1527 réponses à ce sujet

[Nostradamoose]

Siansonea II wrote...

Darkhour wrote...

Siansonea II wrote...

Come on everybody. Don't you know when you're being deliberately baited? Darkhour clearly thrives on drama, and getting people mad at him/her. Don't let him/her harsh your calm. Darkhour has tried to bait me in other threads, it's his/her standard MO. If you refuse to give in to his/her inflammatory speech, he/she will get bored and go somewhere else.

I agree this thread should probably be closed at this point. It's a pretty belabored point, and it wasn't a very insightful point to start with. The word 'preposterous' springs to mind.

Is that so? As I recall you admitted that your views did not constitute objective fact and went back on your previous statements that people who disagreeed with your position were blind, irrational, closed-minded fools. What reason would I have to further plead my case when you conceded?

Just because you don't like what I am saying doesn't make it trollish nor does it mean I'm posting specifically to get a rise out of you. Perhaps you think justice and equality are a joke. I beg to differ.

I believe you have illustrated my point perfectly. This type of communication is not helpful to an intelligent conversation about an important topic. It's obvious to everyone that your goal is not to further understanding, but to create drama and controversy. It's simply what you do. If you genuinely wished to communicate something meaningful, your approach would not be so confrontational and divisive. You would seek to make points in such a way that people think about what you say, not simply respond viscerally in a negative way.

Let the record show that at no point have I ever proclaimed anyone to be "blind, irrational, closed-minded fools" in any context in any conversation on these boards. If this is an attempt at editorializing, it is defamatory.

Also let the record show that I strongly favor justice and equality, on this one point Darkhour and myself appear to agree. I think my way of showing it is more effective than Darkhour's, however.

Eh, I guess I should have stopped reading whatever he says when he stopped doing so with me.

[Nostradamoose]

Siansonea II wrote...

Darkhour wrote...

Siansonea II wrote...

Come on everybody. Don't you know when you're being deliberately baited? Darkhour clearly thrives on drama, and getting people mad at him/her. Don't let him/her harsh your calm. Darkhour has tried to bait me in other threads, it's his/her standard MO. If you refuse to give in to his/her inflammatory speech, he/she will get bored and go somewhere else.

I agree this thread should probably be closed at this point. It's a pretty belabored point, and it wasn't a very insightful point to start with. The word 'preposterous' springs to mind.

Is that so? As I recall you admitted that your views did not constitute objective fact and went back on your previous statements that people who disagreeed with your position were blind, irrational, closed-minded fools. What reason would I have to further plead my case when you conceded?

Just because you don't like what I am saying doesn't make it trollish nor does it mean I'm posting specifically to get a rise out of you. Perhaps you think justice and equality are a joke. I beg to differ.

I believe you have illustrated my point perfectly. This type of communication is not helpful to an intelligent conversation about an important topic. It's obvious to everyone that your goal is not to further understanding, but to create drama and controversy. It's simply what you do. If you genuinely wished to communicate something meaningful, your approach would not be so confrontational and divisive. You would seek to make points in such a way that people think about what you say, not simply respond viscerally in a negative way.

Let the record show that at no point have I ever proclaimed anyone to be "blind, irrational, closed-minded fools" in any context in any conversation on these boards. If this is an attempt at editorializing, it is defamatory.

Also let the record show that I strongly favor justice and equality, on this one point Darkhour and myself appear to agree. I think my way of showing it is more effective than Darkhour's, however.

Eh, I guess I should have stopped reading whatever he says when he stopped doing so with me.

[Darkhour]

Siansonea II wrote...

Let the record show that at no point have I ever proclaimed anyone to be "blind, irrational, closed-minded fools" in any context in any conversation on these boards. If this is an attempt at editorializing, it is defamatory.

You are correct. It was Nordic Einar who called them irrational and blind. Your comment was that people with a particular point of view that conflicted with yours hadn't evolved to your level. I apologize.

Also let the record show that I strongly favor justice and equality, on this one point Darkhour and myself appear to agree. I think my way of showing it is more effective than Darkhour's, however.

