Racial Tolerance or Just an Act?

[Fkemman11]

 

 

0101 0101 0101 0100 0100 0110 0011 1111 0100 0100 0110 1001 0110 0100 0010 0000 0111 1001 0110 1111 0111 0101 0010 0000 0111 0100 0110 1000 0110 1001 0110 1110 0110 1011 0010 0000 0110 1110 0110 1111 0010 0000 0111 0010 0110 0101 0110 0001 0110 0100 0010 0000 0100 0001 0101 0011 0100 0011 0100 1001 0100 1001 1100 1111

 

I assumed there would those who took the time. It maintains what little faith I have left. Thank you :smile:

 

My point however being that it is a case of mentality as much as anything else. People like to be different as much as they like to be the same, or fit in with others. Humans are complex organisms and well... there are many variances. I should know as I have all sorts of things wrong with me and surely at the 'shallow end of the dream pool' :tongue:

 

Problems I find across the board, self included, is a sorry case of inferiority/superiority complexes just person to person, in general. Sure you get people who get along, but like with the facade that is our political class it is largely on a somewhat superficial level. As the title of the topic suggests - I think we all have a love/hate relationship with ourselves and others, even those closest to us (maybe even especially! :laugh:)

 

'Wrong war' in that it is likely in the battles with the artificial manifestations of our own intelligence where the frontiers of the future of our species will be fought. We are our worst enemy. If it is not in nuclear wastelands that this is realised then it is through the slow construction of our own obsolescence as we habitually alter our environment to the point where we are no longer able to survive as we presently are - with all relative perspectives rapidly converging into a much wider focus.

 

 

I would agree with you on a person to person level. When faced with a individual, we generally tend to look a little deeper. Unfortunately, our pre-judgments of groups of people will shade our view of individuals. It is when we start pre-judging people and labeling them based on superficial characteristics that we step out of the person to person realm and into the broader realm called "race".

 

 

I'm going to ask what might be a good hypothetical question. Lets say you are assaulted on the street somewhere at night. You are robbed at gunpoint and then knocked unconscious. You did not see your attackers face. Now the police arrive and determine that there are no other witnesses to the crime. One officer taking notes ask you to describe your assailant. What exactly do you tell him? Would you not want to give him as many details as possible?

 

Another example may be what is the main difference between a plow horse and a race horse? You understand where I am going with this?

 

What if we were talking about short and tall people? Is it wrong for a tall person to call the other short? You are basing your conclusions on what you think are perceived differences. When in reality some differences are very real and can be readily proven. Now I am not disagreeing with you that many differences in things and people are perceived or imagined differences. But it should be fairly obvious to anyone that not all are.

[Fatalmasterpiece]

 

I'm going to ask what might be a good hypothetical question. Lets say you are assaulted on the street somewhere at night. You are robbed at gunpoint and then knocked unconscious. You did not see your attackers face. Now the police arrive and determine that there are no other witnesses to the crime. One officer taking notes ask you to describe your assailant. What exactly do you tell him? Would you not want to give him as many details as possible?

 

Another example may be what is the main difference between a plow horse and a race horse? You understand where I am going with this?

 

What if we were talking about short and tall people? Is it wrong for a tall person to call the other short? You are basing your conclusions on what you think are perceived differences. When in reality some differences are very real and can be readily proven. Now I am not disagreeing with you that many differences in things and people are perceived differences. But it should be fairly obvious to anyone that not all are.

 

 

As far as PCness goes, it's not about calling a short person short or a tall person tall. We know that different ethnicities tend toward different genetic characteristics. This is true as far down as you can break down the genetic chain. Two families from the same ethnic group can have traits which characterize them, one family short and fat, the other family tall and thin etc etc. But we are still all one race.

