TTLG|Thief|Bioshock|System Shock|Deus Ex|Mobile

View Poll Results: How long will Trump be President?

Voters
144. You may not vote on this poll
  • 1 Term (4 Years)

    26 18.06%
  • 2 Terms (8 Years)

    51 35.42%
  • 1st Term Impeachment/Assassination

    50 34.72%
  • 2nd Term Impeachment/Assassination

    4 2.78%
  • I don't know what's going on!

    13 9.03%
Page 16 of 558 FirstFirst ... 61112131415161718192021263136414651566166116266516 ... LastLast
Results 376 to 400 of 13942

Thread: ✮✮✮ !Trump Dump! ✮✮✮

  1. #376
    Moderator
    Registered: Apr 2003
    Location: Wales
    11 minutes of unmitigated, inaccurate drivel is not what I hope for early on a Sunday morning. My thanks to Nicker, faetal and Abysmal for relieving my stress.

    I think that after 8 years of Tory mayors, it's about time we saw what Labour can do.

  2. #377
    Member
    Registered: Jun 2009
    Location: The Spiraling Sea
    Now nickie, you have struck me forlorn with your disappointment...

    Perhaps a more positive subject will lighten up your heart.

    Indeed, I know what you need...A feel good story, to turn that frown upside down!...


    Last edited by Vae; 9th May 2016 at 03:52.

  3. #378
    Moderator
    Registered: Apr 2003
    Location: Wales
    You probably have no idea how much antipathy I have to that kind of programme - it has the reverse effect on me, I'm afraid.

  4. #379
    Hey Vae, no one here cares much if Donald Trump gets a "Philanthropist of the Year" award.

    But President of the United States? That's a little different. A lot actually.

    I know, I know, it seems like that would be really obvious. But I still thought I should clarify.

  5. #380
    Member
    Registered: May 2003
    Location: Minecraft
    Quote Originally Posted by Vae View Post
    Fair play to him, there's not many racists that are honest enough to preempt a rant with 'I don't know anything about this guy, I have no facts to back up what I'm saying and I haven't bothered to look for any statistics, but...'

  6. #381
    Member
    Registered: Jun 2009
    Location: The Spiraling Sea
    Quote Originally Posted by Brethren View Post
    Hey Vae, no one here cares much if Donald Trump gets a "Philanthropist of the Year" award.

    But President of the United States? That's a little different. A lot actually.

    I know, I know, it seems like that would be really obvious. But I still thought I should clarify.
    Hey Brethren, things really go over your head all the time...I hope I don't have to clarify...

  7. #382
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2001
    Location: Land of the crazy
    I sorta skipped through that Molyneux video and gist I got is this: Since minorities are just going to vote for their own race/religion/ethnic group, you need to do the same or you're going to lose. So it doesn't matter whether Khan is the best qualified candidate or not. It's just us vs. them. Keep them out and don't vote for them or they'll take over.

    About the only thing separating him from a Klansman is that he claims that he would like there to be post-racial, multi-cultural society. But at the same time he's not willing help that along.

  8. #383
    Member
    Registered: Aug 2008
    Location: in your second eyelids
    Quote Originally Posted by faetal View Post
    Turns out there's only one species of human. Variations in melanin expression only seem to matter to the terminally stupid.
    And average IQ differences based on what environment they lived in over the span of many millenias. I guess this reality is for the terminally stupid.

    Nobody cares about the actual skin color. If the japanese were blue, how many people would be concerned about them? Fascinated? Sure. We are fascinated by them anyway. Concerned about their health? Maybe (cause it wouldn't make sense and stuff). But that's about it. It would simply add 1 point to how they stand out.
    Last edited by Thor; 11th May 2016 at 03:54.

  9. #384
    verbose douchebag
    Registered: Apr 2002
    Location: Lyon, France
    I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. Melanin expression in skin is used as a marker by white racists. That's a reality. Sure there are other markers of being foreign, but skin colour is far and away the one which is the most sensitive trigger. Doesn't make it any less nonsensical. The fact remains that all humans originated from Africa and the loss of constitutive melanin expression, so any idea that people with dark skin are somehow biologically inferior is dumb.

