Yes, it's true. Though I'm cringing in admittance, I have to come out of the closet about this. It's just far too damaging to keep it in.
All people are racists, which is to say, all people discriminate based on surface differences of facial structure and pigmentation. The founder of sociobiology EO Wilson claimed it's a product of kin selection, a universal issue with a genetic root. People who are superficially different than us and our kin are more likely to be considered untrustworthy, dangerous, or simply unfriendly. People who are superficially similar to us and our kin are more likely to be considered trustworthy, benign, and friendly. This root has nothing to do with culture, although the culture factor certainly comes from and stacks upon this. Strangers are the unknown, the different and the possibly dangerous, and visual cues are very important in this determination. I may get hounded for months for posting this, but I know it's true. Some situations require split second decisions about threat or friendly, for which automatic reactions have been highly selected over evolutionary time. Kin selection based racism was initially part of that.
What I am NOT saying here is that we are all Lester Maddox. I don't think anyone here actively discriminates on the basis of race (and if you do, GTFO seriously), nor would I recommend doing so just because there is this biological basis (and if you do, also GTFO). What I am saying is we all have the capacity for superficial discrimination. This is of course not limited to race; culture adds layers of superficial differences to discriminate against. Very few people are aware of this unconscious act. I know I was shocked when I saw it in myself, when I initially shied back from people of different pigmentations or dress or facial features just because they looked different, even in completely nonthreatening situations.
This is something that requires awareness. When these ubiquitous prejudices remain just an evolutionary vestige, when they are made aware of in mind and checked they are unable to enter outward actions. It's when they are ignored, when people pretend they don't exist that they become dangerous, that we submit ourselves to monkey impulses of kin selection.
I'm a racist. But I'm recovering.
Quote from: Kai on April 04, 2010, 10:44:20 PM
All people are racists, which is to say, all people discriminate based on surface differences of facial structure and pigmentation.
I reject this entirely, and I shit on anyone who tells me how I fucking think.
I knew I was going to take shit for this. Planned on it.
I obviously have no response for that.
Quote from: Kai on April 04, 2010, 10:55:29 PM
I knew I was going to take shit for this. Planned on it.
I obviously have no response for that.
Not mad at you, Kai. I'm just rejecting the RWN-driven agenda that everyone seems to be buying into that "everyone is racist".
Because, "everyone" isn't "anything", and the above notion is the biggest pile of projection-driven crap the world has ever seen.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 04, 2010, 11:00:12 PM
Quote from: Kai on April 04, 2010, 10:55:29 PM
I knew I was going to take shit for this. Planned on it.
I obviously have no response for that.
Not mad at you, Kai. I'm just rejecting the RWN-driven agenda that everyone seems to be buying into that "everyone is racist".
Because, "everyone" isn't "anything", and the above notion is the biggest pile of projection-driven crap the world has ever seen.
Was I not explicit enough about meaning kin selection based superficial discrimination?
Quote from: Kai on April 04, 2010, 11:39:02 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 04, 2010, 11:00:12 PM
Quote from: Kai on April 04, 2010, 10:55:29 PM
I knew I was going to take shit for this. Planned on it.
I obviously have no response for that.
Not mad at you, Kai. I'm just rejecting the RWN-driven agenda that everyone seems to be buying into that "everyone is racist".
Because, "everyone" isn't "anything", and the above notion is the biggest pile of projection-driven crap the world has ever seen.
Was I not explicit enough about meaning kin selection based superficial discrimination?
Well, let's define "racism" then.
I'd define it as "making decisions based on race".
Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 04, 2010, 11:59:30 PM
Quote from: Kai on April 04, 2010, 11:39:02 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 04, 2010, 11:00:12 PM
Quote from: Kai on April 04, 2010, 10:55:29 PM
I knew I was going to take shit for this. Planned on it.
I obviously have no response for that.
Not mad at you, Kai. I'm just rejecting the RWN-driven agenda that everyone seems to be buying into that "everyone is racist".
Because, "everyone" isn't "anything", and the above notion is the biggest pile of projection-driven crap the world has ever seen.
Was I not explicit enough about meaning kin selection based superficial discrimination?
Well, let's define "racism" then.
I'd define it as "making decisions based on race".
And I'd argue there are unconscious decisions based on race that I may make if I'm not conscious of that capacity.
Quote from: Kai on April 05, 2010, 12:33:44 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 04, 2010, 11:59:30 PM
Quote from: Kai on April 04, 2010, 11:39:02 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 04, 2010, 11:00:12 PM
Quote from: Kai on April 04, 2010, 10:55:29 PM
I knew I was going to take shit for this. Planned on it.
I obviously have no response for that.
Not mad at you, Kai. I'm just rejecting the RWN-driven agenda that everyone seems to be buying into that "everyone is racist".
Because, "everyone" isn't "anything", and the above notion is the biggest pile of projection-driven crap the world has ever seen.
Was I not explicit enough about meaning kin selection based superficial discrimination?
Well, let's define "racism" then.
I'd define it as "making decisions based on race".
And I'd argue there are unconscious decisions based on race that I may make if I'm not conscious of that capacity.
I'd argue against that. It's just a matter of sifting out bad data before making a decision.
I'd say the solution is mandating interracial breeding. Once everyone is the same shade of light brown, with the same amalgamation of racial identification markers we can't make this sort of judgement anymore. Unfortunately I'm vasectomized, so I can't do my part, but the rest of you, get to it!
I think awareness is as good a solution as we're going to get.
On a related note, what disturbs me is that while racism is largely frowned upon, classism is widely accepted.
For me at least racism is something that the people who are part of the tribe can afford to do
I can't take a side in the Kai, Dok debate. I'm sort of the middle. Can see both view points
:?
So if this is the same experiment I'm thinking of they showed the participants pictures of people of various races that flashed quickly next to a word with either positive or negative connotations. I forget specifically what the participant had to do, but something like identify the word as generally considered positive or negative. They then found that people are quicker to categorize a positive word when shown a picture of a member of their own race and likewise a negative word when shown a differing race? I'm not really describing it well enough to hold up to scrutiny, but the general idea is that there was a significant effect and pretty much across the board to one degree or another. What it really suggested was that we have a slight preference for features similar to our own, the converse of which is a slightly negative reaction to different features. Makes sense to me.
It mostly works in the unconscious level, which, if one does what Kai is suggesting (to "recover") can be avoided in regular decision making. What I'm reading with Dok saying it's a matter of sifting out bad data before making a decision, it doesn't necessarily contradict what Kai is saying in that the bad data could be one's own racial preference. Forgive me if I misinterpreted that.
The situation put to me was a white cop shooting a black suspect in a situation where danger was perceived. The cop has shown no racist tendencies, but where he was acting on pure instinct there was no time to work through potential biases. A white suspect, or a black cop, would make shooting less likely in that instance.
From a social justice standpoint, it is taught that members of an agent group can't do a whole fuck of a lot to help a target group. They need to recognize their agency, and work to reduce its effect, but ultimately the target needs to empower themselves to make the change.
This is interesting, but it does nothing to explain why I tend to be more distrustful of white people.
Quote from: EoC on April 05, 2010, 05:38:55 AM
So if this is the same experiment I'm thinking of they showed the participants pictures of people of various races that flashed quickly next to a word with either positive or negative connotations. I forget specifically what the participant had to do, but something like identify the word as generally considered positive or negative. They then found that people are quicker to categorize a positive word when shown a picture of a member of their own race and likewise a negative word when shown a differing race? I'm not really describing it well enough to hold up to scrutiny, but the general idea is that there was a significant effect and pretty much across the board to one degree or another. What it really suggested was that we have a slight preference for features similar to our own, the converse of which is a slightly negative reaction to different features. Makes sense to me.
I did that test as a psych student, several times. Apparently I have a slight preference for black people.
I'm white, and have always lived in predominately (if not overwhelmingly) white areas. I'm still not sure how I got those results.
It's probably because you're one of those WHITE DEVILS.
srsly, though, you people are evil incarnate.
