I don't understand racism or homophobia
- Thread starter Christmas themed thank
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 Sep 2012
- Posts
- 11,698
- Location
- Surrey
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.
Being suspicious of Middle eastern men with backpacks in England would be less rational than being paranoid of wearing clothes in case you die from them catching fire considering the number of deaths linked to it in the UK.
You can call it self preservation but i see Eastern men with backpacks all the time and think nothing of it and have managed to survive to this day without quaking in fear or being an idiot.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 30,169
It's a good thing you don't run our security forces are we would be screwed.
How do you feel about Northern Irish people then? They've killed more people in the UK in terrorist incidents than "middle eastern" men
You have to define it as negative eugenics otherwise used car sales men will be sophistical.
Surely, that'd be Chris Wilson and his dog experiments.
That sounds rather illegal
.Racism, homophobia, xenophobia are other forms of irrational hatred represent the ******* children of fear and ignorance. People are afraid of what they don't understand and if they decide to not try to understand that which scares them, the fear turns into hatred.
So that's how far your prejudice goes, is it? This isn't some small sample size we're talking about here. There is an extremely close relationship between crime and poverty, and also (in the US at least due to the many generations of prejudice) blacks and poverty. You are just dismissing that as correlative and coincidental - despite it being very well established that poverty increases crime?
It's true, I have Keanuphobia and I really hate him
https://media.giphy.com/media/3o6Ztev0fDIDZrTfzO/giphy.gif
Last edited:
No Tefal, I'm not interested in how you rank them.
I'm specifically asking for any rational definition of 5 races.
To my knowledge no generally accepted definition of human sub species or races exist, with good reasons, that have been discussed numerous times on OCuk.
For clarity, some issues below:
Human Genetic variation is a good deal less than that of other organisms we use sub species taxonomy for.
Externally visible attributes/phenotypes (particularly skin pigmentation) can be poor indicators of genetic background, the 2 populations with the greatest known genetic distance are Africans and Aboriginal Australians, both of whom would likely be classed as black by many.
The genetic distance between large population groups is generally less than within them, begging the question what individuals within each population have in common with each other, as opposed to with others in other populations.
Humans have continually moved and bred, where would someone even start with Continental America.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_genetics
I can't be bothered to post separately to everyone who replied to me so for chojin.
In summary you said - Black people are fast at the 100m, I queried your scientific basis for this statement (and the absurd assumption than humans are akin to "selectively bred dogs").
Rather than an answer to either, you have posted a study of Jamaican success in athletics, a population orders of magnitude smaller than your original assertion of "black".
Also an article that has nothing to support your opinion that human populations (or races/subspecies) are akin to selectively bred dogs.
I'm asking you to back that opinion up with something, so far I've seen nothing in my reading to support it.
I like the description a blind person gives when talking about race....
As for homophobic there is homophobic and the general annoyance of ooo look I camper than a carry on camper film about campers camping. The supergay.... i really dislike supergays.
As for homophobic there is homophobic and the general annoyance of ooo look I camper than a carry on camper film about campers camping. The supergay.... i really dislike supergays.
Vomiting (which is what the OP was talking about) is an extreme reaction to an idea you disagree with. It's certainly not rational.
They probably didn't mean it, which is why some people (myself included) think it's likely that they were exaggerating to overtly signal their extreme virtue.
It was a survival trait. It isn't any more.
It's also possible that homosexuality might have been a benefit to the prosperity of a hunter-gatherer tribe. The idea has the catchy name of "gay uncle hypothesis". The idea is related to kin selection, where individuals tend to be more likely to prosper because of support from members of the group in addition to their parents.
It has an additional and seperate aspect in a hunter-gatherer group due to the use of persistence hunting (which was how humans hunted for most of the existence of humanity). Persistence hunting carries significant risk, so it was done by men. It takes considerable time and must be done quite often when preserving meat is impossible, so those men were away from the group quite a lot. It would probably have been considered desirable for other men to remain with the group to fight off threats (dangerous animals, raids from other groups, whatever) and be manly role models (gender roles made sense in small hunter-gatherer groups with stone age technology). It's possible that gay men might have been preferred for that role because they'd be rather less likely to be having sex with the women in relationships with the men who were away hunting. Maybe.
Besides, even in the small groups of those days it would have been unusual for homosexuality to have been common enough to be a significant factor in population and never so in men.
Nobody, absolutely nobody, has said that "not being racist or homophobic" is a virtue rather than the norm or was being signalled as a virtue by the OP. You are "replying" to something that has not been said.
How have you taken 2 and 3 to suggest only white people can be racist. The post you quoted left colour completely out of it
The post they were quoting very clearly put colour first and foremost and explicitly stated that racism only exists against people who are not "white". That's probably what they were referring to.
Again, that in no way implies only white people can be racist.
"The area they live in has little to no people of colour" - Could be a Black Person living in a predominately Black neighbourhood
"Or they had one bad experience with a person of colour" - Maybe a white person stepped on a Black guys shoes and now he has an issue with the entire race.
So yeah, I'm not sure how you reached the conclusion his statements were exclusive to white people.
Because they stated explicitly that they were. "Person of colour" never, ever, applies to anyone who the speaker decides to categorise as "white". It explicitly excludes them. It often has the same meaning as "black person", although depending on how the speaker defines "race" they might extend the meaning to cover some other "race" that they've decided exists. But never, ever, "white". That's the whole point of the phrase. There's no doubt that the post in question explicitly denied even the possibility of anti-white racism and there's little doubt that it was intended to mean that all racists are "white".
Well there is rational and irrational fear, on the evidence basis of the UK population at least one should arguably be stereotyping and fearing the humble bacon butty a good deal higher than suicide bombers.
Ironically it may well be irrational/ unevidenced belief that motivates the suicde bombers of the world.
I think you've used a false premise and thus arrived at an incorrect conclusion.
You're categorising all Indians as one "race". You're presuming that all Indians categorise all Indians as one "race" and I think that's a false premise.
India is rather large and any idea of it being a single place is very recent (and externally imposed to begin with). It's not surprising that some people from different places that used to be different countries that used to be at war quite often would not see each other as being the same group. It's not surprising that people who believe in race would see people from different places with different colour skin as being a different "race".
There obviously is a very strong correlation. What's in question is cause, not correlation. Denying the existence of a very strong correlation undermines your argument because denying the existence of something that obviously exists is obviously a false statement for ideological purposes.
Wrong. I presume you have forgotten the Lockerbie bombing?
It's true, I have Keanuphobia and I really hate him
https://media.giphy.com/media/3o6Ztev0fDIDZrTfzO/giphy.gif
The casual xenophobia and sexism you often display shows that deep down behind the relaxed Alpha facade you have built up to protect yourself lies a scared little *********, much like those you love to deride.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 30,169
Well the IRA killed 3600 people so I don't think Lockerbie, heinous as it was, compares.
I didn't mean it in the literal sense, i.e. there is actually a gene. It's a throw back in our psyche from the beginning of time.
Chimpanzee's create family groups who will regularly go on a raiding party against other Chimpanzee groups. This behaviour is also observed in other species.
It's simply the arrogance of man that believes now we claim to be civilised we have transcended such behaviour. I think it might be the case that we've simply suppressed it.