|
As if 'hypocrisy' was ever a useful argument for or against anything.
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 20:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 3, 2024 10:31 |
|
|
the trump tutelage posted:No it isn't. Stopping immigration after you've immigrated would be hypocrisy, though, yes. And even then, that presupposes that the pros and cons of immigration do not change. Complaining about letting a bunch of downtrodden people into the US when (assuming non-native) all our ancestors came here were downtrodden to some extent is a pretty pathetic situation to come from. All I see now is people doing the same lovely behavior that had us send Jews back to extermination in Europe because they were afraid. Sorry, I'm brave enough to hug a man, even if I get stabbed a few times. Maoist Pussy posted:As if 'hypocrisy' was ever a useful argument for or against anything. Yeah, actually being consistent is one of those unimportant things I guess. But you're a transphobic "leftist", so enjoy your days being stuck in the dust bin of history.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 21:01
|
|
|
I believe that my enemies should act according to these word games I have been playing with myself; if they don't, then they will not be consistent!
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 21:11
|
|
|
Maoist Pussy posted:I believe that my enemies should act according to these word games I have been playing with myself; if they don't, then they will not be consistent! Who's the enemy here? The migrants trying to escape the Middle Eastern hellholes that are killing them by the boatload? Or the ones trying to get out of the awful economic situations down south. Obviously, those guys are the enemy and need to be stomped out instead of allowing immigrants the way we historically have.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 21:34
|
|
|
Can you reply to my post instead of arguing with the pseudo-leftist troll please.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 21:37
|
|
|
If race doesn't exist, that's just super because it means that a lot of problems go away. No more racial achievement gaps, no more white flight, no racial discrimination. All of these things could be effortlessly magic'd away by refusing to classify people by race, destroying records where people are identified by race, and prohibiting collection of data based on ethnicity.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 22:06
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:I agree - and I think part of the interesting bit here is we're calling it 'right wing populism' as if it's a monolith, but in the past decade we've started to see multiple strands of separate populisms work together. It's all roughly the same thing, though. It's the bleating of a bunch of over-privileged white men who see that they are rapidly losing the unearned edge they have over other, more deserving people. The proper answer is to ignore or "oppress" (i.e. arrest them for their swatting and death/rape threats) as appropriate, but they've gotten enough critical mass that they need to lose at the ballot box at least once before they are marginalized enough to lose relevance. I'd agree that the Milo's of the world who have been trying to make the alt-right palatable to the standard GOP trog voter, but really how many of them didn't think this stuff to begin with? The alt-right is just putting a less polite coat of paint on the same disgusting beliefs held by the rank and file out of the base. I mean, Trump didn't do as well as he did without tapping into the collective rage these people feel in being (rightly IMO) marginalized and replaced.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 22:13
|
|
|
on the left posted:If race doesn't exist, that's just super because it means that a lot of problems go away. No more racial achievement gaps, no more white flight, no racial discrimination. All of these things could be effortlessly magic'd away by refusing to classify people by race, destroying records where people are identified by race, and prohibiting collection of data based on ethnicity. Doesn't destroy the idea in people's heads, though. And that's where the problem is.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 22:14
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:Who's the enemy here? You, obviously.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 22:26
|
|
|
Maoist Pussy posted:As if 'hypocrisy' was ever a useful argument for or against anything. Hypocrisy in legal protection is unconstitutional.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 22:36
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Hypocrisy in legal protection is unconstitutional. Not when it comes to immigration. Imagine tying yourself to never being 'hypocritical'. "Well, our ancestors slaughtered the early inhabitants of this land, so, really, it would be hypocritical for us to resist that being done to ourselves." "Hmm. I have been monopolizing my wife for years... I suppose it is only fair that I let the neighbors have a go at her!" "Gosh, we have all these nuclear weapons. We should probably let Kim Jong have some too? Its only fair." The mind reels! A whole new world is opening up before my eyes!
