Home | Community | Message Board


Magic-Mushrooms-Shop.com
Please support our sponsors.

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: PhytoExtractum Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   Bridgetown Botanicals Bridgetown Botanicals   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Amazon Rolling Stones

Jump to first unread post. Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | Next >  [ show all ]
OfflineBigbadwooof
Trump's Bone Spurs
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 12/07/13
Posts: 10,416
Last seen: 7 days, 3 hours
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: qman] * 1
    #26411715 - 01/02/20 02:00 AM (5 months, 29 days ago)

Quote:

qman said:
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.




I wouldn't have said shit about that post if you didn't stand by it, and defend it. That makes it as relevant as the day you wrote it.

Also, your post may be 7.5 years old, but this fucking thread is 16 years old. That doesn't seem to be slowing anyone down. I've become 'political about the discussion', because we're posting in a subforum called 'political discussion', and that's what we do here. Also, it's a political topic of discussion.

I take a lot of pills, Qman, but you should know better than anyone, chill pills aren't my thing. The topic was never 'why do interracial relationships continue to be considered deviant behavior', the topic was 'Look at this racist ass shit Qman posted before he knew any better'. Though I wouldn't mind taking a shot at that goal post, if you'd like.

I'm not 'making it a white problem' either. I think much of the 'problems' you see, do not gel with reality. That makes it a Qman problem.


--------------------
"It is no measure of good health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society," - Jiddu Krishnamurti
FARTS
"Real change never happens from the top down, but from the bottom up. The American Revolution, Civil Rights movement, Women's Suffage, etc' - Bernie Sanders
Every one of you should see this video.
"Not to be a dick but we grow felonies and are adults here. And that's the real answer!" - Trusted Cultivator


Edited by Bigbadwooof (01/02/20 02:05 AM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineLoaded Shaman
Rational Philosophy
Male User Gallery


Registered: 03/02/15
Posts: 5,252
Loc: Now O'Clock
Last seen: 3 days, 19 hours
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: Bigbadwooof]
    #26411776 - 01/02/20 03:49 AM (5 months, 29 days ago)

Quote:

Tantrika said:
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




Ultra-informative post right here, thank you, T! :cool:


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineBrian Jones
Club 27
Male User Gallery


Registered: 12/18/12
Posts: 7,073
Loc: attending Snake Church
Last seen: 4 hours, 38 minutes
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: Loaded Shaman] * 2
    #26411924 - 01/02/20 08:02 AM (5 months, 29 days ago)

Quote:

qman said:
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.




You obsess over reverse discrimination. I don't think it's much of an issue at all. How much does the less powerful group get over on the more powerful. Looking at social issues without seeing power imbalances is ahistorical, and to me it's nonsense.

But I admit that your way of thinking is very popular. It got the President elected.


--------------------
"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.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlineliving_failure
unworthy
Male


Registered: 06/14/19
Posts: 352
Loc: spain, madrid
Last seen: 1 month, 21 days
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: shivas.wisdom] * 2
    #26412306 - 01/02/20 12:53 PM (5 months, 29 days ago)

Quote:

shivas.wisdom said:
Quote:

living_failure said:
Quote:

shivas.wisdom said:
By extension this argument you are providing would also claim that, if you live in a community where slavery is accepted, and any abolitionist activity would be met with social ostracism, that there would be no rational reason to be anti-slavery "because it is risky and troublesome".



Not the same case, egoistically speaking yes. But ethically speaking no. And as an ethic or a moral, nobody said anything if it being good or wrong, and emotionally you might feel guilty by not opposing slavery.
Not having a relationship with someone is not even remotely close to slavery.



I agree that, ethically speaking, a community that doesn't accept interracial couples is not the same case as a community that accepts slavery. That doesn't mean there still isn't an ethical reason to support interracial dating, and I was under the impression that you were just discounting the ethical arguments as less important than the social ones.

At what point does the ethics of the issue outweigh the social repercussions?