I'm not posting to convince white people that they are 1st class citizens at the expense of non-white citizens. They already know that. They aren't my intended audience; however, I can use them to demonstrate my point. Like how they try to convince non-white people that race is biological when it is in fact a social construct. Every time they refuse to answer the question of what constitutes a white person, biologically, they demonstrate their knowledge, upkeep and complicity with the system of racism. Obviously, they recognize what they would have to admit if they addressed the issue honestly and openly. This is not something they want non-white people contemplating and why they don't just leave the thread, but instead feel a responsibility to seek its destruction.

Modifié par Darkhour, 30 avril 2010 - 12:26 .

[Polka14]

Darkhour wrote...

Siansonea II wrote...

Let the record show that at no point have I ever proclaimed anyone to be "blind, irrational, closed-minded fools" in any context in any conversation on these boards. If this is an attempt at editorializing, it is defamatory.

You are correct. It was Nordic Einar who called them irrational and blind. Your comment was that people with a particular point of view that conflicted with yours hadn't evolved to your level. I apologize.

Also let the record show that I strongly favor justice and equality, on this one point Darkhour and myself appear to agree. I think my way of showing it is more effective than Darkhour's, however.

I'm not posting to convince white people that they are 1st class citizens at the expense of non-white citizens. They already know that. They aren't my intended audience; however, I can use them to demonstrate my point. Like how they try to convince non-white people that race is biological when it is in fact a social construct. Every time they refuse to answer the question of what constitutes a white person, biologically, they demonstrate their knowledge, upkeep and complicity with the system of racism. Obviously, they recognize what they would have to admit if they addressed the issue honestly and openly. This is not something they want non-white people contemplating and why they don't just leave the thread, but instead feel a responsibility to seek its destruction.

A person usually called "white" would have genetic ancestry of European origin.  Noone is "1st class citizens" because of their race. If you believe that then you are living in a fantasy world.  Anyway, race is biological. Those of different races have different aspects to their biology.  I can not list it in detail as I am not a biologist but it is not a social construct. Regardless if you believe me or not, I oppose all forms of racism. I am multiracial and I consider bias based on race to be evil.  Unfortunately, there are people like you that do not even try to hide their racism.

Look at the bolded part. If you really consider race to be some grand conspiracy to promote an unknown group of people called "white" to "1st class citizens" then I truly pity you.

[Darkhour]

Nostradamoose wrote...

What about indivisions between White people

What about it?

while at it, that is something you never considered as well. I do remember being specifically told by table neighbours in a Restaurant in Toront to "Speak White", apparently, they didn't like me speaking French. Or when I've been told to "Go home, you damn French Frog" in New-York because someone didn't like my accent. You're missing the point, there's gonna be racism everywhere, anyone can be a victim of racism, but that doesn't mean everyone of a said group is a racist.

What about when men tell women they are inferior? What about when conventionally dressed people make fun of goths? What does any of those examples have to do with the mistreatment of one group of people by another on the basis of color? I understand that you are trying to change the subject from racism to generalize mistreatment in order to protect your place in the world. But seriously, if you are too afraid to confront the question of how you know who is white and who isn't you have nothing more to contribute.                         

White people on this thread want to continue pretending this is a biological issue. I never said all people who look like this or have that physical feature are racist. What I said was ALL white people are race-ist.

Anyone taking the title of white person:
A.) has excepted the role as a 1st class citizen.
B.) maintains the system of racism by either direct action or complicit inaction

If they didn't, they wouldn't be white people regardless of geneology or morphology.

[Masticetobbacco]

Darkhour wrote...

Anyone taking the title of white person:
A.) has excepted the role as a 1st class citizen. 

dis be some first class white people right here

[Nostradamoose]

I actually Characterised it already, I just didn't quote your ass.

[Darkhour]

Polka14 wrote...

A person usually called "white" would have genetic ancestry of European origin.

I have genetic ancestry of european origin. I am not a white person. Try again.

Race is invited before the science of genetics. It has absolutely nothing to do with genetics.

Anyway, race is biological. Those of different races have different aspects to their biology.  I can not list it in detail as I am not a biologist but it is not a social construct.

You're not a biologist, but I suspect you'd have no trouble pointing out who is white and who is non-white.

You can't say it's biological and then not be able to tell me the physical (i.e "biological") aspects that make a person a white person. Non-white people, look at this. Seriously, look at what this so-called "non-racist" is trying to feed you. That is the kind forked tongue a white supremacist speaks with. Why do you keep saying you're not racist? As if anyone here is expecting the smart racist to come out and say so. Only dumb racist do that. 