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 22:48
|
|
|
Maoist Pussy posted:This is what liberals actually believe! No, that's what *I* believe. Don't excuse the thread of broad-brush poo poo then do it yourself.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2016 01:07
|
|
|
Maoist Pussy posted:
Not necessarily hypocrisy if one holds the belief that this was bad and honestly expends considerable effort to atone for it. You don't need to atone by inviting the some same terrible thing on oneself, an eye for an eye isn't justice. If you don't think you there ought to be justice and atonement for this action, then yes, you are a hypocrite if you simultaneously claim to be a just person. quote:"Hmm. I have been monopolizing my wife for years... I suppose it is only fair that I let the neighbors have a go at her!" It's telling that you think your wife is a possession with no agency in this example. YOU haven't been monopolising your wife, she has chosen to only have sex with you (poor women). quote:"Gosh, we have all these nuclear weapons. We should probably let Kim Jong have some too? Its only fair." The North Koreans are not suicidal. They do not want nukes so they can attack and subsequently get their country turned into glass. They want nukes because they want to be taken seriously on the world stage. Is it hypocrisy that we don't let them have nukes? Possibly. But the fundamentals of hypocrisy tend to revolve around the concept of justice, and we have to ask ourselves, is it just that such an oppressive regime base its economic prospects on obtaining a nuclear program so it can bargain for everything else? RE: Muslim immigration. The Western World is largely acting like hypocrites if they do not accept the peaceful refugees now displaced by their own actions in the region. Intellectual consistency isn't some trivial word game. You are either consistent, or you're a pigeon making GBS threads on a chessboard. What you say becomes unintelligible because you can hold contradicting beliefs to essentially be true. So, do you gently caress watermelons?
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2016 01:32
|
|
|
 Please stop replying to Maoist Pussy. Although I have to say, if the Trumpism is leaking, it's fitting for the maddest and/or most gimmicky one (with the possible exception of H5N1  ) to end up in this thread.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2016 01:37
|
|
|
Ocrassus posted:Intellectual consistency isn't some trivial word game. You are either consistent, or you're a pigeon making GBS threads on a chessboard. What you say becomes unintelligible because you can hold contradicting beliefs to essentially be true. So, do you gently caress watermelons? The chessboard doesn't determine anything. The verbal comparison doesn't determine anything. This is the problem with the intellectual - he thinks the symbolic structures in his head correspond to reality. He thinks the word predates the world.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2016 01:50
|
|
|
funny way to spell posted:1. Asian / Pacific Islander You're close, but I'm afraid you'll have to pick a race for the first guy, North African is not a race, and while the last might have both European and Asian heritage, if he identifies as a specific race, and everyone in his community agrees with his identification, in what sense is he mixed race?
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2016 01:51
|
|
|
What if everyone in the "Euro" and "Asian" communities agree he is mixed race?
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2016 01:54
|
|
|
He's a Tartar and while it's likely he is mixed race, we can't necessarily assume that's the case. Morphologically he's not much different than any of the autochthonous peoples of Central Asia. If you took an arab man from upper Egypt, who has traits typical of "mixed race" people in the United States, is he mixed race, even if genetic evidence indicates the people of that region have maintained roughly the same traits since time immemorial? Can you have a mixed race person if there's no evidence of admixture? What is the race of a North African man like the one I posted in the second picture?
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2016 03:17
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:The last 30 years watch some movies from the 40s. Lol it's been going on a lot longer. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T004wx0bYVc a real solid All-American team... the fightinest crew you ever seen... every creed and color and every belief... I'd say that at least since World War II we've liked to see ourselves as a diverse nation at least partially as response to Hitler's racial bullshit/crimes.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2016 03:52
|
|
|
on the left posted:If race doesn't exist, that's just super because it means that a lot of problems go away. No more racial achievement gaps, no more white flight, no racial discrimination. All of these things could be effortlessly magic'd away by refusing to classify people by race, destroying records where people are identified by race, and prohibiting collection of data based on ethnicity. Race doesn't exist in the sense that it has no scientific basis in biology or genetics. That doesn't mean that racial discrimination doesn't exist, because humans are quite capable of holding unscientific and ignorant beliefs, and of acting on those beliefs in such a way that it causes problems. For other examples of this phenomenon see: homeopathy, anti-vax nonsense, beliefs that gay marriage causes hurricanes, etc. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 06:44 on May 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 06:41
|
|
|
There was an interesting piece today in the New York Times that touched on a lot of the same questions that the thread originally started with, but put into a more international perspective:quote:Austria’s Election Is a Warning to the West http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/19/opinion/austrias-election-is-a-warning-to-the-west.html
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 21:29
|
|
|