Quote from: Cain on April 05, 2010, 04:22:41 PM
Quote from: EoC on April 05, 2010, 05:38:55 AM
So if this is the same experiment I'm thinking of they showed the participants pictures of people of various races that flashed quickly next to a word with either positive or negative connotations. I forget specifically what the participant had to do, but something like identify the word as generally considered positive or negative. They then found that people are quicker to categorize a positive word when shown a picture of a member of their own race and likewise a negative word when shown a differing race? I'm not really describing it well enough to hold up to scrutiny, but the general idea is that there was a significant effect and pretty much across the board to one degree or another. What it really suggested was that we have a slight preference for features similar to our own, the converse of which is a slightly negative reaction to different features. Makes sense to me.
I did that test as a psych student, several times. Apparently I have a slight preference for black people.
I'm white, and have always lived in predominately (if not overwhelmingly) white areas. I'm still not sure how I got those results.
:lulz:
It's probably from being white and living in a predominately (if not overwhelmingly) white area.
Quote from: Emerald City Hustle on April 05, 2010, 04:17:23 PM
This is interesting, but it does nothing to explain why I tend to be more distrustful of white people.
Because we've worked millenia to earn that distrust.
Quote from: Cain on April 05, 2010, 04:22:41 PM
Quote from: EoC on April 05, 2010, 05:38:55 AM
So if this is the same experiment I'm thinking of they showed the participants pictures of people of various races that flashed quickly next to a word with either positive or negative connotations. I forget specifically what the participant had to do, but something like identify the word as generally considered positive or negative. They then found that people are quicker to categorize a positive word when shown a picture of a member of their own race and likewise a negative word when shown a differing race? I'm not really describing it well enough to hold up to scrutiny, but the general idea is that there was a significant effect and pretty much across the board to one degree or another. What it really suggested was that we have a slight preference for features similar to our own, the converse of which is a slightly negative reaction to different features. Makes sense to me.
I did that test as a psych student, several times. Apparently I have a slight preference for black people.
I'm white, and have always lived in predominately (if not overwhelmingly) white areas. I'm still not sure how I got those results.
Did/do you have any close friends who are black? I vaguely remember reading about that experiment, and how the results were often different in certain circumstance, i.e. "positive experience" with members of a different race would alter the results to be less superfically racist. Still I figrue that the biological impulse in this example is pretty overrideable.
x
So I wanted to make it clear my own thoughts on this idea rather than on the study itself. This is useful but dangerous information. Useful in that it can help people recognize and overcome a bias that has no place in modern society. Maybe thousands of years ago it was safer to stick with people who look like you but it's dated. It's dangerous in that it provides an excuse for actual racism. It gives people something to point to in order to explain their racist behavior and say "look, everyone is racist, I'm just more honest about it." And considering the former takes vigilance, self control, and effort I think it's pretty safe to assume the majority of people would tend to the latter justification.
Quote from: EoC on April 05, 2010, 08:34:19 PM
It's dangerous in that it provides an excuse for actual racism.
THIS. Check out Capitol Grilling or the freaks at Camp Idiot for evidence.
I think two important parts of Kai's post are that, one, there seems to be a natural biological capacity for racism, and that if ignored, can lead to a bunch of misleading and misguided bullshit.
So, it seems to fall in line with "Be a fucking BIPED, you fuckos!"
Quote from: LMNO on April 05, 2010, 08:44:37 PM
I think two important parts of Kai's post are that, one, there seems to be a natural biological capacity for racism, and that if ignored, can lead to a bunch of misleading and misguided bullshit.
So, it seems to fall in line with "Be a fucking BIPED, you fuckos!"
I have no problem with that. I simple define "racism" as "making decisions based on race". Having your hind brain screeching "NOT MY TRIBE" isn't racism, but acting on that screech IS.
What about mixed-race people? What about a guy who is part black, part chinese, part white, and part American indian? It gets a lot harder to be unconsciously racist when everybody looks a little like family.
Quote from: Calamity Nigel on April 05, 2010, 08:52:17 PM
What about mixed-race people? What about a guy who is part black, part chinese, part white, and part American indian? It gets a lot harder to be unconsciously racist when everybody looks a little like family.
Then you hate on Canadians. Not hard to do, what with them mooning us with their frozen bits from across the border, from their disgustingly clean and underpopulated permafrost. Fuck those guys, they're nothing but trouble. And they make shitty whiskey.
I was reading up about racism on wikipedia and stumbled upon this list of ethnic slurs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_slurs). It's interesting to learn the origin of some of those terms.
When they were doing the original research on racism, they didn't get great results. That's because many people are prejudiced but won't admit it, or may not even be consciously aware of it. A lot of the more recent research on racism has to do with trying to uncover people's stereotypes and prejudices without tipping the off about it. It turns out a lot of people hold racist attitudes they're not even aware of, like in the aforementioned case of rating a word as being less positive after being flashed an image of a black guy's face. Interesting stuff.
Quote from: Chryselephantine Shavenwolf on April 05, 2010, 03:06:14 AM
I think awareness is as good a solution as we're going to get.
On a related note, what disturbs me is that while racism is largely frowned upon, classism is widely accepted.
Classism is good. Rich people are bad and we need to get to rising up against them as soon as possible. I'm going to hold to that stance until my wife's big break comes though and I change classes, at which point the poor are all rabble who need to be kept in line so they don't rise up.
On another note, you can change classes, moving from poor to rich may be difficult and unlikely, but moving from rich to poor is easy.
Quote from: Calamity Nigel on April 05, 2010, 08:52:17 PM
What about mixed-race people? What about a guy who is part black, part chinese, part white, and part American indian? It gets a lot harder to be unconsciously racist when everybody looks a little like family.
That was my point. Although most likely his brain is still going to pick up on which people look more like him unconsciously.
As a rich person, I am offended.
Offended, I say!
/
:lord:
Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 05, 2010, 08:54:42 PM
Quote from: Calamity Nigel on April 05, 2010, 08:52:17 PM
What about mixed-race people? What about a guy who is part black, part chinese, part white, and part American indian? It gets a lot harder to be unconsciously racist when everybody looks a little like family.
Then you hate on Canadians. Not hard to do, what with them mooning us with their frozen bits from across the border, from their disgustingly clean and underpopulated permafrost. Fuck those guys, they're nothing but trouble. And they make shitty whiskey.
We hate you guys back :argh!:
We do it quietly and politely, though.
Quote from: Emerald City Hustle on April 05, 2010, 04:24:10 PM
It's probably because you're one of those WHITE DEVILS.
srsly, though, you people are evil incarnate.
The White Man is a joke.
Also I'd agree with the OP in people with little experience in dealing with diverse makes and models of other people. I know for a fact that over time working in the service industry I have grown confident with any new person and have grown to hate the public in general. Once you've seen big little, thin/fat black or white or Burberry enough times it all blends into one.
Well there is one exception. There is a girl who comes into the shop, she has obviously survived a fire. There are so many questions I want to ask her, but they all relate to what happened and coping with deformity, to the extent that I act a little bashful when talking to her.
IMO, having biologically-based xenophobic impulses = not racist
Acting upon those impulses = racist
Quote from: Remington on April 06, 2010, 01:10:54 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 05, 2010, 08:54:42 PM
Quote from: Calamity Nigel on April 05, 2010, 08:52:17 PM
What about mixed-race people? What about a guy who is part black, part chinese, part white, and part American indian? It gets a lot harder to be unconsciously racist when everybody looks a little like family.
Then you hate on Canadians. Not hard to do, what with them mooning us with their frozen bits from across the border, from their disgustingly clean and underpopulated permafrost. Fuck those guys, they're nothing but trouble. And they make shitty whiskey.
We hate you guys back :argh!:
We do it quietly and politely, though.
And with such nice smiles and...HEY! :crankey:
Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 06, 2010, 01:50:56 AM
Quote from: Remington on April 06, 2010, 01:10:54 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 05, 2010, 08:54:42 PM
Quote from: Calamity Nigel on April 05, 2010, 08:52:17 PM
What about mixed-race people? What about a guy who is part black, part chinese, part white, and part American indian? It gets a lot harder to be unconsciously racist when everybody looks a little like family.
