy. Robert Downy Jr. played a black actor in Tropic Thunder. He wasn't trying to be offensive. He was playing a role, and it was for comedy.

The far left (and I say far left because I don't think the normal leftist fits into this trope) has saturated our culture with insanity. Feelings matter more than facts to them, and our society is being warped by this. Transgender used to be considered a mental illness because someone felt like they were something that they were not. Instead of seeking help for these individuals the far left has now caused society to adhere to their new standards on sex versus gender, and people can be whatever they feel like. They won't allow this with race (I can't say that I feel like I should be black, so now I'm black), or age (I can't say that I feel like I'm 65, so now I can retire and collect my Social Security money), but this is now allowed and socially acceptable for gender. This is so completely illogical that I don't understand how this happened. When feelings supersede facts you get anarchy.

Furthermore, we're now moving back to segregation. In this thread someone mentioned the new term that was coined: BIPOC. This stands for Black, Indigenous and People Of Color. Black and Indigenous people were already referred to within the scope of POC. Now they're separate, but equal. Can anyone tell me what's wrong with that? We're literally segregating black people again, but under their terms. It's no longer about equality. I keep hearing about reparations, and I have to wonder what these people think they need reparations for. Your ancestors suffered, and now you live in one of the wealthiest countries in the world where the poorest people are still better off than most of the world population. Is there racism in the United States? Of course. Is there systematic or institutionalized racism? Not from what I have seen (and if you disagree, provide proof of it). Instead of crying "Foul!" on the specific instances of racism we have people rioting and protesting over a minority of cases.

Literally less than 1,000 people per year are killed by cops, and black people account for less than a third of those deaths. Considering that over 10,000,000 people a year are arrested, don't you think the cases are being blown way out of proportion? Especially considering that this doesn't take into consideration that the majority of the cop shootings/killings are not due to police brutality. I agree that cops should be held accountable when they take a life due to police brutality or ineptitude. I also agree that there are probably racist cops, and that those cops should be fired (or worse if they actually are committing crimes - and racism, while bad, isn't illegal). What I don't agree with is this BLM overreach that isn't attempting to gain equality.


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Jul 5, 2020)

Of course notimp does not have to reveal this detail. But I would be surprised if he was not "white" nor Christian.
I believe Christianity has messed up many people in the West.

Notimp, ask yourself: At what point will an African-American think "Mh, the NBA is kind of too black. Let´s give this Asian guy a spot in the team. He does not really know how to throw but he is kind of funny and there are some Asians in the audience."


----------



## notimp (Jul 5, 2020)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> So are you "white"? If not, are you by any chance Christian?
> 
> Your way of thinking is rare among Non-Christians and Non-Europeans.
> 
> @Coto: I am not Chinese. I only live there. I was raised (as a minority) in Germany. But I agree with your judgement.


I am, I am.

But the argument I'm making is different.

I don't care about race. I really dont. But I acknowledge that race is a cultural factor. And if some 'feat' or effort, or even just education style - has made it so one group or race especially excels at aceing the SATs, I don't think that this then is an advantage that should perpetuate into the future, maybe to the detriment of other societal structures (how about 'stability' as a factor?). Maybe. i dont know if thats the case that is made - this is theoretical.

I don't care about religion, I really dont. And religion is not even as much as a cultural factor anymore, so we dont have to talk about it at all. 

So here are my deliberations:
- I acknowledge that there is structural racism, and that that means, that to address it you sometimes also need to play to those factors, and not just say they arent there - and optimize to some theoretical standard of excellence, thats just 'simpler'. This also means, that structural racism in some sense is produced by that notion. I don't know how to get out of this quagmire.

Certainly not by ignoring it, and then producing no aspirational rolemodels for an entire race for years, they could strive towards, thereby increasing unrest potential. (Extreme example. I don't know how Harvard is arguing it internally.)

- I dont think absolute transparency is a way to run institutions, or companies, or a state.

- I do think people that feel entitled to a place in life because of a score are stupid. And know very little about life.

- I do think that education should be free. I'm not for locking knowledge away from anyone. But I also recognize that slots in Harvard are limited.

- I dont think that 'excellency' in test scores should be the only selection factor.

edit:
- But I do think, that if you are only doing it to 'make the campus look more diverse' that this is stupid and should stop.  (If you are doing it for different reasons, I have to see the reasoning.)


----------



## notimp (Jul 5, 2020)

Harvard btw publically said, that it does not engage in 'racial balancing':
https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2020/5/16/harvard-reply-brief-admissions-appeal/

They then replied, the entire application process is magic (complex and also partly subjective  ), and you cant find anyone that has witnessed actual discrimination.

Which is exactly how you would respond to those legal claims, regardless if you were lying or not. 

This is basically 'creating ambiguity'.
--

Also US law, strangely says exactly what I just came up with... huh.. 


> Race-conscious admissions policies may be legal, but must pass the “strict scrutiny” test, which requires that the use of race serve a “compelling governmental interest” — like the educational benefits that stem from diversity — and be “narrowly tailored” to satisfy that [compelling governmental] interest.


src: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Students_for_Fair_Admissions_v._Harvard

Seems as if logic ultimately does work..


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Jul 6, 2020)

notimp said:


> Seems as if logic ultimately does work..


The US government´s logic works because they do not claim not to care about race. Even Trump proudly talks about low unemployment of different minority groups (and doesnt even mention his own race, btw).

This statement...


notimp said:


> I don't care about race. I really dont. But I acknowledge that race is a cultural factor.


[BTW just to make sure: You do acknowledge the genetic basis for race, right? Because some people do not]

...and this statement contradict each other.


notimp said:


> I acknowledge that there is structural racism


----------



## IFireflyl (Jul 6, 2020)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> This statement...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



They don't contradict each other. Someone can acknowledge an issue and also be apathetic about it. For example, many people understand that there are homeless people. Many of those same people also don't care about homeless people.

Additionally, he could have meant that he doesn't care about race as in, "I don't care if you're black, white, yellow, brown, green, orange, etcetera. We're all human beings and that's all that matters to me during an interaction with a fellow human being." That wouldn't contradict him saying that there is structural racism.

P.S. I don't actually believe there is structural racism. I don't see any evidence for that. There are racists, definitely. But at a structural or institutional level I do not see any evidence that proves this.


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Jul 6, 2020)

IFireflyl said:


> They don't contradict each other. Someone can acknowledge an issue and also be apathetic about it. For example, many people understand that there are homeless people. Many of those same people also don't care about homeless people.


That is incorrect. He is clearly not apathetic towards it. That´s why we have been discussing the plight of African-Americans. Yet he claims he does not care about race. Yet he finds Harvard´s practice unfair.
He does not care about his own race (as he has stated).



IFireflyl said:


> Additionally, he could have meant that he doesn't care about race as in, "I don't care if you're black, white, yellow, brown, green, orange, etcetera. We're all human beings and that's all that matters to me during an interaction with a fellow human being." That wouldn't contradict him saying that there is structural racism.


That´s the typical "I don´t see color" claim. But he does see it. That´s why we talk about BLM, Harvard etc.


----------



## IFireflyl (Jul 6, 2020)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> That is incorrect. He is clearly not apathetic towards it. That´s why we have been discussing the plight of African-Americans. Yet he claims he does not care about race. Yet he finds Harvard´s practice unfair.
> He does not care about his own race (as he has stated).



What I said is not incorrect. I didn't say that's how HE felt. I was only saying that people in general can acknowledge something while simultaneously not care about it.



UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> That´s the typical "I don´t see color" claim. But he does see it. That´s why we talk about BLM, Harvard etc.



I did not mean a literal, "I don't see color." I meant, "I won't treat you differently from any other person based on your skin color." I really figured that should be obvious. I can treat someone with a different skin color than me the same way that I treat someone with the same skin color as me, while also partaking in conversations about skin color.


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Jul 6, 2020)

I thought the word "someone" was referring to him specifically. My bad.

A large Columbus statue has been brought down in the US btw.


----------



## IFireflyl (Jul 6, 2020)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> I thought the word "someone" was referring to him specifically. My bad.
> 
> A large Columbus statue has been brought down in the US btw.



I understand your confusion! The big problem with Americans is that they don't have the ability to forgive. People in history have done really crappy things. The problem is that the crappy things they did were, for the most part, the same crappy things everyone was doing. So Americans are tearing down statues of people because of the bad things they did, discarding all of the good things they did, and refusing to acknowledge that the bad things were responsible for was solely due to the culture they were raised in.