I am not, i am constantly speaking about qmans quote point of view.
And, in that context, yes, egoistically speaking it would be more important the social one.


Quote:

shivas.wisdom said:
Quote:

living_failure said:
Quote:

shivas.wisdom said:
That doesn't seem like very strong logic. If something being "risky and troublesome" is sufficient to preclude any rational reason for doing something, then quite a few common human activities would have no rationale behind them either - for example, driving is riskier and more troublesome than just walking - IRRATIONAL!




That is absurd and a strawman, not even remotely what anybody said.
Would you drive your car blindfolded? no, it is risky i can already do it without being blindfolded.



Driving while blindfolded is an inherently dangerous proposition, so I hope we aren't comparing that to interracial dating - which gains its risk from possible social attitudes.




You actually compared white woman with black men as driving i just pointed out it was not valid. I would rather prefer to stop comparing and using analogies or metaphors all together.

Quote:

shivas.wisdom said:
Perhaps you can better explain what exactly you mean by "risky and troublesome" then because I'm not understanding why you consider my analogy to be a straw man.




Quote:

shivas.wisdom said:
That doesn't seem like very strong logic. If something being "risky and troublesome" is sufficient to preclude any rational reason for doing something, then quite a few common human activities would have no rationale behind them either - for example, driving is riskier and more troublesome than just walking - IRRATIONAL!




That some people will reject you for having a relationship with a black guy is troublesome for the person having the relationship if the people rejecting them are their other close ones (small community) have nothing to do to start considering IRRATIONAL!! everyday things like driving. It is a pointless metaphor. It makes no sense, it is not the same in any sense.

Quote:

shivas.wisdom said:
Driving is a lot more risky and troublesome than walking, but there are still many rational reasons to drive - interracial dating might be more risky and troublesome (depending on the community attitude), but there are still many rational reasons to date interracially.




Now you just answered yourself to your own analogy?

Quote:

shivas.wisdom said:
Perhaps this analogy is more appropriate: same-sex relationships are often more risky and troublesome because of anti-lgbtq social attitudes - does that mean there is no rational reason to date if you're queer?








If you are absolutely bisexual and you are in an homophobic community having homosexual relationships is indeed, a risk, sometimes mortal even. So yes, if you can avoid it, egoistically speaking, you will. Unless you want to seriously risk your live (and the other person live) just for sex or love which is a total different discussion to have

Quote:

shivas.wisdom said:
Quote:

living_failure said:
Quote:

shivas.wisdom said:
(...)
So you believe we should conform our behaviors and principles to whatever is socially acceptable, without taking into consideration anything else? If that approach was widely adopted, wouldn't we still be living under divine monarchies and believing that the sun revolved around the earth? Challenging these views was once considered "not socially acceptable" either.




He is not stating and nobody stated in any moment that it is good to follow blindly the community values. Just that in that case it is irrational to be with a black guy when the community will reject you (because you know, every ethical and moral decision is singular). As anybody knows, even if one takes GREAT PLEASURE by being with a black guy it is not equivalent to fighting a monarchy or against the Heliocentrism.



I think you should stop trying to answer for qman. Speak for yourself, rather than what qman hypothetically thinks.

Clearly there is support here for blindly following community values when considering the single issue of white women dating black men - I'm asking qman questions to better understand exactly how widely they apply this principle.




At this point i am not even speaking for qman, just following blindly the qman quote and answering based on the qman quote.
You tried to point out the quote as a prove of qman being openly racist.
All this have been a whole argument about the text not being racist by itself.

Quote:

shivas.wisdom said:
And yes, dating a black guy is not the equivalent to fighting a monarchy in the same way that saying fuck the king is not the equivalent to fighting racism - even if one takes GREAT PLEASURE in saying it - let's try and apply a little intellectual honesty in this discussion okay?




About you recognizing again the analogy is not valid: I don't get why you use analogies and later recognize yourself the analogies are not valid, just not use them at all.

