Prevalence of Race related threads

Discussion in 'Site Feedback' started by thefountainhed, Jan 16, 2006.

  1. thefountainhed Fully Realized Valued Senior Member

    I haven't been a regular poster on here for the better part of a year, and yet on every visit there seems to be at least three threads open on race. There are way too many threads discussing the subject of race and said threads seem littered with redundant posters and subject matter. Is there something I am missing or are the moderators allowing this once great forum to be overtaken by a bunch of idiots from both sides? Insofar as a moderately ‘controversial’ thread is started and fodder provided by way of a response, then the cycle will continue. I implore the mods to make a concerted effort to close threads that make unsubstantiated racial claims, ignite unnecessary racial distaste, and do not in any way help in the intellectual growth of this place. I also implore the mods to ban specific users who further the same redundant dogmatic bullshit, by starting threads on the same subject matter. This has never been a free forum, especially not for morons.
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    I understand and share many of your concerns. A number of racist threads have been closed recently.

    There seems to be a small number of vocal racists on the forum at present, and a small number of vocal anti-semites, anti-Muslim, anti-Christian, and anti-American posters. Then we have a small number of anti-heterosexual posters, a couple of misogynists...

    And so the list goes on. The internet is littered with people with one-track minds, who are willing to devote an inordinate amount of time and energy to pushing their particular wheel barrow across as large a number of forums and other media as possible.

    There is a line to be drawn here. On one side is free speech. On the other is a quality forum, free of nutballs. The line is not always an easy one to draw.

    You are correct that this has never been a free forum. But in my experience it has always had its share of morons, and I don't expect that to change. The alternative would be to change sciforums into a kind of ivory tower for self-styled intellectuals, which would exclude a lot of non-professionals interested in the kinds of topics we discuss here (science, philosophy, religion etc.) Personally, I enjoy the diversity of posters we get here, even if a few of them are a little (or more than a little) crazy. They add life to the place.

    Mine is just one opinion, of course.
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Cottontop3000 Death Beckoned Registered Senior Member

    I add life to the place?? Yippee kay-ay-yay, [expletive deleted].

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  6. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. spuriousmonkey Banned Banned

    A few nutters is ok, but lately it seems we are having a plague. It can be annoying and it could be lead us into a vicious cycle.

    That said, I don't know what the ideal mixture of nutters and scientists should be. We definitely don't want another 'serious' forum where you will be banned for using the word 'nutter' or 'fuck' in a constructive manner.

    I do feel that there are double standards sometimes. Nutters can say anything they want without backing it up. That's ok some forums, but in the actual science sub forums we might want to be a bit more strict.
  8. leopold Valued Senior Member

    i agree with you spurious
    you are allowed to be a nutter in free thoughts
    you don't need any proof in religion
    but the science sub forum should be hallowed ground
    that is of course my opinion
  9. §outh§tar is feeling caustic Registered Senior Member

    I thought free-thoughts and cesspool were allowed for the "nutballs"? In that case, anything from them can just be moved first to the former and then, as will inevitably be necessary, to the latter.
  10. android nothing human inside Registered Senior Member

    The REASON you have so many race-related threads is that to deny the validity of race is also one-track minded.

    That means you.

    My suggestion, from not insubstantial experience, is to nurture one thread on the topic so people can sound off, and delete idiots from both sides, instead of just "closing racist threads" as you proudly do.

  11. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    What makes you think I deny the validity of race?

    At the same time, though, I regard race as biologically meaningless. Race is just judging people on the way they look, and making a set of incorrect assumptions on that basis. Unfortunately, it is also a tool for prejudice used by bigots.
  12. spuriousmonkey Banned Banned

    And an obsession.
  13. leopold Valued Senior Member

    i heard somewhere that there is more genetic differences between members of the same race than there are between races.

    racism is illogical and for children
    as a matter of fact that is where the vast majority of racism originates
    in childhood
    that can only mean two things
    they learn it in school
    they learn it from their parents
    Last edited: Jan 30, 2006
  14. mountainhare Banned Banned

    1. You're exaggerating.

    2. The issues of race, racism, and inequality are controversial issues, and are hotly debated in today's society. So don't be shocked that threads regarding race are prevalent on a public forum.

    3. If you don't like it, don't read it.
  15. leopold Valued Senior Member

    only because somebody wants them to be.
  16. spuriousmonkey Banned Banned

    If you know they are not appreciated don't post them.
  17. Zephyr Humans are ONE Registered Senior Member

    *shrugs 'n sighs*
  18. Satyr Banned Banned

    And this thread is certainly a clever way of censoring out undesirable opinions and focusing all minds on discussing institutionalized information and opinions as they are disseminated through “established” power centers we call: reliable.

    Fact is we consistently judge people by how they look.
    We judge everything by how it looks.
    How something looks exposes its origin and its quality - its fitness within specific environmental conditions.
    How something looks isn’t accidental nor is it insignificant. It looks a certain way for a reason and that reason isn't always just cosmetic.

    We use visual patterns to distinguish between the sexes and between ethnic groups.
    Outer manifestations are hints to inner divergence.
    Although the differences might be slight or quickly deteriorating due to environmental alterations and memetic influences, this does not make them irrelevant.
    We are, primarily, visual creatures. We categorize and we label and we order reality using outer appearances.

