|
Loaded Shaman
Psychophysiologist
Registered: 03/02/15
Posts: 8,006
Loc: Now O'Clock
Last seen: 30 days, 12 hours
|
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: Tantrika]
#26410382 - 01/01/20 02:56 AM (4 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Tantrika said: do not have a lot to add to this, but as someone who has too much interest in the production side of professional pornography there has been a long-standing sentiment that actresses who do a scene with even one black guy on film lose a financially significant portion of their audience remember an interview with Lisa Ann where she talked about how the start of her career was spent under contract that outright did not allow her to film with black actors
not me agreeing with the sentiment or arguing against there being racism within it; just recognizing that it has been a larger social sentiment bearing economic reprecussions
This is incredible if true, and I had no idea!
-------------------- "Real knowledge is to know the extent of one’s ignorance." — Confucius
|
Tantrika
Miss Ann Thrope
Registered: 03/26/12
Posts: 17,138
Loc: Lashed to the pyre
|
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: Loaded Shaman] 2
#26410459 - 01/01/20 05:25 AM (4 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Loaded Shaman said:
Quote:
Tantrika said: do not have a lot to add to this, but as someone who has too much interest in the production side of professional pornography there has been a long-standing sentiment that actresses who do a scene with even one black guy on film lose a financially significant portion of their audience remember an interview with Lisa Ann where she talked about how the start of her career was spent under contract that outright did not allow her to film with black actors
not me agreeing with the sentiment or arguing against there being racism within it; just recognizing that it has been a larger social sentiment bearing economic reprecussions
This is incredible if true, and I had no idea!
to my comprehension it is slowly starting to shift in recent years efforts by older pornstars (Jenna Jameson, Tera Patrick) to impact changes in the industry and ownership
remember talking to one of my black friends from New Jersey about this years ago and he said he was unaware of it at the time, but it suddenly made a portion of a Kanye West song make more sense:
Quote:
Never in your wildest dreams Never in your wildest dreams, in your wildest You could hear the loudest screams Comin’ from inside the screen, you a wild bitch Tell me what I gotta do to be that guy Said her price go down, she ever fuck a black guy Or do anal, or do a gangbang It’s kinda crazy that’s all considered the same thing
apparently he tried to make a sex tape with a porn starlet, and got shot down because she won't do a black guy on film
the reference to "or do anal, or do a gangbang" references how actresses who do certain types of scenes also go on to lose a degree of negotiating power because agencies will pay big bucks for a first time scene, but once someone has done it it is just another generic filthy act the girl does
Lisa Ann interview thing
there was also a case of suicide from an actress named August Ames in 2017 tho not black related, it is worth bringing up as she made a comment about refusing to film with a transwoman due to risk of disease which is a standard position in the industry -- transwomen are considered to work with gay male actors and anyone who works in the gay side of the industry gets locked out of the straight+lesbian side of the industry for a number of years due to concerns about communicating STDs between the communities anyway, August Ames got harassed and taunted by various trans and non-trans pornstars as being transphobic or homophobic and she ended up killing herself rather than deal with all the fallout
one of my "favourite scenes" does not appear to be readily available online anymore but it was a scene of Katrina Jade with a trans actress named Venus Lopez and rather than the flirtatious style of openings most porn has, it was very interview/documentary based as both actresses go through standard industry blood testing to make sure they are clean to film with each other and Katrina Jade talks about how she had been trying to get to do a scene with Venus for years, but was continually not allowed
lots of red tape and standards of practice for an industry that at first glance (and still remains) a seedy exploitive industry operating on legal-adjacent principles
|
qman
Stranger
Registered: 12/06/06
Posts: 34,927
Last seen: 20 hours, 16 minutes
|
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: Bigbadwooof] 2
#26410639 - 01/01/20 09:05 AM (4 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Bigbadwooof said: To address Qman's post, and why it is in fact racist, I think we ought to first define racism.
Racism, in my mind, is active discrimination against a group of people, based on their race. That is the most basic, fundamental definition of racism.