About the GREAT PLEASURE and being intellectual:You were the one with the caps lock ultra-power enabled.
I just joked about it the being way i know, by being incorrect vulgar an sexual. Still it was a joke.


Quote:

shivas.wisdom said:
Quote:

living_failure said:
Also no, if egoistically speaking fighting the monarchy is bad for you because people will reject you i can assure you only the antisocial rejected fellas would fight the monarchy, because that is pretty much what happened the most in history.
Another different question is when fighting the monarchy is only addressed by the law and order and not society, and when fighting (which is indeed a big risk) a monarchy is better than the alternative egoistically speaking, not as some kind of... categorical imperative? i don't know.

So no, indeed, people usually choose to not fight monarchies when social rejection is presented. So your hypothetical case of eternal monarchies because the thing that destroyed them was bravery ignoring society rejection is just that, hypothetical, it is not how the world works.



"I can assure you only the antisocial rejected fellas would fight the monarchy, because that is pretty much what happened the most in history."
What are you, the holder of truth? Why should I take your assurances without evidence?




The part of "holder of truth" is fun, because it is like "no, you" when a kid call other names. I answer to that, "no, you".
You can not only not take my assurances, but we can even start a thread about old anarchism and regicides and you can directly said "i don't believe you" and nothing will be lost and no damage will be made.
But once you try to get people banned it is a complete different thing, you are being the judge that is when being the holder of truth, authoritarian and intolerant comes into play.
You can just say "i know i have the truth by mi side, i am being authoritarian and intolerant" and move on.



Quote:

shivas.wisdom said:
To be honest, I'm not sure if I fully understand the point you are trying to make here. I don't think I made the argument that bravery in ignoring society rejection is what destroys monarchies - I made the argument that too much stock put onto social acceptance would significantly limit progress as a society, and gave some examples where our development as a society was only able to occur when social norms were discounted.





And i pointed out that one thing implies the other and what indeed happened in reality was that the changes happened when you had to choose between to bad things. This is, it was not people being brave and ignoring social norms what led to for example people kicking out french from spain, was that it was indeed better for them facing the french that not facing them.
No bravery of facing social norms, just that they needed to do something about their situation (the same reason why it is not the same slavery than interracial relationships, even if both things are a symptom of segregation and tribalism).



Quote:

shivas.wisdom said:
I agree that most people usually choose to not fight monarchies, and social rejection is likely to be an aspect in this decision - that doesn't contradict my claim that 'socially acceptable' is not a very useful category, nor does it form a defence for your argument that going against social norms is irrational.




It is not my argument at all, it is the point of view of the quote of qman.
Again, the argument i made was a response of your argument that without ignoring/not following societal norms advancement (as for fighting a monarchy for example) would be impossible. And, since my point it that it is not only possible, but that it happened that way historically speaking, your argument about the argument of the quote of qman is invalid.



Quote:

shivas.wisdom said:
Quote:

living_failure said:
Quote:

shivas.wisdom said:
Quote:

living_failure said:
The problem with love it is that it is emotional and not rational. if you choose to be with the loved one even if the community disagrees is in fact rebellious (that was his point).



And racism is rational? Racism is built off of fear and hate; it is emotional and not rational.

Why should we listen to irrational hatred over irrational love?




I never stated anything about racism, i even stated that i am not racist.
I was literally explaining why from the point of view of the text that qman said love it is seen as a rebellious act.

First of all, racism can be rational (and irrational), from my point of view it is wrong, and i am ready to argue about the wrong parts of rational racist thought because i am not afraid of rational people nor an authoritarian.

Not al racism is build of hatred or fear, and not everybody doing good deeds are rational of with good will. This is not high-school, world is not black and white, racist are not crazy scientific nazism.



Yes and from the point of view of that same text, listening to the racist beliefs of the community (see: hatred and fear) is a rational act.

Please provide one rational form of racism, oh holder of truth.