[Siansonea]

For my part I agree with Darkhour that race/ethnicity is primarily a social construct. There is a biological component to ethnicity, but on a genetic level the differences among the various ethnicities are vanishingly small. What we call 'race' is really a set of physical adaptations that have occurred due to a population remaining in one geographical area for many generations. Environment influences which traits are favorable to future offspring. Equatorial populations tend to have darker skin, because darker skin is beneficial in withstanding the constant sun exposure. Arctic and subarctic populations tend to have paler skin, because these lattitudes receive less sunlight and paler skin allows for more efficient Vitamin D absorption. The supposedly dramatic difference in skin color is really just one small set of genes that tells the skin how much melanin should be produced. Other characteristics normally associated with different ethnicities have similar origins, but are not qualititatively significant. Basically science tells us that whatever differences we think exist between different ethnic groups don't amount to very much at all. The vast majority of race-as-identity is social in nature, due to groups with shared characteristics reinforcing a group identity, and having these shared identities reinforced by other groups with different shared characteristics.

Ironically, from a genetic standpoint, ones 'race' is often at odds with one's perceived race. For instance, a man who may have predominantly European ancestry and appear "white" may actually be of genetically Asian or African ancestry from a Y-chromosomal DNA standpoint. This means that his patrilineal ancestry goes back to Asia or Africa, regardless of how many other European ancestors he has. A similar situation can be seen in women from a mitochondrial DNA standpoint. For my part, I do not think of myself as 'white' or 'Caucasian' or anything like that. My ancestry is predominantly Scottish, Welsh, and a smattering of other populations, but my 'race' is human.

Modifié par Siansonea II, 30 avril 2010 - 01:26 .

[Darkhour]

Masticetobbacco wrote...

Darkhour wrote...

Anyone taking the title of white person:
A.) has excepted the role as a 1st class citizen. 

dis be some first class white people right here

If he is indeed a white person, his limits are the stars as the saying goes. At least it is completely his choice to be in the situation he is in. He will never have to wonder if he is being paid less than his co-workers or if he didn't get that job or promotion because of color. A non-white person's limits are set by white people. Next thing you know you'll be saying Oprah Winfrey and Barack Obama negate the situation of billions of non-white people worldwide.

Hmmm, so that is a white person pictured there? You certainly seem to have no trouble pointing out white people.

With that said, how do you know he is white?

Are you a white person?

[Masticetobbacco]

Darkhour wrote...

Masticetobbacco wrote...

Darkhour wrote...

Anyone taking the title of white person:
A.) has excepted the role as a 1st class citizen. 

dis be some first class white people right here

If he is indeed a white person, his limits are the stars as the saying goes. At least it is completely his choice to be in the situation he is in. He will never have to wonder if he is being paid less than his co-workers or if he didn't get that job or promotion because of color. A non-white person's limits are set by white people. Next thing you know you'll be saying Oprah Winfrey and Barack Obama negate the situation of billions of non-white people worldwide.

Hmmm, so that is a white person pictured there? You certainly seem to have no trouble pointing out white people.

With that said, how do you know he is white?

Are you a white person?

I am east asian

I assume he is white because of the pigment of his skin and his face.

and I honestly don't think he chose THAT lifestyle

[Gundar3]

LOL!! This thread is full of epic win! In before lock, I just wanna see where this goes next.

[Polka14]

Darkhour wrote...

Polka14 wrote...

A person usually called "white" would have genetic ancestry of European origin.

I have genetic ancestry of european origin. I am not a white person. Try again.

Race is invited before the science of genetics. It has absolutely nothing to do with genetics.

Anyway, race is biological. Those of different races have different aspects to their biology.  I can not list it in detail as I am not a biologist but it is not a social construct.

You're not a biologist, but I suspect you'd have no trouble pointing out who is white and who is non-white.

You can't say it's biological and then not be able to tell me the physical (i.e "biological") aspects that make a person a white person. Non-white people, look at this. Seriously, look at what this so-called "non-racist" is trying to feed you. That is the kind forked tongue a white supremacist speaks with. Why do you keep saying you're not racist? As if anyone here is expecting the smart racist to come out and say so. Only dumb racist do that. 