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Jul 6, 2020)

I mostly agree. But I would erase the word "solely". Only a minority of rich people could afford slaves. And of coure, there were also many "white" slaves in the US, let alone in the Middle East (where Subsaharan Africans were castrated btw, that´s why there are not many "Blacks" over there)

However, I do think people could have known that it was morally wrong. There was simply less pressure to act against it.


----------



## IFireflyl (Jul 6, 2020)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> I mostly agree. But I would erase the word "solely". Only a minority of rich people could afford slaves. And of coure, there were also many "white" slaves in the US, let alone in the Middle East (where Subsaharan Africans were castrated btw, that´s where there are not many "Blacks" over there)
> 
> However, I do think people could have known that it was morally wrong. There was simply less pressure to act against it.



You're right about the word solely. I have crossed that out. 

And to be clear, I agree that people should have known it was morally wrong. I just can't hold a fire to them for the way that they behaved because I wasn't there, and I don't believe that we should use hindsight to judge people that were living in a time of life that most people truly can't comprehend. Having said that, we can still learn from the mistakes that they made.


----------



## notimp (Jul 6, 2020)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> The US government´s logic works because they do not claim not to care about race. Even Trump proudly talks about low unemployment of different minority groups (and doesnt even mention his own race, btw).
> 
> This statement...
> 
> ...


You are wrong on pretty much all accounts.

First - the one where you are correct.  That legal text snippet indeed says, that the government can 'address' race to a point where it may even be racist (looking at race in an application form) - but only in very narrow circumstances, when 'addressing race differences' is in the compelling interest of said government.

Whatever Trump says is a different thing entirely he doesnt make the law, and throws racial epitaphs pretty much all day. Signs presidential decrees and cant get anything done. 

But the point is, that there is a legal clause, for when the government is allowed to be racist (act on race differences in a way that in our case disadvantages asians, if its int he 'higher interest' of that government (= higher good argument, f.e. 'for the stability of society). And it is defined, that it has to be 'narrow use'. So you cant use it all day on everything.

I don't acknowledge the genetic basis of race, because race normally and historically is either a self attribution (I am ...), or an attribution made based on easily perceivable visual characteristics. We had this argument in here before. Blood groups also are a genetic difference between different groups, we don't pronounce races based on bloodtypes - and whatever you find genetically to separate one racial group from another, its done after the fact and never clear cut.

Back to our example of


> In Ethiopia they are on the verge of another war between their ethnic groups again (first time in years) https://www.google.com/search?q=Hundessa
> 
> There it is Tigrayer vs. Oromo vs. Amhare


People there also call their differences racial, and if you want to hear a statement of some dude crying over one person being killed, because he was "pure ethiopian", you know an Oromo.. Here, knock yourself out:
https://www.dw.com/en/ethiopia-the-killing-of-hachalu-hundessa-cuts-deep/a-54024538

Also we have people of mixed race in which case the genetic differentiation becomes really stupid.

Race was always an attribution made by "seeing a difference" and then "calling it something" - the 'genetical foundation' only came in later, and was always used as a pseudoscientific excuse - for something that existed earlier: Race terminology and racism. There is no scientific definition of what consists a human race (thats what Nazis tried to establish, and we got rid of), or another - genetically, race is only used as a label (you have to call something, something when talking about it), not as a 'genetic class' (species).
--

Me not caring about race - and at the same time acknowledging that other people do ("structural racism does exist") and also believing that you have to act on it, when addressing it - is not the same thing.
--

And this is the problem I have with you - your logic is faulty, you accuse others of being inconsistent, when the only detail/elaboration you personally allow is on the level of "if you believe racism exists, you must care about using it" (why?), and "but government is always racist". And then not looking at the argumentation for a law that literally says - you cant be racist, except in this narrow case (higher governmental interest, f.e. in promoting diversity).

You havent even acknowledged the point, that by agreeing that you need 'cultural diversity' you are promoting race differences, and that there is no way around it.

You basically want to stay within your believe system, and not go any step further.

edit: Also, this entire 'top down government decides this way' thing is a power relationship, and not fair. In fact, it is entirely unfair from the individuals point of view. But the point being made is, that it might still be needed, for societal reasons. In narrow cases, while you are not allowed to overdo it, or make it a general argument.

Why? Because (exaggeration!), you dont want half of your highest level students to be asian, if you acknowledge that this might lead to public unrest, because many people believe in and act on racial group identities. Its the "I'm not racist, but sometimes I have to act racist" argument, that doesnt go over well with students (public), when given outright. So you dont give that argument publicly. But its there in law, specifically for that case (promoting cultural diversity in the governments interest).


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Jul 6, 2020)

notimp said:


> You havent even acknowledged the point, that by agreeing that you need 'cultural diversity' you are promoting race differences, and that there is no way around it.


I have not agreed that we need cultural diversity. I am completely fine with even a 99% African-American NBA or a 25% Jewish Hardvard.
In the end, your acceptance of forced equity is based on the threat of violence: Too many Jews in the upper class? "Oh we can´t have that, otherwise we need to kill them"
(This is not a quote of yours; it is symbolic)



notimp said:


> I don't acknowledge the genetic basis of race


Then I have nothing more to say. This is more ridiculous than the flat earth theory.
Solve this riddle for us: If race does not have a genetic basis, then why do two Slavic parents have Slavic children? Why does Obama have fairer skin than his father and darker skin than his mother? etc etc
According to your logic Obama could have looked like an East-Asian...


----------



## 0x3000027E (Jul 6, 2020)

This thread is populated by the opinions of 'white privilege", so the opinions expressed don't have any bearing and should quite frankly be ignored. Removed, if possible. Unless these voices are silenced, others will be offended.


----------



## th3joker (Jul 6, 2020)

Shut up and let the real men come in and fix what this hyper feminized (see karens aka whiney bitches) society has fucked up


----------



## 0x3000027E (Jul 6, 2020)

th3joker said:


> karens


Ah, yes, "Karen", another attempt to silence a woman from having a public voice. 

From now on, anytime a woman speaks her mind in public, let's label her a "karen" and plaster the video online so she can be ridiculed. Sounds like real progress.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



th3joker said:


> real men


Ha. Would love to see your list.


----------



## notimp (Jul 6, 2020)

Here is your condensed version for people who need that: People with large earlobes are obviously race PLUNKO. And because we can find markers for large earlobes, thereby PLUNKO obviously is genetic.

Either born PLUNKO or not, I always say!

Hail race PLUNKO. Its genetic. Also, we can show, that Plunko people often came from Sweden. Now its doubly genetic!


This is just a simply way to show you - how much race without a cultural concept makes sense.

We know nothing about PLUNKO people. And suddently everyone feels its silly.

PLUNKO people, btw? Also very agressive. Better warn the police. Oh and very intelligent. They get 30% of all available slots at Harvard.


----------



## IFireflyl (Jul 6, 2020)

0x3000027E said:


> This thread is populated by the opinions of 'white privilege", so the opinions expressed don't have any bearing and should quite frankly be ignored. Removed, if possible. Unless these voices are silenced, others will be offended.



"White privilege" is a crutch that's used by POC. In America we're all privileged.


----------



## 0x3000027E (Jul 6, 2020)

IFireflyl said:


> "White privilege" is a crutch that's used by POC. In America we're all privileged.


Certainly...certainly. (my sarcasm may have gone unnoticed on that particular post).
"Privilege" is a relative term; has no objective meaning.


----------



## IFireflyl (Jul 6, 2020)

0x3000027E said:


> my sarcasm may have gone unnoticed on that particular post.



I missed it, and now I feel foolish.


----------



## DuoForce (Jul 6, 2020)

Celebrities are nothing but mindless robots that do what the media says is popular.  I never followed celebrities for that very reason.  Cleveland's VA is a bitch for stepping down in my opinion.  Seems like the media wants to regress to the segregation days.


----------



## ChronoTrig (Jul 6, 2020)

0x3000027E said:


> Ah, yes, "Karen", another attempt to silence a woman from having a public voice.
> 
> From now on, anytime a woman speaks her mind in public, let's label her a "karen" and plaster the video online so she can be ridiculed. Sounds like real progress.
> 
> ...



You realize they use the name Karen because it refers to someone white (making white people seem annoying when the name Karen is used) and "privileged", don't you? It has nothing to do with a sexist opinion as you made it.
In the news most of the women's names that popped up causing "issues" were Karen which is why they started saying "Karen".

