LRvHD Posted May 5, 2014 Share Posted May 5, 2014 You're really hung up on black people being "better" at Basketball..... Of course, merely observing reality has to mean one's hung up on it ;) Why the quotation marks... observably better: US population, African Americans: 13%NBA players, African American: 78% http://www.swimtownpools.com/racial-breakdown-of-mlb-nba-nfl-a/271.htm Surely it's the second part of that quote that is the racist bit? C'mon, stay sharp ;)! it is that we simply do not view her as being fully civilized for the obvious historical reason that she is not. From the dictionary definition: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races: So, if the reasons are historical, not inherent to ethnicity/race, then...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Richard II Posted May 5, 2014 Share Posted May 5, 2014 What the fuck? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spockydog Posted May 5, 2014 Share Posted May 5, 2014 Indeed. I predict this clown will be banned within another ten posts or so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
felice Posted May 5, 2014 Share Posted May 5, 2014 So, if the reasons are historical, not inherent to ethnicity/race, then...?You're talking about the history of the race, in relation to someone with no personal connection to that history other than race. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Datepalm Posted May 6, 2014 Share Posted May 6, 2014 I really wish sometimes racists would have the guts to own it. Of course Vox is a racist, and so, it seems, is LRvHD. They come out and say they think human beings are inherently ranked by skin color...but they're not racists, heaven forbid. WTF? Yes, you are. Have enough spine to stand behind your politics and call it what it is. Isn't this contamination of the word 'racism' simply a liberal PC ploy, an insidious bit of lefty groupthink, anyway? Racism is what you believe to be right, after all. It's gotten increasingly unpopular over the last century or so, so you've turned into hypocritical little doublespeak weasels. Who's surprised? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mormont Posted May 6, 2014 Share Posted May 6, 2014 So, he's racist, because you say he's racist? No: not at all. I wouldn't ask you to take my word for it, but luckily, Beale has been proved a racist by the one man whose opinion he actually seems to respect - Beale. He's racist because he says racist things. His blog is full of them. Whether he, or you for that matter, recognise these statements as racism is a matter of no import whatsoever - refusing to call it 'racism' makes no difference at all to what it is. I've already addressed the part about homo sapiens sapiens - sorry mate, that's not racism, that's just the current up to date state of knowledge in genetics. Which would make you a part of the flat Earth crowd ;) Absolute cobblers, and well you know it. First of all, that's not what Beale is saying. He is not engaging in a dispassionate academic discourse about the state of knowledge in genetics. He's making an extraordinary personal attack on a black woman, calling her a 'savage' and 'uncivilised'. In this context, it's absolutely clear - to me, to you, and to everyone else - that this statement is being employed as a racist insult, a continuation of these other insults. He's attempting to give his vile personal attacks a veneer of scientific respectability by citing a minor piece of genetic trivia as 'evidence' that black people are less human than white people. This is what he is saying. You know it, I know it. Let's not waste time playing stupid games about it. OK? So far I can only see some name calling after a number of non PC quotes on behalf of Mr Beale, but no proof of his racism... I would suggest that if either of you would like to make a case for his racism, you'd do it over at his blog, as we are inevitably digressing? Why on earth would we do that? It would be like engaging with a four-year-old over whether they were stealing ice-cream from the freezer. Even if you catch them standing there with a spoon in their hand, they're never going to admit it. It's a waste of time. I'll leave Mr Beale's blog for the purpose for which it exists: exhibiting his acute need for attention. (I note that, despite not finding space for his ethnicity in the FAQ, he finds plenty of space in that document to big up his genius-level IQ and the hot blonde 'bikini model' he's sleeping with.) One parting thing - you shouldn't mistake the lack of evidence for evidence of lack ;) I haven't. I've consistently said that I'm sure you're right, and that it makes no difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LRvHD Posted May 6, 2014 Share Posted May 6, 2014 Indeed. I predict this clown will be banned within another ten posts or so. One could infer based on this, that your idea of engaging in discourse with people of different opinion is calling for censoring them and calling them names ;) You're talking about the history of the race, in relation to someone with no personal connection to that history other than race. Care to elaborate on this point please? Want to make sure I get exactly what you mean before I'd address it. I really wish sometimes racists would have the guts to own it. Of course Vox is a racist, and so, it seems, is LRvHD. They come out and say they think human beings are inherently ranked by skin color...but they're not racists, heaven