[Predator] Racism on SD.net forums

Only now, at the end, do you understand.

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
Darth Wong
Sith Lord
Sith Lord
Posts: 70027
Joined: 2002-07-03 12:25am
Location: Toronto, Canada

Post by Darth Wong » 2005-07-14 10:51am

Spyder wrote:The thread title's fucked up.
Well, since the OP confuses nationalism with racism, I suppose it could have gone either way: a discussion of whether we are being unfairly nationalist or a discussion of whether he was misusing the term "racism" and if so, what is the correct use of the term. But since the first one didn't seem to generate much discussion, the second one took hold.
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing

"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC

"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness

"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.


User avatar
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2023
Joined: 2005-05-02 10:55pm
Location: Trying to find the divide between real memories and false ones.

Post by Zero » 2005-07-14 02:07pm

Darth Wong wrote:
Zero132132 the lying cunt wrote:Sexual preferences (which was the subject of debate earlier in this thread) won't lead to genocide. Grouping sexual preferences with genocide doesn't seem quite right to me. Are you saying that the two are equally horrific, or just that they fall under the same extremely broad catagory of 'racism'?
You said that unless some form of racism is "equally horrific" to genocide, it should not be classified at all, you worthless little lying cunt.
No, I asked you a question. You still haven't explained why I was wrong with my statement that it was a matter of degree. Obviously, there are different levels of racial discrimination. Besides, you still haven't really shown that basing attraction on race is wrong.
Darth Wong wrote:
Wong, discriminating in terms of sexuality isn't going to harm anyone.
So you would have absolutely no problem with a society where no one ever racially intermarries, since that particular form of discrimination apparently does not count as discrimination in your eyes?
First, I didn't say that it didn't count as discrimination in my eyes, or if I did, I was wrong. I believe I said only that such discrimination isn't wrong.

Second, that would bother me, because I have a taste for light skinned women, and I'm not white.
So long, and thanks for all the fish

User avatar
Rabid Monkey
Posts: 12464
Joined: 2002-08-23 01:20am
Location: The glorious Sun-Barge! Isis, Isis, Ra,Ra,Ra!

Post by Coyote » 2005-07-14 02:10pm

Some people are racist (or "discriminating") without being fully cognizant of what they're doing or what their actions really mean. They may also be confusing a nationality stereotype or a socio-economic class stereotype with a racial group that may or may not be found in those areas as well.

Considering how the "discriminating" in this thread are kinda doing the duck, dodge, bob and weave, it may be a good time for them to step back, think very very carefully and critically with themselves about what, exactly, it is that they expect from themselves and from race and why they expect these things.

There is a difference between being ignorant or noth thinking things through, and being an adherent to "The Bell Curve".
Something about Libertarianism always bothered me. Then one day, I realized what it was:
Libertarian philosophy can be boiled down to the phrase, "Work Will Make You Free."

In Libertarianism, there is no Government, so the Bosses are free to exploit the Workers.
In Communism, there is no Government, so the Workers are free to exploit the Bosses.
So in Libertarianism, man exploits man, but in Communism, its the other way around!

If all you want to do is have some harmless, mindless fun, go H3RE INST3ADZ0RZ!!
Grrr! Fight my Brute, you pansy!

User avatar
Sith Devotee
Posts: 2503
Joined: 2002-08-19 01:44pm
Location: Toronto

Post by Justforfun000 » 2005-07-14 02:39pm

And face facts: it is easier to get over black skin than a fucking penis and you know it.
LOL!!!!! :lol:

Yes I would definitely have to agree with this....
You have to realize that most Christian "moral values" behaviour is not really about "protecting" anyone; it's about their desire to send a continual stream of messages of condemnation towards people whose existence offends them. - Darth Wong alias Mike Wong

"There is nothing wrong with being ignorant. However, there is something very wrong with not choosing to exchange ignorance for knowledge when the opportunity presents itself."

