Has Cancel Culture Gone Too Far

[SG854]

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]

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]

@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]

@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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 racial epitaph, which for some reason they want to have identified as open minded.

Behavioral attribution by 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?

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

@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]

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]

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.

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).

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]

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'.