Again, nothing to do with silencing women as you might think. -- I should add to this; because everyone's videos are now being blasted out there to be ridiculed (see Yale University with the black girl who was in the dorm area that didn't belong there and made video) and ALWAYS it's from when the other individuals side already after they've become angry instead of the very beginning seeing what truly caused the altercation/issue.


----------



## IFireflyl (Jul 6, 2020)

DuoForce said:


> Celebrities are nothing but mindless robots that do what the media says is popular.  I never followed celebrities for that very reason.  Cleveland's VA is a bitch for stepping down in my opinion.  Seems like the media wants to regress to the segregation days.



The segregation point is one I made before as well. Segregation and racism (apparently) can only occur if it's the majority versus the minority. Here was an Instagram post from Nick Cannon in WhiteFace:

https://www.instagram.com/p/BtsYAvWhhC3/?utm_source=ig_embed&utm_campaign=loading



			
				nickcannon said:
			
		

> TEACHABLE MOMENT: America, There is NO such thing as “WhiteFace” just like there is no such thing as “Reverse Racism”. BlackFace and Racism are rooted in and are byproducts of the Institutionalized Oppression of a subjugated people. The racist and severely damaging “Jim Crow laws” received its name from the BLackface minstrel movement of the 19th century and proceeds to cause pain to this day. A constant reminder that People of color are looked at as second class citizens in this country. Now when you look up the standard definition of “Whiteface” all you will find is an elite Ski Resort in Upstate NY. This is not a Tit-for-Tat argument. These are FACTS. These recent revealings of people painting themselves black or brown and speaking in broken slang in an attempt to be humorous or have fun; as if our culture is some sort of party trick or costume is unacceptable. Along with @Gucci @Prada @Moncler and any other companies or corporations who wish to exploit our pain. Racism is when an “elite” group uses its systemic power to enforce harm, hardship, and pain on others. If you don’t understand this, then it probably means you are or benefit from that elite group of privileged oppressors that we speak of.
> ROUND 1 goes to : THE CULTURE  Holla at me!!!



There were several good responses to this idiotic post:



			
				therealspambabe said:
			
		

> You mention people speaking in a broken slang in an attempt to be humorous.....yet you perpetuate being looked down upon by using uneducated slang and following up a well written post with "holla"..sadly discrediting your own post.





			
				reddman619 said:
			
		

> Hey Cannon look at what Morgan Freeman has to say about racism and black history month. I have seen many elders speak on tbe topic. It's people like you that make EVERYTHING a race issue.





			
				aalrightythen said:
			
		

> Equality. If racism will EVER come to an end. It has to be EQUAL. If a white person can't wear "blackface" a black person SHOULDN'T wear whiteface. Yes, there is history for blackface that associates it with racism, but either way it's just not right on either side. As for reverse racism - there IS such a thing. I've experienced it, unwarranted.





			
				jarrodterrell said:
			
		

> Racism is racism. There’s no such thing as “reverse racism.” What a stupid term. If you are discriminating against any race whatsoever, including your own, you are a racist. Look in a dictionary for gods sake. Oh and you don’t need to be from an “elite” group to be racist. I can’t even begin to understand that idiotic comment. People from poor and/or marginalized backgrounds can’t be racist...? What...? You should take this post down man. You’re spouting the exact same mentality you’re fighting so hard against.





			
				younique_by_catherine said:
			
		

> No actually, i take it as a complement! Unless of course you meant it as a way to make fun of caucasians by wearing WHITEFACE (because that IS what youre doing) then i would say you are RACIST! Racism is disparaging another race Nick! It is not a black thing or a white thing.... it is in FACT....A RACE THING! Get over yourself and celebrate theHUMAN RACE! You have a platform to bring positivity to so many that are really ignorant . Why breed negativity by stirring the pot?



My favorite response was this:



			
				netya_wood420 said:
			
		

> Tell me we’re your oppressed before the 70,000 an episode you got for AMERICAs GOT TALENT from those elites or after maybe it’s was after you got the 2012 Ferrari in your divorce from Mariah or possibly your salary of 10 million dollars wake up Nick you are the elites and here just so you can understand your double standards definition is BS here you go ...
> “ Racism is the belief that groups of humans possess different behavioral traits corresponding to physical appearance and can be divided based on the superiority of one race over another. I can think of a whole religious group who believes their superior to the white race so tell me Nick do they fit your definition of racist,cause it sure does mine.



TL;DR - Celebrities have a larger platform, but fame and power doesn't make what you're saying right.


----------



## 0x3000027E (Jul 7, 2020)

IFireflyl said:


> BLM


A polit


ChronoTrig said:


> You realize they use the name Karen because it refers to someone white (making white people seem annoying when the name Karen is used) and "privileged", don't you? It has nothing to do with a sexist opinion as you made it.
> In the news most of the women's names that popped up causing "issues" were Karen which is why they started saying "Karen".
> 
> Again, nothing to do with silencing women as you might think. -- I should add to this; because everyone's videos are now being blasted out there to be ridiculed (see Yale University with the black girl who was in the dorm area that didn't belong there and made video) and ALWAYS it's from when the other individuals side already after they've become angry instead of the very beginning seeing what truly caused the altercation/issue.


Well sure, I know the origins of the term, however i would argue that the term 'karen" has evolved into something else entirely (as expected). 

Also, I'm sure the objective is not to silence woman, but that is the end result. For one, we can easily discern that using the name "karen" is to target a particular gender. Then realize the name is used to describe a very particular behavior that amounts to a *gasp* woman speaking her mind in public. 

I'm not sure why a woman (has to be a white woman, I guess?) that has a problem with the way a business is being conducted, and asks to 'speak to the manager', is automatically in some kind of entitlement/priviledge complex. Gaw, our judgement cannot be so shallow.


----------



## FGFlann (Jul 7, 2020)

Karen is just the new way of saying Bitch. One day, this too shall be verboten.


----------



## th3joker (Jul 7, 2020)

0x3000027E said:


> Ah, yes, "Karen", another attempt to silence a woman from having a public voice.
> 
> From now on, anytime a woman speaks her mind in public, let's label her a "karen" and plaster the video online so she can be ridiculed. Sounds like real progress.
> 
> ...


Spoken like a karen.  In the old world karens knew better than to open their "me too" mouths. Twitter and facebook echo chambers gave you karens a place to group together to whine about what upsets yall. You want you cake and entitlement to be able to eat it too.  Becky who called cops on black people bbqing... White bitch in 7/11 telling a Hispanic to go back to mexico, bitch in the woods fake crying for police. See there is absolutly no point in me trying to open your blindined by biased femenist eyes your too far gone beyond full retard you can not go back. Never go full femenist retard. If 99% of people agree "karens" are the problems not "Sjw freedom fighters" they think themselves as....then guess what majority vote rules out your whiney " listen to me im a empowered female" bullshit and eat a

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



0x3000027E said:


> A polit
> 
> Well sure, I know the origins of the term, however i would argue that the term 'karen" has evolved into something else entirely (as expected).
> 
> ...


A male karen is a kyle... Get the fuck off you high horse on a game boy hacking forum... Nobody cares as much as you so realize you replying is just entertainment not thought provoking conversation.... Continue karen


----------



## IFireflyl (Jul 7, 2020)

th3joker said:


> <snip>



Whoa... Calm down, Kyle.


----------



## 0x3000027E (Jul 7, 2020)

th3joker said:


> Spoken like a karen.  In the old world karens knew better than to open their "me too" mouths. Twitter and facebook echo chambers gave you karens a place to group together to whine about what upsets yall. You want you cake and entitlement to be able to eat it too.  Becky who called cops on black people bbqing... White bitch in 7/11 telling a Hispanic to go back to mexico, bitch in the woods fake crying for police. See there is absolutly no point in me trying to open your blindined by biased femenist eyes your too far gone beyond full retard you can not go back. Never go full femenist retard. If 99% of people agree "karens" are the problems not "Sjw freedom fighters" they think themselves as....then guess what majority vote rules out your whiney " listen to me im a empowered female" bullshit and eat a
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...



Yawn...*sighhhh* .....you're taking this much too seriously. Where the fuck is Lacius, he knows how to have fun with this shit.


