Politics thread (USA Elections 2016) - Page 243

rac·ism

noun: racism
prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized.

the belief that different races possess distinct characteristics, abilities, or qualities, especially so as to distinguish them as inferior or superior to one another.


Anyone else have problems with this definition? (got it from Google which obviously has a leftist bias). Here's another one from Merriam Webster.


Merriam Webster:

1: 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
2a: a doctrine or political program based on the assumption of racism and designed to execute its principles
b: a political or social system founded on racism
3: racial prejudice or discrimination

I've already mentioned this a couple weeks ago, those definitions are insufficient to reflect the reality of racism, and Merriam Webster is in the process of updating it. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-52993306

So it seems one of Loco's main arguments is that race is a social construct. At least that is his premise for saying "All things someone on the Alt-Right says about race must be wrong" (which is obviously ridiculous).

Article: Race Is a Social Construct, Scientists Argue (Scientific American).
https://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...-a-social-construct-scientists-argue/

"What the study of complete genomes from different parts of the world has shown is that even between Africa and Europe, for example, there is not a single absolute genetic difference, meaning no single variant where all Africans have one variant and all Europeans another one, even when recent migration is disregarded," Pääbo told Live Science. "It is all a question of differences in how frequent different variants are on different continents and in different regions."

-- No fucking shit. Your going to have a hard time finding something where ALL of the genes of one people are this way and ALL of the genes of one people are that way. I mean, duh there are variations in people. How is this even news?

In one example that demonstrated genetic differences were not fixed along racial lines, the full genomes of James Watson and Craig Venter, two famous American scientists of European ancestry, were compared to that of a Korean scientist, Seong-Jin Kim. It turned out that Watson (who, ironically, became ostracized in the scientific community after making racist remarks) and Venter shared fewer variations in their genetic sequences than they each shared with Kim.
--um, yeah? It's called we are humans so we share more similarities than variations...Scientists have sequenced the genome of the chimpanzee and found that humans are 96 percent similar to the great ape species. So I guess humans and chimpanzees are the same then too.

Idk much about the topic, other than a simple google search. All I know is that the article I found was very unconvincing for me. I'd like Loco to share with everyone further what he is talking about as a starting point.

On July 04 2020 14:55 Loco wrote: I've already mentioned this a couple weeks ago, those definitions are insufficient to reflect the reality of racism, and Merriam Webster is in the process of updating it. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-52993306

LOL

I brought the definitions up to opine that the definitions are as it stands too left leaning. And you link me an article that shows that it needs to be changed so that it is EVEN MORE left leaning.

At a bare minimum Loco, you throw the word "racism" around to anyone that you don't agree with in a way that DOES NOT satisfy the conditions of the definition like some pink handbag you are trying to hit someone with.

In case people are confused: you are allowed, as a centrist, or even right-winger, to admit that systemic racism exists. A dictionary that includes the mention of 'systemic' in one of its definitions is common sense, it doesn't "go too far". The idea that it would be going too far because there is a greater proportion of leftists who use the word "systemic" in their language is a logical fallacy of the middle ground (or golden middle.)

On July 04 2020 15:06 Loco wrote: In case people are confused: you are allowed, as a centrist, or even right-winger, to admit that systemic racism exists. A dictionary that includes the mention of 'systemic' in one of its definitions is common sense, it doesn't "go too far". The idea that it would be going too far because there is a greater proportion of leftists who use the word "systemic" in their language is a logical fallacy of the middle ground (or golden middle.)

wow no shit.

systemic racism exists for every race you idiot.

On July 04 2020 15:09 hiems wrote: systemic racism exists for every race you idiot.

You can't see the contradiction in that statement?

hiems: what do you guys think about those definitions?
Loco: they are insufficient to reflect the reality of racism and will be updated, here's why [links an article]
hiems: WOW LOL I EXPECTED PEOPLE TO CONFIRM MY BIASES, NOT TO POST RADICAL GARBAGE. THIS GOES WAY TOO FAR!
Loco: actually, it's not radical at all, it's common sense to update the definition.
hiems: WOW NO SHIT, I KNOW IT'S COMMON SENSE, YOU'RE AN IDIOT, YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND RACISM AT ALL

anyway back to the point which was the definition of racism. (I've bolded the part I have problems with.)

if the case of the google generated definition:

1) prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized.

