Certainly...certainly. (my sarcasm may have gone unnoticed on that particular post).
"Privilege" is a relative term; has no objective meaning.
-
Friendly reminder: The politics section is a place where a lot of differing opinions are raised. You may not like what you read here but it is someone's opinion. As long as the debate is respectful you are free to debate freely. Also, the views and opinions expressed by forum members may not necessarily reflect those of GBAtemp. Messages that the staff consider offensive or inflammatory may be removed in line with existing forum terms and conditions.
Has Cancel Culture Gone Too Far
- Thread starter SG854
- Start date
- Views 20,435
- Replies 233
- Likes 1
- Status
"Privilege" is a relative term; has no objective meaning.
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.
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.
Last edited by ChronoTrig,
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 CULTUREHolla at me!!!
There were several good responses to this idiotic post:
therealspambabe said:
reddman619 said:
aalrightythen said:
jarrodterrell said:
younique_by_catherine said:
My favorite response was this:
netya_wood420 said:
TL;DR - Celebrities have a larger platform, but fame and power doesn't make what you're saying right.
Last edited by IFireflyl,
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).
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.
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 ---------------------------
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
Yawn...*sighhhh* .....you're taking this much too seriously. Where the fuck is Lacius, he knows how to have fun with this shit.
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.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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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).
This should be included in the dictionary definition of "projection". Other people can judge who of us is the emotional one.
Last edited by UltraDolphinRevolution,
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.
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.
Last edited by ChronoTrig,
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...
Private companies also often go for it (racial diversity as a company 'motto' (PR)), because its FAR, FAR easier, to deal with those lines of social protest, than with actual class based (worker, white collor...), or wage or inequality based debates/protests.
Place a token 'something' person in a certain place - done.
You effing moron.
Because you are obviously stupid, here once more in an easy to understand way..
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.
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.
EVERYTHING about this is solely based on definition. You can have 10.000 DNA based traits or markers, what you call a 'black' person or a 'jewish person', or a 'caucasian person' is defined by no potential grouping of those. In EVERY sense of the word, when used colloquially, we either mean skincolor, or hair structure, as perceived, once we actually see them.
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?
I dont know? How stupid are you?
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.
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?
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
Keywords "estimate", "probable" vs "determine".
And shut your racist mouth up. As simple as that. You are wrong. Factually. You are biased always. Your peers fed you bullshit, and your parents provided cultural education sucked. On top of that you dont want to move an inch away from any of your prejudices, and now for the third time in a row have insisted, that some utterly insane bullshit - would be "the truth", and desecrated people that actually told you what the mainstream consensus on a term was.
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, after you assumed some BS, without even looking up, if it was true ('Harvard obviously engages in racial balancing' > Harward says it doesnt).
Just to name a few of your flaws.
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:
Last edited by notimp,
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.
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.)
Last edited by notimp,
- Status
Similar threads
- No one is chatting at the moment.