Then you hate on Canadians. Not hard to do, what with them mooning us with their frozen bits from across the border, from their disgustingly clean and underpopulated permafrost. Fuck those guys, they're nothing but trouble. And they make shitty whiskey.
We hate you guys back :argh!:
We do it quietly and politely, though.
And with such nice smiles and...HEY! :crankey:
What I worry about is that one day the Canadians will invent a word which carries the meanings of "thank you," "I'm sorry," "please," and "you're welcome" all in one horrific superword of politeness. Are we, as a country, prepared for such an attack?
Quote from: Cainad on April 06, 2010, 02:12:22 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 06, 2010, 01:50:56 AM
Quote from: Remington on April 06, 2010, 01:10:54 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 05, 2010, 08:54:42 PM
Quote from: Calamity Nigel on April 05, 2010, 08:52:17 PM
What about mixed-race people? What about a guy who is part black, part chinese, part white, and part American indian? It gets a lot harder to be unconsciously racist when everybody looks a little like family.
Then you hate on Canadians. Not hard to do, what with them mooning us with their frozen bits from across the border, from their disgustingly clean and underpopulated permafrost. Fuck those guys, they're nothing but trouble. And they make shitty whiskey.
We hate you guys back :argh!:
We do it quietly and politely, though.
And with such nice smiles and...HEY! :crankey:
What I worry about is that one day the Canadians will invent a word which carries the meanings of "thank you," "I'm sorry," "please," and "you're welcome" all in one horrific superword of politeness. Are we, as a country, prepared for such an attack?
We are are only prepared as far as our Rascal scooters can run.
Quote from: Nast on April 06, 2010, 02:14:22 AM
Quote from: Cainad on April 06, 2010, 02:12:22 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 06, 2010, 01:50:56 AM
Quote from: Remington on April 06, 2010, 01:10:54 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 05, 2010, 08:54:42 PM
Quote from: Calamity Nigel on April 05, 2010, 08:52:17 PM
What about mixed-race people? What about a guy who is part black, part chinese, part white, and part American indian? It gets a lot harder to be unconsciously racist when everybody looks a little like family.
Then you hate on Canadians. Not hard to do, what with them mooning us with their frozen bits from across the border, from their disgustingly clean and underpopulated permafrost. Fuck those guys, they're nothing but trouble. And they make shitty whiskey.
We hate you guys back :argh!:
We do it quietly and politely, though.
And with such nice smiles and...HEY! :crankey:
What I worry about is that one day the Canadians will invent a word which carries the meanings of "thank you," "I'm sorry," "please," and "you're welcome" all in one horrific superword of politeness. Are we, as a country, prepared for such an attack?
We are are only prepared as far as our Rascal scooters can run.
I think if we could but harness their supernatural ability to consume anything, we'd be a world superpower again!
THINK OF THE POSSIBILITIES! WE'D BE UNSTOPPABLE! :madscience:
Quote from: Professor Freeky on April 06, 2010, 04:34:26 AM
Quote from: Nast on April 06, 2010, 02:14:22 AM
Quote from: Cainad on April 06, 2010, 02:12:22 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 06, 2010, 01:50:56 AM
Quote from: Remington on April 06, 2010, 01:10:54 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 05, 2010, 08:54:42 PM
Quote from: Calamity Nigel on April 05, 2010, 08:52:17 PM
What about mixed-race people? What about a guy who is part black, part chinese, part white, and part American indian? It gets a lot harder to be unconsciously racist when everybody looks a little like family.
Then you hate on Canadians. Not hard to do, what with them mooning us with their frozen bits from across the border, from their disgustingly clean and underpopulated permafrost. Fuck those guys, they're nothing but trouble. And they make shitty whiskey.
We hate you guys back :argh!:
We do it quietly and politely, though.
And with such nice smiles and...HEY! :crankey:
What I worry about is that one day the Canadians will invent a word which carries the meanings of "thank you," "I'm sorry," "please," and "you're welcome" all in one horrific superword of politeness. Are we, as a country, prepared for such an attack?
We are are only prepared as far as our Rascal scooters can run.
I think if we could but harness their supernatural ability to consume anything, we'd be a world superpower again!
THINK OF THE POSSIBILITIES! WE'D BE UNSTOPPABLE! :madscience:
UNLIMITED POWER!
Quote from: Cainad on April 06, 2010, 02:12:22 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 06, 2010, 01:50:56 AM
Quote from: Remington on April 06, 2010, 01:10:54 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 05, 2010, 08:54:42 PM
Quote from: Calamity Nigel on April 05, 2010, 08:52:17 PM
What about mixed-race people? What about a guy who is part black, part chinese, part white, and part American indian? It gets a lot harder to be unconsciously racist when everybody looks a little like family.
Then you hate on Canadians. Not hard to do, what with them mooning us with their frozen bits from across the border, from their disgustingly clean and underpopulated permafrost. Fuck those guys, they're nothing but trouble. And they make shitty whiskey.
We hate you guys back :argh!:
We do it quietly and politely, though.
And with such nice smiles and...HEY! :crankey:
What I worry about is that one day the Canadians will invent a word which carries the meanings of "thank you," "I'm sorry," "please," and "you're welcome" all in one horrific superword of politeness. Are we, as a country, prepared for such an attack?
"Sorry" actually works for all 4 of those. If a Canadian says it.
I'll have to point GS to this thread. He had to take a class on Race in college and a lot of discussion came up on what constituted racism. Apparently the professor started the class with, "Everyone in here is racist. Why? Because racist means that you simply denote race" and it went downhill from there.
According to my psychology textbook here, Kai is more or less right. To use a computer analogy, we do not have "administrative" privileges to our own cognitions, even if we can cultivate more powerful means of accessing and modifying them, and as humans we look to the in-group for solace, normality, and reassurance against out-groups.
That said, you do have a choice of who your in-group is, and if you choose a shitty one, then you have no excuses.
People will probably feel the need to pick at that last line, but you're talking to a guy who has carefully tailored his in-group for half his life. In my experience the friends you keep are the best way to see who you are, and I pick and choose my friends with that in mind.
That was sort of a roundabout way of saying that, despite the human failing of prejudice, you have the means to rise above it and being human is no excuse for racism.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on April 05, 2010, 09:40:06 PM
Quote from: Chryselephantine Shavenwolf on April 05, 2010, 03:06:14 AM
I think awareness is as good a solution as we're going to get.
On a related note, what disturbs me is that while racism is largely frowned upon, classism is widely accepted.
On another note, you can change classes, moving from poor to rich may be difficult and unlikely, but moving from rich to poor is easy.
Yeah, but there is a pervasive myth of "upward mobility" in America. Not sure how it's survived this long, but it has to be acknowledged.
Labels and more labels...
"Most people appear to default to a slight preference of their own 'tribe' when meeting a new person for the first time, but most people seem capable of consciously overriding this initial reaction."
"Some people consciously, or subconsciously, judge people based on race, religion, class, sexual preference.'
Out of those, I think the label 'racist' (as used by most people in the Western world) would apply only to the second group.
There seems to be a great difference between someone who is prejudice and someone who notices that another persons skin is a different color. One indicates a psychological problem where judgment is based on bais. The other indicates that the individual has functioning rods and cones.
It seems imprecise to use the same term for these two very different positions.
Quote from: Cainad on April 06, 2010, 02:12:22 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 06, 2010, 01:50:56 AM
Quote from: Remington on April 06, 2010, 01:10:54 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 05, 2010, 08:54:42 PM
Quote from: Calamity Nigel on April 05, 2010, 08:52:17 PM
What about mixed-race people? What about a guy who is part black, part chinese, part white, and part American indian? It gets a lot harder to be unconsciously racist when everybody looks a little like family.