forbid. WTF? Yes, you are. Have enough spine to stand behind your politics and call it what it is. Isn't this contamination of the word 'racism' simply a liberal PC ploy, an insidious bit of lefty groupthink, anyway? Racism is what you believe to be right, after all. It's gotten increasingly unpopular over the last century or so, so you've turned into hypocritical little doublespeak weasels. Who's surprised? Haha, I'm guessing you're a mind reader or something ;) I do love the fact that Vox explicitly said multiple times he does NOT believe in ranking or superiority/inferiority of any race, yet such statements as above are mentioned as if he said them. Not to mention, the guy is tri-racial for goodness sake, wonder how that's even supposed to look like... As far as I go, that's obviously complete bollocks to try an pin any such racist statements on me. It is quite an interesting example of how people are called that without any factual base. Mormont: No: not at all. I wouldn't ask you to take my word for it, but luckily, Beale has been proved a racist by the one man whose opinion he actually seems to respect - Beale. He's racist because he says racist things. His blog is full of them. Whether he, or you for that matter, recognise these statements as racism is a matter of no import whatsoever - refusing to call it 'racism' makes no difference at all to what it is. Quite the opposite - just because you call someone a racist, or any statements racist, doesn't make them that. I've provided 3 separate dictionary definitions of the term, no cherry picking, and saying "he's a racist cause he says racist things" does not even move you an inch towards making a case that in the light of those he is. You're absolutely free to believe what you want obviously, but that's about it. Absolute cobblers, and well you know it. Sorry mate, just beacuse you believe that, doesn't mean that you know, and even less that I would. First of all, that's not what Beale is saying. He is not engaging in a dispassionate academic discourse about the state of knowledge in genetics. He's making an extraordinary personal attack on a black woman, calling her a 'savage' and 'uncivilised'. In this context, it's absolutely clear - to me, to you, and to everyone else - that this statement is being employed as a racist insult, a continuation of these other insults. He's attempting to give his vile personal attacks a veneer of scientific respectability by citing a minor piece of genetic trivia as 'evidence' that black people are less human than white people. Your mixing to statements said at separate occasions:1. Mr Beale stating that on the basis of her racial heritage Ms Jemisin is MORE homo sapiens sapiens than people of other racial heritages, and by extension himself.2. Mr Beale calling Ms Jemisin "an educated but uncivilized half-savage" in response to her attacks on him. The second one is the crux of the matter. Based on Mr Beale's statements, his opinion about Ms Jemisin is based on her behavior.You seem to infer, as I would assume based on the fact she's black (please do correct me if I'm wrong), that critisising her is racist. I firmly believe in calling someone a half-savage if one would think their behavior warrants that, regardless of their race, ethinicity, creed, sex, age etc. That's how it should work imo. If you think certain ethincities/races are absoluted from any critical statements based on their ethinicity/race, that's your opinion to have (rather troubling imo, but to each their own), but failing to agree with you does not constitute racism (as a quick reference to the provided definitions would confirm). This is what he is saying. You know it, I know it. Let's not waste time playing stupid games about it. OK? It's quite astounding that you both seem to believe your opinions as facts as well as that others share those opinions and view them as facts. Why on earth would we do that? Don't know, to maybe try a discussion with someone of a different opinion? No offense (I mean it), but saying "I believe x is y, therefore it is y" and "you obviously share my belief, just don't admit it" don't really work to well outside of people who share your worldview and not challenge it in the least.I do appreciate the cordial discussion, but I do hope you realize it doesn't matter if Beale would admit anything or not, just because you haven't even built the weakest of cases to challenge his views. Give me a shout if anything in unclear. If I could ask for one thing, please stop telling me that "I know something as well". Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Richard II Posted May 6, 2014 Share Posted May 6, 2014 Racism 101. Racists never thing they are Racists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LRvHD Posted May 6, 2014 Share Posted May 6, 2014 Racism 101. Racists never thing they are Racists. Do you think you're racist? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted May 6, 2014 Share Posted May 6, 2014 LRvHD,Haha, I'm guessing you're a mind reader or something I do love the fact that Vox explicitly said multiple times he does NOT believe in ranking or superiority/inferiority of any race, yet such statements as above are mentioned as if he said them. Not to mention, the guy is tri-racial for goodness sake, wonder how that's even supposed to look like...How else do you interpret someone saying an individual is more or less human based upon racial characteristics? Saying somone is more or less "Homo Sapiens Sapiens" based upon racial characterisics is pretty clearly a racist statement as the person making the statement is prejuding people based upon their race. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mack Kilimaro Posted May 6, 2014 Share Posted May 6, 2014 I didn't figure Mr. Rails Against SJWs would be dethroned for most disgusting human being in this thread, but that feat has been accomplished. Virulent racist in denial takes the cake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LRvHD Posted May 6, 2014 Share Posted May 6, 2014 LRvHD,How else do you interpret someone saying an individual is more or less human based upon racial characteristics? Saying somone is more or less "Homo Sapiens Sapiens" based upon racial characterisics is pretty clearly a racist statement as the person making the statement is prejuding people based upon their race. Sorry, but based on recent finindings black people are more homo sapiens sapiens (in the sense - not mixed with e.g. Neanderthals or Denisovans), than all the other races, that's just a fact.There's nothing racist about that, until someone tries to assign some BS inherent superiority/inferiority based on that.It does show that PC can lead people to go as far as reject science, which is quite concerning? I didn't figure Mr. Rails Against SJWs would be dethroned for most disgusting human being in this thread, but that feat has been accomplished. Virulent racist in denial takes the cake. Seems like someone's jumping to gun and assuming that the poster before me does not think he's racist, hence by his own logic making it possible that he is.Lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted May 6, 2014 Share Posted May 6, 2014 LRvHD,Why is Vox making this statement about Ms. Jemisin? How is the presence or absense of Neanderthal DNA relevant to his blog about Ms. Jemisin? Is Vox having a meaningful discussion of the science of genetics and the evolution of modern humans from other Human species and just happened to discuss Ms. Jemisin in the course of that discussion... or was he hurling invective?It seems to me it's one or the other very little gray in between. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LRvHD Posted May 6, 2014 Share Posted May 6, 2014 Ser Scot A Ellison: Why is Vox making this statement about Ms. Jesmaine? Based on her behavior. Obviously, the tone is impacted by her previous statements about him - no pleasantres at all. How is the presence or absense of Neanderthal DNA relevant to his blog about Ms. Jesmaine? It isn't at all - nor did he claim it is, its a side note in the post. Is Vox having a meaningful discussion of the science of genetics and the evolution of modern humans from other Human species and just happened to discuss Ms. Jesmaine in the course of that discussion... or was he hurling invective? Quite the opposite - he just mentions it as side bar in the post about her and her behavior. Not sure how it would be an invective either way if she's technically "more human" (i.e. purer homo sapiens sapiens) than he is... It seems to me it's one or the other very little gray in between. I can see him provoking some outrage, just so he can show how unfound some of his critics are, when he means the opposite of what they take it as, the result could be similar to what you're describing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted May 6, 2014 Share Posted May 6, 2014 LRvHD,Come on, outside the context of the discussion I mention above, there is no reason to mention anyone's genetic makeup. Partticualrly not in a literary discussion. You're doing gymnatics to attempt to justify Vox's comments as not being racially motivated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spockydog Posted May 6, 2014 Share Posted May 6, 2014 Leave it, Scot. It's like having a conversation with a whoopie cushion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted May 6, 2014 Share Posted May 6, 2014 LRvHD,Further he is unquestionably tieing an individual's behavior to their genetic makeup. That is racial pre-judgment. In other words, racism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john Posted May 6, 2014 Share Posted May 6, 2014 I must confess that I too have fallen victim to clumsy thinking by labeling Beale a racist in my own mind. It's only because he chooses slurs with clear racial undertones. But anyway, I hope we can all agree that he is, at the very least, an idiot because: 1) He brings up irrelevant issues for no apparent reason. 2) He deliberately uses outrageous language so he can take pleasure in being perceived as a racist while knowing he isn't one. Is that about right? Do you think you're racist? Most right thinking people should accept they're racist on some level, imo. It's part of our conditioning. You don't act on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Richard II Posted May 6, 2014 Share Posted May 6, 2014 Ha. Racism 102: Tries to back racist claims up with "science" Leave it, Scot. It's like having a conversation with a whoopie cushion. Or a tape recording. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anatúrinbor Posted May 6, 2014 Share Posted May 6, 2014 1) He brings up irrelevant issues for no apparent reason because he's a racist. 2) He deliberately uses outrageous language so he can take pleasure in being perceived as a racist while knowing he isn't one a racist. Totally agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.