It bears mentioning that administrative actions are appropriate for dealing with these types of "footsoldiers." They aren't regular posters who happen to have an objectionable idea or two, where there's a chance of bringing them around through honest discussion. These guys are committed ideologues who are determined to control or undermine the discourse, and nothing anyone says to them is going to deter them. They have to be kept out forcefully.
Should Racism be tolerated in these forums?
- Thread starter Stryder
- Start date
- Status
It bears mentioning that administrative actions are appropriate for dealing with these types of "footsoldiers." They aren't regular posters who happen to have an objectionable idea or two, where there's a chance of bringing them around through honest discussion. These guys are committed ideologues who are determined to control or undermine the discourse, and nothing anyone says to them is going to deter them. They have to be kept out forcefully.
So does religion....
Some rednecks are not racist at all, some of the most southern people can be very open-minded and tolerant too, sometimes very sweet. It all depends on the individual. Though i have had my moments of anger, i've learned to take people on an individual basis. You really can't judge people by what socioeconomic class they are or always by appearance. Some people have good hearts and will treat you like a human being and others don't.
Grandtheftcow
Registered Member
Yes and we have to close the bomber gap and stockpile our weapons to counter the Soviet.. Oh wait wrong bogyman.
What are you trying to prove with this paranoid tripe? Do you think they'll recruit the boards staff members into forwarding a racist agenda? Do you think they'll funnel money into the board to fuel white pride?
Most of what you said doesn't make sense in a message board environment.
Why are you attributing paranoia? I see it as just dealing with an annoyance that effects forum quality.
You know your comments fall into two areas, either you are an Agent Provocateur (Espionage/Troll) like I've mentioned or you are a sockpuppet of another member that has something they want to get off their chest but just can't sacrifice their main handle. I'm guessing the latter, and I wouldn't be surprised if it was down to a ban on the very subject of Racism previously.
Perhaps it's because your beloved topic isn't so as loved as you anticipated here.
Grandtheftcow
Registered Member
Obviously because its impossible that I'm rather fond of freedom of speech and would like to believe I can freely discuss any subject with any nut who strolls by and posts their bizarre pet theories.
No that'd make me look not too bad. I must be a troll or twisted disgruntled banned member. I bet I got the bad guy Hollywood ugliness too.
Last edited:
The problem facing the racists is that there is no intellectually honest argument for racism.
There was, recently, a BBC article about the theory that humanity will split into two separate species over the course of the next 10,000 years. While the veracity of that claim is its own debate, it serves to illustrate a point.
From the time white people hit the Americas in the Columbian encounter, there has been a presumption that dark skin indicates a subhuman organism. When the United States Constitution was written, black people equalled three-fifths of a human being, and this was actually more than whites wanted to give. The only reason they gave blacks that much recognition was that the North wanted to collect taxes on the slaves, and the South wanted the slaves counted toward apportionment. Three-fifths of a human being represents the compromise. (Northern tax-happy liberals should not have compromised on this point.)
We fought a war over the right to enslave people. In the years since, progress has repeatedly compromised with superstition, leading to Jim Crow laws and eventually requiring the Civil Rights movement of the 1950s and '60s. In more recent decades, we see that the racism has not actually abated, but simply moved to a different field. Over twenty years after they were instituted, drug policies pertaining to crack and powder cocaine are finally reconciled on paper. This is good news. But it doesn't change what has happened. While the majority of crack users have generally been white, the majority of arrests and prosecutions have been against black people. The racism of the drug war came to a head in Tulia, Texas, in the late 1990s.
The whole time, people have held blackness against black people. The result is that during my lifetime, there are blocs of black males born where one in three would not see their 18th birthday, and one in three would be part of the correctional system by their 30th.
In the meantime, people are perfectly willing to acknowledge that convictions and prison time make it harder to get a job, but for some reason there are many who can't connect the unjust persecution of blacks during the drug war with challenges to the economic condition of entire communities damaged by this persecution.
It is easy enough to take a statistical snapshot and say bad things about the blacks. To the other, it is apparently too much to ask that the racists look at the historical effects of racism.
If we hold a portion of humanity down long enough, it will reflect that enforced environment. At this point, it seems that the goal of the racists is to hold out long enough to select the divergent subspecies, thus enabling them to pretend they were right all along.
Humanity need not split in such a manner, but if we maintain the "Alphas" and "Epsilons" long enough, it will. There is nothing inherent and significant about the differences in skin color. And if we manage to manufacture those differences, they will be artificial.
Racism is a crime against the human species itself. Literally, racists seek to drag down the gene pool in hopes that part of it pares off. Once again, nature is insufficient for human desires.
There was, recently, a BBC article about the theory that humanity will split into two separate species over the course of the next 10,000 years. While the veracity of that claim is its own debate, it serves to illustrate a point.
From the time white people hit the Americas in the Columbian encounter, there has been a presumption that dark skin indicates a subhuman organism. When the United States Constitution was written, black people equalled three-fifths of a human being, and this was actually more than whites wanted to give. The only reason they gave blacks that much recognition was that the North wanted to collect taxes on the slaves, and the South wanted the slaves counted toward apportionment. Three-fifths of a human being represents the compromise. (Northern tax-happy liberals should not have compromised on this point.)
We fought a war over the right to enslave people. In the years since, progress has repeatedly compromised with superstition, leading to Jim Crow laws and eventually requiring the Civil Rights movement of the 1950s and '60s. In more recent decades, we see that the racism has not actually abated, but simply moved to a different field. Over twenty years after they were instituted, drug policies pertaining to crack and powder cocaine are finally reconciled on paper. This is good news. But it doesn't change what has happened. While the majority of crack users have generally been white, the majority of arrests and prosecutions have been against black people. The racism of the drug war came to a head in Tulia, Texas, in the late 1990s.
