[Predator] Racism on SD.net forums

[Trekdestroyer]

One question for Darth Wong:
If I continue our discussion in a new thread, would you reply or not?

It would be a waste of time for me to create a whole new topic and argument just to find out that you can't be bothered.

I would like to state the obvious and say that the horse is dead and that you should stop beating it and leave the topic. Mike has beaten you down and we all know who won. Now, I suggest you crawl back under your bridge and nurse your wounds. And if what I just asked isn't too hard, why don't you also stay away from the topic of racism, for your own sake.

[Darth Wong]

One question for Darth Wong:
If I continue our discussion in a new thread, would you reply or not?

It depends on whether you actually have something interesting to say, as opposed to the pathetic dipshit evasions you have used so far.

It would be a waste of time for me to create a whole new topic and argument just to find out that you can't be bothered.

Why is my personal participation necessary?

[Darth Wong]

To pull some numbers out of my arse, you might find that I consider 13% of caucasians, 11% of asians, and 9% of africans absolutely stunning.

And what makes you decide to strawman my position into thinking that there must be such perfect equality that there can't be any randomness in it?

PS. Your NASA example is stupid; unless you have some evidence that certain races are smarter than others, their preference for smart people has nothing to do with race and never will. If there's an imbalance of races in NASA it has more to do with the regional makeup of the applicant pool than it does with race. To put it bluntly, if an office happens to be located in a predominantly white state, it will have predominantly white employees. It doesn't mean they discriminate on a racial basis.

PS. Hint for the future: do not waste my bandwidth with a huge fucking post which only has one real idea in it.

[Predator]

Oh, and Predator in your hypothetical example, it would be a more realistic point to say "higher education" than intellligence.

Since most of our ways to measure adult intelligence usually only tests our cognitative skills regarding subjects which you gain through "higher education".
This is why you can "train" to get higher intelligence scores in most tests.

This is the kind of thing I was hoping to avoid. In my scenario, education is equalised and some scientifically valid studies find that there is a racial difference. Please suspend disbelief on that for the moment on that.

Or are you objecting to the notion that it is even hypothetically possible for one group to have an average difference in inherent intellectual ability? If you do, my next question is, do you believe that it is possible for there to be an inherent difference in intellectual ability between two individuals?

Only if you believe that intelligence is entirely, 100% a product of environment, all nurture and no nature, can you believe that it is impossible for one person to be inherently, or genetically predestined to have different or lesser intellectual abilities than another. And if that's the case, a whole separate debate is needed.

If you do agree that it is possible for two individuals to have a naturally different intellectual capability, or differing set of capabilities, then you must be able to concieve of the idea that more members of one group might possess certain abilities, than members of another. If that's possible, then you should be able to suspend disbelief and entertain my hypothetical scenario.

[Spoonist]

One question for Darth Wong:
If I continue our discussion in a new thread, would you reply or not?

It depends on whether you actually have something interesting to say, as opposed to the pathetic dipshit evasions you have used so far.

It would be a waste of time for me to create a whole new topic and argument just to find out that you can't be bothered.

Why is my personal participation necessary?

It's not necessary as such, but you where the only one who actually continued the discussion after I posted. That's why I'm asking you. No one else responded to my post(s) until after you "warned" me to stop it. If Edi or Trekdestroyer would like to continue instead/as well then that would be OK as well.

[Darth Wong]

This is the kind of thing I was hoping to avoid. In my scenario, education is equalised and some scientifically valid studies find that there is a racial difference. Please suspend disbelief on that for the moment on that.

In other words, you're saying "if racism had a scientifically valid basis, would it be racist to be racist?" What the fuck is your problem? Why don't you just stick to the goddamned thread subject and keep your idiotic evasive bullshit out of it?

[Darth Wong]

It's not necessary as such, but you where the only one who actually continued the discussion after I posted. That's why I'm asking you. No one else responded to my post(s) until after you "warned" me to stop it. If Edi or Trekdestroyer would like to continue instead/as well then that would be OK as well.

If you would care to actually start a thread with honest arguments and an accurate thread title, go ahead. But since your only topic seems to be "we should not use words to classify things if we think that ignoring them will be politically wise" as a pseudo-rebuttal to a classification of racism, I doubt you would make a thread which makes this point honestly.