Periodiko posted:But this isn't at all how "race" has been traditionally used? Historically, race has been tied to completely superficial physical characteristics, wrapped up in what is in hindsight laughably transparent pseudoscience. There's never been any meaningful attempt by political forces which used the concept to actually square them with any kind of biological reality. It's not used by science for the same reason no one uses Lamarckism or Phrenology or whatever: it's a long debunked concept, superceded by scientific advancement. Superficial differences is how race has been (is) used in science though. If two geographically separated groups of animals are differentiated by some visual difference (maybe one has white tails and another brown or something) then they are two different races even if they remain the same species. There are real genetic differences between the groups.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 22:28
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:The last 30 years watch some movies from the 40s. Lol it's been going on a lot longer. I can't say the depiction of blacks or latinos from older Hollywood movies is anything like what you're suggesting.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 22:30
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:So why aren't Latinos also considered white, since Spaniards are and the Spanish interbred with the native american population to form the bulk of the modern Latino ethnicity? How many non-"white" ancestors are you allowed to have and still call yourself white? And most importantly, what is the objective test to determine race? The paper bag test doesn't exactly work, since you'd have a hard time putting Black Africans into the same category as dark-skinned Asian Indians, for instance. Because the definition of white in the US is largely based around having a very large percentage of European DNA and many latinos are visually distinct from whites in the US.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 22:34
|
|
|
It's also involves economics, exploiting hundreds of millions of people is harder for capitalists to justify if they're classified as Us instead of Them.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 22:37
|
|
|
Ocrassus posted:Not necessarily hypocrisy if one holds the belief that this was bad and honestly expends considerable effort to atone for it. You don't need to atone by inviting the some same terrible thing on oneself, an eye for an eye isn't justice. If you don't think you there ought to be justice and atonement for this action, then yes, you are a hypocrite if you simultaneously claim to be a just person. The originators of US colonization are long dead and the actions of the elite of have nothing to do with the actions of the common people in the West.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 22:48
|
|
|
TheNakedFantastic posted:Because the definition of white in the US is largely based around having a very large percentage of European DNA and many latinos are visually distinct from whites in the US. It's almost like this race thing has no real basis in science....
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 23:14
|
|
|
TheNakedFantastic posted:I can't say the depiction of blacks or latinos from older Hollywood movies is anything like what you're suggesting. They were not treated as subhumans as some seem to think.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 23:17
|
|
|
BadOptics posted:It's almost like this race thing has no real basis in science.... So based on the quantification (testable genetic heritage) and simple visual sampling which generally correlates with this, your conclusion is that race has no basis in science? Ok.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 23:27
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:They were not treated as subhumans as some seem to think. That's correct, I would say most depictions of blacks is as affable background characters usually of minor importance to the white protagonists (there are exceptions of course). Latino depiction seems more mixed. Regardless I wouldn't say it's generally similar to how minorities have been portrayed in the last thirty years and in general the idea of strength through diversity is never very strong in any media I've seen, I guess there are some exceptions.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 23:32
|
|
|
TheNakedFantastic posted:Superficial differences is how race has been (is) used in science though. If two geographically separated groups of animals are differentiated by some visual difference (maybe one has white tails and another brown or something) then they are two different races even if they remain the same species. There are real genetic differences between the groups. No one is arguing, or has ever argued that racial categories cannot be used to visually distinguish groups of people in some loose, error-prone way. This has nothing to do with the concept of race, as it has manifested as a political/social concept. You are making a stupid point that has no relation to the argument. Science has no problem using race as an indicator for certain kinds of genetic diseases which have higher rates of occurrence in certain populations, like sickle cell anemia. This is because genetic diseases are relatively simply spread, and you can find direct correlations with ancestry. Similarly, medical professionals can make connections between diseases like diabetes because of practices (diet, exercise, whatever) common with a given race, ethnic group, or culture. Those connections are demonstrable, and arrived through observation, through science. None of this has anything to do with the central argument at the heart of European racial categorization, which is not about tendencies of genetic disease, but ridiculous, pseudoscientific arguments about national/racial characters and capabilities. It's stupid and naive to act as if the racial prejudices of societies towards designated out-group minorities living within them have some validity because those people are visually distinguishable. Well no poo poo, those social mechanisms wouldn't work otherwise? What the gently caress kind of argument is that? No one is arguing that race cannot be used as a shorthand to determine a very general genetic background. No one gives a gently caress about that because that is not how race has been used today or in history.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 00:01
|
|
|