 

The importance of PCness is that you don't need to remind the short person they are short. You do not need to disparage shortness or make jokes at their expense. If a short person wants to make jokes about themselves, that it ok and it's ok for you to laugh at the jokes. But it is not ok for someone who is not short to single them out and make jokes at their expense. It's common sense. If we are talking about a disenfranchised ethnicity such as African Americans, I should allow them to make cultural observations/jokes about themselves. They do not need an outsider to do it, nor is that respectful because there is a history of that being systematically used against them on a national level.

 

This same common sense is how I have lived in multicultural cities like Detroit and Los Angeles most of my life and had no problems with other ethnicities. It's simple mutual respect.

[PoorlyAged]

First hypothetical, you tell what you know. You don't fabricate and you don't embellish. (And most people describe the gun in great detail, because it is what they focused on).

 

Second hypothetical. Yes I do understand. You are attempting to justify superficial differences as determinants. But they are both species Equus, can breed and produce viable offspring and are being distinguished by characteristics unrelated to their species. If one carries this hypothetical to a logical conclusion, basketball players are not human. The logic in this hypothetical is the same used in the doctor/plumber analogy which was dismissed because the distinguishing characteristics where based on education.

 

So unless you have a hypothetical that distinguishes between individuals based on non superficial characteristics specifically related to their species your hypothetical is doomed and you will not be able to justify smaller subgroups based on those superficial characteristics.

 

Edit. I will add some examples. Girth, weight, height, skin tone, eye color, hair color, hair type, lip shape, nose shape, ear shape, neck length, handedness, visual ability, hearing ability, arm length, leg length, hip width, waist size, breast size, penis size, pelt density, body odor, shoe size, glove size, etc, ad nauseam are all superficial characteristics.

Edited May 8, 2017 by PoorlyAged

[modder3434]

 

 

I'm going to ask what might be a good hypothetical question. Lets say you are assaulted on the street somewhere at night. You are robbed at gunpoint and then knocked unconscious. You did not see your attackers face. Now the police arrive and determine that there are no other witnesses to the crime. One officer taking notes ask you to describe your assailant. What exactly do you tell him? Would you not want to give him as many details as possible?

 

Another example may be what is the main difference between a plow horse and a race horse? You understand where I am going with this?

 

What if we were talking about short and tall people? Is it wrong for a tall person to call the other short? You are basing your conclusions on what you think are perceived differences. When in reality some differences are very real and can be readily proven. Now I am not disagreeing with you that many differences in things and people are perceived differences. But it should be fairly obvious to anyone that not all are.

 

 

As far as PCness goes, it's not about calling a short person short or a tall person tall. We know that different ethnicities tend toward different genetic characteristics. This is true as far down as you can break down the genetic chain. Two families from the same ethnic group can have traits which characterize them, one family short and fat, the other family tall and thin etc etc. But we are still all one race.

 

The importance of PCness is that you don't need to remind the short person they are short. You do not need to disparage shortness or make jokes at their expense. If a short person wants to make jokes about themselves, that it ok and it's ok for you to laugh at the jokes. But it is not ok for someone who is not short to single them out and make jokes at their expense. It's common sense. If we are talking about a disenfranchised ethnicity such as African Americans, I should allow them to make cultural observations/jokes about themselves. They do not need an outsider to do it, nor is that respectful because there is a history of that being systematically used against them on a national level.

 

This same common sense is how I have lived in multicultural cities like Detroit and Los Angeles most of my life and had no problems with other ethnicities. It's simple mutual respect.

 

 

I don't understand why its so hard to wrap your head around that while humans fall into the same species, they can't have distinct subgroups. Of course you could argue that with more and more co-mingling between the races it makes the distinct races less of a dividing factor, especially in the US. And before you try to flip that back on me as being "racist", I got no problem with it. I'm all for chasing attractive women of all races.

 

I find it funny that leftists claim we are all one race and then have groups like La Raza that are supported by the left, who advocate for Latina/Hispanic people. Here is the funny side: they arn't a race. Hispanic people are an ethnic group that falls under the Caucasian race. Basically you have the main races and then these races break down into various ethnic groups.