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Jul 7, 2020)

notimp said:


> You effing moron.
> Because you are obviously stupid, here once more in an easy to understand way..
> Now tell me you MORON


I could report you for this, but I it is better if your hysteria is public.
You are self-deceiving.
1) You haven´t solved the riddle: Why do Japanese people have Japanese babies? But if one of them is from e.g. Poland, the child will look like a mix of the two? If it is not about genes, then tell me, how it is this way.
Maybe you have a European wife who cheated on you with a Korean and convinced you that the baby looks partly Korean because it is all just a social construct. Either that or your believe system has been successfully challenged and you resort to name calling.




notimp said:


> Nationality is an invented concept. Ethnicity is an invented concept. Race is an invented concept. At the species point you have enough science to say - yes, we can differentiate a human from a monkey. Thats about it. You have NONE of that on the race front - regardless of your believes..


2) False, I cannot only distinguish you from a whale but also from a Japanese. I can also distinguish Japanese, Korean and Chinese people (10/10 in an online test), though it is more difficult for me than to distinguish a Portuguese from a German and a Serbian. The difference in difficulty comes from experience and cultural effects, but "23 and me" proves that it is based on genetics.



notimp said:


> Nationality is a social concept. Ethnicity is a social concept. Race is a social, and only in small parts biological and genetic concept. Species is a social and partly biological, and partly genetic concept.


3) Ladies and gentlemen, we have an admission in part. What makes you think that is "partly genetic"? Could it be that you agree with my riddle?
Nationality, ethnicity and race are a social concepts in the sense that they are linguistic tools. A chair is also a concept and definitions might vary: is a three-legged chair a chair? Are Pakistani "Asians" (as British call them) or South Asians? Are the Natives of Australia and certain Indians "black"? These are linguistic questions. But there is no doubt that South Asians, Subsaharan-Africans, Native Australians and Indians are genetically distinct. Are language is conceptual, but biology is not. Biology is the basis.



notimp said:


> Now how stupid would I have to be, to think, that finding markers for those is what ultimately would put someone in a race group or not?


4) You just called the vast majority of the world stupid, including BLM and various minority instutions. It takes a special kind of person of European descent to "not care about [his] race at all" and even deny basic biology for the fear of being called names. Man up.



notimp said:


> Dont you unterstand, that we can find different markers, for different interpersonal characteristics (like blood type) all day, that would be exactly the same as far as their genetic ability to differentiate people goes, and we do nothing about them, we dont even care. But as soon as it comes to skincolor and hairstructure - suddenly we become very interested.


5) You could indeed group people into blood types and call it "race". You would confuse people, however, since we already have a word for geographical genetic clusters ("race/ethnicity") and blood types ("blood type"). I suppose you could theoretically create e.g. a pure 0 blood type, but it would probably take hundreds of thousands of years to achieve it because so many combinations can lead to it.
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





If you wanted to create a human population of only "blood type 0", race would once again help you with that. Procreation between Caucasians would speed up the process. But hey, it is just a social construct.








notimp said:


> Now tell me you MORON, how - can race be identified genetically? When it is so obviously a cultural concept? How much of a genetic sequence that produces black pigment is needed for you to be "genetically black"? Do you really think such a clear cut definition exists? And why are you so stupid?


6) Race can be identified genetically by looking at clusters of human populations. Even a non-biased computer program can do this. You can ask it to e.g. dinstuingish genetic data in 3 or 10 groups it into largely Subsaharan African, Caucasian and Asian (3) or more subsets (e.g. East Asians and South-East Asians (10)). I has been many years but I might be able to find the program for you. But then you would have to honestly apologize to me for name calling and admit that your hysterical response has to do with your acknowledging that I am right (about genes being the basis for race/ethnicity). And even without the program, you would have to solve another riddle: How can companies determine that e.g. Ben Shapiro is Jewish (and that Obama is probably half Subsaharan African and half European; and that Bruce Lee is 1/4 European - if he had done a test). Genetic clusters are based on separation/relatedness and there are different zoom levels. Your family is genetically closest to you, then your extended family, then your region, etc. You could call your own family a race if you wanted (but why? if we already have a word for it: family).




notimp said:


> The only thing you are doing at this point is to pronounce - that you so obviously can 'feel' a difference, and that because you can see a persons skincolor in its genetic code, with a certain probability, this produces a genetic defintion of race. Now let me hit you in the face and tell you, no - for a genetic definition of race, you would have to go the other way around. You would have to define what a race is, based on genetic characteristics alone. And you cant. Noone does. So get your shitty racist bias out of here, that always knows what a race is, and then looks at genetics to find markers for his personal bias - read the god damn Wkipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_genetics



7) Get your moral signaling out of here. The truth is independent of your name calling. Wikipedia is biased about politics and history. There is a hierarchy of mods who censor data based on ideology. This has been established years ago and anyone can test it himself/herself.
I assume you have no problem of acknowleding the genetic basis for races of bears, right? What does the product of procreation between a grizzly bear and polar bear look like?
https://sciencenordic.com/a/1434185
Wow, what a surprise. The fur color is just one aspect of race btw. It is typical of ideological people like you to always reduce race to skin color. Genetic clusters of human populations vary of a vast amount of genetic traits. My "feeling" (e.g. I correctly predicted Obama to be European and Subsaharan African - even before looking it up) often corresponds with reality, that´s why I trust it - even though it is imperfect. Biology is not though.

8) You asked "How much of a genetic sequence that produces black pigment is needed for you to be "genetically black""?
I do usually not use terms like "black".  Indians, Native Australians can have "black" skin color but that is not what I am talking about. Some people in America with white skin color call themselves "black". What they usually mean is: their ancenstry is partly Subsaharan African.
You have comitted a logical fallacy by the way. Just because there is a range between the colors blue and red (i.e. purple, more red purple, more blue purple) does not negate the existence of blue or red.
Bruce Lee is indeed also European (about 25% apparently), then there is a Half-Europeans (50%) and indeed Europeans who have never had East Asian ancenstry. That does not negate the exitence of the two genetic clusters. The colors blue and red are also not merely social constructs but our way of describing reality (about light).



notimp said:


> You are a horrible human being and a lousy discussion partner. Oh, and you cant follow logic. And you have a hard time differentiating theoretical arguments, semantics, real world concepts, and feelings.
> Your arguments are so often solely driven, by how you feel something must be...


This should be included in the dictionary definition of "projection". Other people can judge who of us is the emotional one.


----------



## FAST6191 (Jul 7, 2020)

FGFlann said:


> Karen is just the new way of saying Bitch. One day, this too shall be verboten.


They already tried. The breakdown of what people think is what is quite varied and in some cases unexpected.

That said is it really a synonym for bitch?

I have met a 16 year old bitch before but never a 16 year old karen, and plenty of people that would fall under the general understanding of bitch but without any of the traits associated with the phrase Karen (basically what happens when a woman, commonly but not exclusively of later years, has the realisation that most customer service and societal roles are somewhat passive in nature and conflict averse, and often with appeasement as a plan, as well as disproportionate punishments often being doled out to those that rock the boat. This leads to the further realisation that making a scene and escalating will often get a reward/desirable outcome for them and opts to do that in the face of negative attention, though some might not recognise it a such and almost certainly won't recognise a physical threat (saving that they are on the phone to the police) or expect any such things to go in their favour after the fact).
Karen may or may not reach as far as being a subset of bitch but I really can't get to synonym.

Equally is bitch verboten? I saw the "I'm a boss, not a bitch", "ban bossy" and other such things but I have thus far failed to see it join the ranks of cunt in the US (though I am now drawn to wonder about regional variations).
Doing a search for the term yields https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-36627061
That and offensive has the latest article from 2017, and some going back far further.
News search for bitch has not a lot, something about dogs, some hip hop drama and not a lot else.
Repeat that for Karen and everything is this year.

Anyway back to your regularly scheduled notimp's everything is a social construct and words don't mean anything variety hour.


----------



## ChronoTrig (Jul 7, 2020)

0x3000027E said:


> Well sure, I know the origins of the term, however i would argue that the term 'karen" has evolved into something else entirely (as expected).
> 
> Also, I'm sure the objective is not to silence woman, but that is the end result. For one, we can easily discern that using the name "karen" is to target a particular gender. Then realize the name is used to describe a very particular behavior that amounts to a *gasp* woman speaking her mind in public.
> 
> I'm not sure why a woman (has to be a white woman, I guess?) that has a problem with the way a business is being conducted, and asks to 'speak to the manager', is automatically in some kind of entitlement/priviledge complex. Gaw, our judgement cannot be so shallow.



