• 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

Status
Not open for further replies.

notimp

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Messages
5,779
Trophies
1
XP
4,419
Country
Laos
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.
 
Last edited by notimp,

notimp

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Messages
5,779
Trophies
1
XP
4,419
Country
Laos
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..
 
Last edited by notimp,

FGFlann

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2015
Messages
664
Trophies
0
XP
1,422
Country
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

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Messages
5,779
Trophies
1
XP
4,419
Country
Laos
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.
 
Last edited by notimp,

FGFlann

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2015
Messages
664
Trophies
0
XP
1,422
Country
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

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Messages
5,779
Trophies
1
XP
4,419
Country
Laos
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? ;)
 

omgcat

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2009
Messages
869
Trophies
2
XP
2,691
Country
United States
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:

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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CallmeBerto

UltraDolphinRevolution

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2016
Messages
1,806
Trophies
0
XP
2,436
Country
China
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).
upload_2020-7-7_17-42-52.png

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.
 
Last edited by UltraDolphinRevolution,
  • Like
Reactions: ChronoTrig

FGFlann

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2015
Messages
664
Trophies
0
XP
1,422
Country
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ChronoTrig

notimp

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Messages
5,779
Trophies
1
XP
4,419
Country
Laos
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.
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.. ;)
 
Last edited by notimp,

notimp

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Messages
5,779
Trophies
1
XP
4,419
Country
Laos
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
 
Last edited by notimp,

omgcat

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2009
Messages
869
Trophies
2
XP
2,691
Country
United States
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).
View attachment 216398
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.

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.
 
Last edited by omgcat,

UltraDolphinRevolution

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2016
Messages
1,806
Trophies
0
XP
2,436
Country
China
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.

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.

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.
 
Last edited by UltraDolphinRevolution,

CraddaPoosta

Sepatown, my damie.
Member
Joined
May 3, 2010
Messages
1,326
Trophies
1
XP
2,663
Country
United States
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ChronoTrig

notimp

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Messages
5,779
Trophies
1
XP
4,419
Country
Laos
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.
 
Last edited by notimp,
  • Like
Reactions: The Catboy

CraddaPoosta

Sepatown, my damie.
Member
Joined
May 3, 2010
Messages
1,326
Trophies
1
XP
2,663
Country
United States
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.

'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.

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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Site & Scene News

Popular threads in this forum

General chit-chat
Help Users
  • No one is chatting at the moment.
    Xdqwerty @ Xdqwerty: Good night