  10. #385
    Member
    Registered: Aug 2008
    Location: in your second eyelids
    I'm not talking about the new London mayor, as I don't know anything about him. He's probably pretty smart (like smarter than me or any other fairly average europian person) if he got in that position. The only reason a white person will want to assume that someone black is just dumber than him is because that's a statistic probability. Going on a slight tangent here, but a person from one culture will not so willing to immerse into another culture which some obviously different person (like japanese to muslim) most likely inherits, because it's a pain in the ass, they may have severe moral code differences (it might be dangerous), and depending on the culture, he/she may have absolutely nothing to gain from it other than knowledge about it and a new perspective on human nature or whatever.

    I always make it a point to question all assumptions and put facts above beliefs and emotions and this is how I see it.

    I'll assume that humans indeed originated from Africa (I haven't fact-checked this one, but it does seem reasonably likely and there's no disagreement). Then after some time they spread out. People that ventured north had a harder time surviving in their climates. They got away from many poisonous life which was nice, but they had to start thinking long term and co-op: how to get through a winter, work together to keep farms, builds cozier shelters etc. Not to mention the scientific method and all that follows. The question is: how much time would it take for africans that moved to northern societies to catch up in intellect (and culture dissociation, really...). From some stories I've heard from various places over the years (some ghetto stories and the crime percentage comitted by each race respectively, turks in germany, gipsies in romania , some muslims in sweden (or everywhere at this point...) stories), the better part of a century hasn't been nearly enough. That is, unless it's all some evil racist propoganda. My mind and sense is telling me that it might just be the other way around, though.

    Here (page 234 is the crime rate in america by races (2000). Adult arrests:
    Whites: 69.3 %
    Blacks: 28.1 %
    Asians or Pacific Islanders: 1.2%
    The percentages were nearly identical for a 2012 report.

    Table 1 of this shows the population distribution in America by race (also the year 2000):
    White - 211,460,626 (75.1%)
    Black or African American - 34,658,190 (12.3%)
    Asian - 10,242,998 (3.6%)

    So blacks commit 28% of all crimes in USA, while there's less than 13% of them. Their crimes should have amounted to something closer to 13% (less than half). Or would you say that policemen have a fetish for arresting people based on their skin rather than actual crimes? I don't know an american policeman so maybe they are like that, but I just find that a little hard to believe. So this can be considered the hole in this argument of mine - the possibility that most cops just want to arrest black skinned humans for the walking in the street and being black. Additionally, between asians, whites and blacks, asians have proven to be the least crime-happy, clocking their crimes only at 1,2%, while there's a whole 3,6 % of them in the american population.

    Well, all of that is to show the extent to how well they've integrated into the society. Seems like asians have integrated in a white society better than whites themselves, while blacks struggle more and whites are plain old whites.

    If you have counter-arguments (like data), I'm ofcourse open to them. Hopefully with no hostility, because I am kind of sick of idiots that "argue" based on their emotions (mostly based on the media that have subtly shaped their opinions of things over their lifetime), who have become inflexible towards their comfortable "truths", and they happen to not present any arguments as well. I know I am (or used to be) like that as well, but to actually progress, it's important to understand that if you have opposition or some contradictions, then they might just have a point, that you have to at least seriously think about. For most things it's not critically important and to some extent we all stay in our own comfort bubbles to have a home and not go insane from the stress, but for important things it becomes important to examine why a person thinks how he/she thinks (English lacks a non-gender version of "he/she", cause I feel like a sexist mysogynist if I don't include the /she bit, but anyway). I aim to hold truth above pride for some opinion that may change based on new findings anyway (just as it happens in actual science and technical innovations and everything else that has anything to do with progress and evolution).

    By the way, saying there there are no races is also saying that there is no such thing as a bulldog and a sheepdog. They're all just dogs, man. They're all the same. Same average agility, same average IQ, their differences are purely cosmetic (and in size/shape) (but if those major differences come naturally, I would still consider them different races)
    Last edited by Thor; 11th May 2016 at 08:16.

  11. #386
    verbose douchebag
    Registered: Apr 2002
    Location: Lyon, France
    Don't write too fast or your crayons will melt.

    Which is to say that I'm not sure where to start exactly on what a steaming pile of specious bullshit that all is.
    Your post can be summarised as:

    "What if...