If there is a factual tendency that is very statistically significant of people of a particular group of people and it is reasonable to apply that correlation in a particular situation, then that should not be treated as racism. Is it racism to think Swedes played poker a certain way and adjust based on it? It is simply ridiculous.

2) the belief that different races possess distinct characteristics, abilities, or qualities, especially so as to distinguish them as inferior or superior to one another.

I actually have a problem with the whole definition. The first part "The belief that different races posses distinct characteristics, abilities, or qualities" needs to be adjusted. I can think a race posses a tendency to have xyz characteristics and I think that is a reasonable thing to do. Key word : Tendency. Does not have to be absolute.

The second part "especially so as to distinguish them as inferior or superior to one another".

It's possible to identify distinct characteristics and acknowledge that it doesn't make them inferior or yourself superior. If you argue that definition gives room for that argument, in practice the way SJWs such as yourself use the term is to neglect that possibility. For example when I gave you birth_of_mother_at_first_childbirth statistics you immediately said I was claiming racial superiority. That is not true, which I told you multiple times. You can acknowledge differences in characteristics of populations without necessarily saying they are inferior or superior to one another. Again, IN PRACTICE THIS DOES NOT HAPPEN WITH PEOPLE LIKE YOU. Immediately you try to paint a picture of malicious intent in order to suit your argument.

Today I learned: Swedes are a race

On July 04 2020 15:16 Spitfiree wrote: Show nested quote + On July 04 2020 15:09 hiems wrote: systemic racism exists for every race you idiot. You can't see the contradiction in that statement?

Why are you even talking. I never really read his posts in this thread before, but I loved how Santafairy came on after inactivity and said "especially Shitfire" thinks he is smarter than he is LOL. Do you wonder why he pointed out you specifically? It is because you are not very smart. You are a very average person trying very hard to be smart. You started to talk about some book on Discord because you want to be considered a part of the "smart kids" the "high iq crowd" or whatever that is master level at starcraft/poker like stroggoz or something but guess what? YOU are not one of those ppl so please stop trying LOL.

On July 04 2020 15:21 Loco wrote: Today I learned: Swedes are a race

LOL damn you got me pink wizard.

Fine you can say something like Black ppl are good at basketball or something.

It's quite a well known fact that there is more genetic diversity between black people than white people. And that is because the human species spent far more time isolated in different parts of africa (hundreds of thousands of years), before they spread out to the rest of the world. So yes race is a social construct, racism has not been around for that long. I don't think you will find any racism in any book printed before 500 years ago.

On July 04 2020 05:01 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On July 04 2020 02:55 Loco wrote: I'm not just trying to piss him off when I talk about him having been radicalized by a white supremacist, you know. This has become a foundational belief of his ever since he heard it from Molyneux. Molyneux is a broken record about this point. It justifies all of his hatred of the left, and explains why they are so not worried about fascism (because they don't know what it is, and fail to realize how much of it is something they actively strengthen). Baal is literally talking about himself when he says the far-right are not conscious of the misinformation they spread in order to radicalize people, that they are not trying to deceive people. Baal isn't trying to deceive anyone with this, he strongly believes it and has no conception of the consequences of this narrative. People with this belief are seemingly unable to unlearn it because it's a pillar for their worldview, everything else crumbles if it's not there. Btw, if you watch one of Molyneux's latest debates with this guy called Rationality Rules, you will see one of the best examples of Dunning-Krugger and cognitive dissonance on a similar point. It's probably what Baal would have looked like if we had debated Cheran on camera when I confronted him with the fact that you can't have capitalism without capital circulation/accumulation. It's a shame that he was banned from Youtube because almost all of his regular audience turned on him in the comments section lmao. Now there's just the one from the other guy left. How crazy it is that you talk about "my radicalization" when in fact you are the most radical person on this entire site, you want a revolution with all its rivers of blood that will follow, you want to imprison disidents who attempt to fight the paradise and you look up to dictators who enslaved the population and had the blood of thousands in their hands, I don't fear a bunch of racist bikers who have meetings in basements, I fear the horrors that you, ideologues filled with good intentions, will usher into this world.