User avatar
Posts: 12443
Joined: 2002-07-11 12:27am
Location: Helsinki, Finland

Post by Edi » 2005-07-14 02:49pm

Darth Wong wrote:
Kuroneko wrote: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.
It's interesting that many (you could even say most) societies exhibit their worst racism precisely in the area of sexual attraction / partner selection issues. Going more by what I've heard/seen but don't have actual statistical evidence to back it up, it seems that in this area it is the men who are the most racist and likely to see men of other races as intruding on "their" turf and taking "their" women. Not that the same isn't also true of women, but I've not heard of it being as common.

What makes it even more interesting is that interracial dating and marriage is actually desirable simply because the increased genetic diversity in resultant children makes them more resistant to disease and parasites. This is why in the absence of learned/indoctrinated racism you are rather likely to see interracial couples, because a good reproductive pairing is desirable, whether or not the couple actually realizes it consciously.

If anybody is interested in this tangent and has more knowledge of it, please do post.

Now back to the regularly scheduled flamewar this thread has become...

Warwolf Urban Combat Specialist

Why is it so goddamned hard to get little assholes like you to admit it when you fuck up? Is it pride? What gives you the right to have any pride?
–Darth Wong to vivftp

GOP message? Why don't they just come out of the closet: FASCISTS R' US –Patrick Degan

The GOP has a problem with anyone coming out of the closet. –18-till-I-die

User avatar
Sith Devotee
Posts: 2503
Joined: 2002-08-19 01:44pm
Location: Toronto

Post by Justforfun000 » 2005-07-14 02:56pm

Not to mention Edi, that interracial mixes make some VERY fine looking figures of humanity..I've seen some guys with very different parents that turned out absolutely gorgeous. :luv:
You have to realize that most Christian "moral values" behaviour is not really about "protecting" anyone; it's about their desire to send a continual stream of messages of condemnation towards people whose existence offends them. - Darth Wong alias Mike Wong

"There is nothing wrong with being ignorant. However, there is something very wrong with not choosing to exchange ignorance for knowledge when the opportunity presents itself."

User avatar
Padawan Learner
Posts: 359
Joined: 2004-05-14 09:49pm
Location: Wellington, New Zealand

Post by Predator » 2005-07-14 07:50pm

Darth Wong wrote: 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.
So, you admit that the racial preferences are a subject change from the original op, which apparently isnt a problem, and claim that my line of argument is a subject change, which is intolerable.

Leaving aside that inconsistency, I dont think that my line of argument actually is a subject change. It was prompted by what Eleas posted:
Eleas wrote: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.

This would be a problem if I wasn't aware of it, but it doesn't really stop me from finding a black girl sexy or attractive so it isn't "debilitating", I guess. In other words, my standards are a bit prejudiced, but I'm working on it, and in the meantime, given sufficient values of pretty, any girl could be lucky enough to get me.
If Eleas's standards of beauty are "a bit prejudice", yet he could still find a black girl sexy, and as he says, some typically african features arent attractive to him, then this situation - especially considering that he states that it can be fairly interpreted as racist - warrants further investigation, especially if we're trying to nail down exactly what constitutes racism.

Most of the time, racism is fairly easy to pin down, 99% of the time you and I would not be in disagreement. I saw an area that seemed confused, and that is what I've focused on.

One last thing on the "quota" issue. You Claim that your position isnt that there must be perfect equality in your attraction to members of different groups, which seems to let myself and Bob off the hook. Where do you draw the line though? If Bob's preferences are weighted say, 60% towards one race far above the others, does that make it racist compared to the 13/11/9 breakdown I proposed? All I'm doing is trying to better understand your definition of racism.
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.
Why do you think I created the NASA example? It wasnt because I got jollies at the thought of some race being intellectually inferior. It was because I wanted another piece of information about your argument regarding racism in order to gather a clearer picture of your position. It's obvious that you either didnt understand the point, or you're purposefully misunderstanding it, evidenced by the below:
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.
My scenario specifically states that NASA would be preferring more intelligent individuals over less intelligent individuals, NOT that it would have a policy regarding the hiring of black versus white - NASA in my scenario is race blind. I find it hard to believe, given your experience with debating and the use of hypothetical scenarios and analogies and so forth that you honestly believed that I was proposing that NASA in my scenario hire according to race instead of individual attributes, or that, given the lengthy explanation of my position regarding race and intelligence, you could honestly think I was making a claim about the reality of race and intelligence.