Then you hate on Canadians. Not hard to do, what with them mooning us with their frozen bits from across the border, from their disgustingly clean and underpopulated permafrost. Fuck those guys, they're nothing but trouble. And they make shitty whiskey.
We hate you guys back :argh!:
We do it quietly and politely, though.
And with such nice smiles and...HEY! :crankey:
What I worry about is that one day the Canadians will invent a word which carries the meanings of "thank you," "I'm sorry," "please," and "you're welcome" all in one horrific superword of politeness. Are we, as a country, prepared for such an attack?
Clearly you've never been to Etobicoke.
Quote from: Roaring Biscuit! on April 05, 2010, 08:23:36 PM
Quote from: Cain on April 05, 2010, 04:22:41 PM
Quote from: EoC on April 05, 2010, 05:38:55 AM
So if this is the same experiment I'm thinking of they showed the participants pictures of people of various races that flashed quickly next to a word with either positive or negative connotations. I forget specifically what the participant had to do, but something like identify the word as generally considered positive or negative. They then found that people are quicker to categorize a positive word when shown a picture of a member of their own race and likewise a negative word when shown a differing race? I'm not really describing it well enough to hold up to scrutiny, but the general idea is that there was a significant effect and pretty much across the board to one degree or another. What it really suggested was that we have a slight preference for features similar to our own, the converse of which is a slightly negative reaction to different features. Makes sense to me.
I did that test as a psych student, several times. Apparently I have a slight preference for black people.
I'm white, and have always lived in predominately (if not overwhelmingly) white areas. I'm still not sure how I got those results.
Did/do you have any close friends who are black? I vaguely remember reading about that experiment, and how the results were often different in certain circumstance, i.e. "positive experience" with members of a different race would alter the results to be less superfically racist. Still I figrue that the biological impulse in this example is pretty overrideable.
x
Nope. I live in one of the most ethnically homogenous parts of the country (so much so, the BNP actually doesn't have any traction here, since when they show up complaining about foreigners, people here go "what foreigners?"). Back then I didn't even listen to much hip-hop or anything.
Quote from: Emerald City Hustle on April 05, 2010, 04:24:10 PM
It's probably because you're one of those WHITE DEVILS.
srsly, though, you people are evil incarnate.
:thanks:
TECHNICALLY
i have two seperate chicken flocks, seperated by about six months in age. for the most part, they wander, generally together, as a group. they have a fair amount of space to scratch at and do seperate throughout the day.
WHEN THEY DO
the black feathered Jersey Giant, black feathered Australorp and the black feathered maran move around together. similarly, the rhode island red and the red sex-link, which look nearly identical, are almost always side by side. often, the arguably red feathered aumericana joins them.
the maran, even though she's of the younger flock, which have their own hen-house, began sleeping with the other two black feathered hens.
i'm pretty sure Nigel and i have discussed this and hers do the same thing.
EOT,
my folks have the same situation. (actually had... the australorps became stew not too long ago)
i thought it was also interesting that, although they did segregate themselves, the australorps were more aggressive, but would only really peck at other australorps, not the americanas... the australorps eventually all had bald heads....
then they stopped laying and became stew.
I'm actually going to come out and say that I think a preference for your own tribe is a positive thing. Especcially if the other people in your tribe feel the same way. The problem is when the tribe gets homogenized to the point of being equated with skin color. Tribes produce a resilient support system and a way of getting a basic idea of what people you can go to first in a strange and alien place. This is not a bad thing. I would say most functional tribes in the US base their visual identification procedures more on clothing, hairstyles, and tattoos than they do on skin color, eye color, or geneticaly determined physical features.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 05, 2010, 12:38:57 AM
I'd argue against that. It's just a matter of sifting out bad data before making a decision.
Wouldn't that require that the person in question admit the bias to themselves? How many people do you really think are capable of doing that?
What the post says:
Quote from: Kai on April 04, 2010, 10:44:20 PM
Yes, it's true. Though I'm cringing in admittance, I have to come out of the closet about this. It's just far too damaging to keep it in.
All people are racists, which is to say, all people discriminate based on surface differences of facial structure and pigmentation. The founder of sociobiology EO Wilson claimed it's a product of kin selection, a universal issue with a genetic root. People who are superficially different than us and our kin are more likely to be considered untrustworthy, dangerous, or simply unfriendly. People who are superficially similar to us and our kin are more likely to be considered trustworthy, benign, and friendly. This root has nothing to do with culture, although the culture factor certainly comes from and stacks upon this. Strangers are the unknown, the different and the possibly dangerous, and visual cues are very important in this determination. I may get hounded for months for posting this, but I know it's true. Some situations require split second decisions about threat or friendly, for which automatic reactions have been highly selected over evolutionary time. Kin selection based racism was initially part of that.
What I am NOT saying here is that we are all Lester Maddox. I don't think anyone here actively discriminates on the basis of race (and if you do, GTFO seriously), nor would I recommend doing so just because there is this biological basis (and if you do, also GTFO). What I am saying is we all have the capacity for superficial discrimination. This is of course not limited to race; culture adds layers of superficial differences to discriminate against. Very few people are aware of this unconscious act. I know I was shocked when I saw it in myself, when I initially shied back from people of different pigmentations or dress or facial features just because they looked different, even in completely nonthreatening situations.
This is something that requires awareness. When these ubiquitous prejudices remain just an evolutionary vestige, when they are made aware of in mind and checked they are unable to enter outward actions. It's when they are ignored, when people pretend they don't exist that they become dangerous, that we submit ourselves to monkey impulses of kin selection.
I'm a racist. But I'm recovering.
What I think this is actually about:
I know I was shocked when I saw it in myself, when I initially shied back from people of different pigmentations or dress or facial features just because they looked different, even in completely nonthreatening situations.
I do not base my hatred on a person race or religion, I hate everyone equally.
Except the kid's father who I hate more than everyone else.
He's a white cracker rednecked idiot.
Quote from: Out of Order on April 06, 2010, 10:07:09 PM
I do not base my hatred on a person race or religion, I hate everyone equally.
Except the kid's father who I hate more than everyone else.
He's a white cracker rednecked idiot.
THAT ONLY
disproves anything if you're a white cracker redneck idiot yourself, otherwise it just sounds racist.
Quote from: E.O.T. on April 06, 2010, 10:13:56 PM
Quote from: Out of Order on April 06, 2010, 10:07:09 PM
I do not base my hatred on a person race or religion, I hate everyone equally.
Except the kid's father who I hate more than everyone else.
He's a white cracker rednecked idiot.
THAT ONLY
disproves anything if you're a white cracker redneck idiot yourself, otherwise it just sounds racist.
You know it's bullshit like this that is why I stopped coming here.
NOTE: INTENDED SARCASM!Fucking christ I'm fucking done!
Quote from: Out of Order on April 06, 2010, 10:23:02 PM
Quote from: E.O.T. on April 06, 2010, 10:13:56 PM
Quote from: Out of Order on April 06, 2010, 10:07:09 PM
I do not base my hatred on a person race or religion, I hate everyone equally.
Except the kid's father who I hate more than everyone else.
He's a white cracker rednecked idiot.
THAT ONLY
disproves anything if you're a white cracker redneck idiot yourself, otherwise it just sounds racist.
You know it's bullshit like this that is why I stopped coming here.
NOTE: INTENDED SARCASM!
Fucking christ I'm fucking done!
HA!
i'll take an order of that
intended sarcasm, please
AS IF
anyone thought they'd enter a thread regarding racism on the p.d. board and leave unscathed
fuck shit fuck
...
my lack of swear words concerns me.
Am I racist? Perhaps. From experience, almost every female I have met in RL, are insane. Considering 80% of my friends are females, they are...really...scary...sometimes I just want to get away and scream myself to sleep in a corner
Everytime I meet a female, I am biased towards them being insane.
Everytime I meet a guy, I am biased towards them being douche *much prefer this! As I am douche also*.
Hows that for racist?
:lulz:
(Of course this is mostly within my age bracket...)
[note: replace insane with sensitive and douche with guys and its suddenly nicer]
UNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNG.