Dam, taking ridiculous strawmanning and hyperbole to new levels. Maybe Loco doesn't agree with me on this but I think he is quite close to a pacifist, and the positions i've read from mark bray and gelderoos (both tolerate violence in activism), are actually not that far from ghandi, although they might not realize this as well. More importantly it's impossible for me to take anyone seriously when they get hysterical if loco supports very minimal level's of violence from dissidents, when no one on this site who does this seems to care about structural violence from a political system that's killed hundreds of millions and threatens the whole eco system. Imo no one can seriously claim to be opposed to violence before critiquing the structural and political violence of their own system, that's actually a standard pacifist position as well.

On July 04 2020 15:40 Stroggoz wrote: It's quite a well known fact that there is more genetic diversity between black people than white people. And that is because the human species spent far more time isolated in different parts of africa (hundreds of thousands of years), before they spread out to the rest of the world. So yes race is a social construct, racism has not been around for that long. I don't think you will find any racism in any book printed before 500 years ago.

Again you with your BOOKs and you incredibly esoteric statement about genetic diversity between black people and white people that is incredibly misleading btw (which you dress up as "quite a well-known fact" serious wtf is that).

The first documented instance of "race distinction" is not something that is in a fucking BOOK. It is in some random uneventful event in some point in history where probably a white sees a black person and is curious as the the difference. Just because it is not in a book does not mean it exists you IDIOT.

Was there a book on how to shit while whistling back in 500 ad. NO THERE WASNT. What is your fucking point. JESUS the ppl I have to deal with.

On July 04 2020 15:25 hiems wrote: Show nested quote + On July 04 2020 15:16 Spitfiree wrote:   On July 04 2020 15:09 hiems wrote: systemic racism exists for every race you idiot. You can't see the contradiction in that statement? Why are you even talking. I never really read his posts in this thread before, but I loved how Santafairy came on after inactivity and said "especially Shitfire" thinks he is smarter than he is LOL. Do you wonder why he pointed out you specifically? It is because you are not very smart. You are a very average person trying very hard to be smart. You started to talk about some book on Discord because you want to be considered a part of the "smart kids" the "high iq crowd" or whatever that is master level at starcraft/poker like stroggoz or something but guess what? YOU are not one of those ppl so please stop trying LOL.

Let me dismantle your post really quickly even though its another lame ad hominem that has nothing to do with me pointing out that you're making a contradictive statement on multiple levels. I'm sure I'd have to explain what those levels are as you'd be confused what I'm talking about but we can get back to that in a bit.

1. Santafairy generally dislikes me cause he has no clue what he s talking about 90% of the times. He's shown that he is a huge Trump supporter, generally likes racist measures and his views support oppressive ideologies. I used to respond to his posts, but at this point I generally skip them so I don't even know where he called me out. His posts are a complete waste of time

2. You're just projecting your own insecurities. I don't believe I'm smart, I think there's people that are ages ahead of me when it comes to almost anything. I'm quite aware of that. I don't think the statement " You're average person trying very hard to be smart" means anything, since that is pretty much 99.99999% of the population. Everyone believes they're above average.... but what does that even mean? Hilarious

3. Again projecting your own insecurities and mentioning things like "high IQ crowd" is again a contradictive statement mostly because you're clueless on the topic. IQ ... again... means literally zero. You could give a test to 5 year olds and see which on of them can wipe their ass after shitting without the help of their parent and have pretty much the same results.


Now let me explain why your original statement is contradictive on many levels purely on ideological level ( you're probably one of those "hurr durr all lives matter" morons) . I'm not gonna bother going after stats that are easily google-able I know you generally hate reading and believe your own thoughts to be quite original and valid truth, so I'm going to let you decide whether you want to go after hard data and be critical to yourself or continue being ignorant.

1. If systematic racism exists for every race it means that there is no systematic racism, the system operates the same way for all races.... obviously a retarded statement, but lets go a level deeper and take your statement as truth, conducting a thought-experiment if you will
2. If systematic racism exists for every race it means that there is no systematic racism, but rather class racism ... meaning you agree with Loco's ideologies, since literally all he wants it to remodel society into one where social classes still exist but everyone is treated the same way. Something that democracy and the Western world claims to be doing, but is actually not.

P.S. I understand that Loco's views cannot be simply dumbed down to that one statement, which covers almost nothing, but with hiems you kind of have to dumb things down.

On July 04 2020 00:59 Stroggoz wrote: First i'd heard of that bombing on MOVE. That's quite remarkable.

