It's simple - tribalism. We humans think because we are relatively intelligent we have left all this behind - we haven't. It's built into our DNA to be suspicious of other tribes - survival instinct I suppose.
I don't understand racism or homophobia
- Thread starter Christmas themed thank
- Start date
It's simple - tribalism. We humans think because we are relatively intelligent we have left all this behind - we haven't. It's built into our DNA to be suspicious of other tribes - survival instinct I suppose.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 30,081
I believe tribalism is a thing, but I don't understand how you can use it to justify people being racist.
If I am with my good friends, who are from different ethnic backgrounds and we're suspicious of an outsider - how am I being racist?
Permabanned
- Joined
- 1 Jun 2004
- Posts
- 2,021
- Location
- London
So when black people statistically kill more people, it's racist to say they're more violent? (from the US, but I've included the .gov website to show it isn't rubbish)
And before you say those black victims could be killed by white people
These statistics can legitimately cause racism. If you ignore facts then the root causes of it will never be fixed and racism will remain.
Or you could just call me racist for saying it, which is of course much easier.
Last edited:
She's loving it. Says as a white British woman she gets treated like royalty
When I was out there I found it really nice. She said she noticed they treated me a bit differently but I didn't notice it. Think my British accent probably helped with that lol.From what I know (which is very little) Indians are very racist towards themselves. My friends ex was from a wealthy Indian family and she said that Indians in the north and south are pretty toxic to one another because one half are darker and the other half are lighter.
I hope we can someday find this racist chromosome.
Suicide bombers tend to have that effect on people.
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 Sep 2012
- Posts
- 11,698
- Location
- Surrey
A shame that idiots turn others into idiots through fear
Sounds like you're saying that statistics can point towards a correlation where there isn't one, leading people to draw inaccurate conclusions from accurate statistics.So when black people statistically kill more people, it's racist to say they're more violent? (from the US, but I've included the .gov website to show it isn't rubbish)
And before you say those black victims could be killed by white people
These statistics can legitimately cause racism. If you ignore facts then the root causes of it will never be fixed and racism will remain.
Or you could just call me racist for saying it, which is of course much easier.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 1 Jun 2004
- Posts
- 2,021
- Location
- London
I think we know I could get God almighty to tell it to peoples faces and they'd ignore it.
The great thing about stats is you can ignore lots of factors.
The figures for poverty and crime overlap each other almost to the dot. Poor people are killing poor people, and when looking at the statistics for a country that has systemically discriminated against blacks for centuries, is it any surprise that the two demographics (blacks and the poor) overlap almost perfectly?
But wait! They have a black president! That means they can't be racist, amirite?
I could put a Gaussian line on top of another Gaussian line, doesn't mean one caused the other.
Being suspicious of middle Eastern men with large backpacks I would call self preservation or in the case of Police in high risk locations just doing their job, not stupidity.
This. To me it's the only thing that sets people apart.
Soldato
- Joined
- 1 Mar 2010
- Posts
- 6,316
The conflict in Syria has many shades of grey; but neither Assad nor ISIS are profoundly misunderstood 'good people' that are somehow justified by their moral ambiguity and rhetoric to kill Syrians because they feel their power and status are slipping away. A particular social hierarchy or dynamic does not justify itself by mere existence.
The effects of homophobic and racist actions cannot be lessened or ignored because their perpetrator is wavering in his conviction, and perhaps ten years from now will denounce and reject his position. So although it's quite possible to show empathy to some lost soul with open prejudices due to a number of compounding conditions, from upbringing to environment to lack of means, it does not absolve them in and of itself. Indeed, say I had battered you for ten years straight every time I met you, and then turned up on your doorstep with an apology, "Sorry, mate, I didn't really mean any harm. Just really been stressed these past few years. Hey, you're still alive, and I hope we can put it behind us." I somehow doubt you'd smile and offer me a warm embrace.
Yes. It's quite a jump to make, and statistically illiterate to boot.
You're asserting that the statistics given measure something that they were not designed to do; namely, measure 'intrinsic violence capacity' of a population. In itself a rather quack effort, since you'd have to somehow link skin pigmentation to aggressiveness (the predominant differentiation that crops up in discussions of race), and define a biological concept of race suitable for analysis, sharing presumably some unique aggressive characteristics genetically which no other group has.
Using America as an example, I could argue by the same token that us white folk are intrinsically more prone to mass murder, but is this -- our whiteness -- really the cause of those crimes? Access to weapons, history, politics, compounding crimes, socio-economic factors, culture, geographic concentration and distribution of each population, amongst other things play a part. If you're not leaping to conclusions, you'd have to rigorously dismiss all other variables that offer context to crimes committed in the population to isolate your definition of race as the single most important factor or the sole factor. Such analysis is not offered in the images you've quoted.
Lastly, generalising from one sample country about 'race' and its effects in general is profoundly flawed, since it is quite possible to find less violent and more violent countries for any type of majority required, in this instance, and so on for other nonsense justified by the same means. Unless you're asserting that your 'races' aren't general, and that African-Americans are somehow different from other people of Afro-Caribbean descent; likewise for White Europeans. Which still does not rescue you from the statistical analysis required.
"There are more murders/higher murder rate in X community/country" as a statement of statistical fact is not in itself racist; the generalisation of "because Y people live in a more violent community/country they are intrinsically more violent than X in another community/country with fewer violent crimes" is. It's the racialist equivalent of saying that if one is born poor, one deserves it, and equally as laughable.
And your factor analysis is... where?
Last edited:
Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 30,081
Being suspicious of middle Eastern men with large backpacks I would call self preservation or in the case of Police in high risk locations just doing their job, not stupidity.
Not really though is it? The UK has had one attack from "middle eastern" men using backpack bombs and that was 10 years ago.
Soldato
- Joined
- 2 May 2011
- Posts
- 12,285
- Location
- Woking
I'd not be surprised if you'd dabbled yourself.
Soldato
- Joined
- 1 Mar 2010
- Posts
- 6,316
Soldato
- Joined
- 2 May 2011
- Posts
- 12,285
- Location
- Woking
Who knows. Hopefully he hasn't reproduced in case he could be accused of eugenics - selective breeding.