NO YOU!  :rush:

For example, imagine you live in the 20 century in spain, you are a religious guy, you think that subsaharians are people and deserves all the rights any person do, so you go to make water wells for them.
They refuse to use your water wells, they get awful illness, even the children. You blame them because (this is a translated quote of someone i know) "those negroes are just too monkeyish, it is not their fault to be this stupid" and he said that trying to defend them, because he was really shocked when kids died. ¿Was he wrong about those words? yes, but he believe in them being monkeyish and stupid by observation, not by emotion.
In fact most old day racism was so rational it was taught at schools. People who never ever have and never ever will have any kind of interaction with black people was taught that they were stupid and ape-like mentally and physically. As something being taught as knowledge it was rational (wrong, but rational).
It's the same thing when people thought the son was circling around the earth, it was rational and wrong, but rational.

Quote:

shivas.wisdom said:
Quote:

living_failure said:
Qman was banned, even if they removed the ban, he was indeed banned.
It served exactly the opposite, qman is now afraid of speaking, which is what you wanted and that makes me call you authoritarian and intolerant.



Qman was indeed permabanned, and then upon further consideration it was revoked - so therefore that initial permaban became just a warning.

Since then, I've seen qman make numerous posts in reference to their newfound victim status and fear of speaking - but I haven't actually seen them refuse to participate in discussions nor am I aware that their continued participation is being punished. I do see less dogwhistles though. Have you noticed anything different?

Furthermore, can you show me where I stated that I want qman to be afraid of speaking, and any stated reasons why? I don't remember saying that?

Besides, what's your end goal? It's not like I have any more authority on third website than any other poster - why should I listen to you and feel bad for just speaking my mind? That makes me call you authoritarian and intolerant.




-You see dogwhistless, i see him trying to express his opinion.
-And you actually said you want him to leave and be banned. In fact i remember something like "deplatforming" him.
-And my point was as i already stated to prove that you just want qman to be banned because his post, post that have racism or antisemitism in them. If i remember well you said to be antifascist and anarchist (i might be wrong). So being authoritarian and intolerant in your case is ironic. I was trying to use it to take you into reason using your own believes (i think you would not like authoritarians and intolerants, i might be wrong tho).

Quote:

shivas.wisdom said:
(...)
why should I listen to you and feel bad for just speaking my mind? That makes me call you authoritarian and intolerant.



-You are being authoritarian and intolerant and are being called as that so the one calling you being intolerant and intolerant is being authoritarian and intolerant? I honestly cannot see the logic behind that, looks like another case of "no, you".


It makes no sense to keep fighting anymore, the quotes are just getting more and more nested, more and more things to quote and we are just going more and more personal.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Onlineqman
Stranger

Registered: 12/07/06
Posts: 33,579
Last seen: 8 minutes, 30 seconds
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: Brian Jones] * 1
    #26412368 - 01/02/20 01:27 PM (5 months, 29 days 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.




You obsess over reverse discrimination. I don't think it's much of an issue at all. How much does the less powerful group get over on the more powerful. Looking at social issues without seeing power imbalances is ahistorical, and to me it's nonsense.

But I admit that your way of thinking is very popular. It got the President elected.




You're missing the point entirely, if doesn't take power or majority status to view interracial relationships as problematic for your population group. You do realize that non-whites also embrace their racial heritage, culture and practice racial tribalism all the time? 

That's why we already discussed how black women are very vocal and upset about black men getting into relationships with white women. This is a normal and universal part of human nature, it's NOT a white issue.

It has NOTHING to do with getting over on another group, it's called racial tribalism.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleballsalsaM
Universally Loathed and Reviled
Male User Gallery


Registered: 03/11/15
Posts: 14,742
Loc: Foreign Lands
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: qman] * 8
    #26412450 - 01/02/20 02:26 PM (5 months, 29 days ago)

The "normal human nature" argument sucks my asshole.
It can be used to justify literally any malign act and is a shitty excuse.