Well, As th3Joker mentioned, Becky as well is another term that was created by the rap community which is also where "Karen" came from.. and what's the majority of the rap community? OK. It's another slang term to ridicule white women; not to shut them up but to ridicule them, deem them as something as annoying, useless, and just good for... well... my next statement shows it, but moreso it's due to the white factor. Hence Becky (white girl in rap songs) was always spoken of as getting "loving" from whenever they would want it. (I'm being polite about this instead of the usual terms they use on rap songs).

My whole point was the justifying my statement of why it's said as a white girl.


----------



## IFireflyl (Jul 7, 2020)

But we still hate boomers, right?

Right...?


----------



## CraddaPoosta (Jul 7, 2020)

notimp said:


> Dito. (Although, ask me how I'd react, when I'm in this world.) The point though is, that before you'd get to this world, you'd have revolts on the street. Much of what Trump'ism is attributed to these days is 'white america' going on a revolt, shortly before they may loose the position as the dominant race in the country.
> 
> The point where you'd find that 'positivistic' state racism ("we need cultural diversity") are very narrow though. Education (creation of rolemodels, keeping different communities 'engaged' in the - actually capitalist, but also intellectual - I guess, system), schooling, public workplace - thats it...
> 
> ...




Somebody is BIG mad. This entire post was nothing but attacking another user. 

Do you even debate, bro? The moment you lose control of your emotions, you've already lost the debate.


----------



## FAST6191 (Jul 7, 2020)

IFireflyl said:


> But we still hate boomers, right?
> 
> Right...?


Hardly the worst or most annoying of the special infected.


----------



## notimp (Jul 7, 2020)

Neo Draven said:


> Somebody is BIG mad. This entire post was nothing but attacking another user.
> 
> Do you even debate, bro? The moment you lose control of your emotions, you've already lost the debate.


Not when the other person holds a racist position. (Race is defined 'genetically'.)

There you get an exemption, because you are defending a societal taboo (you cant say that), you are expected to get mad, if the other side tries to deconstruct the taboo using the stupidest of arguments.
(Look, here is a chart of Mendel, I heard of in highschool, be impressed!)

Strange but true.

Logically nothing that UltraDolphinRevolution posted around that point, made any sense.

Currently he is trying to invent subraces, based on blood types, I believe.

That you 'can' define somehing (roughly) via genetic markers, doesnt mean that this is the definition of said something (race). There is no purely genetical definition of race. You can estimate what society would define a persons race being, using genetic markers, and thats all.

Thats not a definition of race.

If you dont get mad at a person that still tries to press through the argument in the wrong direction, for the third or fourth time you've interacted with him, you are doing it wrong.

Of course get mad, person tries to construct, that races are defined genetically.


If you've still not got it. Yes - phenotype is the result of a persons genome. But what race he is is always and only defined societally, based on visual characteristics. That you can estimate, how society would define them racially, based on their genome, that doesnt mean, there is a genetic definition of race.

Test question: Do you get your genome sequenced, before you can tick the box on a form asking which race you are? No? I rest my case.
-


Mendel, because you bring him up, featured heavily in Nazi race theory, and even in the post 1945 german scientific and medical scene. He 'survived' the purge of that ideology, because he never claimed, that racial traits had any inherent (something thats a native part of them) 'value'.

Something you will notice that Ultradolphinrevolution tries to construct here for three pages now. ("Black people are more likely to divorse and live on wellfare, black people might be more agressive...")

If you fall for that, and his effing emotional baiting that 'everyone that doesnt belive that race is genetic (it isnt), is a flat earther', please turn around and go straight into the neonazi scene as we speak. That stuff (Mendel, genetic basis of race, ...), are core to their recruitment ("OH MAINSTREAM CULTURE SO UNFAIR - they dont let us believe in science, look I produced a table from Medel, my racism is scientific, everyone is so unfair to us Nazis..!").

Lets not pussyfoot around this anymore. Ultradolphinrevolution fell for neonazi ideology and now tries to recruit others to it in this forum. Plain and simple.

Glad thats addressed now.

And I really was supposed to not get emotional there? You spineless...
--


edit: Also, let me repost this on this page as well, to highlight the freaking fallacy of the argument:


> Here is your condensed version for people who need that: People with large earlobes are obviously race PLUNKO. And because we can find markers for large earlobes, thereby PLUNKO obviously is genetic.
> 
> Either born PLUNKO or not, I always say!
> 
> ...


----------



## FGFlann (Jul 7, 2020)

FAST6191 said:


> They already tried. The breakdown of what people think is what is quite varied and in some cases unexpected.
> 
> That said is it really a synonym for bitch?
> 
> ...


Thinking back to my school days I'd say I've definitely met some 16 year old Karens, haha.
It is true that Karen as a pejorative describes a very specific type of person in a specific situation,but the signs of the term becoming more of a general use term are already here, as it is being applied to people who do not fit that strict definition.
In recent days there's been a high profile example:

https://newsone.com/3969443/auburn-hills-karen-chipotle-gun-video/

This also feeds in to the second point. Bitch is not a forbidden word in the same vein as others that you can't say even in an academic sense for fear of reprisal, but it is still a word that is a recognized pejorative and considered impolite. It's only a matter of time until enough women are called Karen, whether rightly or wrongly, that enough emotional reaction will be generated for it to join other words that aren't considered proper in a polite setting.

Otherwise I am really enjoying notimp and UltraDolphinRevolution's conversation. Keep up the good work.


----------



## notimp (Jul 7, 2020)

FGFlann said:


> Bitch is not a forbidden word in the same vein as others that you can't say even in an academic sense for fear of reprisal,


Wrong. At least when I went to college. You could say the word, althoug it was frowned upon based on PC. You hadn't fear any reprisals.


Here is another aspect you all could know by now - PC also served the function not to straight up derail discussions. The first time you get a chance to. Which kinda would be likely to happen, if you address your opposite as a 'bitch'.

I'm astonished, how often you think, the word bitch would come up in an academic exchange. 

But that never went so far, that people felt bad for using it in their off campus lives, if they were so inclined. That stuff is all new and came with the SJW movement. ("If you dont see it or don't hear it, and if you dont spea it - it doesnt exist, and society is all better" fallacy.)


----------



## FGFlann (Jul 7, 2020)

notimp said:


> Wrong. At least when I went to college. You could say the word, althoug it was frowned upon based on PC. You hadn't fear any reprisals.


Which word?


----------



## notimp (Jul 7, 2020)

FGFlann said:


> Which word?


Bitch. 

I posted too early - I edited my previous posting with more context.

edit: Ups - I misread your statement.

Then let me clarify - when I went to college there were no words I recognized or learned, that you couldnt say in an academic context in fear of reprisal.

It all depended on the context.


----------



## FGFlann (Jul 7, 2020)

notimp said:


> Bitch.
> 
> I posted too early - I edited my previous posting with more context.


You needn't have bothered... My quoted post literally says "Bitch is not a forbidden word".


----------



## notimp (Jul 7, 2020)

I misread, and said as such a second before you posted.

I'm interested in your point though, which words have you identified as not being able to be said in an academic context in fear of reprisal?

(I want to use google scholar to disprove that..  )
--

Also I think that the bigger point is important for the discussion in here as well. As long as you choose yourself to stick to PC language, thats fine, and actually 'expected' in certain debates, because you could derail debates too easily if you start throwing emotionally loaded words (such as 'bitch', or 'flat earther') as soon as you are out of arguments.

Whats not ok is to make that a 'standard' covering all of peoples lives. In private, and non voluntary. That stuff is new and started with the SJW movements. So is the notion, that you should shout down your opponent, as soon as they used certain words, regardless of context, because you deemed the word 'evil or problematic'.

Thats insanity.

(And then not only do that in case of a few taboos we have societally (we dont forbid certain words to be used, we forbid the promotion of certain concepts), but in any case your small group (SJW) sees anything negative about a certain terminology.)
--


Or more simple - in academia 'words' arent outlawed even now - the 'fear of reprisal, because students start to shout you down' is a softpower (chilling effect), so in other words - its not academia at fault here (directly), but those gosh darn students.. 

Arcademia arguably has let SJW culture just fly high for too long - but thats normally what you do - let the next generation develop their own culture. Its just that if it changes the academic process for the worse, and then doesnt get anywhere in the real world, that you start to wonder..