This thread pisses me off to a horrendous degree.
Yes, I and many others may well have an instinctive reaction to skin colour. We are on many levels instinctive creatures, and sometimes may have to act on those instincts (the cop with a gun example from earlier).
Is the cop a racist if he is white and shoots a black man on instinct, just because he's black? No.
"Racism" implies a certain kind of wilful blindness, and a conscious discrimination.
For a counter-example; wanting, deep down, things to be fairer for all does not make one an immediate "Socialist", which implies a certain number of other things which include conscious choices.
An identification with people who are less alien than yourself is an entirely natural thing. I'm not saying that natural = good, of course, but to FUCK with anyone saying it's a bad thing.
Quote from: Khara on April 06, 2010, 10:23:02 PM
Quote from: E.O.T. on April 06, 2010, 10:13:56 PM
Quote from: Out of Order on April 06, 2010, 10:07:09 PM
I do not base my hatred on a person race or religion, I hate everyone equally.
Except the kid's father who I hate more than everyone else.
He's a white cracker rednecked idiot.
THAT ONLY
disproves anything if you're a white cracker redneck idiot yourself, otherwise it just sounds racist.
You know it's bullshit like this that is why I stopped coming here.
NOTE: INTENDED SARCASM!
Fucking christ I'm fucking done!
YEP.
That's why I'm just lurking now.
Anyway, back to lurking.
Quote from: Mangrove on April 06, 2010, 09:21:22 PM
What the post says:
Quote from: Kai on April 04, 2010, 10:44:20 PM
Yes, it's true. Though I'm cringing in admittance, I have to come out of the closet about this. It's just far too damaging to keep it in.
All people are racists, which is to say, all people discriminate based on surface differences of facial structure and pigmentation. The founder of sociobiology EO Wilson claimed it's a product of kin selection, a universal issue with a genetic root. People who are superficially different than us and our kin are more likely to be considered untrustworthy, dangerous, or simply unfriendly. People who are superficially similar to us and our kin are more likely to be considered trustworthy, benign, and friendly. This root has nothing to do with culture, although the culture factor certainly comes from and stacks upon this. Strangers are the unknown, the different and the possibly dangerous, and visual cues are very important in this determination. I may get hounded for months for posting this, but I know it's true. Some situations require split second decisions about threat or friendly, for which automatic reactions have been highly selected over evolutionary time. Kin selection based racism was initially part of that.
What I am NOT saying here is that we are all Lester Maddox. I don't think anyone here actively discriminates on the basis of race (and if you do, GTFO seriously), nor would I recommend doing so just because there is this biological basis (and if you do, also GTFO). What I am saying is we all have the capacity for superficial discrimination. This is of course not limited to race; culture adds layers of superficial differences to discriminate against. Very few people are aware of this unconscious act. I know I was shocked when I saw it in myself, when I initially shied back from people of different pigmentations or dress or facial features just because they looked different, even in completely nonthreatening situations.
This is something that requires awareness. When these ubiquitous prejudices remain just an evolutionary vestige, when they are made aware of in mind and checked they are unable to enter outward actions. It's when they are ignored, when people pretend they don't exist that they become dangerous, that we submit ourselves to monkey impulses of kin selection.
I'm a racist. But I'm recovering.
What I think this is actually about:
I know I was shocked when I saw it in myself, when I initially shied back from people of different pigmentations or dress or facial features just because they looked different, even in completely nonthreatening situations.
Perhaps it is. Maybe it was directed at myself? No matter, I've fallen out of love with the OP over the past several days and while I agree with Wilson's sociobiological work on kin selection, the premise is shit and I wouldn't put it past some people to run with it as an excuse.
Kai,
You're a decent person. I've never known you to do or say anything that could be construed as racist.
In your OP, you apologize for a belief system that you don't espouse. You have nothing to apologize for. No right minded person would ever think you had a thing for white hoods, cross burnings etc - so relax!
While I've studied a fair bit of biology, I am not a biologist of any stripe, so I can't profess to knowing very much about E O Wilson, sociobiology or any of that stuff. I think it goes without saying that humans will naturally notice what is different from them. Not just pigmentation or facial variants, but just about everything. It's entirely natural that reptilian parts of our nervous system get pinged by what is different.
The word 'discriminate' carries a number of meanings:
a) To distinguish by discerning or exposing differences
b) to make a distinction, to use good judgment
c) to mark or perceive distinguishing or peculiar features
d) to make a difference in treatment or favor on basis other than individual merit
Definition (d) is the only one that fits what we think of as 'racism'.
Noticing what is different is not the same as making a value judgment.
At risk of being a stinking pop psychologist, my feeling when examining the OP earlier lead me to:
a) You are not your thoughts. Thoughts are mental events produced in our consciousness. They are capable of being observed, examined, analyzed.
b) Sounds to me like you saw someone who was different. You noted the difference and then jumped to an overblown and false conclusion, that you were a racist.
c) Because your dominant belief system (more thoughts, just repeated) is that 'racism is abhorrent' you conflated 'I noticed a difference' with 'I must be racist' which is against what you ordinarily believe, thus leaving you with a weird feeling that you somehow, can't trust yourself. I think you may be just a little over sensitive here. Deep breaths!
I can't help noticing black people in my town because it's small and predominantly white. I notice but there's no judgment. I also notice Victoria's Secret models on tv - it doesn't mean I don't love Mrs Mang, it doesn't mean I'm not attracted to her, it doesn't mean I'm going to go all Tiger Woods on her either. No, all it means is that scantily clad women on tv are sometimes capable of getting my attention. And no sooner has the ad gone, my thoughts have moved on. It's just a mental event. (A mental event that is not in any way aided by the fact that Mrs Mang will comically yell 'boobehs!' whenever buxom lasses appear on screen.)
Evolution may have selected us for certain 'discrimination' but it also gave us a frontal cortex, higher thinking and the ability to say 'hey, I just had a thought....oh...there's another one....wow...my head is really noisy.....I can examine what I think about!' That ingenious faculty stops many of us from sliding back into the primordial ooze.
As I said, I don't really know much about Mr Wilson (Dr Wilson?) so I can't comment. I hope that it's not like a lot of so called 'Evolution Psychology' where people with too much time on their hands come up with various scenarios about how they think ancient humans behave and then try and draw some conclusions to modern life. Shit like - "Oh well, we believe that people are racist/gay/alcoholic/violent/gamblers/republicans etc etc because thousands of years ago people in caves would've done XYZ."
Pure, unadulterated nonsense. We cannot say too much about the behaviors of 'cave men' because they're all dead. We cannot observe them, we cannot test them and we cannot collect much in the way of evidence. It's almost entirely untestable and thus not really science.
Every few years someone will come up with yet another one of these speculations which are all variants upon the same theme. Hell, even the jackass who wrote 'Men are from Mars etc' was on tv talking about how in days of yore, cavemen would've spent quiet time alone in their caves which is why modern men like to get away from their wives!
So I dunno.....using Evolution to form a blanket generalization that 'everyone is racist' is, IMHO extremely faulty. (And yes, someone will almost certainly mangle the premise to justify their own dumb ideas.)
Actually, it wasn't just noting a thought of difference, it was noting a thought of extra caution and attention due to the difference. Which frankly yes, did make me feel like a bigot.
Quote from: Kai on April 07, 2010, 01:52:03 AM
Actually, it wasn't just noting a thought of difference, it was noting a thought of extra caution and attention due to the difference. Which frankly yes, did make me feel like a bigot.
Drop it. It doesn't mean anything. If you'd had time to think it through, you wouldn't have consciously made that judgment, would you? That's what matters. Nothing else. Things like this are why it's important to think for ourselves.
Quote from: EoC on April 05, 2010, 08:34:19 PMIt's dangerous in that it provides an excuse for actual racism. It gives people something to point to in order to explain their racist behavior and say "look, everyone is racist, I'm just more honest about it." And considering the former takes vigilance, self control, and effort I think it's pretty safe to assume the majority of people would tend to the latter justification.