--------------------
Don't click this link                                         



Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Onlineqman
Stranger

Registered: 12/07/06
Posts: 33,579
Last seen: 8 minutes, 30 seconds
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: ballsalsa] * 3
    #26412478 - 01/02/20 02:50 PM (5 months, 29 days ago)

Quote:

ballsalsa said:
The "normal human nature" argument sucks my asshole.
It can be used to justify literally any malign act and is a shitty excuse.




You do realize explanation isn't the same as justification?


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblerelic
of a bygone era
Male

Registered: 10/14/14
Posts: 5,581
Loc: the right coast
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: qman] * 2
    #26412801 - 01/02/20 05:41 PM (5 months, 29 days ago)

Explanations are used in making justifications.

So, often there is little practical difference.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineSulfurshelfsean
Defender of Cubes
 User Gallery

Registered: 07/29/10
Posts: 2,283
Last seen: 1 hour, 2 minutes
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: relic] * 1
    #26412847 - 01/02/20 06:07 PM (5 months, 29 days ago)

Qman isnt being racist. Are the rolling stones racist for writing "Brown sugar"?
Also, how do peaceful segregationist plan on keeping themselves segregated?


Edited by Sulfurshelfsean (01/02/20 06:22 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineBigbadwooof
Trump's Bone Spurs
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 12/07/13
Posts: 10,416
Last seen: 7 days, 3 hours
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: qman] * 1
    #26413269 - 01/02/20 10:57 PM (5 months, 29 days ago)

Quote:

qman said:
You're missing the point entirely, if doesn't take power or majority status to view interracial relationships as problematic for your population group. You do realize that non-whites also embrace their racial heritage, culture and practice racial tribalism all the time? 

That's why we already discussed how black women are very vocal and upset about black men getting into relationships with white women. This is a normal and universal part of human nature, it's NOT a white issue.

It has NOTHING to do with getting over on another group, it's called racial tribalism.




Some genius cunt posted this earlier, and I wanted to make a repost:

Quote:

The topic was never 'why do interracial relationships continue to be considered deviant behavior' or whether or not tribalism exists, the topic was 'Look at this racist ass shit Qman posted before he knew any better'. Though I wouldn't mind taking a shot at that goal post, if you'd like.

I'm not 'making it a white problem' either. I think much of the 'problems' you see, do not gel with reality. That makes it a Qman problem.




--------------------
"It is no measure of good health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society," - Jiddu Krishnamurti
FARTS
"Real change never happens from the top down, but from the bottom up. The American Revolution, Civil Rights movement, Women's Suffage, etc' - Bernie Sanders
Every one of you should see this video.
"Not to be a dick but we grow felonies and are adults here. And that's the real answer!" - Trusted Cultivator


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineBigbadwooof
Trump's Bone Spurs
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 12/07/13
Posts: 10,416
Last seen: 7 days, 3 hours
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: relic]
    #26413273 - 01/02/20 11:00 PM (5 months, 29 days ago)

Quote:

relic said:
Explanations are used in making justifications.

So, often there is little practical difference.




:whathesaid:

:toast:


--------------------
"It is no measure of good health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society," - Jiddu Krishnamurti
FARTS
"Real change never happens from the top down, but from the bottom up. The American Revolution, Civil Rights movement, Women's Suffage, etc' - Bernie Sanders
Every one of you should see this video.
"Not to be a dick but we grow felonies and are adults here. And that's the real answer!" - Trusted Cultivator


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineBigbadwooof
Trump's Bone Spurs
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 12/07/13
Posts: 10,416
Last seen: 7 days, 3 hours
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: Sulfurshelfsean]
    #26413278 - 01/02/20 11:04 PM (5 months, 29 days ago)

Quote:

Sulfurshelfsean said:
Qman isnt being racist. Are the rolling stones racist for writing "Brown sugar"?
Also, how do peaceful segregationist plan on keeping themselves segregated?




Peaceful segregationist lol... What fruit might we reap from an ideology that sprouted from the seeds of contempt. Peaceful fruit, I'm sure.