    SPECULATIVE BULLSHIT

    ...therefore it's OK to be a bit racist"

  12. #387
    verbose douchebag
    Registered: Apr 2002
    Location: Lyon, France
    Where is your data showing that being black causes crime? Your whole bullshit hypothesis is:

    * Humans migrate out of Africa
    * This is somehow generically more challenging (because as we know, the environmental conditions and fauna in Europe are tonnes more aggressive than Africa )
    * People in cold places for whatever reason get good at science (completely ignoring the scientific revolution which occurred in the Middle East while Europe was dicking around in the dark ages)
    * This inexplicably drives up IQ (love to hear this one explained)
    * Black people are dumber because they do more crime

    You're not even vaguely taking into account the US's EXTREMELY RACIST history, probably having persisted into contemporary culture and how this affects not only public perception of black people being somehow worse than their whiter alternative, but also puts black people into positions where they find it harder to get work, or just generally create a cultural environment where black people do not feel as welcome in their place of birth as white people. AS a billion and one studies has shown, one of the prime causes of crime is inequality.

    But no, you think it is down to IQ because of some bizarre fairy tale "White Dudes Origins" story which you've somehow day-dreamed to make you feel less guilty about being a racist asshole.

    Neat.

  13. #388
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    Quote Originally Posted by faetal View Post
    But no, you think it is down to IQ because of some bizarre fairy tale "White Dudes Origins" story which you've somehow day-dreamed to make you feel less guilty about being a racist asshole.

    I've heard his theory plenty of times from the Race Realist crowd. It fails in three areas:

    1. It assume any difference in IQ HAS to be based upon race, never assuming a cultural, political, and/or economic factor.

    For example, Asians tend to score higher on IQ tests because they're Asians, not because most Asian countries are currently enjoying a stable, wealthy economy, and put a very heavy cultural emphasis on education. People who take math seriously tend to score better on math tests.

    2. All our various races have remained in isolation for a large part of their existence.

    While this might be true of some of the more far flung peoples, such as the Germanic tribes, far east Asians, and Amerindians, most everyone else has been traveling around the Mediterranean since before Classical Antiquity. Black people, white people, tan people, they've been butting heads and intermingling for thousands of years around the cradle of civilization. It's the reason why that area was the cultural and scientific dynamo of human history until about ~800 years ago.

    The usual suspects usually point to a supposed lack of great black empires. They usually base this notion upon Hollywood history, ignoring the fact that Egypt and Carthage are solidly within Africa, and had a very, very heavy black population. Hell, there have even been a few black Roman emperors.

    3. There is a surprisingly small amount of genetic drift in the Human race. So small, in fact, that it's been theorized our 6 billion strong population can be sourced back to a group of about 300,000 people. Humanity almost went extinct, and we're all related to the suvivors, making us a race of fairly closely related cousins. Our subraces aren't races at all, but rather subgroups with common haplotypic expressions. There isn't enough variety in humanity to account for a genetic difference in IQ.

    I could go on, but this covers the basics pretty well. The Evolutionarily Endowed Eurocentric model is based only upon recent history, and ignores the fact that Europe was a backwater bit player throughout most of history until it's rise around The Renaissance.
    Last edited by Renzatic; 11th May 2016 at 12:57.

  14. #389
    Member
    Registered: Aug 2008
    Location: in your second eyelids
    Nice... thanks for the kind words. Your response is dripping with respect.

    Nonetheless, thanks for the information. I hadn't thought about the middle east science and I don't really know much about it, but I wasn't really dividing intelligence by color or religion, though. Instead more by the areas they've lived in for many millenias. Here is a rough map of this distribution. I guess it's not sciencedirect or nature, but when you're actually considered a racist asshole to be even attempting this kind of research, it suddenly doesn't become the hottest topic of research. If you have data contradictory to this (with preferrably more than 20 samples per area), then please share.

    The environmental conditions thought was an idea more than a statement of fact. They didn't have to worry about dangerous animals quite as much, they had the time to develop other skills. And over the course of generations these skills get refined and even contribute somewhat to the biological (hardware-level) evolution of things. You know, like when you practice something a lot, you get good at it. And then perhaps your offspring inherits this talent and surpasses you, even though there's no real biological change over a few generations. Hell, even if there aren't over the entire existence of the human race, as you religiously believe, there's still the strong possibility that your offspring will be good at this skill (like, say, math... or carpenting) through the sheer inheritence of cultural and family values. Unless you're a shitty parent. There's also other factors like what you eat, how much babies you put in your sister instead of the girl next door and such (Renz counted a few more).
    How about GMOs? Those things also don't kill you immidiately or even in your lifetime. But what might happen over many generations? Well, I'm no biologist. Time will tell, I suppose.