The whole time, people have held blackness against black people. The result is that during my lifetime, there are blocs of black males born where one in three would not see their 18th birthday, and one in three would be part of the correctional system by their 30th.
In the meantime, people are perfectly willing to acknowledge that convictions and prison time make it harder to get a job, but for some reason there are many who can't connect the unjust persecution of blacks during the drug war with challenges to the economic condition of entire communities damaged by this persecution.
It is easy enough to take a statistical snapshot and say bad things about the blacks. To the other, it is apparently too much to ask that the racists look at the historical effects of racism.
If we hold a portion of humanity down long enough, it will reflect that enforced environment. At this point, it seems that the goal of the racists is to hold out long enough to select the divergent subspecies, thus enabling them to pretend they were right all along.
Humanity need not split in such a manner, but if we maintain the "Alphas" and "Epsilons" long enough, it will. There is nothing inherent and significant about the differences in skin color. And if we manage to manufacture those differences, they will be artificial.
Racism is a crime against the human species itself. Literally, racists seek to drag down the gene pool in hopes that part of it pares off. Once again, nature is insufficient for human desires.
Upon what grounds do you connect racism with violence?
Tiassa
Really?
Given that the topic is denid exploration, we'll never know.
Is that how you understand any hypothesis that posits the belief that physical characteristics are more than superficial?
People have been enslaved since the beginning of civilization and they will continue to be so, in one form or another.
Mental enslavement is no less slavery.
your description is that of how people should be treated within a sociality, not whether there are actual genetic differences between peoples that have evolved in different environments.
The clouding of the issue is what is intellectually dishonest.
Associating any opinion on disparity with inciting violence or treating individuals unfairly is what is intellectually dishonest.
What is particularly dishonest and lacking in intellectual integrity is the disassociation of appearance from essence and the false creation of a dichotomy between mind and body when it suits our cultural aims.
Is that what racism is?
Would you hold it agaisnt an ape that it is an ape or would you judging it on appearances be prejudiced thinknig and that of inciting maltreatment of apes?
The fact that human being continue to differentiate themselves using physical characteristics and seem to congregate in unities of like-minded or of similar looking groups, despite it being prohibited, is more about nature than anything else.
I beleive the seeking out of one's own is a natural instinct and how one distinguishes one's own is more a topic for evolutionary-psychology, rather than your culturally defined moral standards.
Ironically racism towards Asians isn't as harmful to the Asians and prejudices concerning the Jews hasn't had such a stifling long-term effect on them.
There hasn't been a historical time nor a geographical area where one group had not looked down upon another.
Progress is about overcoming challenges.
But the mere mention of genetic differences is called 'racism', these days.
Human beings have been holding down other human beings since the dawn of time.
In what manner should it split?
Maybe along the fault lines of 'good' and 'evil' or nationalism or ideologies.
Is the claim being made here that nature does not split or divide or hold down or discriminate?
A-Hole said:
There's no point in simply running around in circles.
I'm speaking of history, compared to which you are exceptionally insignificant.
And? At best you're left arguing that American racists were a nail in the coffin of a venerable and exploitative institution.
Mental enslavement? You're entitled to believe what you want. How is it mental enslavement that nobody else is obliged to believe what you want them to believe?
Which is part of the argument about genetics. History and society are dynamic, not mere portraits painted by a terminally-juvenile hand.
Comparisons of static assertions fail to account for the dynamic aspects of history and society.
The smartest thing you've said so far, A-Hole.
Wrong. Mentioning genetic differences is not racism. Trying to turn them into sociopolitical advantage at other peoples' expense based on superficial differences like skin color, however, is.
I don't presume that it should.
Are you implying that nature is conscious of what it does? Are you suggesting racism is God's way?
Discussions on race are different from racism. Racism of course should not be tolerated on sciforums; it is a form of hate speech. It is possible to have sensible discussions about race, but I've rarely seen them on sciforums. Instead what we tend to get is dishonest propaganda posted by the likes of the banned Count Sudoku.
Sure, it is possible to refute that kind of rubbish when it is posted, but it takes time and effort, and there's a bottomless pool of racist rantings available for easy cut-and-paste from sites dedicated to racist agendas. Moreover, such "discussions" are hardly ever posted in an honest desire to debate or discuss. Rather, they are posted with an intent to inflame reasonalbe people, or to encourage racial division.
This is a lie. If you persist in such lies, you will be banned from sciforums.
Sure, it is possible to refute that kind of rubbish when it is posted, but it takes time and effort, and there's a bottomless pool of racist rantings available for easy cut-and-paste from sites dedicated to racist agendas. Moreover, such "discussions" are hardly ever posted in an honest desire to debate or discuss. Rather, they are posted with an intent to inflame reasonalbe people, or to encourage racial division.
This is a lie. If you persist in such lies, you will be banned from sciforums.
it isn't. and we all know it.
it's not a lie.
still trying to get me banned?
Just do it.
don't pretend you need a reason.
evidence
http://sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1581978&postcount=130
fucking apologize!
Last edited:
I demand actually that James R will be banned because clearly he accused me of lying with the intention of getting me banned.
I'm sure he is modifying his infraction right now to change the title.
because that is how pathetic he is.
I'm sure he is modifying his infraction right now to change the title.
because that is how pathetic he is.
Spuriousmonkey said:
Um ... help me out, please, Monkey. That link is to your complaint about the infraction. Where is the post in question?
At any rate, if you would be so kind as to click here ... I posted my question on this subject, it would seem, in the wrong topic.
- Status