I have had enough of you. I draw the line at someone calling me a racist. You are pure evil. I finally understand your hate though misguided it is. You say that the term "white" is given to priveleged people that have oppressed others. You try to invoke a conspiracy that these "white" people are working together to oppress "non-white" people. Well, how is that? I am not hispanic and not wealthy. Lets see... you say that people have no race and yet they...have a race? Oh, just not white, right? And the term "white" is not a race too yet you can easily catagorize what "white" is? You talk of some kind of position of power that these "white" people enjoy. Yet there are all kinds of people in power.

Lets look at it this way. You said "I have genetic ancestry of European origin, I am not a white person..." Okay so these "white" people oppress everyone, even those of european origin. Doesn't sound like racism to me.

Anyway. Doesn't matter. Had to report you again. In the end  you are not white, you are a monster.

[Darkhour]

Masticetobbacco wrote...

I am east asian

Are you a white person? Yes or No. "East asian" means nothing to me.

I assume he is white because of the pigment of his skin and his face.

 
So anyone with that pigment and face is white?

Is the pigment of the man in that picture THE white pigment? To the exclusion of all other pigments?

What exactly is it about his face that makes it a white person's face?

and I honestly don't think he chose THAT lifestyle

You don't think he chose to take off his clothes and sit on a toilet outside his trailer? You don't think he chose to settle for the life he has? What's to stop him from living another lifestyle besides his own inaction in that regard?

[Slayer299]

Siansonea II wrote...

For my part I agree with Darkhour that race/ethnicity is primarily a social construct. There is a biological component to ethnicity, but on a genetic level the differences among the various ethnicities are vanishingly small. What we call 'race' is really a set of physical adaptations that have occurred due to a population remaining in one geographical area for many generations. Environment influences which traits are favorable to future offspring. Equatorial populations tend to have darker skin, because darker skin is beneficial in withstanding the constant sun exposure. Arctic and subarctic populations tend to have paler skin, because these lattitudes receive less sunlight and paler skin allows for more efficient Vitamin D absorption. The supposedly dramatic difference in skin color is really just one small set of genes that tells the skin how much melanin should be produced. Other characteristics normally associated with different ethnicities have similar origins, but are not qualititatively significant. Basically science tells us that whatever differences we think exist between different ethnic groups don't amount to very much at all. The vast majority of race-as-identity is social in nature, due to groups with shared characteristics reinforcing a group identity, and having these shared identities reinforced by other groups with different shared characteristics.

Ironically, from a genetic standpoint, ones 'race' is often at odds with one's perceived race. For instance, a man who may have predominantly European ancestry and appear "white" may actually be of genetically Asian or African ancestry from a Y-chromosomal DNA standpoint. This means that his patrilineal ancestry goes back to Asia or Africa, regardless of how many other European ancestors he has. A similar situation can be seen in women from a mitochondrial DNA standpoint. For my part, I do not think of myself as 'white' or 'Caucasian' or anything like that. My ancestry is predominantly Scottish, Welsh, and a smattering of other populations, but my 'race' is human.

What he said   (Well, everything except the Scottish and Welsh part )

[Masticetobbacco]

not white



and yes the pigment would make me assume he is white, caucasian



lol this guy does have a carefree lifestyle, but that is because how the southern economy works, that he does not really have to work for much and can pretty much live on his own. Still I'd say he could do better. He certainly is not "well-off". I could imagine his diet, his hygiene, and his "house" are doing quite poorly. I would not really call him priviliged or lucky. He is doing fine with what he has.



He has no money to change his lifestyle, and certainly not the education at all.

[Siansonea]

Slayer299 wrote...

Siansonea II wrote...

For my part I agree with Darkhour that race/ethnicity is primarily a social construct. There is a biological component to ethnicity, but on a genetic level the differences among the various ethnicities are vanishingly small. What we call 'race' is really a set of physical adaptations that have occurred due to a population remaining in one geographical area for many generations. Environment influences which traits are favorable to future offspring. Equatorial populations tend to have darker skin, because darker skin is beneficial in withstanding the constant sun exposure. Arctic and subarctic populations tend to have paler skin, because these lattitudes receive less sunlight and paler skin allows for more efficient Vitamin D absorption. The supposedly dramatic difference in skin color is really just one small set of genes that tells the skin how much melanin should be produced. Other characteristics normally associated with different ethnicities have similar origins, but are not qualititatively significant. Basically science tells us that whatever differences we think exist between different ethnic groups don't amount to very much at all. The vast majority of race-as-identity is social in nature, due to groups with shared characteristics reinforcing a group identity, and having these shared identities reinforced by other groups with different shared characteristics.