Qman has made one of two possible, dubious assertions, in my mind. (Not trying to be fallacious, these are the only two ways I see to interpret his post)
A) Society is observably racist, and therefore there is no conceivable reason why a white woman would engage in race-mixing. Adherence to societal norms is paramount, above all else, lest a person be subject to the most tragic of fates (in his mind); ostracization. Succumbing to societal pressures is the only rational way a person can act.
B) There is no reason for a white woman to fraternize with black folk, as they are beneath her. She could only be doing such a thing to get back at her parents, as there is no other reason a white woman would bump uglies with an untouchable. White men won't date her, if she has been tainted by black cock, the forbiddenest of cocks, because it's gross.
If A is true, Qman is a coward, if B is true, Qman is a racist. I suspect B is true. I guess I'll leave that up to Qman, though.
In either case he is suggesting she engage with black folks in a discriminatory way, based on their race, though, so I guess in either case he is a proponent of racism.
Why would I be a coward if "society is observably racist"? I'm sorry, but pointing out some very obvious, yet highly non-PC issues that exist in most cultures today isn't cowardly.
Do you know what is cowardly, ignoring the obvious stigma of interracial relationships and just pretending the first person that points it out is some type of racist bigot.
I know that it's much easier to just put your head in the sand and blame me for behavior that most of the culture engages in at some level. If qman points out the obvious and it makes me feel uncomfortable, he's the problem!!!
|
qman
Stranger
Registered: 12/06/06
Posts: 34,927
Last seen: 20 hours, 16 minutes
|
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: Bigbadwooof] 1
#26410646 - 01/01/20 09:09 AM (4 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Bigbadwooof said:
Quote:
Tantrika said: do not have a lot to add to this, but as someone who has too much interest in the production side of professional pornography there has been a long-standing sentiment that actresses who do a scene with even one black guy on film lose a financially significant portion of their audience remember an interview with Lisa Ann where she talked about how the start of her career was spent under contract that outright did not allow her to film with black actors
not me agreeing with the sentiment or arguing against there being racism within it; just recognizing that it has been a larger social sentiment bearing economic reprecussions
That's an excellent observation, which I suppose gives credence to Q's assertion that white men aren't interested in a woman who has been with a black man. I suppose that is a sad reality. I don't believe that it hinders the points I have made, but it does demonstrate that there are many men who feel the way Qman does, which is unfortunate.
I will say that in my personal life, when I see a woman with a black man, I often assume she is culturally dissimilar to me, and I am less likely to pursue her down the road. That is, until I get to know her better. My xgf is half black, but culturally she is very similar to me. The cultural differences between black and white people, particularly here in Michigan, as opposed to the West coast, are quite profound.
I agree, the stigma goes beyond just race in most cultures. It's much more complicated than some are attempting to make it.
People from devout religious backgrounds face the same stigma when they engage in relationships with people from different religious beliefs.
|
Brian Jones
Club 27
Registered: 12/18/12
Posts: 12,418
Loc: attending Snake Church
Last seen: 2 hours, 23 minutes
|
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: qman]
#26410684 - 01/01/20 09:56 AM (4 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
qman said:
Quote:
Bigbadwooof said: To address Qman's post, and why it is in fact racist, I think we ought to first define racism.
Racism, in my mind, is active discrimination against a group of people, based on their race. That is the most basic, fundamental definition of racism.
Qman has made one of two possible, dubious assertions, in my mind. (Not trying to be fallacious, these are the only two ways I see to interpret his post)
A) Society is observably racist, and therefore there is no conceivable reason why a white woman would engage in race-mixing. Adherence to societal norms is paramount, above all else, lest a person be subject to the most tragic of fates (in his mind); ostracization. Succumbing to societal pressures is the only rational way a person can act.
B) There is no reason for a white woman to fraternize with black folk, as they are beneath her. She could only be doing such a thing to get back at her parents, as there is no other reason a white woman would bump uglies with an untouchable. White men won't date her, if she has been tainted by black cock, the forbiddenest of cocks, because it's gross.
If A is true, Qman is a coward, if B is true, Qman is a racist. I suspect B is true. I guess I'll leave that up to Qman, though.