[Darth Wong]

To Predator and Spoonist: both of you are fine examples of the "if the conclusion makes me uncomfortable, try to change the subject" mentality. Grow the fuck up.

[Predator]

And what makes you decide to strawman my position into thinking that there must be such perfect equality that there can't be any randomness in it?

I didnt - I actually asked you if you would consider a lack of perfect equality to place it back in the racist category, and proceeded to form an argument around the potential yes answer in case that was indeed your answer. If it's not, then that was redundant - and great, we dont seem to be in significant disagreement about this topic.

PS. Your NASA example is stupid; unless you have some evidence that certain races are smarter than others, their preference for smart people has nothing to do with race and never will.

You do realise that I created a hypothetical scenario, and that I wasnt commenting on NASA's actual ethnic makeup? If we talk about the real NASA, of course I agree that a huge number of factors are involved in its actual ethnic makeup. I specifically attempted to construct a scenario where we wouldnt have to worry about those though.

PS. Hint for the future: do not waste my bandwidth with a huge fucking post which only has one real idea in it.

Maybe you should lock this thread? If you arent finding any of the posts worthwhile it would save bandwidth to simply end it now.

[Kuroneko]

I'm not an apologist - hopefully my first post here illustrates that my position isnt quite the same as some others here, but to my mind that statement is clearly racist, and I would also contend that it's a harmful thing to say - stating that an entire racial group of people arent as good looking as another is divisive and may damage the self esteem of individuals who are placed in that group or who identify with it.

It may be true that stating what is essentially a subjective preference (if aesthetics does not qualify, I don't know what does) could be immoral, as there are sometimes large grey areas as to what one could or should not say. One can attempt illuminate this particular case by the principle that if doing someting is not immoral, surely talking about it is not immoral either. Now, there it is hard to construct a plausible scenario where it would be immoral to deny someone a relationship or date with oneself, regardless of any possible crush on their part (and hence subsequent pain of rejection). Quite the opposite; it seems perfectly reasonable to have the right to say no to whomever. Thus, I can see no good reason why a racially discriminatory dating pattern would be immoral, from which it would follow that there is no good reason why expressing this hypothetical judgement would be immoral either. There needs to be something more substantial than "it is discriminatory, therefore it is wrong," which is nothing but begging the question.

My position would never be to defend a statement like that - quite the opposite. My personal preferences have me admiring women of all different backgrounds frequently. The only limiting factor is exposure - there are less black women around that I find attractive primarily because there arent that many black women hanging around here. And a bit like Bob in my example, I do actually have preferences that, if you study statistics on races, jump around the racial map of humanity (though mine are not specifically the preferences I gave him).

Personally, I have little idea what exactly preferences are because I am celebate, and hence had little reason to reflect on them, but it would be suprising to not find some racial bias. Perhaps I'll do some self-observation later.

[Darth Wong]

I didnt - I actually asked you if you would consider a lack of perfect equality to place it back in the racist category, and proceeded to form an argument around the potential yes answer in case that was indeed your answer. If it's not, then that was redundant - and great, we dont seem to be in significant disagreement about this topic.

You have tried to change the subject ever since you first started participating, asshole. When someone says he prefers one race over another, that's discrimination. You have been doing your damndest at every turn to change it into "well, what if someone has no racial preference per se but it just happens to work out for some reason that he dates more whites than blacks" and countless iterations upon that theme.

You do realise that I created a hypothetical scenario,

Yes, you created a hypothetical scenario in which racism actually has a valid scientific basis, for reasons which are either dishonest or cretinous; I'm not sure which.

Maybe you should lock this thread? If you arent finding any of the posts worthwhile it would save bandwidth to simply end it now.

Are you saying you will continue to attempt to change the subject until I either lock the thread or ban you?

[Spoonist]

Oh, and Predator in your hypothetical example, it would be a more realistic point to say "higher education" than intellligence.

Since most of our ways to measure adult intelligence usually only tests our cognitative skills regarding subjects which you gain through "higher education".
This is why you can "train" to get higher intelligence scores in most tests.