----------



## FGFlann (Jul 7, 2020)

notimp said:


> I misread, and say as such a second before you posted.
> 
> I'm interested in your point though, which words have you identified as not being able to be said in an academic context in fear of reprisal?
> 
> (I want to use google scholar to disprove that..  )


It's everybody's favourite racial slur.

I don't even know if we're allowed to say it here. A quick glance at the rules gives me this very vague guideline.

"General Forum Decency

This public forum is intended for users of all ages, please take this into consideration when posting. Please use common sense and don't post explicit profanity, we are not strict on the use of swearing but please show respect for the members of GBAtemp."

Perhaps a moderator can clarify if the forbidden word is allowed when used in an academic context.


----------



## notimp (Jul 7, 2020)

Use google scholar ( scholar.google.com ), type in that racial slur, find publications. 

Why you usually don't use it in academia f.e in a public debate, is the general public taboo about the term. It was used for generations, to hold a racial group down, to denounce its societal position, make them less than human. Now they are the only ones that can use it - to strip it of all its former power.  In short, thats not academias fault.  And not SJWs fault.


----------



## FGFlann (Jul 7, 2020)

notimp said:


> Use google scholar ( scholar.google.com ), type in that racial slur, find publications.
> 
> Why you usually don't use it in academia or in public, is the gernetal public taboo about the term. It was used for generations, to hold a racial group down, to denounce its societal position. Now they are the only ones that can use it - to strip it of all its former power.  In short, thats not academias fault.


You are misconstruing the point again. I've never said it was the fault of academia, but that the use of the word in an academic context carries the fear of reprisal. This is inclusive of any situation where it is used in a capacity other than a pejorative. The very fact that we have to dance around the word like a pair of idiots is proof of that stigma.


----------



## notimp (Jul 7, 2020)

Oh come on. It carries that fear in general societal use as well. Not more or less in academia.
(Actually less in academia, because you can write papers using that word, or about the use of that word - which you wouldnt be able to 'out of context' in general society.)

So now when used at sea, it carries the fear of naval reprisal?


----------



## FGFlann (Jul 7, 2020)

notimp said:


> It carries that fear in general societal use as well.


Yes, that is the point. We got there eventually.


----------



## omgcat (Jul 7, 2020)

notimp said:


> Not when the other person holds a racist position. (Race is defined 'genetically'.)
> 
> There you get an exemption, because you are defending a societal taboo (you cant say that), you are expected to get mad, if the other side tries to deconstruct the taboo using the stupidest of arguments.
> (Look, here is a chart of Mendel, I heard of in highschool, be impressed!)
> ...



To back up your statement about race more or less being a myth.


http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2017/science-genetics-reshaping-race-debate-21st-century/

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/race-is-a-social-construct-scientists-argue/

https://www.genome.gov/about-genomics/fact-sheets/Genetics-vs-Genomics

also, thinking blood type is a sub-race is some drinking water temperature IQ shit at best.

it's going to be hard as hell to convince people of the truth, because it means not believing what they see with their eyes. It also doesn't help that most people don't even have a high-school level of biology let alone an undergraduate understanding. Phenotype != Genotype in every instance.


----------



## FGFlann (Jul 7, 2020)

omgcat said:


> it's going to be hard as hell to convince people of the truth, because it means not believing what they see with their eyes.


Big think.


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Jul 7, 2020)

omgcat said:


> also, thinking blood type is a sub-race is some drinking water temperature IQ shit at best.


Strawman. I never claimed as much. If you wanted to increase the population of a given blood type (because notimp mentioned grouping "races" according to blood type), e.g. blood type 0, then you would take people of European descent because they tend to have more of that blood type.

I read through the Harvard article (first link you provided). I could go into the fellacies but I do not need to because it actually agrees with me:
_"Today, scientists prefer to use the term “ancestry” to describe human diversity (Figure 3). “Ancestry” reflects the fact that human variations do have a connection to the geographical origins of our ancestors—with enough information about a person’s DNA, scientists can make a reasonable guess about their ancestry. However, unlike the term “race,” it focuses on understanding how a person’s history unfolded, not how they fit into one category and not another. In a clinical setting, for instance, scientists would say that diseases such as sickle-cell anemia and cystic fibrosis are common in those of “sub-Saharan African” or “Northern European” descent, respectively, rather than in those who are “black” or “white”."
_
This paragraph admits that there is a link between genes and geography. This is all I am saying. If you have a group of snails and build a street in between them, separating them, you get divergent paths of evolution because the mutations are no longer shared. You can call it whatever you want, but that´s my definition of race. A snail of "west of the street" descent and a snail of "east of the street descent".
Most people (including me) views "race" and "ancenstry" as synonyms. Simple Test: Is notimp European? He says his ancenstors originally came from Europe.
The Harvard article is just playing with semantics. When people say "white", they refer to "of European descent". Because it only focuses on one aspect (skin color) and skin color is difficult to judge (a Korean can have the same as a Serbian), I avoid these terms (as I have already stated). "Black" and "White" are popular versions of the more scientific term "... of xyz descent".

One page prior notimp says the following statement is a taboo which justifies calling me names: "Race is defined 'genetically'."
Is it okay to say "Race is defined ancestrally"?

Because both words mean the same! As a Jew (the cat is out of the bag) I know the meaning of "genetics" because we have been reading a certain book called "Genesis", which means origin:

_Old English Genesis, first book of the __Pentateuch__, which tells among other things of the creation of the world, from Latin genesis"generation, nativity," in Late Latin taken as the title of first book of the __Old Testament__, from _*Greek*_ genesis"origin, creation, generation," from gignesthai"to be born," related to *genos"race, birth, **descent*" (from PIE root *gene-"give birth, beget," with derivatives referring to procreation and familial and tribal groups).




www.etymonline.com/word/genesis
_
It is ironic that a white boy wants to put me in the neonazi camp. My people have been the victim of racial discrimination because of a lack knowledge about race/ethnicity/ancestry, not because of its denial. There are ethnic/ancestrial differences between Jews and I am sick of people denying me the right to my ancestry (of which I am proud of). We have our own customs, genes/ancestry and culture. However, both in Germany and Israel I was unknowingly (esp. in Germany) or unknowingly (esp. in Israel) lumped in together with other types of Jews. I will teach my children (once they are old enough) that the next genocide (which is based on genes, not a social construct!) of our people will probably come from "white" virtue signalling morons who think they are doing us a favor by denying our identity. It is good that you do not care about your race, boy aka "notimp". Neither do I care about yours.

_"Test question: Do you get your genome sequenced, before you can tick the box on a form asking which race you are? No? I rest my case." [quote of notimp]_
I have made the test and the results correspond with what my ancestors told me about myself.


----------



## FGFlann (Jul 7, 2020)

There's a very simple flaw with the idea of redefining race to mean culture, and why it's ultimately pointless. Even if you were to successfully force the generational change to redefine the word's everyday meaning, it doesn't make the underlying factors of reality go away. People will still need a way to describe what they can see with their eyes and will simply find other ways of doing so.


----------



## notimp (Jul 7, 2020)

omgcat said:


> To back up your statement about race more or less being a myth.
> 
> 
> http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2017/science-genetics-reshaping-race-debate-21st-century/
> ...


Will read.

Also I find it extremely easy. First you tell them that all definitions (except maybe a few in fields with reduced complexity (newtonian physics)) are social constructs.  (Then you see what happens from there on out..  )

I just find it hard to deal with opinions that are blaming me argumentatively for the opposite of what I tried to voice or do. I then still try to break it down further, only thing I can do..


----------



## notimp (Jul 7, 2020)

Current news on Cancel Culture.


Also, the podcast (yt channel) mentioned in the end of the video is actually neat so far. Three critical thinking people on a podcast, where listening to them actually left me in a relaxed mood (which is rare for me these days, after listening to political programming  ) and the first show roughly is related to the topic in here... So, I think I have to recommend it.. 

The Backchannel
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC4UGHUVWCofzj1dlg2dsmAA


----------



## omgcat (Jul 7, 2020)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> Strawman. I never claimed as much. If you wanted to increase the population of a given blood type (because notimp mentioned grouping "races" according to blood type), e.g. blood type 0, then you would take people of European descent because they tend to have more of that blood type.
> 
> I read through the Harvard article (first link you provided). I could go into the fellacies but I do not need to because it actually agrees with me:
> _"Today, scientists prefer to use the term “ancestry” to describe human diversity (Figure 3). “Ancestry” reflects the fact that human variations do have a connection to the geographical origins of our ancestors—with enough information about a person’s DNA, scientists can make a reasonable guess about their ancestry. However, unlike the term “race,” it focuses on understanding how a person’s history unfolded, not how they fit into one category and not another. In a clinical setting, for instance, scientists would say that diseases such as sickle-cell anemia and cystic fibrosis are common in those of “sub-Saharan African” or “Northern European” descent, respectively, rather than in those who are “black” or “white”."
> ...