In either case he is suggesting she engage with black folks in a discriminatory way, based on their race, though, so I guess in either case he is a proponent of racism.
Why would I be a coward if "society is observably racist"? I'm sorry, but pointing out some very obvious, yet highly non-PC issues that exist in most cultures today isn't cowardly.
Do you know what is cowardly, ignoring the obvious stigma of interracial relationships and just pretending the first person that points it out is some type of racist bigot.
I know that it's much easier to just put your head in the sand and blame me for behavior that most of the culture engages in at some level. If qman points out the obvious and it makes me feel uncomfortable, he's the problem!!!
Engages it at some level, and engages it at your level is IMO a huge difference. I think most white people have a degree of racism, and for the reasons you have accurately articulated it. But I think most white people know how wrong they have been (and I'm not suggesting that made them perfect).
There have been several discussions between you and Shivas Wisdom that have centered on the transition that society at large has made with this issue. All know is people on my side of the fence made this transition towards not making racial generalizations in the 60's and the 70's. Or for younger people a bit later. That's all I wanted to say.
-------------------- "The Rolling Stones will break up over Brian Jones' dead body" John Lennon I don't want no commies in my car. No Christians either. The worst thing about corruption is that it works so well,
|
qman
Stranger
Registered: 12/06/06
Posts: 34,927
Last seen: 20 hours, 16 minutes
|
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: Brian Jones] 1
#26410734 - 01/01/20 10:50 AM (4 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Brian Jones said:
Quote:
qman said:
Quote:
Bigbadwooof said: To address Qman's post, and why it is in fact racist, I think we ought to first define racism.
Racism, in my mind, is active discrimination against a group of people, based on their race. That is the most basic, fundamental definition of racism.
Qman has made one of two possible, dubious assertions, in my mind. (Not trying to be fallacious, these are the only two ways I see to interpret his post)
A) Society is observably racist, and therefore there is no conceivable reason why a white woman would engage in race-mixing. Adherence to societal norms is paramount, above all else, lest a person be subject to the most tragic of fates (in his mind); ostracization. Succumbing to societal pressures is the only rational way a person can act.
B) There is no reason for a white woman to fraternize with black folk, as they are beneath her. She could only be doing such a thing to get back at her parents, as there is no other reason a white woman would bump uglies with an untouchable. White men won't date her, if she has been tainted by black cock, the forbiddenest of cocks, because it's gross.
If A is true, Qman is a coward, if B is true, Qman is a racist. I suspect B is true. I guess I'll leave that up to Qman, though.
In either case he is suggesting she engage with black folks in a discriminatory way, based on their race, though, so I guess in either case he is a proponent of racism.
Why would I be a coward if "society is observably racist"? I'm sorry, but pointing out some very obvious, yet highly non-PC issues that exist in most cultures today isn't cowardly.
Do you know what is cowardly, ignoring the obvious stigma of interracial relationships and just pretending the first person that points it out is some type of racist bigot.
I know that it's much easier to just put your head in the sand and blame me for behavior that most of the culture engages in at some level. If qman points out the obvious and it makes me feel uncomfortable, he's the problem!!!
Engages it at some level, and engages it at your level is IMO a huge difference. I think most white people have a degree of racism, and for the reasons you have accurately articulated it. But I think most white people know how wrong they have been (and I'm not suggesting that made them perfect).
There have been several discussions between you and Shivas Wisdom that have centered on the transition that society at large has made with this issue. All know is people on my side of the fence made this transition towards not making racial generalizations in the 60's and the 70's. Or for younger people a bit later. That's all I wanted to say.
It's very telling that you have solely focused on the white perspective having the problem with interracial relationships even after it has been discussed that black women are very vocal about their opposition of black men being involved with white women.
Maybe you should ask yourself why you think this is a white issue, when in fact if affects people from all races and cultures across the globe.
Is it that you have been conditioned that only white culture has racist perspectives and non-whites can't hold the same perspective under similar conditions?