Same here, this is sickening. I have no idea what MOVE were and what they did, but dropping a bomb in your own city.... If something like this happens today the USA will go into a civil war in an instant

On July 04 2020 16:00 Spitfiree wrote: Show nested quote + On July 04 2020 15:25 hiems wrote:   On July 04 2020 15:16 Spitfiree wrote:   On July 04 2020 15:09 hiems wrote: systemic racism exists for every race you idiot. You can't see the contradiction in that statement? Why are you even talking. I never really read his posts in this thread before, but I loved how Santafairy came on after inactivity and said "especially Shitfire" thinks he is smarter than he is LOL. Do you wonder why he pointed out you specifically? It is because you are not very smart. You are a very average person trying very hard to be smart. You started to talk about some book on Discord because you want to be considered a part of the "smart kids" the "high iq crowd" or whatever that is master level at starcraft/poker like stroggoz or something but guess what? YOU are not one of those ppl so please stop trying LOL. Let me dismantle your post really quickly even though its another lame ad hominem that has nothing to do with me pointing out that you're making a contradictive statement on multiple levels. I'm sure I'd have to explain what those levels are as you'd be confused what I'm talking about but we can get back to that in a bit. 1. Santafairy generally dislikes me cause he has no clue what he s talking about 90% of the times. He's shown that he is a huge Trump supporter, generally likes racist measures and his views support oppressive ideologies. I used to respond to his posts, but at this point I generally skip them so I don't even know where he called me out. His posts are a complete waste of time 2. You're just projecting your own insecurities. I don't believe I'm smart, I think there's people that are ages ahead of me when it comes to almost anything. I'm quite aware of that. I don't think the statement " You're average person trying very hard to be smart" means anything, since that is pretty much 99.99999% of the population. Everyone believes they're above average.... but what does that even mean? Hilarious 3. Again projecting your own insecurities and mentioning things like "high IQ crowd" is again a contradictive statement mostly because you're clueless on the topic. IQ ... again... means literally zero. You could give a test to 5 year olds and see which on of them can wipe their ass after shitting without the help of their parent and have pretty much the same results. Now let me explain why your original statement is contradictive on many levels purely on ideological level ( you're probably one of those "hurr durr all lives matter" morons) . I'm not gonna bother going after stats that are easily google-able I know you generally hate reading and believe your own thoughts to be quite original and valid truth, so I'm going to let you decide whether you want to go after hard data and be critical to yourself or continue being ignorant. 1. If systematic racism exists for every race it means that there is no systematic racism, the system operates the same way for all races.... obviously a retarded statement, but lets go a level deeper and take your statement as truth, conducting a thought-experiment if you will 2. If systematic racism exists for every race it means that there is no systematic racism, but rather class racism ... meaning you agree with Loco's ideologies, since literally all he wants it to remodel society into one where social classes still exist but everyone is treated the same way. Something that democracy and the Western world claims to be doing, but is actually not. P.S. I understand that Loco's views cannot be simply dumbed down to that one statement, which covers almost nothing, but with hiems you kind of have to dumb things down.   On July 04 2020 00:59 Stroggoz wrote: First i'd heard of that bombing on MOVE. That's quite remarkable. Same here, this is sickening. I have no idea what MOVE were and what they did, but dropping a bomb in your own city.... If something like this happens today the USA will go into a civil war in an instant

your right now that I recall you did make some post stating how "Loco was on a different level to us all (LOL)" so you got me about that.

im not projecting my own insecurities. I am the "King of Common Sense" THE KING ... so I don't need Stroggoz's autism skill set to defeat him on here.

I glanced through the other stuff u wrote because its mostly pointless over-theoretical garbage. You realize I wrote my reply in like 5 seconds right? Not saying its wrong or anything but you are trying to dig a mile long tunnel out of something I just shat out of my ass.

Anyway I am thinking about it to some decently deep level at the moment.

It seems it is somewhat of a tricky and theoretical problem.

https://www.vox.com/2014/10/10/6943461/race-social-construct-origins-census

^But I don't think it should be too hard to figure out what the problem with something like this though.

So if you purport that Race is a Social Construct, let's first try and understand what a Social Construct is -->

Definition of a Social Construct : Formal. An Idea that has been created and accepeted by the people in a society. Class Distinctions are a social construct.

So let's take the example of Class Distinctions.

Take the USA for example. One can purport that there is a class system in the United States and you can try to make distinctions based on whatever basis you decided to use. A logical way to construct this social construct might be something like tax brackets might be used to form these.

While using tax brackets might be logical, they are merely the basis of heuristics and are ultimately subject to fuzziness. One can easily argue that "Class Distinctions don't exist" based on just this Classification system.

So let’s try and narrow this down further. Imagine we lived in a society where at birth each child was implanted some RFID chip that had “access levels” to which the child would be subject to for life which would be hugely important to their welfare.

It would now become much more difficult for someone to argue Class Distinctions don't exist within this society. Technically & theoretically though, they still could do it! Oh Class Distinctions don't define me, blah blah blah. But any logical person would be able the conclude a clear class hierachy exists here that isn't just "a social construct" and accurately reflected what was going on in reality.


So now let's look at Gender, which SJWs seem to be arguing these days is a Social Construct as well.

This is my breakdown of "Gender".

Let there be 2 sets of variables

Gender_Social : Gender as we know it. Traditionally people have believed it to be Male and Female. There is now a growing subset of people that seem to think Gender is non-binary but a spectrum and there are many Genders besides male and female

Gender_Actual : In my opinion, this is a boolean variable and there is a Male and Female.


So let's do the same thing for Race.

Let there be 2 sets of variables:
Race_Social – Some heuristic that we are trying to describe the Continuous Variable: Race_Actual in the form of a Discrete Variable with fewer instances
Race_Actual – Some Continuous Variable that is very large in elements within the set

As I mentioned in the case of Class Distinctions, the question really never was about whether or not Class Distinctions were a social construct or not, but whether the particular Social Construct that was being used in society at the time accurately reflected the reality of the situation.

In the case of Gender, it is (At least it SHOULD be LOL) a pretty straightforward problem. There are some dudes with penises and some women with vaginas. Women can give birth and men can plant seeds. Should be pretty straightforward that the Social Construct - Male or Female -- was an accurate representation of what was happening in reality.

The question then becomes, In the case of Race, are the Social Constructs that are in Common Use today accurate reflect what was happening in reality?

So imagine Race_Actual was some Continuous variable with ~6 billion elements within the set. If we examined in some scatterplot (not sure how many dimensions or whatever) the entire data set, could we identify patterns that merit some sort of classification and does the social constructs widely in use today (Race_Social) do the data some degree of justice ???(***excluding cultural factors***)

So can we identify ethnicity data in some sort of logical way? I believe the answer is Yes. It is not perfect, but we can use machine learning to mathematically identify clusters of communities within the dataset Race_Actual. I am not an expert on this field but only doing some cursory research there seems to be mathematically reasonable ways to identify that clusters within the datasets exists.

"Accurate ethnicity prediction from placental DNA methylation data"
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s13072-019-0296-3

East Asian Ethnicity Classification from Facial Recognition
http://cs229.stanford.edu/proj2016/re...ationFromFacialRecognition-report.pdf

Do you know what else uses a method similar to machine learning? ACTUAL HUMANS. Billions and Billions of humans seem to be in consensus that some form of "Race" exists within the world -- that it is a real thing. Billions of humans can identify for the vast majority of people -- "Ok that guy is White/Black/Asian/Hispanic, etc" Wow, who knew?

Is the methodology perfect? No it is not. However perhaps the question is not whether Race is a Social Construct or not, but whether the Social Construct that is in use today reasonably reflects the clusters of data that exist underneath the surface. I think to suggest such as yourself Loco or the Vox piece I linked that just because Race_Social is a Social Construct means that we must throw it out completely is UTTER GARBAGE. Just because Race_Social exists and is what we use doesn't mean Race_Actual isn't a real concept. Class Distinction is a social construct and yet here you are basically having DEDICATED YOUR LIFE to Social Justice. Yet when it comes to race, just because you do not like the conclusions that might arise out of them, you want to disregard it completely. How hypocritical is that? Same thing with Gender. You want to fight for the Social Justice of Women, yet Gender too is a Social construct isn't it? Why don't you say the same thing for Gender?

Like I said Race_Social probably doesn't reflect Race_Actual as well as Gender_Social reflects Gender_Actual. However, this does not suggest that our current practices are entirely inaccurate. In fact, machine learning suggests that they are fairly logical and we can identify even the differences between Koreans and Chinese and Japanese and Vietnamese with 90% Accuracy.

Just because something is a Social Construct does not give you grounds to invalidate it. You must examine whether or not it is a reasonable reflection of reality.

LOCOOOOWWNNNNNED