    Your claim about US having a racist history (which does definitely seem true according to the media I've consumed) doesn't necessarely hold much water in 2016, where the tide has shifted more in the other direction, as the whites have been guilted about being racist while not actually being racist for at least a few generations now. Maybe that's the reason why you feel so sensitive about saying something politically incorrect, and that baseless (and untrue) statement about me just wanting to not feel guilty about being racist also seems like a pretty solid reflection of your own deepest anxiety. Otherwise you'd be able to discuss this a bit more maturely like more factual subjects such as physics or chemistry or the taste of a burn. The only thing I'm experiencing is anxiety from your hostility. Thanks for that by the way.
    I have a feeling I won't get my position through to your pretty inflexible and brainwashed skull, though, seeing as you don't like what I say just a little too much (See? I can be respectful too).


    Thanks for the response Renz. That's the kind of response I was (naively) hoping for. 3) Still, the genetic drift is more important for how long ago it happened, and less for the [hypothesis?] that that it happened.
    And yeah, I got no issue with 1), it all contributes.
    The thing I care about more is how intelligent and culturally flexible are these migrants that are massively coming to Europe.
    Stories (evil racist propoganda?) aren't paving a positive view... Europians are the flexible ones so far.

  15. #390
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Quote Originally Posted by Thor View Post
    Your claim about US having a racist history (which does definitely seem true according to the media I've consumed) doesn't necessarely hold much water in 2016, where the tide has shifted more in the other direction, as the whites have been guilted about being racist while not actually being racist for at least a few generations now. Maybe that's the reason why you feel so sensitive about saying something politically incorrect, and that baseless (and untrue) statement about me just wanting to not feel guilty about being racist also seems like a pretty solid reflection of your own deepest anxiety. Otherwise you'd be able to discuss this a bit more maturely like more factual subjects such as physics or chemistry or the taste of a burn. The only thing I'm experiencing is anxiety from your hostility. Thanks for that by the way.
    I suggest you read this: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/...ations/361631/
    Let's just ignore the fact that the war on drugs is basically designed to imprison black people... for example, crack possession has 18x harsher sentences than powder cocaine despite being powder cocaine mixed with baking soda... so a more dilute form of the same thing... all because crack is the poor black person's drug and cocaine is the rich white person's drug.... and the discrepancy used to be much higher!
    So this serves to funnel black males into the prison system, despite the fact that their rates of drug usage are NO DIFFERENT than the white populace. Now who does this advantage?
    Firstly, private prison labor is hugely advantageous to industry. Everyone from the military to Starbucks gets to pay laborers pennies per day to manufacture stuff for them, creating what essentially amounts to a new form of slave labor. No, that is not an exaggeration.
    Secondly, getting black males off the streets (particularly in areas that they were forced into by housing segregation) paves the way for real estate developers to gentrify and raise property values.
    The prison system is self-perpetuating - going to prison even for possession makes it hard enough to get a job that it often forces people to turn to illegal means to make a living and funnels them back to prison repeatedly. There are no solid reform/real-world preparation programs in most prisons right now.

    The kicker is that this situation was engineered this way. The crack epidemic was started when the Reagan administration shipped cocaine here from Nicaragua, pushed it to the streets and had people 'get rid of it', then funneled the profits right back to the contras that sent it here. All of this was a way to keep funding the contras (a right wing terrorist organization) after congress had ruled continued funding illegal. I hear the same stories from everyone who lived in a poor area of chicago at the time - someone showed up and gave them a free taste of crack, then started selling it to them.
    Then the local governments made deals with the private prison systems where they agreed to keep them full in exchange for revenue. And that lead to situations like what happened in Chicago under the Daly administration, where every time a crime was committed, the police would grab a random black man off the street, take him to a blacksite (and these blacksites still exist ftr - another was recently revealed), lock him up without food, water or a toilet for 48hrs, then strap jumper cables to his nuts and force him to sign a confession.

    If you take all of this into consideration and still think that systemic racism isn't a real problem in 2016, then you're being willfully deluded. The kind of things you're talking about are exactly the questions that were explored by deeply problematic fields like eugenics and phrenology, and such things ALWAYS have a racist motivation. If you're going to say ignorant and disrespectful things (and that's what they are, even if you don't realize it), don't be surprised when you get disrespectful responses, and don't expect anyone to feel sorry for the anxiety you experience from the backlash. It's really as simple as that.
    Last edited by froghawk; 11th May 2016 at 13:55.