"is people on my side of the fence made this transition towards not making racist generalizations"
Not true, the fact that you think it's a white issue demonstrates you haven't made any sort of transition that you think you have.
|
ballsalsa
Universally Loathed and Reviled
Registered: 03/11/15
Posts: 22,012
Loc: Foreign Lands
|
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: Brian Jones] 1
#26410756 - 01/01/20 11:03 AM (4 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
I mean, qman is correct in that people of all colors, shapes and sizes are racist as fuck but so what? That isn't exactly a revelation.
Opposition to interracial relations is actually the irrational position and I'll tell you why. Humans are all quite closely related due to a number of population bottlenecks and migration events. In other words, we're all inbred AF. Genetic diversity within a population (of whatever) correlates with fitness. There is a thing called heterosis or hybrid vigor. This is seen in plant and animal breeding. Given these, if a woman wanted offspring and also wanted to maximize the odds that said offspring would be healthy and fit to produce offspring of its own, the rational course is to pursue an interracial relationship with someone whose genetic background varies significantly from her own.
-------------------- Like cannabis topics? Read my cannabis blog here
|
RJ Tubs 202
Registered: 09/20/08
Posts: 6,123
Loc: USA
Last seen: 16 days, 23 hours
|
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: ballsalsa]
#26410779 - 01/01/20 11:19 AM (4 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
ballsalsa said:
In other words, we're all inbred AF. Genetic diversity within a population (of whatever) correlates with fitness. There is a thing called heterosis or hybrid vigor. This is seen in plant and animal breeding. Given these, if a woman wanted offspring and also wanted to maximize the odds that said offspring would be healthy and fit to produce offspring of its own, the rational course is to pursue an interracial relationship with someone whose genetic background varies significantly from her own.
"Inbred" is often viewed as a negative term. But not all species suffer from inbreeding depression and deleterious recessive genes. Heterosis (hybrid vigor) in plant and animal breeding is used as a method to minimize diversity in offspring. Breeders develop inbred lines so the hybrid seed from these hybrid crosses possess as little variation as possible. Fruit and vegetable consumers demand consistency. Population breeding, (AKA synthetic breeding) is different approach and strategy and is used on crops like alfalfa, rice, and wheat.
|
ballsalsa
Universally Loathed and Reviled
Registered: 03/11/15
Posts: 22,012
Loc: Foreign Lands
|
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: RJ Tubs 202]
#26410810 - 01/01/20 11:48 AM (4 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Hetero- a combining form meaning “different,” “other,” used in the formation of compound words:
Heterosis noun the tendency of a crossbred individual to show qualities superior to those of both parents.
-------------------- Like cannabis topics? Read my cannabis blog here
|
qman
Stranger
Registered: 12/06/06
Posts: 34,927
Last seen: 20 hours, 16 minutes
|
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: ballsalsa] 1
#26410854 - 01/01/20 12:26 PM (4 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
ballsalsa said: I mean, qman is correct in that people of all colors, shapes and sizes are racist as fuck but so what? That isn't exactly a revelation.
Opposition to interracial relations is actually the irrational position and I'll tell you why. Humans are all quite closely related due to a number of population bottlenecks and migration events. In other words, we're all inbred AF. Genetic diversity within a population (of whatever) correlates with fitness. There is a thing called heterosis or hybrid vigor. This is seen in plant and animal breeding. Given these, if a woman wanted offspring and also wanted to maximize the odds that said offspring would be healthy and fit to produce offspring of its own, the rational course is to pursue an interracial relationship with someone whose genetic background varies significantly from her own.
No, it's not irrational at all. One key aspect of tribalism is preservation of the genetic makeup of the tribe. That's why tribalism is so powerful, it's about the very survival of existing genetics. In fact, one could make the argument that there isn't anything more rational for a population group than preserving and passing on their gene pool to future generations.
Yes, genetic diversity is also a key component, but most tribes preferred to do it on their terms (rape and pillage), as opposed to the other tribes terms. So in other words, genetic diversity wasn't usually voluntary, it was forced.
|
ballsalsa
Universally Loathed and Reviled
Registered: 03/11/15
Posts: 22,012
Loc: Foreign Lands
|
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: qman] 3
#26410900 - 01/01/20 12:57 PM (4 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
What does that have to do with the price of tea in china?
The whole point of civilization is to mitigate that sort of behavior.