This is the kind of thing I was hoping to avoid. In my scenario, education is equalised and some scientifically valid studies find that there is a racial difference. Please suspend disbelief on that for the moment on that.

Or are you objecting to the notion that it is even hypothetically possible for one group to have an average difference in inherent intellectual ability? If you do, my next question is, do you believe that it is possible for there to be an inherent difference in intellectual ability between two individuals?

Only if you believe that intelligence is entirely, 100% a product of environment, all nurture and no nature, can you believe that it is impossible for one person to be inherently, or genetically predestined to have different or lesser intellectual abilities than another. And if that's the case, a whole separate debate is needed.

If you do agree that it is possible for two individuals to have a naturally different intellectual capability, or differing set of capabilities, then you must be able to concieve of the idea that more members of one group might possess certain abilities, than members of another. If that's possible, then you should be able to suspend disbelief and entertain my hypothetical scenario.

I think that so called "race" plays such a slim role in average intelligence that it approaches 0. The big difference between groups usually depends on nurture. It doesn't help if you have a genius aptitude if you don't get help to reach your potential.

But I think that I should take the advice and stay out of this particular thread.

[Kuroneko]

I think that so called "race" plays such a slim role in average intelligence that it approaches 0. The big difference between groups usually depends on nurture. It doesn't help if you have a genius aptitude if you don't get help to reach your potential.

Do you not understand the concept of a hypothetical scenario, or did the lack of 'rar!' confuse you?

[Darth Wong]

Thus, I can see no good reason why a racially discriminatory dating pattern would be immoral, from which it would follow that there is no good reason why expressing this hypothetical judgement would be immoral either.

I can think of one potential reason: the "universality" argument. If everyone had a racial preference, particularly if it's a same-race preference, then this would perpetuate racial inbreeding and prevent intermarriage, which can be argued to have negative long-term consequences for society in general.

Personally, I have little idea what exactly preferences are because I am celebate, and hence had little reason to reflect on them, but it would be suprising to not find some racial bias. Perhaps I'll do some self-observation later.

I didn't know you were celibate. That must be why you are so calm and logical

[Spyder]

Maybe you should lock this thread? If you arent finding any of the posts worthwhile it would save bandwidth to simply end it now.

Are you saying you will continue to attempt to change the subject until I either lock the thread or ban you?

Not that I'm gunning for a spot on ban-row, but wasn't the OP observed to have confused racial stereotypes with national ones? I'll shut up if I'm wrong, but it just looks to me like this thread went off course long before Predator got to it.

[Predator]

You have tried to change the subject ever since you first started participating, asshole. When someone says he prefers one race over another, that's discrimination. You have been doing your damndest at every turn to change it into "well, what if someone has no racial preference per se but it just happens to work out for some reason that he dates more whites than blacks" and countless iterations upon that theme.

Actually, the 9th post in this thread by Eleas was the first to touch directly on the sub-topic of sexual preferences and racial traits. This was in reply to the statement that there is no racism on SDN, in the 5th reply. I wouldnt say that my argument was out of the blue or a subject change - instead it continued a progression that began very early on, and one you began participating in on the 11th reply - my first post was well into the 3rd page.

Yes, you created a hypothetical scenario in which racism actually has a valid scientific basis, for reasons which are either dishonest or cretinous; I'm not sure which.

It's a shame you think that actually - our positions here and on a multitude of topics are actually far more similar than they are different. In any case, you seem to have answered my question - yes you would consider NASA racist in my scenario. Very well - it's clear that there are certain details we're never going to agree on.

Are you saying you will continue to attempt to change the subject until I either lock the thread or ban you?

No, I just observed that there do not seem to be any current lines of discussion that have not been branded "off topic" or declared otherwise uninteresting or irrelevant. Nothing being posted right now directly or, according to you indirectly addresses the original op, which is about how many will admit to racial discrimination against non-westerners (itself nonsensical) and whether SDNetters perceive Asia as socially inferior and backward or not.

[Darth Wong]

Maybe you should lock this thread? If you arent finding any of the posts worthwhile it would save bandwidth to simply end it now.

Are you saying you will continue to attempt to change the subject until I either lock the thread or ban you?