I created that scenario to gather another piece of information to solidify my understanding of your argument. If you held the ideal of race blindness and treatment based on merit, you would not conclude that NASA was behaving racistly in discriminating based on intelligence. As I stated, race was not a factor for the organisation or its interviewers, only intelligence was.

To agree that NASA was not discriminating racially would be inconsistent with your views on attraction however. You were consistent with your views on attraction, which gave me a better understanding of your position. Any discrimination based on attributes which happen to be racially correlated, whatever the mechanism or motive, is racist in your definition.
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.
It is related to what is and isnt racism. It is quite obvious reading everything I've written that it is centered around precisely defining what would and would not be racism in a specific situation which became an important topic of discussion, and one you've happily participated in, after the 9th post.

Alright Mike, you want to shut me up by threatening to ban me, you can have what you want, I'll end my participation in this thread. I wouldnt want to waste any more bandwidth anyway - looking at the hall of shame, I can see how that is reserved for only the most profound and entertaining posts.
"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger." Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials

User avatar
Lex Animata
Lex Animata
Posts: 2645
Joined: 2002-07-02 11:36pm
Location: Toronto, Ontario

Post by AdmiralKanos » 2005-07-14 09:18pm

Predator wrote:So, you admit that the racial preferences are a subject change from the original op, which apparently isnt a problem, and claim that my line of argument is a subject change
Admit what, fucktard? You honestly don't understand why "is racial preference racism" is a valid question when discussing the definition of racism, while "would racism be OK if racism was scientifically valid" is not? Or trying to nitpick "racial discrimination" into "what about 13% preference vs 16% preference" nitpickery, as if you can even assign numbers to such a thing?

The characteristics of a race are the only thing which defines that race, moron. There is no distinction between discriminating based on race and discriminating based on the characteristics of that race. This is obvious. I made this point already. You have chosen to ignore it and continue harping on this "race vs characteristics of race" bullshit, complete with your NASA scenario where one of those characteristics is intelligence.

Obviously, in a hypothetical world where every black person was a moron, discriminating on the basis of intelligence would result in anti-black discrimination, and would effectively be racism. However, in this fucked-up universe, racism would actually make sense. What part of this do you not understand, idiot? How many fucking times do I have to repeat myself, only to listen to you once again pretending that I must not have understood the distinction you're making between race and characteristics of race? I get your point, asshole; it's just that I've already pointed out that there is no fucking distinction between the two.
which is intolerable.
Intolerable? If there's one thing I thought I made clear in my little crackdown of the last month or so, it was that I've had enough of people lecturing me. I don't pay for the hardware and bandwidth on this server so that people can tell me what I can and can't do.


Sooner or later, people will get the message. You can argue with me, you can flame me, but if I give you a warning and you choose to ignore it, you're walking on thin ice. If you start telling me what I can and can't do or say, you're history.

And yes, I know you're a fellow liberal. That doesn't change a damned thing; after three years, I've decided that I am no longer putting up with people ignoring warnings or telling me what I'm allowed to do or say on my own board. I make an example of one person, nobody gets it. I make an example of a second person, nobody gets it. Sooner or later, people will get it.
For a time, I considered sparing your wretched little planet Cybertron.
But now, you shall witnesss ... its dismemberment!

"This is what happens when you use trivia napkins for research material"- Sea Skimmer on "Pearl Harbour".
"Do you work out? Your hands are so strong! Especially the right one!"- spoken to Bud Bundy