  16. #391
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    Quote Originally Posted by Thor View Post
    Thanks for the response Renz. That's the kind of response I was (naively) hoping for. 3) Still, the genetic drift is more important for how long ago it happened, and less for the [hypothesis?] that that it happened.
    And yeah, I got no issue with 1), it all contributes.
    The thing I care about more is how intelligent and culturally flexible are these migrants that are massively coming to Europe.
    Stories (evil racist propoganda?) aren't paving a positive view... Europians are the flexible ones so far.
    The small amount of genetic drift is something that still exists today. Europeans, Africans, Asians, even South American Indians (the most far flung of all the races) share up to 99.99999999% of their DNA, with the only deviations being what you could call extended familial, which gives each race its superficial differences. The fact is, enough time hasn't passed, nor has one group been in isolation long enough to evolve any truly distinct differences.

    Secondly, the idea of Europeans being more culturally flexible due to evolutionary advantages is a flawed one. That's more of a cultural distinction than a biological ones. We've spent a good 80 odd years developing our culture in relative peace, and put an emphasis on the equality of others. This recent influx of immigrants, though. They've been through the hell of war, and come from a culture that's become very insular over the last 100 odd years. They're not going to be quite so open minded as us by default.

    This isn't because Muslims are somehow less evolved. Keep in mind that a very large majority of Middle Eastern people are of Caucasian descent. Nor is it a problem with Islam specifically. That's more a warning of the dangers of fundamentalism, because, as violent and intolerant as they are now, they used to be the open minded scientists, the explorers, the scholars of the old world. The Islamic world wasn't effected by the fall of Rome like Europe was. In fact, the Roman empire continued to thrive and prosper in the form of Byzantium in that part of the world after the western empire collapsed, which all but turned Europe into an ass backwards, mud soaked hell hole for nearly a full millennium.

    As for intelligence. If you take single black person and white person of equal education, place them in a room together, and run them through the same tests, they're both going to come out scoring about the same as each other. Individually, a black person isn't any more or less intelligent than a white person or an Asian. It's only when you start getting into large demographics that you start seeing a discrepancy. Because of this, it's more logical to assume that these discrepancies come about due to environmental factors than biological ones. A good example of this would be comparing the differences in IQ scores between blacks and whites in the UK vs. the US. In the UK, where racial issues aren't nearly so up in everyone's face, blacks score just oh so slightly behind whites, while in the US there's usually a full standard deviation of difference. Is this because US blacks are somehow biologically inferior to UK blacks? No. They both share the same genetic backgrounds. The difference is far more likely to be environmental.

  17. #392
    verbose douchebag
    Registered: Apr 2002
    Location: Lyon, France
    Quote Originally Posted by Thor View Post
    Nice... thanks for the kind words. Your response is dripping with respect.
    The content you posted commands all the respect of a dog in a cape.

  18. #393
    Member
    Registered: Aug 2008
    Location: in your second eyelids
    Quote Originally Posted by froghawk View Post
    That's quite a load, but looks worth looking into it. Complicated politics are complicated.
    Quote Originally Posted by froghawk View Post
    If you're going to say ignorant and disrespectful things (and that's what they are, even if you don't realize it), don't be surprised when you get disrespectful responses, and don't expect anyone to feel sorry for the anxiety you experience from the backlash. It's really as simple as that.
    I don't expect anything to feel sorry for me, naturally. And actually, I respectfully (even pointed it out my neutrality pretty clearly) presented my view and asked if anyone could throw something on it, maybe challenge my view, but the first thing I got was a bigoted response that gave practically no counter arguments whatsoever. No matter how ignorant someone is about something (though I don't assume that you know everything yourself, but more likely another side of the picture), that is not a decent way to address something especially when it's a serious topic (not your response, though).

    Renz: Well, I never said european empathy has a biological basis. I think it's clear that it's cultural. It wasn't even the case 100 years ago.
    That last paragraph: I'm burnt out to look for info so I'll belive about that for now. That sounds very positive. Where were those migrants from and how many generations have they been there?

    I guess my overall conclusion for now is: gee, maybe America is way more racist than I thought. Another reason to never go there.
    But the migrant crysis still looks to be a massive problem, because when is their cultural intolerance going to stop and will they not end up enforcing their law on Europe instead.