I agree that this is a danger, but the reasoning is easily disproven. Compare to how we say over here that everybody is a primate/monkey. We don't say "I'm just more honest about it" to justify acting on our primate impulses. Quite the opposite, we pride ourselves on being able to observe and overcome these impulses when this is required.
Quote from: Kai on April 07, 2010, 01:52:03 AM
Actually, it wasn't just noting a thought of difference, it was noting a thought of extra caution and attention due to the difference. Which frankly yes, did make me feel like a bigot.
But you didn't follow it up with "HEY YUOO.....GET OUTTA MA NEIGHBERHUD [racial slur of choice]!"
:mullet:
Srsly dude, I think you'll be ok. Your lower nature went 'ping' and your higher nature noticed it. You became aware of a thought and decided it was ill suited to your life & beliefs. Great, it means your nervous system works just fine. If only more people did this!
I keep thinking the title of this thread should be "I am a racist (and so can you). (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Am_America_(And_So_Can_You!))"
Quote from: Cain on April 07, 2010, 04:15:08 PM
I keep thinking the title of this thread should be "I am a racist (and so can you). (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Am_America_(And_So_Can_You!))"
I considered that initially, but I thought the subject was too serious for parody.
That brings up an entirely different discussion.
Quote from: Kai on April 07, 2010, 04:16:12 PM
Quote from: Cain on April 07, 2010, 04:15:08 PM
I keep thinking the title of this thread should be "I am a racist (and so can you). (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Am_America_(And_So_Can_You!))"
I considered that initially, but I thought the subject was too serious for parody.
no such thing.
Quote from: LMNO on April 07, 2010, 04:33:19 PM
That brings up an entirely different discussion.
Quote from: Emerald City Hustle on April 07, 2010, 06:06:01 PM
Quote from: Kai on April 07, 2010, 04:16:12 PM
Quote from: Cain on April 07, 2010, 04:15:08 PM
I keep thinking the title of this thread should be "I am a racist (and so can you). (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Am_America_(And_So_Can_You!))"
I considered that initially, but I thought the subject was too serious for parody.
no such thing.
Ding! Ding! Ding!
Quote from: Payne on April 07, 2010, 12:41:25 AM
UNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNG.
This thread pisses me off to a horrendous degree.
Yes, I and many others may well have an instinctive reaction to skin colour. We are on many levels instinctive creatures, and sometimes may have to act on those instincts (the cop with a gun example from earlier).
Is the cop a racist if he is white and shoots a black man on instinct, just because he's black? No.
"Racism" implies a certain kind of wilful blindness, and a conscious discrimination.
For a counter-example; wanting, deep down, things to be fairer for all does not make one an immediate "Socialist", which implies a certain number of other things which include conscious choices.
An identification with people who are less alien than yourself is an entirely natural thing. I'm not saying that natural = good, of course, but to FUCK with anyone saying it's a bad thing.
The innocent black man is still dead. Where he would not be if that cop did not have that built in predisposition.
If it is built in as deeply as Kai seems to be suggesting it is not going to be something that can be trained out, unfortunately.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on April 08, 2010, 05:22:06 AM
If it is built in as deeply as Kai seems to be suggesting it is not going to be something that can be trained out, unfortunately.
I disagree with that, there are far stronger impulses that can be subdued. This is just a case of getting yourself out there and meeting lots diverse bands of people to get over the inbuilt impulse.
Genetic racism or 'hesitations towards the new' as it should more likely be called is a symptom of an insular lifestyle.
Quote from: Faust on April 08, 2010, 08:34:49 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on April 08, 2010, 05:22:06 AM
If it is built in as deeply as Kai seems to be suggesting it is not going to be something that can be trained out, unfortunately.
I disagree with that, there are far stronger impulses that can be subdued. This is just a case of getting yourself out there and meeting lots diverse bands of people to get over the inbuilt impulse.
Genetic racism or 'hesitations towards the new' as it should more likely be called is a symptom of an insular lifestyle.
I agree. Just because we have some basic programming doesn't mean that we can't either change the programming, or add new programming to modify the basic systems bad effects.
If nothing else, I think it's funny how something I half assed gets five pages of comments and the combined "In those days" haven't reached that length.
Quote from: Kai on April 08, 2010, 09:54:07 PM
If nothing else, I think it's funny how something I half assed gets five pages of comments and the combined "In those days" haven't reached that length.
That's cause its a very good topic to discuss! :)
Quote from: Kai on April 08, 2010, 09:54:07 PM
If nothing else, I think it's funny how something I half assed gets five pages of comments and the combined "In those days" haven't reached that length.
Because Racism is also a hot issue. Start a thread about Abortion or Gun Control and watch what happens. All other threads, no matter how content filled will be left standing in the shade.
Quote from: Kai on April 08, 2010, 09:54:07 PM
If nothing else, I think it's funny how something I half assed gets five pages of comments and the combined "In those days" haven't reached that length.
Its because the title inspires in the forums users a similar reaction to the one you described in the OP.
Quote from: Kai on April 08, 2010, 09:54:07 PM
If nothing else, I think it's funny how something I half assed gets five pages of comments and the combined "In those days" haven't reached that length.
Simply because there's not much controversy in those. They're good, and if a couple of people have already said that, and I have nothing new to add, I won't echo ...
Actually, here is one thing I noticed in me -
I don't feel comfortable with the idea of myself dating an Asian.
That is pretty racist. I know that everyone is pretty much the same (we're all freaking humans), but regardless I still don't feel comfortable.
Quote from: NotPubli on April 09, 2010, 12:21:14 PM
Actually, here is one thing I noticed in me -
I don't feel comfortable with the idea of myself dating an Asian.
That is pretty racist. I know that everyone is pretty much the same (we're all freaking humans), but regardless I still don't feel comfortable.
that's come up before here. i don't remember what everyone's stance on that one is, but it was a contentious argument, i believe.
I don't see why that would make you racist (depending on the usage of that term, i guess).
i would presume you are also an ageist is this respect?
Quote from: Iptuous on April 09, 2010, 01:40:18 PM
Quote from: NotPubli on April 09, 2010, 12:21:14 PM
Actually, here is one thing I noticed in me -
I don't feel comfortable with the idea of myself dating an Asian.
That is pretty racist. I know that everyone is pretty much the same (we're all freaking humans), but regardless I still don't feel comfortable.
that's come up before here. i don't remember what everyone's stance on that one is, but it was a contentious argument, i believe.
I don't see why that would make you racist (depending on the usage of that term, i guess).
i would presume you are also an ageist is this respect?
It wasn't so much that the person wouldn't date blacks, but that she believed all blacks to be rapists. This is not at that level.
Quote from: Kai on April 09, 2010, 02:23:43 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on April 09, 2010, 01:40:18 PM
Quote from: NotPubli on April 09, 2010, 12:21:14 PM
Actually, here is one thing I noticed in me -
I don't feel comfortable with the idea of myself dating an Asian.
That is pretty racist. I know that everyone is pretty much the same (we're all freaking humans), but regardless I still don't feel comfortable.
that's come up before here. i don't remember what everyone's stance on that one is, but it was a contentious argument, i believe.
I don't see why that would make you racist (depending on the usage of that term, i guess).
i would presume you are also an ageist is this respect?
It wasn't so much that the person wouldn't date blacks, but that she believed all blacks to be rapists. This is not at that level.
oh, no wait.
i thought i was thinking of a different time.
i remember it now. i just repressed that....
wasn't it still a contentious notion before she chimed in, though?
i thought it started with the general idea, as presented here, and some viewed not wanting to date people because of skin color as racist while others viewed it as no more intrinsically wrong than not wanting to date somebody because of any other superficial aesthetic quality...
I think the dating thing is only considered racist if you literally have a "no dates" policy on an entire race of people. So for instance, I generally haven't dated South Asian women, since I haven't really met any I've found attractive, so far. However in the unlikely even that I were to hit it off with Iman Ali (http://www.mobile-pedia.com/images/thumbnails/movies/Iman_Ali.jpg), I wouldn't even have to think about it. I'd be in there so fast it'd violate several laws of physics.