Ironically, from a genetic standpoint, ones 'race' is often at odds with one's perceived race. For instance, a man who may have predominantly European ancestry and appear "white" may actually be of genetically Asian or African ancestry from a Y-chromosomal DNA standpoint. This means that his patrilineal ancestry goes back to Asia or Africa, regardless of how many other European ancestors he has. A similar situation can be seen in women from a mitochondrial DNA standpoint. For my part, I do not think of myself as 'white' or 'Caucasian' or anything like that. My ancestry is predominantly Scottish, Welsh, and a smattering of other populations, but my 'race' is human.

What he said   (Well, everything except the Scottish and Welsh part )

Thanks, but I'm a 'she'.

[Polka14]

Slayer299 wrote...

Siansonea II wrote...

For my part I agree with Darkhour that race/ethnicity is primarily a social construct. There is a biological component to ethnicity, but on a genetic level the differences among the various ethnicities are vanishingly small. What we call 'race' is really a set of physical adaptations that have occurred due to a population remaining in one geographical area for many generations. Environment influences which traits are favorable to future offspring. Equatorial populations tend to have darker skin, because darker skin is beneficial in withstanding the constant sun exposure. Arctic and subarctic populations tend to have paler skin, because these lattitudes receive less sunlight and paler skin allows for more efficient Vitamin D absorption. The supposedly dramatic difference in skin color is really just one small set of genes that tells the skin how much melanin should be produced. Other characteristics normally associated with different ethnicities have similar origins, but are not qualititatively significant. Basically science tells us that whatever differences we think exist between different ethnic groups don't amount to very much at all. The vast majority of race-as-identity is social in nature, due to groups with shared characteristics reinforcing a group identity, and having these shared identities reinforced by other groups with different shared characteristics.

Ironically, from a genetic standpoint, ones 'race' is often at odds with one's perceived race. For instance, a man who may have predominantly European ancestry and appear "white" may actually be of genetically Asian or African ancestry from a Y-chromosomal DNA standpoint. This means that his patrilineal ancestry goes back to Asia or Africa, regardless of how many other European ancestors he has. A similar situation can be seen in women from a mitochondrial DNA standpoint. For my part, I do not think of myself as 'white' or 'Caucasian' or anything like that. My ancestry is predominantly Scottish, Welsh, and a smattering of other populations, but my 'race' is human.

What he said   (Well, everything except the Scottish and Welsh part )

You are both wrong. There are different but EQUAL races. All different. All equal. One's skin color should mean nothing except to that person's genetic background.

[Masticetobbacco]

Polka14 wrote...

Slayer299 wrote...

Siansonea II wrote...

For my part I agree with Darkhour that race/ethnicity is primarily a social construct. There is a biological component to ethnicity, but on a genetic level the differences among the various ethnicities are vanishingly small. What we call 'race' is really a set of physical adaptations that have occurred due to a population remaining in one geographical area for many generations. Environment influences which traits are favorable to future offspring. Equatorial populations tend to have darker skin, because darker skin is beneficial in withstanding the constant sun exposure. Arctic and subarctic populations tend to have paler skin, because these lattitudes receive less sunlight and paler skin allows for more efficient Vitamin D absorption. The supposedly dramatic difference in skin color is really just one small set of genes that tells the skin how much melanin should be produced. Other characteristics normally associated with different ethnicities have similar origins, but are not qualititatively significant. Basically science tells us that whatever differences we think exist between different ethnic groups don't amount to very much at all. The vast majority of race-as-identity is social in nature, due to groups with shared characteristics reinforcing a group identity, and having these shared identities reinforced by other groups with different shared characteristics.