--------------------
"It is no measure of good health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society," - Jiddu Krishnamurti
FARTS
"Real change never happens from the top down, but from the bottom up. The American Revolution, Civil Rights movement, Women's Suffage, etc' - Bernie Sanders
Every one of you should see this video.
"Not to be a dick but we grow felonies and are adults here. And that's the real answer!" - Trusted Cultivator


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineLoaded Shaman
Rational Philosophy
Male User Gallery


Registered: 03/02/15
Posts: 5,252
Loc: Now O'Clock
Last seen: 3 days, 19 hours
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: Bigbadwooof] * 1
    #26413561 - 01/03/20 03:54 AM (5 months, 28 days ago)

Quote:

ballsalsa said:
The "normal human nature" argument sucks my asshole.
It can be used to justify literally any malign act and is a shitty excuse.




The problem is, this can literally be argued from either position. It's not exclusive to one stance. People use it all the time; moral subjectivity is a convenient tool for people who don't have a coherent, logically consistent position from either side of the fence.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleTantrika
Miss Ann Thrope
Female


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/27/12
Posts: 17,130
Loc: Lashed to the pyre
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: Bigbadwooof] * 3
    #26413699 - 01/03/20 08:09 AM (5 months, 28 days ago)

Quote:

Bigbadwooof said:
Quote:

qman said:
You're missing the point entirely, if doesn't take power or majority status to view interracial relationships as problematic for your population group. You do realize that non-whites also embrace their racial heritage, culture and practice racial tribalism all the time? 

That's why we already discussed how black women are very vocal and upset about black men getting into relationships with white women. This is a normal and universal part of human nature, it's NOT a white issue.

It has NOTHING to do with getting over on another group, it's called racial tribalism.




Some genius cunt posted this earlier, and I wanted to make a repost:

Quote:

The topic was never 'why do interracial relationships continue to be considered deviant behavior' or whether or not tribalism exists, the topic was 'Look at this racist ass shit Qman posted before he knew any better'. Though I wouldn't mind taking a shot at that goal post, if you'd like.

I'm not 'making it a white problem' either. I think much of the 'problems' you see, do not gel with reality. That makes it a Qman problem.







and this is my tip-toeing around the topic
but do not think it is beneficial to this forum or discussions to spend pages
in a thread about why we shouldn't be targetting other members
focusing on talking about a member's individual racism
when it is in fact reflective of larger societal issues that we could be addressing and finding solutions to

respect that an individual's racism is symptomatic and easier to address
but we also don't get very far discussing symptoms
and while Q has been continually addressing larger societal trends that presumably highlight why and how far his own personal positions may extend
it seems to keep coming back to highlighting how the individual is potentially "damaged" by these social structures
rather than how the social structures can be countered and rectified

but if we chase Q out of the community
or even manage to "enlighten" him to living and abiding by non-racist principles
then that just means someone else plays Devil's Advocate so that we can discuss the larger societal issues


but, on the other side of things, my primary interest and information of systemic discrimination has been with regards to pornography
and that's not really an easy industry to garner legal adherance from
so it is easier to address how the industry standards perpetuate stereotypes in the viewing audience
rather than how to get the industry standards to meet with things like non-discriminatory hiring and filming practices
if a woman wants her contract to state that she won't sleep with black men, because it is her sexual preference not to
then she should have that right and not risk being argued as racist for it
but agencies shouldn't be dictating that as a term that actresses may unwittingly sign on to for the company's financial gain


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineSulfurshelfsean
Defender of Cubes
 User Gallery

Registered: 07/29/10
Posts: 2,283
Last seen: 1 hour, 2 minutes
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: Bigbadwooof]
    #26413704 - 01/03/20 08:19 AM (5 months, 28 days ago)

Quote:

Bigbadwooof said:
Quote:

Sulfurshelfsean said:
Qman isnt being racist. Are the rolling stones racist for writing "Brown sugar"?
Also, how do peaceful segregationist plan on keeping themselves segregated?




