Home | Community | Message Board


Gaiana.nl
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!

PhytoExtractum Shop: Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder

Jump to first unread post. Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12  [ show all ]
OnlineBrian Jones
Club 27
Male User Gallery


Registered: 12/18/12
Posts: 7,117
Loc: attending Snake Church
Last seen: 7 seconds
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: qman] * 3
    #26414777 - 01/03/20 05:34 PM (6 months, 3 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.




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.




I still think you are missing the point. Most intelligent people (which includes you) transitioned out of tribalism decades ago. You didn't. That is my point.

It is true that Black woman are frequently upset that some black guys go after white women, but I don't see how that proves a point. Those women are still embracing tribalism and those guys aren't. It makes sense to me that some in the out group still embrace tribalism because they feel there are less social options available to them.

I'm frequently attracted to East Asian women. There is no backlash from white women (they don't think I'm  race traitor) because they have every social option open to them. The power dynamic is always central.


--------------------
"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
InvisibleTantrika
Miss Ann Thrope
Female


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/26/12
Posts: 17,138
Loc: Lashed to the pyre
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: shivas.wisdom]
    #26417555 - 01/05/20 01:23 PM (6 months, 2 days ago)

Quote:

shivas.wisdom said:
...
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.
...




ContraPoints has put out a really extended video on the experience of being cancelled



would be interested on how you feel about relative validity of calls to deplatform over one interaction (with Buck Angel)

personally think the biggest thing this highlights is the relative dangers of trying to exist entirely within social media spheres
Natalie talks about things like tweet montages and being portrayed that past positions can be taken out of context to support certain ideas
but am also familiar with J.K. Rowling's recent twitter "abuse" campaign
and it is interesting to note that the community of fans she built up with her works really managed to steer the conversation into a context
of looking at the good things she has done in the past and trying to make sense of the current situation
rather than digging out bad things from her past and trying to use them as "proof" of her being worse than the current situation

oh, around an hour and 25 minutes in she kind of talks about how community insulation provides benefit in these situations


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineRJ Tubs 202
Male

Registered: 09/20/08
Posts: 4,132
Loc: USA Flag
Last seen: 4 days, 17 hours
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: relic]
    #26418528 - 01/05/20 10:47 PM (6 months, 1 day ago)

Quote:

relic said:

Explanations are used in making justifications.

So, often there is little practical difference.




I guess you have zero knowledge of this thing called science?

Jesus Christ, we are the product of 3.5 billion years of evolution.

Some people say they don't want to discuss explanations for behavior, LOL. Passionate ignorance.


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: RJ Tubs 202] * 3
    #26418822 - 01/06/20 06:56 AM (6 months, 1 day ago)

Lolz

Damn, you got me; I've never heard of science.  Regardless, I made an accurate observation. 

Furthermore, junk science explanations are very often used when making justifications, especially in politics.


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  [ show all ]

PhytoExtractum Shop: Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* NO FLAMING RULE IN FULL EFFECT
( 1 2 all )
RonoS 4,088 33 08/25/03 04:56 AM
by Innvertigo
* Evoting rules! phi1618 433 2 04/22/04 02:32 PM
by luvdemshrooms
* Flaming: What it is and what it isn't
( 1 2 all )
silversoul7 2,323 36 06/22/04 01:11 PM
by Innvertigo
* Bush Wants Marijuana Ruling Struck Down
( 1 2 all )
Edame 2,031 30 07/13/03 07:59 PM
by Psilocybeingzz
* Forum Rules (Please read or re-read before posting) RonoS 23,450 0 02/25/03 05:57 AM
by Rono
* Finally - Courts Rule For Guantanamo Bay Prisoners' Rights
( 1 2 3 all )
Swami 3,536 48 12/25/03 02:31 PM
by Anonymous
* Sooo whats with the new OVertime rules?
( 1 2 all )
GabbaDj 1,695 29 07/16/03 10:03 PM
by Cornholio
* FCC Rule changes repeal vote passes Senate! GernBlanston 579 4 09/17/03 12:45 AM
by DoctorJ

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
4,341 topic views. 0 members, 1 guests and 5 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Print Topic ]
Search this thread:
Gaiana.nl
Please support our sponsors.

Copyright 1997-2020 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.028 seconds spending 0.004 seconds on 13 queries.