-------------------- Like cannabis topics? Read my cannabis blog here
|
Bigbadwooof
Trumps Bone Spurs
Registered: 12/07/13
Posts: 14,047
Last seen: 6 hours, 41 minutes
|
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: qman] 1
#26410908 - 01/01/20 01:01 PM (4 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
For clarification, you might want to read the emboldened portion of my post. I never denied that racism exists. I said that your assertion that adherence to societal norms is paramount to any conceivable reason a white woman might desire to date a black man, for fear of rejection, is cowardly.
If it isn't out of cowardice, it is racist, because you're saying that there is no good reason to date a black man (because they are a bunch of niggers), or at least no reason greater than the reason not to (societal pressures).
By your logic, there is no good reason to be a homosexual. It's taboo.
Quote:
Bigbadwooof said: To address Qman's post, and why it is in fact racist, I think we ought to first define racism.
Racism, in my mind, is active discrimination against a group of people, based on their race. That is the most basic, fundamental definition of racism.
Qman has made one of two possible, dubious assertions, in my mind. (Not trying to be fallacious, these are the only two ways I see to interpret his post)
A) Society is observably racist, and therefore there is no conceivable reason why a white woman would engage in race-mixing. Adherence to societal norms is paramount, above all else, lest a person be subject to the most tragic of fates (in his mind); ostracization. Succumbing to societal pressures is the only rational way a person can act.
B) There is no reason for a white woman to fraternize with black folk, as they are beneath her. She could only be doing such a thing to get back at her parents, as there is no other reason a white woman would bump uglies with an untouchable. White men won't date her, if she has been tainted by black cock, the forbiddenest of cocks, because it's gross.
If A is true, Qman is a coward, if B is true, Qman is a racist. I suspect B is true. I guess I'll leave that up to Qman, though.
I will say, I don't miss having to set fire to your legion of strawmen, but I suppose I will, once again.
Edited by Bigbadwooof (01/01/20 01:20 PM)
|
Bigbadwooof
Trumps Bone Spurs
Registered: 12/07/13
Posts: 14,047
Last seen: 6 hours, 41 minutes
|
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: qman]
#26410933 - 01/01/20 01:18 PM (4 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
qman said:
Quote:
ballsalsa said: I mean, qman is correct in that people of all colors, shapes and sizes are racist as fuck but so what? That isn't exactly a revelation.
Opposition to interracial relations is actually the irrational position and I'll tell you why. Humans are all quite closely related due to a number of population bottlenecks and migration events. In other words, we're all inbred AF. Genetic diversity within a population (of whatever) correlates with fitness. There is a thing called heterosis or hybrid vigor. This is seen in plant and animal breeding. Given these, if a woman wanted offspring and also wanted to maximize the odds that said offspring would be healthy and fit to produce offspring of its own, the rational course is to pursue an interracial relationship with someone whose genetic background varies significantly from her own.
No, it's not irrational at all. One key aspect of tribalism is preservation of the genetic makeup of the tribe. That's why tribalism is so powerful, it's about the very survival of existing genetics. In fact, one could make the argument that there isn't anything more rational for a population group than preserving and passing on their gene pool to future generations.
Yes, genetic diversity is also a key component, but most tribes preferred to do it on their terms (rape and pillage), as opposed to the other tribes terms. So in other words, genetic diversity wasn't usually voluntary, it was forced.
I think it's more complicated than that. Humans are attracted to novelty also. A black person with blue eyes, for example. I'm not denying that tribalism exists, but tribal racism is only one of many different ways that it manifests. I think the culture of the tribe has a lot to do with how racist it is.
I would bet that inner city white people have much less of a problem with dating a white girl that has been with a black man, because there is a lot more exposure
-------------------- "It is no measure of good health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society," - Jiddu Krishnamurti FARTS "The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - George Orwell Every one of you should see this video. "Facts are chiels that winna ding, and downa be disputed" - Robert Burns
|
Enlil
OTD God-King
Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 66,982
Loc: Uncanny Valley
|
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: Bigbadwooof] 2
#26411048 - 01/01/20 02:33 PM (4 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
This discussion is a great argument against deplatforming.