Peaceful segregationist lol... What fruit might we reap from an ideology that sprouted from the seeds of contempt. Peaceful fruit, I'm sure.




I mean we all know how...it rhymes with smilence....


--------------------


Everything is better when it is done ON TOP OF A MOUNTAIN!


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineBigbadwooof
Trump's Bone Spurs
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 12/07/13
Posts: 10,416
Last seen: 7 days, 3 hours
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: Tantrika]
    #26413736 - 01/03/20 08:48 AM (5 months, 28 days ago)

You're 100% right, I'll quite being a bitch.

I just feel like I Shiva caught the squirrely ass squirrel by the tail, an I love me a squirrel dinner. My apologies.


--------------------
"It is no measure of good health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society," - Jiddu Krishnamurti
FARTS
"Real change never happens from the top down, but from the bottom up. The American Revolution, Civil Rights movement, Women's Suffage, etc' - Bernie Sanders
Every one of you should see this video.
"Not to be a dick but we grow felonies and are adults here. And that's the real answer!" - Trusted Cultivator


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleTantrika
Miss Ann Thrope
Female


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/27/12
Posts: 17,130
Loc: Lashed to the pyre
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: Bigbadwooof]
    #26413765 - 01/03/20 09:22 AM (5 months, 28 days ago)

Quote:

Bigbadwooof said:
You're 100% right, I'll quite being a bitch.

I just feel like I Shiva caught the squirrely ass squirrel by the tail, an I love me a squirrel dinner. My apologies.



:hug:
not just you with the indvidual-focus, just the easiest for me to engage with regards to the topic
my apologies if making you feel targetted or anything

my interest was most being held when Shiva was talking about the social implications of broader deplatforming
with a particular interest as to how having organization-sanctioned talks given perpetuates a system of generating "data" that is later used to justify the ideas of the group

but remained unconvinced with regards to deplatforming of ideas in an interactive forum setting
do comprehend the risk that Shiva argued in terms of potential for recruitment
but likewise think those sticky situations provide us opportunities to address issues that forum readers may not be informed on
tho fully recognize this is my bias being informed with regards to trans issues, while being safe and cozy from dangers related to the trans community as an insulated white Canadian transwoman


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Onlineqman
Stranger

Registered: 12/07/06
Posts: 33,579
Last seen: 8 minutes, 30 seconds
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: Bigbadwooof] * 2
    #26413824 - 01/03/20 10:16 AM (5 months, 28 days ago)

Quote:

Bigbadwooof said:
You're 100% right, I'll quite being a bitch.

I just feel like I Shiva caught the squirrely ass squirrel by the tail, an I love me a squirrel dinner. My apologies.




No, Shiva proposed a horrible idea that deplatforming was the best method for dealing with people he disagreed with on certain issues, the community obviously and overwhelming disagreed with his recommendation.

Yourself and Shiva have over obsessed with a 7.5 year post instead of dealing with the larger issue at hand and thankfully other members are now pointing out the fact.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Onlineshivas.wisdom
בּ
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 02/20/09
Posts: 11,494
Loc: Turtle Island
Last seen: 2 minutes, 1 second
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: Tantrika] * 3
    #26413958 - 01/03/20 11:30 AM (5 months, 28 days ago)

Quote:

Tantrika said:
my interest was most being held when Shiva was talking about the social implications of broader deplatforming
with a particular interest as to how having organization-sanctioned talks given perpetuates a system of generating "data" that is later used to justify the ideas of the group

but remained unconvinced with regards to deplatforming of ideas in an interactive forum setting
do comprehend the risk that Shiva argued in terms of potential for recruitment
but likewise think those sticky situations provide us opportunities to address issues that forum readers may not be informed on
tho fully recognize this is my bias being informed with regards to trans issues, while being safe and cozy from dangers related to the trans community as an insulated white Canadian transwoman



I agree that deplatforming should not be taken as a one-size-fits-all blanket solution. How we approach an internet forum will be different from how we approach public spaces, television interviews, and countless other situations - perhaps the nuance of my approach isn't readily apparent but discussion and questions will help with that so let's bring it back, as I don't think anyone ever really addressed my arguments in defence of deplatforming. Here's a recap:

On the shroomery specifically, denying a platform will undoubtedly reduce the prevalence of racist ideals on this website. For example, no platforming prevents a culture of normalization from forming and limits open access to a community audience. It will likely have negligible effect on the prevalence of racist ideals off-site though.