Still not quite getting it are you? A single street does not have enough of an environmental impact to change species meaningfully unless we are speaking of timescales in the millions of years. Humans for example, have the capability to adapt to all sun-light levels eventually. for example if you took a family from sub-Saharan Africa and kept their family in Sweden for 500 years, their skin would down regulate the melanin production. that doesn't mean they are suddenly a new race, they have an adaptability. the same would happen in reverse. a big driving factor of this is epigenetic which makes regular genetics look like a joke in its complexity. it took us a really long time to be able to read our genome, and now that we can, we are realizing that it's super hard to make sense of because epigenetic factors randomly turn genes on and off based on environmental factors within a life time. This is why identical twins don't look the same as they get older. You share the same genetics with everyone else, 99.9%-99.95%. culture is going to be more of a distinguishing factor since it changes on the decade level, not century or millennial level.


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Jul 8, 2020)

omgcat said:


> Still not quite getting it are you? A single street does not have enough of an environmental impact to change species meaningfully unless we are speaking of timescales in the millions of years.


It depends on what kind of species we are talking about (life or reproduction span). I was talking about the principle. "Meaningfully" is up to debate. The fact is, human races / ancestral groups separated (often tens of) thousands of years ago the same way as in my example.



omgcat said:


> for example if you took a family from sub-Saharan Africa and kept their family in Sweden for 500 years, their skin would down regulate the melanin production. that doesn't mean they are suddenly a new race, they have an adaptability.


I did not claim they would become a new race. Are they isolated though? Are they reproducing only among themselves?  It would take them probably much more than 500 years. In any case, they would not become Swedes in the sense of race/ancestry.



omgcat said:


> culture is going to be more of a distinguishing factor since it changes on the decade level, not century or millennial level.


As said as much in the beginning, probably twice already.


----------



## CraddaPoosta (Jul 8, 2020)

notimp said:


> Will read.
> 
> Also I find it extremely easy. First you tell them that all definitions (except maybe a few in fields with reduced complexity (newtonian physics)) are social constructs.  (Then you see what happens from there on out..  )
> 
> I just find it hard to deal with opinions that are blaming me argumentatively for the opposite of what I tried to voice or do. I then still try to break it down further, only thing I can do..



I don't think I've ever seen anyone on GBAtemp who was simultaneously more arrogant and less skilled at debate than you.

Being 100% serious. You LOVE to hear yourself talk. You obviously think you're smarter than everyone else around you, regardless of your semi-loose grasp of spelling, grammar, punctuation and context.

At least you know how to form sentences and paragraphs. Kudos for that.

I would love to meet any actual friends you have in life. I am certain I would find a discussion with them to be fascinating.


----------



## notimp (Jul 8, 2020)

Neo Draven said:


> I don't think I've ever seen anyone on GBAtemp who was simultaneously more arrogant and less skilled at debate than you.
> 
> Being 100% serious. You LOVE to hear yourself talk. You obviously think you're smarter than everyone else around you, regardless of your semi-loose grasp of spelling, grammar, punctuation and context.


Sorry, but if this forum is filled with people that follow Nazi theories, and then proclaim mainstream views on genetics 'flat earther theories' (you cant possibly hold) what choice do I have.

Ad hominem attacks are lazy, as you just found out, but I'll do them, if people literally march of the rail, and try to take the argument with them.

'In my mind you are a flat earther' was designed to end the argument then and there, at a wrong premise, at a nazi argument, after misrepresenting my position three times.

I have no respect for the person that did that.

And if you cant follow the argument made in here - well dont speak up for something you dont unterstand.

Also your point on "dont write anything to defend yourself, because you write so much already" was noted, and dismissed. Eff that as well.


----------



## CraddaPoosta (Jul 8, 2020)

notimp said:


> Sorry, but if this forum is filled with people that follow Nazi theories, and then proclaim mainstream views on genecics 'flat earther theories' what choice do I have.
> 
> Ad hominem attacks are lazy, as you just found out, but I'll do them, if people literally march of the rail, and try to take the argument with them.
> 
> ...



You have no respect for ANYONE. I've watched you personally insult anyone who doesn't agree with you. I've watched you lose control of your emotions multiple times, just on this common thread. If you don't get the validation you feel like you deserve, your fannyharm level goes over 9,000. 

You like to hear yourself talk. That's really all it is. You just love the look of your own words. I can literally imagine you perching in front of your keyboard, lovingly re-reading every word you wrote, thinking in Al Gore from South Park's voice about how everyone is going to be super stoked on you.

It's transparent. It's rather sad. It's not a good look. 

Do you "unterstand"? Don't call that a typo; you've made that error several times so far.

Be better, bro.


----------



## notimp (Jul 8, 2020)

I have no respect for nazis.


----------



## CraddaPoosta (Jul 8, 2020)

Calling other people Nazis for not agreeing with you is a pretty pathetic form of ad hominem. 

"You don't agree? You're a RACIST. You're a HOMOPHOBE. You're a MISOGYNIST. You're a TRANSPHOBE. WHITE PRIVILEGE. DURKA DURR."

Discredit or invalidate the source, and it doesn't matter if they destroyed your argument with logic and reason, right? Right.

I unterstand.


----------



## Deleted member 397813 (Jul 8, 2020)

i think cancel culture for me went a bit too far when kpop stans tried to cancel filthy frank and twomad

fucking retards


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Jul 8, 2020)

notimp said:


> 'In my mind you are a flat earther' was designed to end the argument then and there, at a wrong premise, at a nazi argument, after misrepresenting my position three times.


It´s not a nazi argument to say that genetics are the basis of race.
I am living in China now. If people ask me where I´m wrong I sometimes jokingly name a Chinese city and everybody laughes and expects me to give a real answer. Why? Because I am obviously not Chinese. My GENES are different. My ancestry is different. My race is different.
If you deny this simple truth you are actually worse than a flat earther. At least flat earthers have some entertaining arguments.

If there is not genetic basis for race/ancestry, then GENocide is actually just the attempt of eradicating random people. THIS should be a taboo, you effing moron.

I am fine with using a different word for race if it makes you feel uncomfortable. I will also call you "she" if that is your wish. But the concept remains: *Are genetics the basis for ancestry or not?
If your wife cheats on you with a Korean and you still decide to raise the child, are you the ancestor of that child or not? Why not? Effing GENES!*


----------



## Stealphie (Jul 8, 2020)

CPG said:


> i think cancel culture for me went a bit too far when kpop stans tried to cancel filthy frank and twomad
> 
> fucking retards


what have you done @CPG 
you unironically posted in the Politics section
when you die, you'll be sent to ultra-hell.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Neo Draven said:


> Calling other people Nazis for not agreeing with you is a pretty pathetic form of ad hominem.
> 
> "You don't agree? You're a RACIST. You're a HOMOPHOBE. You're a MISOGYNIST. You're a TRANSPHOBE. WHITE PRIVILEGE. DURKA DURR."
> 
> ...


THANK YOU
(also god now i have posted in this cancer of a section i'm going to hell please someone help me)


----------



## deinonychus71 (Jul 8, 2020)

All it does is empowering extremes.

People used to not give a shit, used to be color blind, now they do give a shit, and not always positively.
The Star Wars fandom was called multiple time racist, sexist and what have you. Darth Vader, Luke's father, is voiced by James Earl Jones. You've never heard anyone say anything negative about it.. Nobody cares that the man voicing Darth Vader didn't look like Luke's father. It just never mattered before.
But now, thanks to these actors that are stepping down for not looking like who they voice, it may.

When before people were able to have their opinion, and discuss and debate. It's not possible anymore. If you don't think exactly like me I will block you, and I will get everyone else to block you. You're either with me or against me. No middle ground.
Cancel culture is not progress. It's exactly the opposite.

If there's one thing that needs to be cancelled, it's social media. Burn it to the ground. People get addicted to it, addicted to be around people who share their ideas that resonate in their echo chamber, and by doing so people have become absolutely incapable to deal with opposition peacefully.