Not that I'm gunning for a spot on ban-row, but wasn't the OP observed to have confused racial stereotypes with national ones? I'll shut up if I'm wrong, but it just looks to me like this thread went off course long before Predator got to it.

That's why the logical next step was to explain what the definition of racism is. When certain people found that they didn't like that definition (even though it's the only conceivable one, and is found in every dictionary), they started trying to change the subject.

[Darth Wong]

Actually, the 9th post in this thread by Eleas was the first to touch directly on the sub-topic of sexual preferences and racial traits. This was in reply to the statement that there is no racism on SDN, in the 5th reply. I wouldnt say that my argument was out of the blue or a subject change - instead it continued a progression that began very early on, and one you began participating in on the 11th reply - my first post was well into the 3rd page.

Sexual preferences are not the subject change in question, moron! The subject change is your attempt to change the subject from racial preferences of any kind to outcomes which just happen to favour one race for one reason or another. In short, you're basically using the "quota" argument, complete with percentages.

Yes, you created a hypothetical scenario in which racism actually has a valid scientific basis, for reasons which are either dishonest or cretinous; I'm not sure which.

It's a shame you think that actually - our positions here and on a multitude of topics are actually far more similar than they are different.

In this case however, your position on racism seems to be that the physical characteristics of a race cannot be tied to that race, even though that's the only real method we have of identifying races. You attempt to tie this to intelligence, as if intelligence is as tightly connected to race as physical appearance is: an argument which is, for the second time, either cretinous or dishonest.

In any case, you seem to have answered my question - yes you would consider NASA racist in my scenario. Very well - it's clear that there are certain details we're never going to agree on.

Wait, you're saying it would NOT be racist to have a policy of preferring whites over blacks in your retarded hypothetical universe where whites are demonstrably smarter than blacks? It would still be racist; the only difference is that this imaginary universe would hold an actual empirical basis for that racism.

No, I just observed that there do not seem to be any current lines of discussion that have not been branded "off topic" or declared otherwise uninteresting or irrelevant. Nothing being posted right now directly or, according to you indirectly addresses the original op, which is about how many will admit to racial discrimination against non-westerners (itself nonsensical) and whether SDNetters perceive Asia as socially inferior and backward or not.

Nothing is being posted right now which is either relevant to that question or its obvious corrollary, what is and isn't racism. And an attempt to apply the argument to hypothetical worlds where racism actually makes sense is a retarded subject change, whether you admit it or not. So once again: are you going to insist on repeating this bullshit until I either lock the thread or ban you? Second time asking.

[Spyder]

Not that I'm gunning for a spot on ban-row, but wasn't the OP observed to have confused racial stereotypes with national ones? I'll shut up if I'm wrong, but it just looks to me like this thread went off course long before Predator got to it.

That's why the logical next step was to explain what the definition of racism is. When certain people found that they didn't like that definition (even though it's the only conceivable one, and is found in every dictionary), they started trying to change the subject.

You don't think the next logical step would have been to move on to discussing nationalist discrimination as per the original intention of this thread?

[Darth Wong]

Not that I'm gunning for a spot on ban-row, but wasn't the OP observed to have confused racial stereotypes with national ones? I'll shut up if I'm wrong, but it just looks to me like this thread went off course long before Predator got to it.

That's why the logical next step was to explain what the definition of racism is. When certain people found that they didn't like that definition (even though it's the only conceivable one, and is found in every dictionary), they started trying to change the subject.

You don't think the next logical step would have been to move on to discussing nationalist discrimination as per the original intention of this thread?

The original intention of this thread was to argue that people who look down on certain countries are being racists. That can only be refuted by pointing out what is and isn't racism. Read the fucking thread title in case it somehow escaped your attention.

[Kane Starkiller]

Thus, I can see no good reason why a racially discriminatory dating pattern would be immoral, from which it would follow that there is no good reason why expressing this hypothetical judgement would be immoral either.

I can think of one potential reason: the "universality" argument. If everyone had a racial preference, particularly if it's a same-race preference, then this would perpetuate racial inbreeding and prevent intermarriage, which can be argued to have negative long-term consequences for society in general.