Ironically, from a genetic standpoint, ones 'race' is often at odds with one's perceived race. For instance, a man who may have predominantly European ancestry and appear "white" may actually be of genetically Asian or African ancestry from a Y-chromosomal DNA standpoint. This means that his patrilineal ancestry goes back to Asia or Africa, regardless of how many other European ancestors he has. A similar situation can be seen in women from a mitochondrial DNA standpoint. For my part, I do not think of myself as 'white' or 'Caucasian' or anything like that. My ancestry is predominantly Scottish, Welsh, and a smattering of other populations, but my 'race' is human.

What he said   (Well, everything except the Scottish and Welsh part )

You are both wrong. There are different but EQUAL races. All different. All equal. One's skin color should mean nothing except to that person's genetic background.

genes do not discriminate as we do. A black person from Africa could share more genetic similarities with a person from Europe than a fellow African.

Skin colour does not determine genetics.

[Onyx Jaguar]

Lets derail this thread into demographics so we can get to the REAL source of the problem. You haters.

[Siansonea]

Polka14 wrote...

Slayer299 wrote...

Siansonea II wrote...

For my part I agree with Darkhour that race/ethnicity is primarily a social construct. There is a biological component to ethnicity, but on a genetic level the differences among the various ethnicities are vanishingly small. What we call 'race' is really a set of physical adaptations that have occurred due to a population remaining in one geographical area for many generations. Environment influences which traits are favorable to future offspring. Equatorial populations tend to have darker skin, because darker skin is beneficial in withstanding the constant sun exposure. Arctic and subarctic populations tend to have paler skin, because these lattitudes receive less sunlight and paler skin allows for more efficient Vitamin D absorption. The supposedly dramatic difference in skin color is really just one small set of genes that tells the skin how much melanin should be produced. Other characteristics normally associated with different ethnicities have similar origins, but are not qualititatively significant. Basically science tells us that whatever differences we think exist between different ethnic groups don't amount to very much at all. The vast majority of race-as-identity is social in nature, due to groups with shared characteristics reinforcing a group identity, and having these shared identities reinforced by other groups with different shared characteristics.

Ironically, from a genetic standpoint, ones 'race' is often at odds with one's perceived race. For instance, a man who may have predominantly European ancestry and appear "white" may actually be of genetically Asian or African ancestry from a Y-chromosomal DNA standpoint. This means that his patrilineal ancestry goes back to Asia or Africa, regardless of how many other European ancestors he has. A similar situation can be seen in women from a mitochondrial DNA standpoint. For my part, I do not think of myself as 'white' or 'Caucasian' or anything like that. My ancestry is predominantly Scottish, Welsh, and a smattering of other populations, but my 'race' is human.

What he said   (Well, everything except the Scottish and Welsh part )

You are both wrong. There are different but EQUAL races. All different. All equal. One's skin color should mean nothing except to that person's genetic background.

That's pretty much what I said. There are differences, but they are insignificant. A difference that makes no difference is no difference. So, all ethnicities are essentially equal from a scientific standpoint.

[Astranagant]

Jacob's not popular because he's too ordinary and upstanding. How is he supposed to compete with all these overly religious alien assassins and half-naked borderline psychotics?

Also THE PRIIIIIZE

Modifié par Astranagant, 30 avril 2010 - 01:55 .

[Darkhour]

Polka14 wrote...

I have had enough of you. I draw the line at someone calling me a racist. 

If only white people would draw the line at being racist then perhaps there could be equality and justice.

Race is a social construct.

Morphology and geneolgy are biological.

Morphology and geneology do not equal race.

 In the end you are not white, you are a monster.

Is this the part where I report you for something or other?

[Onyx Jaguar]

Astranagant wrote...

Jacob's not popular because he's too ordinary and upstanding. How is he supposed to compete with all these overly religious alien assassins and half-naked borderline psychotics?

Also THE PRIIIIIZE

What this man said

Jacob > Thane/Samara

At least he has a reason for being in the game.

[Polka14]

Darkhour wrote...

Polka14 wrote...

I have had enough of you. I draw the line at someone calling me a racist. 

If only white people would draw the line at being racist then perhaps there could be equality and justice.

Race is a social construct.

Morphology and geneolgy are biological.

Morphology and geneology do not equal race.

Okay smart man. What is a "white person" and why are all of them without exception racist. If they are all hopelessly racist, maybe they should all be gunned down. If they wrote a social contract, who wrote it? and when?
Morphology/geneology are biological but do not equal race? What is race then?