Periodiko posted:No one is arguing, or has ever argued that racial categories cannot be used to visually distinguish groups of people in some loose, error-prone way. This has nothing to do with the concept of race, as it has manifested as a political/social concept. You are making a stupid point that has no relation to the argument. I took this Periodiko posted:But this isn't at all how "race" has been traditionally used? Historically, race has been tied to completely superficial physical characteristics, wrapped up in what is in hindsight laughably transparent pseudoscience. There's never been any meaningful attempt by political forces which used the concept to actually square them with any kind of biological reality. It's not used by science for the same reason no one uses Lamarckism or Phrenology or whatever: it's a long debunked concept, superceded by scientific advancement. As implying that you were disagreeing about the nature of classification of race via visual differences but I guess we don't strongly disagree then. There are several posts about how race cannot be used to categorize humans or has no scientific basis so I don't think the second point of your reply is really warranted.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 00:14
|
|
|
Visual differences are a poor way to classify people according to ancestry, ancestral classification is done with Y-chromosomes and by mitochondrial DNA. When scientists want to figure out how closely two groups of people are related they do genetic assays, they don't pull out paper bags and stick pencils in people's hair and measure noses because those features are mediated by a complex interaction of multiple genes, epigenetics, and environment and we've known for decades how unreliable they are at determining ancestry. You're peddling pseudoscientific nonsense in 2016 somehow, please don't bleed yourself to death trying to balance your humours or punch holes in your skull to let out the evil spirits.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 01:08
|
|
|
TheNakedFantastic posted:Because the definition of white in the US is largely based around having a very large percentage of European DNA and many latinos are visually distinct from whites in the US. Interesting theory. Tell me, which one of these people, based on their European DNA exclusively of course, do you think is more white?   Do you think these persons would be treated any differently? Do you think their clothes or accent might change how people perceive them? TheNakedFantastic posted:Superficial differences is how race has been (is) used in science though. If two geographically separated groups of animals are differentiated by some visual difference (maybe one has white tails and another brown or something) then they are two different races even if they remain the same species. There are real genetic differences between the groups. If you really dig you might be able to find a few greybeards who do this, but I've never met one. The more modern term is morph, although the term race does appear in my guide to North American birds. It's easy to understand why scientists have switched, what with all the mongoloids incapable of distinguishing populations from races and subspecies. Why don't you respond to my earlier post. If you saw the man in the first picture I posted on the streets of New York in a cap and basketball jersey speaking in African American vernacular, do you think he would be treated as an African American? Periodiko posted:Science has no problem using race as an indicator for certain kinds of genetic diseases which have higher rates of occurrence in certain populations, like sickle cell anemia. This is because genetic diseases are relatively simply spread, and you can find direct correlations with ancestry. Similarly, medical professionals can make connections between diseases like diabetes because of practices (diet, exercise, whatever) common with a given race, ethnic group, or culture. Those connections are demonstrable, and arrived through observation, through science. I don't disagree with your general thrust but I want to make it clear that you cannot use race as an indicator for sickle cell anemia, or at least doing so is going to introduce a whole lot more error than you'd like. The pertinent and literal real biological category relevant here is population. Sickle cell anemia is common in many white populations from regions where malaria has been endemic historically, and occurs more frequently in whites from Sicily or Greece than blacks in South Africa. It's also common in parts of India. Far better to use biological categories to analyze these problems than are synthetic cultural groupings. Squalid fucked around with this message at 02:14 on May 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 02:06
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Race doesn't exist in the sense that it has no scientific basis in biology or genetics. Unscientific viewpoint: constructing a worldview based entirely on ethnomasochist racial politics and using this framework to neatly lay all problems at the doorstep of racism in some form, ensuring the problem will never be solved ever.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 04:34
|
|
|
on the left posted:ethnomasochist  Please tell us more about race traitors and cuckservatives please
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 04:40
|
|
|
Yes I agree that racism does not cause every single problem in society, not sure what the strawman you're creating has to do with what I said or what it has to do with your original stupid claims that if racial politics are based on unscientific notions than racial discrimination cannot exist.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 04:41
|
|
|
TheNakedFantastic posted:The originators of US colonization are long dead and the actions of the elite of have nothing to do with the actions of the common people in the West. Ordinary Americans benefit immensely from the continuing consequences of the crimes of the early colonialists and thus are, to some small degree, part of those crimes. Without colonialism, there would be no such thing as a "first world country". The road to the affluent society is paved with millions upon millions of corpses. Squalid posted:It's easy to understand why scientists have switched, what with all the mongoloids incapable of distinguishing populations from races and subspecies. Dude, way to sabotage your own point. 
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 15:08
|
|
|
Woolie Wool posted:Ordinary Americans benefit immensely from the continuing consequences of the crimes of the early colonialists and thus are, to some small degree, part of those crimes. So... rape and children of rape?
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 15:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 3, 2024 10:31 |
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:So... rape and children of rape? More like children of thieves living off of their parents' stolen goods.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 15:19
|
|