On the other hand, Aini's proclaiment that "I wont sleep with anyone less than 15/16th's white"....well, kinda hard to argue that is anything but racist.
I remember now. It was an argument about whether the genitals were color-blind, essentially.
I think someone said that there was a line somewhere between "I would never fuck my own gender" and "I would never fuck a black chick" that crosses into bigotry, but the entire topic was so fraught with emotional landmines that no one could agree with anything, and we all got mad at each other.
agreed.
i think the implication is that a 'no dates with X' rule is the unstated '...because i hate them dirty X'.
it seems to me that someone who has thus far found themselves attracted only to, for example, jet black skin isn't necessarily racist. they just have an aesthetic preference.
i guess they could have a policy like the Model-T; 'I'll date anyone of any race, as long as they're black', or whatnot....
If anyone's taking notes on how to troll, this is a perfect example of "Escalation throught the Introduction of Sexuality".
If a topic isn't contentious enough, add sex to the mix!
An aesthetic preference is exactly how I would've put it, I just couldn't figure out a way to work it into the sentence. Preferences vs the absolute rule is almost certainly how I would frame it and think about it.
Quote from: LMNO on April 09, 2010, 03:15:32 PM
If anyone's taking notes on how to troll, this is a perfect example of "Escalation throught the Introduction of Sexuality".
If a topic isn't contentious enough, add sex to the mix!
Have I mentioned my sexual preference for aborted Republican fetuses? But only those that support the second ammendment and war in Iraq.
Quote from: Cain on April 09, 2010, 03:18:32 PM
Quote from: LMNO on April 09, 2010, 03:15:32 PM
If anyone's taking notes on how to troll, this is a perfect example of "Escalation throught the Introduction of Sexuality".
If a topic isn't contentious enough, add sex to the mix!
Have I mentioned my sexual preference for aborted Republican fetuses? But only those that support the second ammendment and war in Iraq.
:potd:
Quote from: Cain on April 09, 2010, 03:18:32 PM
Quote from: LMNO on April 09, 2010, 03:15:32 PM
If anyone's taking notes on how to troll, this is a perfect example of "Escalation throught the Introduction of Sexuality".
If a topic isn't contentious enough, add sex to the mix!
Have I mentioned my sexual preference for aborted Republican fetuses? But only those that support the second ammendment and war in Iraq.
I would womp that shit right now, except i'm pretty sure that would get me fired...
Women are awesome regardless of skin color.... crazy, yes... but still awesome :wink:
Quote from: Ratatosk on April 09, 2010, 03:34:43 PM
Women are awesome regardless of skin color.... crazy, yes... but still awesome :wink:
I have found that to be the case, as well...
\
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_qIbU7ptOt4E/SToPTFQZJnI/AAAAAAAAAHs/igSF1H5LWhE/s400/kirk.JPG)
The idea in itself is IMO not racist enough to make a big deal out of, however I find the notion of someone saying "I would have never sex/date with a blonde/redhead/etc" kind of strange myself. Aesthetic preferences aside. I mean, I find redheads hugely attractive (given an attractive face/body/etc), but my girlfriend is not a redhead.
or "I would never sex/date someone without/with full lips" or "pronounced cheekbones" ... etc etc
No yeah I think that's a pretty weird thing to say. But then, I don't have any fetishes (in the strict sense of the word) either.
I mean, sure, you can have aesthetic preferences, but in the end, you usually go for "aesthetically preferable enough, and awesome character".
At least, I do.
Now that still doesn't mean I would automatically write off someone that says to not date someone of a certain race or skin colour as a badwrong kind of racist, but it would definitely cause me to poke a littlebit further along that route just to check if their exclusivity extends to somewhat more unseemingly bigoted areas of preference/non-preference.
Well, if we're going to go there...
If you take a human who is 5'10 (in a gender that is preferrable to you), how much does that person have to weight before you lose all potential sexual desire for them?
200lb?
400lb?
900lb?
For most people, there is a general aesthetic principle involved. Again, it depends on where you draw the line.
Quote from: Iptuous on April 09, 2010, 03:47:20 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on April 09, 2010, 03:34:43 PM
Women are awesome regardless of skin color.... crazy, yes... but still awesome :wink:
I have found that to be the case, as well...
\
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_qIbU7ptOt4E/SToPTFQZJnI/AAAAAAAAAHs/igSF1H5LWhE/s400/kirk.JPG)
Alas, I've never had a chance with the blue or green skinned ones.
Quote from: LMNO on April 09, 2010, 04:35:20 PM
Well, if we're going to go there...
If you take a human who is 5'10 (in a gender that is preferrable to you), how much does that person have to weight before you lose all potential sexual desire for them?
For most people, there is a general aesthetic principle involved. Again, it depends on where you draw the line.
THIS!
Sjaantze simply cannot understand why some women, even if I love their personality don't turn me on because of obesity. She thinks its closed minded and bigoted. I think its cause my system doesn't react positively to that sort of physical look.
I'm sure if I lived 500 years ago, I'd probably feel differently. Maybe people who don't like a specific race would feel differently 500 years from now. I mean, surely a lot of this stuff comes from childhood programming and social 'norms'.
I think that [most but not all] choices made in the bedroom are largely irrelevant to the greater problems of society
The problems with race in our society have more to do with employment, class warfare, that sort of thing. I don't think that interracial unions are necessarily an indicator of an enlightened society, so I don't think that selecting a partner based on aesthetic reasons is racist in the bad sense. It is exactly what kai's talking about, an underlying and unconscious preference for people of "our tribe".
I think it's pushing Political Correctness a bit far to try to impose this kind of societal equitableness on the individual's libido.
I mean, I heard a feminist argument once that it's wrong to be into BDSM because it degrades women and equates femininity with weakness. But unless people are making employment choices in my bedroom, I don't see why I should tangle up morality and my sexuality.
I wonder if that feminist never heard of Dominatrixes...
(the argument is that dommes are embodying masculine modes of power. If a domme uses a strap-on or dresses her boy up like a girl, this is seen as reinforcing the cultural role of the female as submissive. Argument is here (http://rageagainstthemanchine.com/2008/11/28/bdsm-the-sexual-equivalent-of-being-into-renaissance-faires-part-1-some-background-and-a-few-warnings/) :vom:)
Plus there's a strong theme among certain feminists that all sex workers (and that's what a dominatrix is) are victims.
Quote from: Cramulus on April 09, 2010, 06:48:14 PM
(the argument is that dommes are embodying masculine modes of power. If a domme uses a strap-on or dresses her boy up like a girl, this is seen as reinforcing the cultural role of the female as submissive. Argument is here (http://rageagainstthemanchine.com/2008/11/28/bdsm-the-sexual-equivalent-of-being-into-renaissance-faires-part-1-some-background-and-a-few-warnings/) :vom:)
There was an interview on NPR a while ago that talked about these issues with an ex dominatrix.
it was interesting.
I've also heard those arguments from feminists. i questioned about some in the BDSM community that were not into role reversal really. the man still wanted to be/look like/feel like a man, and the woman likewise, but the woman would be in control of the situation etc. The response i got was that the man was still embodying female characteristics by being in the weaker position. when i pointed out that if they felt the only "female characteristic" that the man was taking on was weakness, then that only went to show a sexism in themselves.
they didn't like that.
they also simply refused to see the humor...
Quote from: Cramulus on April 09, 2010, 06:48:14 PM
(the argument is that dommes are embodying masculine modes of power. If a domme uses a strap-on or dresses her boy up like a girl, this is seen as reinforcing the cultural role of the female as submissive. Argument is here (http://rageagainstthemanchine.com/2008/11/28/bdsm-the-sexual-equivalent-of-being-into-renaissance-faires-part-1-some-background-and-a-few-warnings/) :vom:)
I've not read much of that argument and I already think it's quite ridiculous.
My response to the blog thread :
Domination and submission are beyond gender, and can be between any combination of of people, male and female, male and male, female and female.