This would mean that homosexuals are immoral as well. If everyone was homosexual human race would go extinct.

[Darth Wong]

Thus, I can see no good reason why a racially discriminatory dating pattern would be immoral, from which it would follow that there is no good reason why expressing this hypothetical judgement would be immoral either.

I can think of one potential reason: the "universality" argument. If everyone had a racial preference, particularly if it's a same-race preference, then this would perpetuate racial inbreeding and prevent intermarriage, which can be argued to have negative long-term consequences for society in general.

This would mean that homosexuals are immoral as well. If everyone was homosexual human race would go extinct.

Indeed. That is the only moral argument against homosexuality that ever carried any weight at all, but it is based on the premise that homosexuality is as much of a choice as "I prefer light-coloured skin". I don't buy the notion that you can't choose to be less narrow-minded about such minor dating preferences (gender is a pretty major dating preference).

[Kane Starkiller]

Indeed. That is the only moral argument against homosexuality that ever carried any weight at all, but it is based on the premise that homosexuality is as much of a choice as "I prefer light-coloured skin". I don't buy the notion that you can't choose to be less narrow-minded about such minor dating preferences (gender is a pretty major dating preference).

But is dating a person of different gender a much bigger issue than dating a person of different race? Why would getting past the fact a woman has black skin(for example) be any easier than getting past the fact that the woman has a dick.

[Darth Wong]

Indeed. That is the only moral argument against homosexuality that ever carried any weight at all, but it is based on the premise that homosexuality is as much of a choice as "I prefer light-coloured skin". I don't buy the notion that you can't choose to be less narrow-minded about such minor dating preferences (gender is a pretty major dating preference).

But is dating a person of different gender a much bigger issue than dating a person of different race?

The fact that it would become impossible for the two of you to produce a child, for example?

Why would getting past the fact a woman has black skin(for example) be any easier than getting past the fact that the woman has a dick.

See above. And face facts: it is easier to get over black skin than a fucking penis and you know it. Don't play games.

[Spyder]

You don't think the next logical step would have been to move on to discussing nationalist discrimination as per the original intention of this thread?

The original intention of this thread was to argue that people who look down on certain countries are being racists. That can only be refuted by pointing out what is and isn't racism. Read the fucking thread title in case it somehow escaped your attention.

The thread title's fucked up.

How many people here will willingly admit to at least racial discrimination against people of non-Western countries? It just seems to me, from viewing the "ghetto of geeks" post, that Asia is perceived to be somehow socially inferior and backwards, as opposed to the Commonwealth counties and the US.

He's asking about discrimination against national stereotypes, something which he's mislabled as racism. He may even think it actually is racism, that being the case the need for a lengthy discussion of what is and what isn't racism would be the next logical step, I agree and conceed. However, you posted this:

You are confusing national stereotypes with racial ones. And quite frankly, negative characterizations about Asia are not unfounded; countries like Indonesia are filled with fundies, China is a dictatorship, and cigarette smoking is far too common in many of those countries.

Don't copy the Israelis and try to turn comments about nations into proof of racism. I think the Asian countries are socially backward. Does this make me a racist who dislikes Asians? With a surname like "Wong"?

This beautiful little correction more then adequately conveyed the impossibility of having a racist attitude towards nations. From this you proved that the original premise was impossible, that people admitting to discrimination against these countries were not being racist. Basically, the thread's wrong, at least it started out that way anyway.

If we look at Eleas' post:

There is no racism here in SDN.

Really. That's a fairly inclusive statement.

My own standards of beauty can be fairly interpreted as racist, as my preferences are weighted to visual traits I'm familiar with (mainly what's ridiculously termed "caucasian", "asian" and "persian") or have been conditioned to respond fairly to. Bluntly speaking, some typically african features I fail to consider attractive.

Paraphrasing the next two responses so I'm not totally doubling up your bandwidth bill:

Some other guy: That's not Racist!
Darth Wong: How the fuck not?

Back to my original point: Clear change in subject on the first page. An interesting note is that the new subject fits the thread title far better then the OP. One could infact argue that the thread started off derailed and was pushed back on track through changing the subject. Doesn't change the fact that the subject changed though.