 

Excerpt from "The Last Two Million Years" published 1973 by The Reader's Digest Association

 

Caucasoid: Native to Europe; they also include the Hamites and Semities of North Africa, Arabia, and eastwards to India. They have light skin and eyes, narrow noses and thin lips. Their hair is usually straight or wavy.

 

Australoid: descendants of early Caucasoids who arrived from Asia and developed in isolation. Other Australoids include the Ainus of northern Japan and the Veddoids of southern India. Their skin varies from brown to nearly black. They have black frizzy hair and wide noses and thick lips.

 

Mongoloids: They live in central Asia and northern China; the American Indians and Eskimos are the descendants of the Mongoloids who crossed the Bering Strait. All have flat, broad faces; the apparent "slit eyes" are due to a fold of skin over the upper eyelid. protecting the eyes against snow glare.

 

Negroids: their skin range from light brown to almost black, an adaptation to the tropical climates, which helps keep their bodies cool. They are found mainly in Africa, south of the Sahara. They have broad noses, thick lips, average brown or black eyes and woolly hair.

 

Found this book in my grandfather's library and whip it out whenever this topic comes up about race, ethnic groups etc.

 

TLDR; Species (Human) - Race (Caucasian) - Ethnic group (persians, latinos, wasps etc)

 

 

 

Pcness is not important. If your whole argument for PCness boils down to not being an a$$hole, then that is already covered under having decorum,and being polite.Making a joke or observation is all about the delivery and tone. I open with jokes or observations to people I have never meet before and worst case scenario they walk away/ say "thats f*#@ed up"/ or just ignore me but that is rare, at the very least it sparks an interesting discussion while we wait in line to buy groceries at HEB

 

As for "mutual respect" that is a load of bs. Respect is earned, not given out for free. People seem to confuse it with politeness. I could kill you with politeness and think poorly of you.

Manners doesn't = Respect

 

As for having lived in the multicultural utopia's of Detroit and LA....I gotta ask, is it mutual respect....or is it fear of the consequences should you say something not PC. Is that "mutual respect" really worth giving up your freedom of speech to create an illusion of unity and tolerance that will shatter the minute something goes array?

[Skagens]

I'm not going to say we're not all of the same race. Because we are. What I would argue though is that humankind, like many other species, have sub-species. From personal experience, one only needs to open their eyes to see that there are vast and major differences between people. These differences I and many others perceive as major are what I think you consider to be superficial.

 

You can call me a racist, bigoted and all the other slurs if you want. They have been thrown around and used so many times, the words have lost their meaning completely. I'm not going to use any sources because I don't feel like I need to. I have the opinions I have because they have been shaped by personal experience over years.

[Fkemman11]

If it is true that a person might unfairly categorize another based on perceived or imagined differences, might it also be true that someone could be offended by a perceived or imagined slight? For instance if I say that "You have red hair" couldn't that person think​ that I meant it as an insult? If everyone tiptoes around not making any comments lest they be misconstrued then how can people be expected to ever say anything meaningful or true? By my reckoning the further down that path we go -the less anyone will have to say to each other. And if the argument is that you must know a person before you can judge them then wouldn't that have the effect of causing more isolationist behavior? Is that a good thing?

[HeyYou]

If it is true that a person might unfairly categorize another based on perceived or imagined differences, might it also be true that someone could be offended by a perceived or imagined slight? For instance if I say that "You have red hair" couldn't that person think​ that I meant it as an insult? If everyone tiptoes around not making any comments lest they be misconstrued then how can people be expected to ever say anything meaningful or true? By my reckoning the further down that path we go -the less anyone will have to say to each other. And if the argument is that you must know a person before you can judge them then wouldn't that have the effect of causing more isolationist behavior? Is that a good thing?