The enjoyment of it is being in control, or out of control.
Its really pathetic to see Feminists having a knee jerk reaction when they see a woman in a position that is not of control.
BSDM is an equal opportunities area, and a woman can be in control as much as she can be treated like a dog or fuckslut.
They have comment moderation on, I don't expect that comment to see the light of day.
I ain't no racist.
Quote from: Faust on April 09, 2010, 07:23:09 PM
They have comment moderation on, I don't expect that comment to see the light of day.
good comment, nevertheless...
Quote from: Cramulus on April 09, 2010, 05:22:49 PM
I think that [most but not all] choices made in the bedroom are largely irrelevant to the greater problems of society
The problems with race in our society have more to do with employment, class warfare, that sort of thing. I don't think that interracial unions are necessarily an indicator of an enlightened society, so I don't think that selecting a partner based on aesthetic reasons is racist in the bad sense. It is exactly what kai's talking about, an underlying and unconscious preference for people of "our tribe".
I think it's pushing Political Correctness a bit far to try to impose this kind of societal equitableness on the individual's libido.
I mean, I heard a feminist argument once that it's wrong to be into BDSM because it degrades women and equates femininity with weakness. But unless people are making employment choices in my bedroom, I don't see why I should tangle up morality and my sexuality.
Considering BDSM includes Femdom/male sub too I can't see this arguement making any sense. There are a fair amount of sexists who are into BDSM, but that doesn't mean that a preference for power or pain play includes any sort of sexual or gender stereotypes.
Quote from: BADGE OF HONOR on April 09, 2010, 06:49:50 PM
Plus there's a strong theme among certain feminists that all sex workers (and that's what a dominatrix is) are victims.
Only a professional dominatrix. There's plenty who don't do it for pay.
In that case, male prostitutes are also victims.
Quote from: Kai on April 09, 2010, 10:25:02 PM
In that case, male prostitutes are also victims.
Generally considered to be true by the same people who consider all the female sex workers to be victims. Just because they are feminists doesn't mean they don't aknowledge that there are also male victims of the patriarchy
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on April 09, 2010, 10:27:31 PM
Quote from: Kai on April 09, 2010, 10:25:02 PM
In that case, male prostitutes are also victims.
Generally considered to be true by the same people who consider all the female sex workers to be victims. Just because they are feminists doesn't mean they don't aknowledge that there are also male victims of the patriarchy
Generally, the radical feminists I've known have been man haters. Thank fuck I don't go that far.
Quote from: Kai on April 09, 2010, 11:57:49 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on April 09, 2010, 10:27:31 PM
Quote from: Kai on April 09, 2010, 10:25:02 PM
In that case, male prostitutes are also victims.
Generally considered to be true by the same people who consider all the female sex workers to be victims. Just because they are feminists doesn't mean they don't aknowledge that there are also male victims of the patriarchy
Generally, the radical feminists I've known have been man haters. Thank fuck I don't go that far.
I've known some who think all men are rapists. That doesn't mean no men are rape victims.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on April 09, 2010, 10:16:48 PM
Quote from: BADGE OF HONOR on April 09, 2010, 06:49:50 PM
Plus there's a strong theme among certain feminists that all sex workers (and that's what a dominatrix is) are victims.
Only a professional dominatrix. There's plenty who don't do it for pay.
A
dominatrix is someone who dominates for money. A
dominant woman (or
domme if you're a pedantic asshole) is someone who does not do it for money.
Quote from: BADGE OF HONOR on April 10, 2010, 07:00:39 AM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on April 09, 2010, 10:16:48 PM
Quote from: BADGE OF HONOR on April 09, 2010, 06:49:50 PM
Plus there's a strong theme among certain feminists that all sex workers (and that's what a dominatrix is) are victims.
Only a professional dominatrix. There's plenty who don't do it for pay.
A dominatrix is someone who dominates for money. A dominant woman (or domme if you're a pedantic asshole) is someone who does not do it for money.
I've also heard the word domina tossed around, I wouldn't use dominant woman though. My wife is a dominant woman, she likes being in charge and having people do as she tells them. That has nothing to do with what she likes in the bedroom. I also wouldn't call a D/s male top a dominant man, most of a dominatrixes customers are dominant men, they want to not be in charge for a while to blow off steam.
:facepalm:
So is it dominatrixes, or dominatrices?
Quote from: Chryselephantine Shavenwolf on April 10, 2010, 02:58:31 PM
So is it dominatrixes, or dominatrices?
Hmm, eigen know.....
(yea, it's a stretch)
Quote from: Chryselephantine Shavenwolf on April 10, 2010, 02:58:31 PM
So is it dominatrixes, or dominatrices?
spelled wrong in my case anyways, since I put a plural when it should have been a possessive.
From elsewhere, semi tongue in cheek:
Faust: "Racism is a phobia"
Him: "How is it, the average racist doesn't fear his target of hate, rather the opposite, they are usually very antagonistic toward them. "
Faust: "Fear induces a reaction in which a person enters a simple logical choice fight or flight. You hear about the fight reaction all the time because those are the incidents that make it into the newspapers, But every day, even now as you are reading this a chill is running up a persons back because they are talking to a black person and they are going to do their very best to get away from them.
Fear is the catalyst, antagonism is the product.
Both Racism and phobias share the common overlapping area:
A person acts in an illogical manner to a provided stimulus in this case exposure to a person with a dark skin colour. "
Irrational fears? Sounds like those bigots should get some RET (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_Emotive_Therapy) :)
Quote from: Faust on April 15, 2010, 01:39:24 AM
From elsewhere, semi tongue in cheek:
Faust: "Racism is a phobia"
Him: "How is it, the average racist doesn't fear his target of hate, rather the opposite, they are usually very antagonistic toward them. "
Faust: "Fear induces a reaction in which a person enters a simple logical choice fight or flight. You hear about the fight reaction all the time because those are the incidents that make it into the newspapers, But every day, even now as you are reading this a chill is running up a persons back because they are talking to a black person and they are going to do their very best to get away from them.
Fear is the catalyst, antagonism is the product.
Both Racism and phobias share the common overlapping area:
A person acts in an illogical manner to a provided stimulus in this case exposure to a person with a dark skin colour. "
That is an excellent assessment, Faust.
But surely, if you are meeting people, in social situations, who are of different races and/or ethnicity, you take into account the cultural differences, or particular value systems peculiar to their race, and this consideration affects the way you interact with them. These different considerations are nothing more than good manners, and a proper adjustment of any preconceptions based on race. If these differences were not observed, then social conventions are more likely to be broken, and offence could be easily be inadvertently caused.
Dok, correctly defines racism as "making decisions based on race", so the above behaviour, while being quite correct, and respectful, is still, by definition, "racism". Which, to me, is quite disturbing. But if this "taking a person's ethnicity into account" is indeed, racism, then Kai is right! (At least in my case) It turns out I am a racist. ! Conditioned PC bullshit now screams at me "OMG, you're a racist! bad bad bad !" and suggests I take a good look at my values, and prejudices. Fuck that, there is nothing wrong with my values, and I feel absolutely no need to change the way I behave. (well, not as far as race is concerned at least)
So thanks a bunch, Kai! This morning when I woke up, I wasn't a racist, but now, it seems I really am, and have been for years.
Quote from: BadBeast on April 22, 2010, 02:13:39 PM
So thanks a bunch, Kai! This morning when I woke up, I wasn't a racist, but now, it seems I really am, and have been for years.
Doesn't mean I have to go out and join the BNP, or the Ku Klux Klan though, does it?
(I fucking hope not, cuz I hate those Honky Motherfuckers!)
I've pretty well dismissed the OP as mostly bullshit at this point, so you shouldn't take it seriously.
Yeah, but I stand by my education in social psychology. The OP is not entirely wrong, but it is wrong in a few ways. It's not accurate to frame this as a question of ethical free will, it's just something to watch for in ourselves, because there is a proven innate tendency toward it.
The value of the OP is in underscoring that people need to make an effort to be good people.