-------------------- Censoring opposing views since 2014. Ask an Attorney Fuck the Amish
|
qman
Stranger
Registered: 12/06/06
Posts: 34,927
Last seen: 20 hours, 16 minutes
|
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: ballsalsa] 1
#26411237 - 01/01/20 04:52 PM (4 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
ballsalsa said: What does that have to do with the price of tea in china?
The whole point of civilization is to mitigate that sort of behavior.
So civilizations don't have racial and other forms of tribalism? Doesn't the left constantly complain about the racial tribalism of Western nations?
|
qman
Stranger
Registered: 12/06/06
Posts: 34,927
Last seen: 20 hours, 16 minutes
|
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: Bigbadwooof] 1
#26411243 - 01/01/20 04:58 PM (4 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Bigbadwooof said: For clarification, you might want to read the emboldened portion of my post. I never denied that racism exists. I said that your assertion that adherence to societal norms is paramount to any conceivable reason a white woman might desire to date a black man, for fear of rejection, is cowardly.
If it isn't out of cowardice, it is racist, because you're saying that there is no good reason to date a black man (because they are a bunch of niggers), or at least no reason greater than the reason not to (societal pressures).
By your logic, there is no good reason to be a homosexual. It's taboo.
Quote:
Bigbadwooof said: To address Qman's post, and why it is in fact racist, I think we ought to first define racism.
Racism, in my mind, is active discrimination against a group of people, based on their race. That is the most basic, fundamental definition of racism.
Qman has made one of two possible, dubious assertions, in my mind. (Not trying to be fallacious, these are the only two ways I see to interpret his post)
A) Society is observably racist, and therefore there is no conceivable reason why a white woman would engage in race-mixing. Adherence to societal norms is paramount, above all else, lest a person be subject to the most tragic of fates (in his mind); ostracization. Succumbing to societal pressures is the only rational way a person can act.
B) There is no reason for a white woman to fraternize with black folk, as they are beneath her. She could only be doing such a thing to get back at her parents, as there is no other reason a white woman would bump uglies with an untouchable. White men won't date her, if she has been tainted by black cock, the forbiddenest of cocks, because it's gross.
If A is true, Qman is a coward, if B is true, Qman is a racist. I suspect B is true. I guess I'll leave that up to Qman, though.
I will say, I don't miss having to set fire to your legion of strawmen, but I suppose I will, once again.
"for fear of rejection"
Or all out rejection by many people close in their life. If you want to call them cowardly, you're absolutely entitled to that opinion.
|
qman
Stranger
Registered: 12/06/06
Posts: 34,927
Last seen: 20 hours, 16 minutes
|
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: Bigbadwooof] 1
#26411244 - 01/01/20 05:00 PM (4 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Bigbadwooof said:
Quote:
qman said:
Quote:
ballsalsa said: I mean, qman is correct in that people of all colors, shapes and sizes are racist as fuck but so what? That isn't exactly a revelation.
Opposition to interracial relations is actually the irrational position and I'll tell you why. Humans are all quite closely related due to a number of population bottlenecks and migration events. In other words, we're all inbred AF. Genetic diversity within a population (of whatever) correlates with fitness. There is a thing called heterosis or hybrid vigor. This is seen in plant and animal breeding. Given these, if a woman wanted offspring and also wanted to maximize the odds that said offspring would be healthy and fit to produce offspring of its own, the rational course is to pursue an interracial relationship with someone whose genetic background varies significantly from her own.
No, it's not irrational at all. One key aspect of tribalism is preservation of the genetic makeup of the tribe. That's why tribalism is so powerful, it's about the very survival of existing genetics. In fact, one could make the argument that there isn't anything more rational for a population group than preserving and passing on their gene pool to future generations.
Yes, genetic diversity is also a key component, but most tribes preferred to do it on their terms (rape and pillage), as opposed to the other tribes terms. So in other words, genetic diversity wasn't usually voluntary, it was forced.
I think it's more complicated than that. Humans are attracted to novelty also. A black person with blue eyes, for example. I'm not denying that tribalism exists, but tribal racism is only one of many different ways that it manifests. I think the culture of the tribe has a lot to do with how racist it is.