In this day and age, it really doesn't matter what you say. Someone will be offended by it...... Just seems to be the general trend. Still though, I don't recall reading anywhere that you (people in general) are granted any right to NOT be offended once in a while.

Edited May 8, 2017 by HeyYou

[PoorlyAged]

I'm not going to say we're not all of the same race. Because we are. What I would argue though is that humankind, like many other species, have sub-species. From personal experience, one only needs to open their eyes to see that there are vast and major differences between people. These differences I and many others perceive as major are what I think you consider to be superficial.

 

You can call me a racist, bigoted and all the other slurs if you want. They have been thrown around and used so many times, the words have lost their meaning completely. I'm not going to use any sources because I don't feel like I need to. I have the opinions I have because they have been shaped by personal experience over years.

 

By definition, the subspecies of a species cannot interbreed and produce viable offspring. So please list the subspecies of human being which cannot interbreed and produce viable offspring. You cannot, because such subspecies of human beings do not exist. We fornicate like rabbits and we produce viable offspring, regardless of the pairings.

 

 

If it is true that a person might unfairly categorize another based on perceived or imagined differences, might it also be true that someone could be offended by a perceived or imagined slight? For instance if I say that "You have red hair" couldn't that person think​ that I meant it as an insult? If everyone tiptoes around not making any comments lest they be misconstrued then how can people be expected to ever say anything meaningful or true? By my reckoning the further down that path we go -the less anyone will have to say to each other. And if the argument is that you must know a person before you can judge them then wouldn't that have the effect of causing more isolationist behavior? Is that a good thing?

 

What is delivered as insult and what is perceived as insult is as variable as there are individuals. However; show me the literature which has been published which defines red hair as an inferior trait in human beings and indicates that a red haired human being is no better than livestock. You cannot. Yet there are piles of literature which use skin tone, religion, locale of origin or social practices as means of defining another human being as inferior. Delivering a statement based on one of these characteristics to an individual possessing the characteristic can easily be meant and perceived as an insult.

 

And what your are addressing with this analogy is not racism, but hate speech. Specifically words and phrases which have as their sole purpose the inflaming of passion and anger. And such hate speech and inflammatory words should be as socially proscribed as yelling fire in a theater when no fire exists. And just to demonstrate how powerful these inflammatory words are, consider how they would impact your psyche where you habitually addressed with them. From this point forward, you are "Honky".

 

Finally Honky, please explain to me how addressing someone using terms which demean them as a member of some perceived group will help bring people together?

 

(Edit. I was going to use Klansman instead of Honky, but who knows? You might take the former as a compliment.)

Edited May 9, 2017 by PoorlyAged

[HeyYou]

 

I'm not going to say we're not all of the same race. Because we are. What I would argue though is that humankind, like many other species, have sub-species. From personal experience, one only needs to open their eyes to see that there are vast and major differences between people. These differences I and many others perceive as major are what I think you consider to be superficial.

 

You can call me a racist, bigoted and all the other slurs if you want. They have been thrown around and used so many times, the words have lost their meaning completely. I'm not going to use any sources because I don't feel like I need to. I have the opinions I have because they have been shaped by personal experience over years.

 

By definition, the subspecies of a species cannot interbreed and produce viable offspring. So please list the subspecies of human being which cannot interbreed and produce viable offspring. You cannot, because such subspecies of human beings do not exist. We fornicate like rabbits and we produce viable offspring, regardless of the pairings.

 

 

If it is true that a person might unfairly categorize another based on perceived or imagined differences, might it also be true that someone could be offended by a perceived or imagined slight? For instance if I say that "You have red hair" couldn't that person think​ that I meant it as an insult? If everyone tiptoes around not making any comments lest they be misconstrued then how can people be expected to ever say anything meaningful or true? By my reckoning the further down that path we go -the less anyone will have to say to each other. And if the argument is that you must know a person before you can judge them then wouldn't that have the effect of causing more isolationist behavior? Is that a good thing?

 

What is delivered as insult and what is perceived as insult is as variable as there are individuals. However; show me the literature which has been published which defines red hair as an inferior trait in human beings and indicates that a red haired human being is no better than livestock. You cannot. Yet there are piles of literature which use skin tone, religion, locale of origin or social practices as means of defining another human being as inferior. Delivering a statement based on one of these characteristics to an individual possessing the characteristic can easily be meant and perceived as an insult.

 

And what your are addressing with this analogy is not racism, but hate speech. Specifically words and phrases which have as their sole purpose the inflaming of passion and anger. And such hate speech and inflammatory words should be as socially proscribed as yelling fire in a theater when no fire exists. And just to demonstrate how powerful these inflammatory words are, consider how they would impact your psyche where you habitually addressed with them. From this point forward, you are "Honky".

 

Finally Honky, please explain to me how addressing someone using terms which demean them as a member of some perceived group will help bring people together?

 

(Edit. I was going to use Klansman instead of Honky, but who knows? You might take the former as a compliment.)

 

He used Red hair as an EXAMPLE. Nowhere did he say having red hair was bad. Are you just LOOKING for things to nitpick about?

[PoorlyAged]

 

 

PoorlyAged, on 08 May 2017 - 5:11 PM, said:

 

Skagens, on 08 May 2017 - 3:16 PM, said:

I'm not going to say we're not all of the same race. Because we are. What I would argue though is that humankind, like many other species, have sub-species. From personal experience, one only needs to open their eyes to see that there are vast and major differences between people. These differences I and many others perceive as major are what I think you consider to be superficial.

 

You can call me a racist, bigoted and all the other slurs if you want. They have been thrown around and used so many times, the words have lost their meaning completely. I'm not going to use any sources because I don't feel like I need to. I have the opinions I have because they have been shaped by personal experience over years.

 

By definition, the subspecies of a species cannot interbreed and produce viable offspring. So please list the subspecies of human being which cannot interbreed and produce viable offspring. You cannot, because such subspecies of human beings do not exist. We fornicate like rabbits and we produce viable offspring, regardless of the pairings.

 

 

Fkemman11, on 08 May 2017 - 3:43 PM, said:

If it is true that a person might unfairly categorize another based on perceived or imagined differences, might it also be true that someone could be offended by a perceived or imagined slight? For instance if I say that "You have red hair" couldn't that person think​ that I meant it as an insult? If everyone tiptoes around not making any comments lest they be misconstrued then how can people be expected to ever say anything meaningful or true? By my reckoning the further down that path we go -the less anyone will have to say to each other. And if the argument is that you must know a person before you can judge them then wouldn't that have the effect of causing more isolationist behavior? Is that a good thing?

 

What is delivered as insult and what is perceived as insult is as variable as there are individuals. However; show me the literature which has been published which defines red hair as an inferior trait in human beings and indicates that a red haired human being is no better than livestock. You cannot. Yet there are piles of literature which use skin tone, religion, locale of origin or social practices as means of defining another human being as inferior. Delivering a statement based on one of these characteristics to an individual possessing the characteristic can easily be meant and perceived as an insult.

 

And what your are addressing with this analogy is not racism, but hate speech. Specifically words and phrases which have as their sole purpose the inflaming of passion and anger. And such hate speech and inflammatory words should be as socially proscribed as yelling fire in a theater when no fire exists. And just to demonstrate how powerful these inflammatory words are, consider how they would impact your psyche where you habitually addressed with them. From this point forward, you are "Honky".

 

Finally Honky, please explain to me how addressing someone using terms which demean them as a member of some perceived group will help bring people together?

 

(Edit. I was going to use Klansman instead of Honky, but who knows? You might take the former as a compliment.)

 

 

He used Red hair as an EXAMPLE. Nowhere did he say having red hair was bad. Are you just LOOKING for things to nitpick about?

 

 

And I followed his example to a logical place.