    When we see certain physical traits we assume an origin, when we see a certain style we assume intent, when we see certain patterns we assume a unity and establish an identity.
    We always judge using sensual stimulations, what else should we use to analyze reality? Osmosis? Intuition? Or should we limit our evaluations to smell?
    If so I guarantee that certain “prejudices” will arise due to odor preferences.

    The fact that certain judgments are deemed unwanted or culturally deplorable by the majority during this specific time in history and in this particular geographical place only exposes our own indoctrination within socio-political and cultural systems, with their own set of prejudices and motives.

    In sexual selection, visual cues, are mostly used to determine the other’s genetic potential, but here also our moral systems force us into idiotic ideas concerning the supposed illusion of beauty – it being “skin deep” of course - or how “things cannot be judged by their covers” and all such bullshit spewed by morons with a political agenda and a deep seated insecurity no different than those they label “racists” or “sexists” or any other “ist” and “ism” they pretend a superiority towards.
    In our attempt to shelter the other from reality we reveal our own intent to hide from it and from how it manifests itself in our own being.

    Nature nurtured the mutation of sight as a sensual tool because of its effectiveness in determining quality and specificity.
    A fruit that is spoiled looks spoiled.
    A creature that is consumable looks consumable. Movement exposes direction, speed and Aesthetics determine quality and quantity.
    Animals use visual cues consistently to attract or threaten or hide or pretend.

    An opinion can only be judged by the merits of its arguments, since all opinions have underlying motives and prejudices and psychologies, or they can also be judged by their effects: what constructs they lead to what repercussions they force, or by how they explain and predict future events and occurrences, in other words, by how well they incorporate knowledge (accumulated experiences) into abstract models that can be used to order reality into a comprehensive unity and make our efforts more efficient.

    A racist is no more the product of his upbringing than a non-racist is, and if dysfunction, as it is defined by a specific social fabrication denoting difference or social undesirability, can be used to slander a “sexist”, for speaking the unspeakable, or a “racist” for daring to focus on differences rather than the current cultural obsession of focusing on similarities, then it can as easily be used to slander a conformist and a pseudo-altruist, hiding his selfishness, fear, arrogance and secret discrimination behind masks of civility, tolerance and compassion.

    On this very Forum there is an absurd poster claiming heterosexuality is all part of some vast conspiracy where males are forced to have sex with women when they really want to do so with men, or that takes natural occurrences of homosexual behavior to extrapolate an erroneous conclusion, making some very good critiques on our present culture and sexual interactions along the way. To deny his views expression is to censor out opinions that do not suit us or insult our morals or our intellectual prejudices.

    Although I disagree with his conclusions, and consider them absurd and laughable, I cannot help but acknowledge some truth in some of the arguments he uses to reach them, such as masculine entrapment within social systems or how masculinity has been controlled and dissuaded from being completely expressed - an argument most often used my feminists.

    He might be another eccentric with a particular personal agenda resting on a cesspool of accumulated psychological anxiety, but who can say any different about themselves?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Like I said, an opinion must be judged on the merits of the arguments presented, by each of us using our own experiences, knowledge, perspective and awareness.
    Nobody is forcing us to read or to believe anyone else and in the end we all live with the products of our own analysis and awareness.
    For example Buddha1’s thesis fails when, in his haste to “prove” what he is saying, he reinvents the motive of sexual intercourse and uses its many mutation, through environmental pressures, as evidence of a different use.

    Nevertheless, to ban him, would be a totalitarian practice, meant to save ourselves from having to reasonably argue against his views, even if he, as a mind, might be beyond reasonable argument.
    Last edited: Jan 30, 2006
  19. Zephyr Humans are ONE Registered Senior Member

    Actually, the unfairness is that not everyone has a cause. There may be someone obsessed enough to spend weeks writing pages upon pages of posts, and if nobody replies it may seem that they agree with the person's views - but maybe they just have better things to do with their time.

    In the ideal scenario, you can always argue reasonably against someone's views. In practice, arguing takes time and effort; arguing with someone obsessed takes more time and effort than is reasonable.
  20. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member


    Good post. On the whole, I agree with you.

    In the case of race, questions arise. One is whether the judgments we make based on appearance actually reflect anything meaningful on a deeper level. Another is whether it is acceptable to attempt to establish a social heirarchy based on outer appearance.

    As we see on this forum from our resident racists, some people import all kinds of assumptions into their judgment of looks. From looks they think they can discern such features as intellectual capacity, propensity to violence, athletic ability, sexual habits, etc. etc.

    Primarily, however, the concept of race is a social tool which seeks to set up an maintain a power structure in society. The most racist people are invariably those who most fear what they personally may lose by recognising the social and political equality of people of other races.
  21. leopold Valued Senior Member

    this sounds like someone i am familiar with.
  22. firecross Scientist Registered Senior Member

    Appearances can be helpful because an aware person can quickly notice nature's markings, such as Down's Syndrome individuals and accurately predict how an interaction is likely to result.

    Any people who are argue for knowledge of "features as intellectual capacity, propensity to violence, athletic ability, sexual habits" for an individual are making scientific errors. Only averages and tendencies can be known for a particular race, never the details of an individual data point removed from the whole of the data set. While racial data is well known in the scientific community and very useful to scientists in a variety of fields, it is often distorted by ideologues who either do not understand it or simply lack the scientific rigor necessary to understand its practical application and limits.

    To fix this, we need to educate people and remove taboos. Focused discussion to clear up misinformation could go a long way towards raising the level of discourse.
  23. spuriousmonkey Banned Banned

    Why don't you start with yourself.

Share This Page