I would bet that inner city white people have much less of a problem with dating a white girl that has been with a black man, because there is a lot more exposure
I completely agree, there's many different layers of human tribalism. Racial tribalism is just one of many different forms.
|
Bigbadwooof
Trumps Bone Spurs
Registered: 12/07/13
Posts: 14,047
Last seen: 6 hours, 41 minutes
|
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: qman] 1
#26411538 - 01/01/20 08:54 PM (4 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
qman said: "for fear of rejection"
Or all out rejection by many people close in their life. If you want to call them cowardly, you're absolutely entitled to that opinion.
You said that there is never a reason for an attractive white woman to date a black man. What if she is attracted to him/in love with him. In that case, yes, it is cowardly. I'm quite certain that the situation you have presented is generally not the case, anyways. Either way, I've never known attractive white girls to have difficulty making friends, and honestly, there are many many white boys who would hook up with an attractive girl, no matter who she has been with in the past. If people are going to flake on her, because of a personal choice she made, that has nothing to do with them, then good riddance.
Your post is shitty, and racist, and exemplary of your own tendency toward cowardice. Right wing boot lickers are always willing to compromise their integrity, and crumble under peer pressure, to save face with the tribe. The only thing conservatives are good for is taking orders.
Trump got the evangelical vote, because conservatives are gutless, spineless zombies who always fall in line for the rich and powerful. Oh, and because a large number of them are racist.
-------------------- "It is no measure of good health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society," - Jiddu Krishnamurti FARTS "The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - George Orwell Every one of you should see this video. "Facts are chiels that winna ding, and downa be disputed" - Robert Burns
Edited by Bigbadwooof (01/01/20 08:55 PM)
|
Bigbadwooof
Trumps Bone Spurs
Registered: 12/07/13
Posts: 14,047
Last seen: 6 hours, 41 minutes
|
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: qman]
#26411545 - 01/01/20 09:00 PM (4 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
qman said: I completely agree, there's many different layers of human tribalism. Racial tribalism is just one of many different forms.
My dogs view my cat as part of the pack, in my house. That's how they were raised. If they can make it work, so can we.
-------------------- "It is no measure of good health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society," - Jiddu Krishnamurti FARTS "The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - George Orwell Every one of you should see this video. "Facts are chiels that winna ding, and downa be disputed" - Robert Burns
|
qman
Stranger
Registered: 12/06/06
Posts: 34,927
Last seen: 20 hours, 16 minutes
|
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: Bigbadwooof] 1
#26411591 - 01/01/20 09:43 PM (4 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Bigbadwooof said:
Quote:
qman said: "for fear of rejection"
Or all out rejection by many people close in their life. If you want to call them cowardly, you're absolutely entitled to that opinion.
You said that there is never a reason for an attractive white woman to date a black man. What if she is attracted to him/in love with him. In that case, yes, it is cowardly. I'm quite certain that the situation you have presented is generally not the case, anyways. Either way, I've never known attractive white girls to have difficulty making friends, and honestly, there are many many white boys who would hook up with an attractive girl, no matter who she has been with in the past. If people are going to flake on her, because of a personal choice she made, that has nothing to do with them, then good riddance.
Your post is shitty, and racist, and exemplary of your own tendency toward cowardice. Right wing boot lickers are always willing to compromise their integrity, and crumble under peer pressure, to save face with the tribe. The only thing conservatives are good for is taking orders.
Trump got the evangelical vote, because conservatives are gutless, spineless zombies who always fall in line for the rich and powerful. Oh, and because a large number of them are racist.
Take a chill pill and stop focusing on a 7.5 year old post. This subject matter provided plenty of valid discussion, so try to stay on topic. The topic remains why do interracial relationships continue to be considered deviant behavior in many cultures across the globe regardless of the races or ethnicities involved.
Why you're continually attempting to attack a 7.5 year post instead of discussing the topic is becoming very telling in my opinion.
The fact that you have become political about the discussion is also very problematic because you're making this a white problem, when in fact it's universal in nature.
|
|