----------



## notimp (Jul 8, 2020)

Oh, and because it might have provoked the reaction, me stating that 'I find dealing with racism easy, I just tell people to blow up all their believe systems and see what happens from then' - was actually a self deprecating joke, and not me boasting, that I will have solved racism by next week.

Cynicism doesnt play so well always, written down.


----------



## FGFlann (Jul 8, 2020)

Stealphie said:


> (also god now i have posted in this cancer of a section i'm going to hell please someone help me)


One of us. ONE OF US.


----------



## notimp (Jul 9, 2020)

FUNILLY ENOUGH, I havent called another person a nazi, because they disagreed with my position, but because

- they tried over three pages to find a reason, why behavior would be motivated by genetic traits (phenotype would determine genotype)
- after jumping in to defend a dude, that wanted to compare black people with bulldogs
- they did it derogatively ('what if black people are more aggressive', 'black people have a higher divorce rate (what), because they are on welfare (what)?
- they misrepresented my standpoint three times in a row, and tried to end the argument on antogonizing something I hadnt said - and blamed it on difficulties in understanding
- then they cited Victor Mendel, trying to construct, that race is a genetic concept primarily
- then they tried to misconstrue reality, by stating that anyone who would believe that race is a social construct would be a flat earther, while its actually the mainstream scientific position today.
--

and all of that - combined, is how Neonazis recruit on the internet today - if you find unfair, that you cant use Mendels theories, to construct a world view, where race is based on genes, and responsible for 'problematic behavioral traits' -

you are a Nazi. By definition.

Also I have to hit FGFlan in the face, because he used the movie Freaks to emotionally defend Nazi ideology. Thats a mindf*ck I havent come across on the internet yet.

If you find all of this so toxic, and would rather discuss taboo Nazi ideology in this forum for ages, and then denounce people that tell you the mainstream science position of the day - please move over to 4chan today. I will suckepunch a dude (rhetorically), that tries to spread Neonazi recruitement tech in this forum.

Everytime.

None of us. (As long as they want to popularize that view.)



> Also, Mendelian genetics played a role in debates over racial ideology— especially about policy relating to miscegenation—within the Nazi regime. However, in the decades preceding Hitler’s rise to power, many German racial theorists had synthesized Gobineau, Mendel, and antisemitism with social Darwinism. Nazi racial theory generally embraced this synthesis. Racial thinkers, such as Ludwig Woltmann and Ludwig Schemann, had synthesized Gobineau and Darwin long before Hitler.15 The leading anthropologist Eugen Fischer and the geneticist Fritz Lenz, both influential figures in racial science during the Nazi period, embraced both Gobineau and Darwinism. Hans-Walter Schmuhl perceptively notes that despite some contradictions between Gobineau’s racism and social Darwinism, “Nonetheless toward the end of the nineteenth century formulations of Gobineauism and social Darwinism blended into syncretistic racial theories.”16 Some leading antisemitic thinkers in early twentieth-century Germany, such as Theodor Fritsch and Willibald Hentschel, incorporated Darwinism into antisemitic ideology.17 Thus, many Nazi racial theorists interpreted the opposition between the Nordic and Jewish race as an episode in the Darwinian struggle for existence.



edit:
I believe, the following also - verbatim - was one of the arguments UltraDolphinRevolution made in here (when he tried to argue, why 'racial breeding' (isolation), and selection biases had been in place to form very distinct genetic races as well which would be why you could compare black people to pitbulls - his words, not mine.):


> Heberer was a pivotal figure in Germany in the development of the neo-Darwinian synthesis, the theory that synthesized Darwinian evolution with Mendelian genetics while rejecting Lamarckism. He edited what some historians consider the most important work on evolutionary theory during the Nazi period, Die Evolution der Organismen (1943). Four of the eighteen essays were on human evolution by the anthropologists Christian von Krogh, Wilhelm Gieseler, Reche, and Weinert (all but Reche were in the SS). Gieseler’s contribution to Heberer’s anthology was on “The Fossil History of Humans.” His vision of evolutionary history was consistent with the newly forming neo-Darwinian synthesis, since he explained that the most important mechanisms of evolution were mutations, selection, and isolation.44


src: https://www.csustan.edu/sites/defau.../Weikart/Darwinism-in-Nazi-Racial-Thought.pdf

edit2: UltraDolphinRevolution then furthermore suggested, that he would be fine with extreme forms of Social-Darwinism ('its ok, if even 70% of students in Harvard are asian') because he saw that as a 'natural struggle between races', coincidentally with his own race 'winning'. And explicitly, that he found it outrageous, even unfair, to stop that 'social darwinist selection' by maintaining some form of racial diversity (that f.e. would represent people based on demographics, instead of just fostering 'a master race') in your highest educational institutions. All that - Nazi ideology as well.

THE ONLY other argument UltraDolphinRevolution allowed for, despite something being 'racially determined, genetically', was not circumstance, living conditions, economic outlook, historical perspective, or lack of role models, not - it was "family education". Nazi ideology.

I think you could get the pattern by now...


But calling them a Nazi is unfair, because you dont do it? Thats cancel culture at its finest.

Dumb, doctrinistic, ideology driven, and against using words, because words are so hurtful.

Pronouncing something toxic all the time yourself because thats considered 'a good word', even you shut down arguments with it all the time, without any reason given.


----------



## FGFlann (Jul 9, 2020)

It's absolutely crazy that you would seriously call someone a nazi just for interpreting race using a standard dictionary definition. Not only that, you are ignoring UltraDolphinRevolution's repeated acknowledgment of the cultural factors of race, which they did again only one page back. Getting this emotional about a perfectly reasonable concept is absurd.


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Jul 9, 2020)

I have reported your smearing attempt for misquoting, notemp.

"which would be why you could compare black people to pitbulls - his words, not mine"
Please find this quote of mine then.

There are too many misrepresentations to count. If your post is not deleted I will mention them one by one.


In the meantime: notimp told me in a PM that he enjoys child pornography every now and then.
See? I can also do name-calling and be creative.


----------



## JaapDaniels (Jul 9, 2020)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> In the meantime: notemp told me in a PM that he enjoys child pornography every now and then.
> See? I can also do name-calling and be creative.


Really? in what kind of discussion have you been?
i mean just words out of contentdo not resemble any truth.
though i don't like the words i see him abuse here, he might've been joking/provoking.
i do see provoking kind of being his style of talking here, so i'm troubled taking by the way he writes serious.
i think you mean @notimp 
not everyone online is truthfull, wait let me make this more clear, most people online are untruthfull.
they either joke, provoke or opportunists.


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Jul 9, 2020)

This is a typical tactic of neo nazis like notimp btw: Escalate so that a thread will be closed. He has lost the debate and now wants it to be shut down.

I will continue to call notimp a neo nazi because he speaks of a "master race" (words I never use) and challenges the hard-earned positions of accomplishments (e.g. at Harvard) my people (Jews) are in.
This reminds me of the 1930s in Nazi Germany.
He is therefore an Anti-Semite.
He also expresses violent fantasies against other users. "Also I have to hit FGFlan in the face." + "I will suckepunch a dude (rhetorically)..."

Yet this antisemitic neo nazi has the audacity to call others such names.


----------



## Bullseye (Jul 9, 2020)

tatripp said:


> -Many white Americans are hypersensitive to race because of slavery. White people have a ton of guilt. Many people are afraid to lose their job for saying anything that might be interpreted as racist. We have people like Al Sharpton who have had careers in blackmailing businesses so that he doesn't accuse them of racism. An accusation of racism, just or unjust, is sometimes enough to ruin your career in America or create a multi-million dollar lawsuit.



Many uncultivated people think that slavery was only performed by white people towards black people, but in the annals of history, slavery has been done between all races: white people having white slaves, black people having black slaves, black with white slaves, and all combinations you can imagine. 

The concept of "white people having a lot of guilt" for something they did not commit themselves is as stupid as it gets. 

The purpose of history is to learn from past mistakes, not to repeat them in the future. If history is manipulated and sold differently then we reach the current state where everything has to be cancelled and no one is allowed to do anything as there will always be someone being offended by something.


----------



## Chary (Jul 9, 2020)

Has cancel culture gone too far? Who knows. 

What has gone too far is this thread, where after 12 pages, things have devolved into name calling, insult slinging, false accusations, and so many other things that it's clear to see that keeping the discussion open will only lead to further insanity.


----------