    Quote Originally Posted by faetal View Post
    The content you posted commands all the respect of a dog in a cape.
    I guess that's why I got the actually informative replies after your intolerant bigoted crap. You speak like an actual racist. Pretty ironic.

  19. #394
    verbose douchebag
    Registered: Apr 2002
    Location: Lyon, France
    No, I speak like someone who doesn't have time to devote to someone who lacks basic reasoning skills and prefers to make up their own narrative.
    I'll debate with someone who has a clue - otherwise, my time is better spent with my wife and kid. My wife, being Arabic is presumably somewhere in the middle of your non-white sliding stupid-and-thus-predisposed-to-crime scale.

  20. #395
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2001
    Location: Land of the crazy
    Thor,

    The climate hypothesis could explain cultural evolution as well, not just biological evolution. But let's not get too hung up on it. I think we can agree that there are differences between races beyond superficial things like skin color, without having to identify the process through which racial differences arose.

    You pointed out that different races have different IQ distributions. And black people are statistically more likely to commit crime. Those are well researched facts that I don't dispute. However, I'm still not sure where you were going by pointing it out.

    Even though different races have different IQ distributions, you can't use that as a basis for how you treat an individual. You can't reject a black candidate for a job because you assume they're dumber than the Asian candidate, going based on their race. That would be racist and illegal. Similarly, cops shouldn't stop and frisk black people on the street assuming they're up to no good just because they're black. But that really does happen in the US, and it happens a lot. Racial profiling is a standard practice in many police departments. Cops defend it based on crime statistics, but that doesn't make it any less racist. Presumption of innocence is a legal right that should be applied equally to all races.

  21. #396
    verbose douchebag
    Registered: Apr 2002
    Location: Lyon, France
    There's no evidence that black people are more likely to commit crime, only evidence that more black people are arrested or convicted for crime. The only way you could know if black people commit more crime is omniscience. Any hypothesis that being black is causative to criminal behaviour wants a proposed mechanism, which would either be something cultural or biological. You would also need to demonstrate that a change in environment does not negate such an effect.

    There are so many feedback loops involved that you'd need to have some pretty mean sociology / psychology / neurology chops to go near it with even the sturdiest barge pole. Which is why when someone decides to cook up a narrative on their own and posit it as some kind of robust idea, it gets treated about as seriously as the aforementioned dog.

  22. #397
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2001
    Location: Land of the crazy
    I think you're kind of missing the point of Thor's original argument. He wasn't claiming that being black causes one to be a criminal, or that if you controlled for every variable other than skin color there would still be a difference in crime rate. It's all those variables besides skin color that make the difference.

  23. #398
    verbose douchebag
    Registered: Apr 2002
    Location: Lyon, France
    Variables pulled out of thin air. The biggest flaw in the thinking though is the putting of the cart before the horse.

    Start with the assumption that black people = inferior > which arguments can I find to prop this up? Thus follows reams of flimsy supposition dusted with a smattering of statistics with correlation=causation fallacies.

    The problem with the prisons / convictions numbers and IQ numbers (citation sorely needed on the latter) is that they are very chicken vs. egg, as has already been briefly mentioned. If you systematically discriminate against other humans on the basis of perceived caste (presumably brought about in the US by black people being brought in as slaves and thus considered to be property), then the area of society which they perceive as being available, safe or useful for them is smaller than that of the people doing the discriminating. This of course has knock-on effects to culture and the behaviours which stem from that. So any argument of biological inferiority or pre-disposition is so convoluted as to be meaningless, unless you're fishing for things to prop up a personal prejudice - in which case it becomes smoking gun evidence and a cognitive dissonance foil to validate that prejudice.

    Also, any assumption that racial discrimination disappeared in the US with apartheid (a mere 50 or so years ago let's not forget) is fantastically naive.

  24. #399
    verbose douchebag
    Registered: Apr 2002
    Location: Lyon, France
    Abysmal - it's tribalism, a pretty basic human trait. Which doesn't excuse it or mean we should normalise it. If you wiped out all non-white people, you'd have stupid people with blue eyes discriminating against those with brown eyes or similar. Idiocy always finds a way to default to basic prejudice.

  25. #400
    verbose douchebag
    Registered: Apr 2002
    Location: Lyon, France
    I think you're mistaking tribalism with culture. It's possible to have different cultures and not think that eg guys with red hair are probably assholes.

Page 16 of 558 FirstFirst ... 61112131415161718192021263136414651566166116266516 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •