Racism - Page 4 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Polls on politics, news, current affairs and history.

Is Racism a mark for a lack of education or intelligence?

Lack of Education
1
3%
Lack of Intelligence
3
8%
Both
11
28%
Neither
14
36%
Other
10
26%
By Political Interest
#15000090
Other

If we mean real racism, that is to say racial hatred or bigotry, it is a sign of a weakness in character. Yes it is also often a sign of a lack of intelligence because racists lack the ability to employ nuance. What it also suggests about the racist is that they are not agreeable or amicable people.

But this is the real racism, though, not racism as defined for political or ideological purposes.
By Political Interest
#15000154
SSDR wrote:This is an excellent example of racism caused by ignorance, and the lack of scientific education.


Yes it is.

And racism against whites is often ignored. All racism must be condemned.
User avatar
By noemon
#15000188
SSDR wrote:Image

This is an excellent example of racism caused by ignorance, and the lack of scientific education.


This is barely a poor example of piss-poor vandalism, not an excellent example of anything. It hardly qualifies as racism as it does not affect any community other than costing a couple of hundred to repaint the monument.

It should also be said that racism by white people against other "white" people like Russians, Eastern, Central and Mediterranean Europeans is far more potent and relevant than racism against "white people".
By Pants-of-dog
#15000189
The image is from South Africa.

The legacy of Apartheid versus some spray paint. Are these equal examples of racism?
User avatar
By Zionist Nationalist
#15000191
noemon wrote:This is barely a poor example of piss-poor vandalism, not an excellent example of anything. It hardly qualifies as racism as it does not affect any community other than costing a couple of hundred to repaint the monument.

It should also be said that racism by white people against other "white" people like Russians, Eastern, Central and Mediterranean Europeans is far more potent and relevant than racism against "white people".


Racism within black communities in African tribes is very prominent you just dont hear about it because Africa is less technological advanced and more isolated from the rest of the world
By SSDR
#15000201
@Zionist Nationalist, True, and also, it's because it's "part of their cultures." It's not reported because they think that it's normal.
User avatar
By Verv
#15000579
Pants-of-dog wrote:Yes, you made this same argument in another thread.

You are deliberately ignoring history so that you can falsely claim that avowed bigots deserve the same protections as people who are actually targeted by bigotry and discrimination.

This not only ignores the historical reality if oppression, but also ignores the basic tenets of liberal democracy. And since YOUR (not our) country is a liberal democracy, then people who openly advocate for ideologies that go against the basic tenets of liberal democracy should not be treated as those who are consistent with these basic tenets.


What constitutes bigotry?

Yes, race is a social construct even if we can tell blacks, whites, and Asians apart.

This is because there are a few genes associated with skin colour that make clear differences in phenotypes.

This does not mean that race is a an actual thing when looking at biology.


We can define a race biologically by looking at the characteristics typically present in each race.

Our differences in appearance are clearly caused by genes, right? So are the differences in non-physical things. to a good degree. Of course, there is a great amount of diveristy within each race, just like there is a great amount of diversity within each musical genre, but it does not change the fact that these things are all distinct.

The issue with what you are saying is that there's no way to win an argument against you because you are making it so everything is a social construct.

Since everything is a social construct, allow me to just ask this question:

Why would this "social construct" be irrelevant?


Feel free to show that there are important differences in athletics between the races.

Your last try to do so failed because it showed that athletic prowess in a certain field was actually quite diverse among a single racial group and was specific to a certain subtribe only.


Check this one out:

The Kalenjin tribe, which consists of approximately 12% (about 5m people) of the Kenyan population account for 29% and 34% of all global track medals and elite marathon performances, respectively. Further analysis of ethnic groups reveals that while medals and elite performances originate from six distinct tribes and seven Kalenjin subtribes, one of which, Nandis, consisting of just under 1m people, have won 72 medals (47% of Kenya’s total), a number higher than the combined total of North America, South America, Asia and Oceania.


More at Human Kinetics.


If you want to believe in a conspiracy theory in order to ignore the actual science of the study and instead believe in your racist spin, go ahead.

But it just makes your argument weaker, since now you have to prove a conspiracy theory is true.


I will just post the numbers on these things. That's all.

You keep up the ideological spin -- and I will keep talking about the numbers and trends as they exist.
By Pants-of-dog
#15000590
Verv wrote:What constitutes bigotry?


You can look it up.

You are deliberately ignoring history so that you can falsely claim that avowed bigots deserve the same protections as people who are actually targeted by bigotry and discrimination.

This not only ignores the historical reality if oppression, but also ignores the basic tenets of liberal democracy. And since YOUR (not our) country is a liberal democracy, then people who openly advocate for ideologies that go against the basic tenets of liberal democracy should not be treated as those who are consistent with these basic tenets.

We can define a race biologically by looking at the characteristics typically present in each race.


No, we cannot. If you are going to define race as “the four main skin colours I see” then sure, but that is not something that makes sense in terms of discrete biological groups.

All you are doing is saying that you see four skin colours and then you are assuming that these skin colours have deeper meanings even though you have no scientific evidence.

Our differences in appearance are clearly caused by genes, right? So are the differences in non-physical things. to a good degree. Of course, there is a great amount of diveristy within each race, just like there is a great amount of diversity within each musical genre, but it does not change the fact that these things are all distinct.


Please provide scientific evidence that the races are distinct.

The issue with what you are saying is that there's no way to win an argument against you because you are making it so everything is a social construct.

Since everything is a social construct, allow me to just ask this question:

Why would this "social construct" be irrelevant?


No, not everything is a social construct.

Check this one out:

More at Human Kinetics.


Yes, and since this shows how running abilities are specific to a certain tiny group in Kenya (as compared to all blacks), it cannot he seen as evidence that significant traits cleave along the “four skin colours you see” racial classification you are using.

I will just post the numbers on these things. That's all.

You keep up the ideological spin -- and I will keep talking about the numbers and trends as they exist.


Please post the numbers.
User avatar
By Verv
#15000606
Pants-of-dog wrote:You can look it up.

You are deliberately ignoring history so that you can falsely claim that avowed bigots deserve the same protections as people who are actually targeted by bigotry and discrimination.

This not only ignores the historical reality if oppression, but also ignores the basic tenets of liberal democracy. And since YOUR (not our) country is a liberal democracy, then people who openly advocate for ideologies that go against the basic tenets of liberal democracy should not be treated as those who are consistent with these basic tenets.


I think that you will dispute any definition of bigotry that I provide.

How do you define bigotry? Do a little bit of effort for me as I make efforts for you.

Also... The United States lets people think and believe what they want, and does not discriminate based on someone's opinions before the law, right? We used to officially discriminate against people based on race, right? Up until 1967.

I am not sure why you are talking about my country as being "YOUR" liberal democracy?

No, we cannot. If you are going to define race as “the four main skin colours I see” then sure, but that is not something that makes sense in terms of discrete biological groups.

All you are doing is saying that you see four skin colours and then you are assuming that these skin colours have deeper meanings even though you have no scientific evidence.


Many Koreans are whiter than me. It's not actually about skin color but about a holistic difference between races that is clearly observable, and it just so happens that skin color clearly distinguishes this to a good degree...

But it is also true: some Indians are darker than Ilhan Omar.

Please provide scientific evidence that the races are distinct.


I would say that we can clearly distinguish that there are different groups of humans, and we can divide them along different lines.

There is a social construct aspect to it -- for instance, is a Persian a "White" or an "Asian," or is there a distinctive Middle Eastern or Iranid race?

Is an Arab white?

What race are Indian people?

Etc.

There is something arbitrary about this because it can be hard to draw the lines, and we can come up with arguments that there are plenty of sub-racial categories. For instance, there could be the black race, and among them could be Khoisan, Congoloid & Ethiopid subraces, as we have seen it divided before.

But this is like when someone says "Slam metal is a genre," and another person says "No, it's either brutal death metal or grindcore," and another would even say "we shouldn't say brutal death metal because it is just grindcore in disguise..."

Even experts will argue these points.

No, not everything is a social construct.


Gender is; race is; nation-states are; ideologies are.

What is there, about humans, that isn't a social construct?

Yes, and since this shows how running abilities are specific to a certain tiny group in Kenya (as compared to all blacks), it cannot he seen as evidence that significant traits cleave along the “four skin colours you see” racial classification you are using.

Please post the numbers.


Aw, but you see: one group is 1 million, another is 5 million. These are not tiny. There is also a broader group mentioned -- Kenyans and Ethiopians, and not every single one of the winners was necessarily a member of those tribal groups.

Now it's time for you to do some more thinking...

You see, West African descent people tend to dominate sprinting, right? African-Americans, Jamaicans, Bajans, Bahamans, etc. all perform abnormally well in sprinting; East African people are abnormally great distance runners, with some specific sub-groups among them doing well...

Europeans tend to dominate powerlifting contests, with particularly Nordic & Baltic regions excelling.

Who tends to excel in basketball? Who tends to excell as wide receivers in American football?

Surely, we don't need to conjure up numbers.

There's some pretty logical conclusions to come to since we know that

(1) We inherit our physical traits from our parents, and
(2) Our physical traits are passed on by genes.
(3) The physical traits of people in the same family will be similar.
(4) The physical traits of people in the same tribe, which are an extended family, will be similar.
(5) The physical traits of people in the same ethnicity will be similar.
(6) The same ethnicites within the same race will be similar, with more closely related ethnicities being even more similar.
(7) People of the same ethnicity/race will tend to have more physiological similarites than people of other races.

etc.

Do you dispute any of this?
By Pants-of-dog
#15000641
Verv wrote:Also... The United States lets people think and believe what they want, and does not discriminate based on someone's opinions before the law, right? We used to officially discriminate against people based on race, right? Up until 1967.

I am not sure why you are talking about my country as being "YOUR" liberal democracy?


You referred to the USA as our country. It us not. It may be yours, since you tend to focus on it, which is a trait of people from there.

Many Koreans are whiter than me. It's not actually about skin color but about a holistic difference between races that is clearly observable, and it just so happens that skin color clearly distinguishes this to a good degree...

But it is also true: some Indians are darker than Ilhan Omar.


Maybe you should clarify what the races are, and how you define them.

I would say that we can clearly distinguish that there are different groups of humans, and we can divide them along different lines.

There is a social construct aspect to it -- for instance, is a Persian a "White" or an "Asian," or is there a distinctive Middle Eastern or Iranid race?

Is an Arab white?

What race are Indian people?

Etc.

There is something arbitrary about this because it can be hard to draw the lines, and we can come up with arguments that there are plenty of sub-racial categories. For instance, there could be the black race, and among them could be Khoisan, Congoloid & Ethiopid subraces, as we have seen it divided before.

But this is like when someone says "Slam metal is a genre," and another person says "No, it's either brutal death metal or grindcore," and another would even say "we shouldn't say brutal death metal because it is just grindcore in disguise..."

Even experts will argue these points.


Please provide scientific evidence that the races are distinct.

Gender is; race is; nation-states are; ideologies are.

What is there, about humans, that isn't a social construct?


DNA is not a social construct. It is a biological fact that can be analysed using science, and that is one of the points of evidence that contradicts your claim.

Aw, but you see: one group is 1 million, another is 5 million. These are not tiny.


Relative to the entire “race” of black people, it is.

There is also a broader group mentioned -- Kenyans and Ethiopians, and not every single one of the winners was necessarily a member of those tribal groups.

Now it's time for you to do some more thinking...

You see, West African descent people tend to dominate sprinting, right? African-Americans, Jamaicans, Bajans, Bahamans, etc. all perform abnormally well in sprinting; East African people are abnormally great distance runners, with some specific sub-groups among them doing well...

Europeans tend to dominate powerlifting contests, with particularly Nordic & Baltic regions excelling.

Who tends to excel in basketball? Who tends to excell as wide receivers in American football?

Surely, we don't need to conjure up numbers.

There's some pretty logical conclusions to come to since we know that

(1) We inherit our physical traits from our parents, and
(2) Our physical traits are passed on by genes.
(3) The physical traits of people in the same family will be similar.
(4) The physical traits of people in the same tribe, which are an extended family, will be similar.
(5) The physical traits of people in the same ethnicity will be similar.
(6) The same ethnicites within the same race will be similar, with more closely related ethnicities being even more similar.
(7) People of the same ethnicity/race will tend to have more physiological similarites than people of other races.

etc.

Do you dispute any of this?


I will address this when you provide actual evidence.

Please note that the evidence you did provide about long distance runners failed abysmally if the objective was to show how all blacks are the same.
By Patrickov
#15000642
With all due respect, statistical fact (which usually apply to races) is not absolute fact. The mistake of racism is mixing these two up, as well as denying the possibility of change in the statistical facts they observe.
User avatar
By Suntzu
#15000654
Race would better be described as sub-species. There is as much biological difference between Negroes and Caucasians as between the sub-species of gorilla.
User avatar
By Godstud
#15000656
"Race" is simply a social explanation for human differences determined by geographic location.

The differences are not even as significant as sub-species, and attempting to think of it as such, is completely unscientific.
User avatar
By Suntzu
#15000663
Godstud wrote:"Race" is simply a social explanation for human differences determined by geographic location.

The differences are not even as significant as sub-species, and attempting to think of it as such, is completely unscientific.
User avatar
By Verv
#15000755
Pants-of-dog wrote:You referred to the USA as our country. It us not. It may be yours, since you tend to focus on it, which is a trait of people from there.


It is our country. My ancestry goes back to the Mayflower on one side, and on the other, they were invited, legal settlers of the great American plains.

Maybe you should clarify what the races are, and how you define them.

Please provide scientific evidence that the races are distinct.


This is actually completely unimportant.

My point would be this:

You recognize that genes come from your parents, and your parents genes come from their parents, and the genes of your ancestors and other people from the same lineage will have similarities, right?

You recognize that there is such a thing as a collections of people with similar traits, right?

Let's call them "ethnicities."

And let's refer to a collection of ethnicities as a "Ethnogrouping."

And let us say that ethnogroupings can come on different scale, and they can be very big scale, or smaller scale. For instance, there is the East Asian ethnogrouping, which is very large, and then there would be the Northeast Asian and Southeast Asian ethnogroupings.

We can discuss this better without race getting in the way, and maybe some of our concepts about race are antiquated, so it is better to discuss things in a way that is flexible.

That way, we can actually discuss this without being distracted by semantics.

Is that acceptable?

DNA is not a social construct. It is a biological fact that can be analysed using science, and that is one of the points of evidence that contradicts your claim.


So biological sex, and our genetics, are material, real, tangible things, right?

The language that we use around it is necessarily imprecise. But you would agree that the actual genetics that make someone who they are very relevant and real, and immutable traits, right?

Please note that the evidence you did provide about long distance runners failed abysmally if the objective was to show how all blacks are the same.


It succeeded spectacularly in showing that certain ethnogroupings have outstanding traits that distinguish them, though, didn't it?
By Pants-of-dog
#15000763
Verv wrote:It is our country. My ancestry goes back to the Mayflower on one side, and on the other, they were invited, legal settlers of the great American plains.


No, it is not OUR country because I do not live there.

Do you understand that I am not a resident or citizen of the USA?

This is actually completely unimportant.


No, since this is one of the central parts of your claim.

And you explicitly claimed this.

So provide the evidence, or concede that the whole race IQ argument is bogus.

My point would be this:

You recognize that genes come from your parents, and your parents genes come from their parents, and the genes of your ancestors and other people from the same lineage will have similarities, right?

You recognize that there is such a thing as a collections of people with similar traits, right?

Let's call them "ethnicities."

And let's refer to a collection of ethnicities as a "Ethnogrouping."

And let us say that ethnogroupings can come on different scale, and they can be very big scale, or smaller scale. For instance, there is the East Asian ethnogrouping, which is very large, and then there would be the Northeast Asian and Southeast Asian ethnogroupings.

We can discuss this better without race getting in the way, and maybe some of our concepts about race are antiquated, so it is better to discuss things in a way that is flexible.

That way, we can actually discuss this without being distracted by semantics.

Is that acceptable?


Define “race”.

Provide evidence that the races are genetically distinct.

So biological sex, and our genetics, are material, real, tangible things, right?

The language that we use around it is necessarily imprecise. But you would agree that the actual genetics that make someone who they are very relevant and real, and immutable traits, right?


Do not get off topic with gender.

DNA analyses show that races are not distinct, so your argument is bogus.

It succeeded spectacularly in showing that certain ethnogroupings have outstanding traits that distinguish them, though, didn't it?


Not really, no.

Seriously, you need to define “race”.
By SSDR
#15000766
@Pants-of-dog, There is nothing wrong with seeing that there are different races. Claiming that one race is above or below another is racist. And no one is making that claim, yet you're acting like they are.
By Pants-of-dog
#15000769
SSDR wrote:@Pants-of-dog, There is nothing wrong with seeing that there are different races. Claiming that one race is above or below another is racist. And no one is making that claim, yet you're acting like they are.


I do not think you understand what I am claiming.
User avatar
By Rancid
#15000770
I think racism mostly stems from fear of change. It's a fear that you are going to lose what you have. Be it money, status, power, etc. etc. etc. Often this gets wrapped up in the phrase "culture".

However, often, change can be an opportunity.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 13

It is implausible that the IDF could not or would[…]

Moving on to the next misuse of language that sho[…]

@JohnRawls What if your assumption is wrong??? […]

There is no reason to have a state at all unless w[…]