In general application, denying a platform will have the same positive effects listed above but with an additional aspect: unlike posting on a public internet forum, an invitation to speak at a university campus, a prestigious event or to write an opinion piece for a newspaper provides (prima facie) higher-order evidence. It is evidence that the speaker is credible; that she has an opinion deserving a respectful hearing. Higher-order evidence is genuine evidence. It is rational to respond to higher-order evidence by moderating our confidence in our beliefs, sometimes even to abandon them altogether.

There are epistemic considerations in support of deplatforming. Inviting someone to give arguments that are bad or false generates misleading evidence, and we should avoid generating misleading evidence. If someone is likely to speak in favour of a view we know to be false, we have grounds to no-platform them, because we know that providing them with a platform by itself provides higher-order evidence in favour of that view.


Meanwhile, this is the most recent argument made against deplatforming:
Quote:

Enlil said:
This discussion is a great argument against deplatforming.




There is a quantitative difference in quality. Perhaps Enlil could elucidate on this great argument for those who don't see it. Or does anyone want to engage with my epistemological argument?


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineBrian Jones
Club 27
Male User Gallery


Registered: 12/18/12
Posts: 7,073
Loc: attending Snake Church
Last seen: 4 hours, 38 minutes
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: Sulfurshelfsean] * 1
    #26414751 - 01/03/20 07:16 PM (5 months, 28 days ago)

Quote:

Sulfurshelfsean said:
Qman isnt being racist. Are the rolling stones racist for writing "Brown sugar"?
Also, how do peaceful segregationist plan on keeping themselves segregated?




The Rolling Stones weren't racist for writing Brown Sugar. It is a provacitive song about what happened in the slave days. The Rolling Stones were racist for writing Some Girls, "Black Girls Just Want to Get Fucked All Night".


--------------------
"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.


Edited by Brian Jones (01/03/20 07:38 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Jump to top. Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | Next >  [ show all ]

Shop: PhytoExtractum Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   Bridgetown Botanicals Bridgetown Botanicals   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Amazon Rolling Stones

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* NO FLAMING RULE IN FULL EFFECT
( 1 2 all )
RonoS 4,075 33 08/25/03 06:56 AM
by Innvertigo
* Evoting rules! phi1618 433 2 04/22/04 04:32 PM
by luvdemshrooms
* Flaming: What it is and what it isn't
( 1 2 all )
silversoul7 2,322 36 06/22/04 03:11 PM
by Innvertigo
* Bush Wants Marijuana Ruling Struck Down
( 1 2 all )
Edame 2,029 30 07/13/03 09:59 PM
by Psilocybeingzz
* Forum Rules (Please read or re-read before posting) RonoS 23,394 0 02/25/03 07:57 AM
by Rono
* Finally - Courts Rule For Guantanamo Bay Prisoners' Rights
( 1 2 3 all )
Swami 3,536 48 12/25/03 04:31 PM
by Anonymous
* Sooo whats with the new OVertime rules?
( 1 2 all )
GabbaDj 1,695 29 07/17/03 12:03 AM
by Cornholio
* FCC Rule changes repeal vote passes Senate! GernBlanston 577 4 09/17/03 02:45 AM
by DoctorJ

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
4,295 topic views. 1 members, 1 guests and 3 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Print Topic ]
Search this thread:
Avalon Magic Plants
Please support our sponsors.

Copyright 1997-2020 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.109 seconds spending 0.012 seconds on 17 queries.