Home Politics & Debate
Come and join our Support Circle, every Tuesday, 8 - 9:30pm! Anyone is welcome to join. Sign up here
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨

Define White

1567911

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    barkmoss wrote: »
    As I said, people are tired of pretending it doesn't exist; they want a "real" discussion, not a "pretend" discussion.
    That doesn't answer the question. You've simply reiterated that 'people' want a 'real discussion'.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I've seen enough posts like barkmoss' on the bulletin boards to know how it goes. They always want to "prove" that black people are inferior.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    Oh really? And who would those people be? :D

    Oh please! We've got Donny D. talking about it on "The Big Idea," Paula Zahn talking about it on her show and Tim Russert interviewing Greenberg and he says, Jews don't mind so much being called "kike" just don't call them "jew-boy."

    When the accusations of anti-semitism lost traction, that was the "writing on the wall" for words like "racist" and "homophobic" and "misogynistic."

    It's kinda like when Honda built an assembly plant in Ohio, something changed.

    The reality is, Jews, Blacks, Women and Perverts (no one is born that way) are rich and powerful and the ones who aren't yet, have plenty of opportunity. So, most people who aren't, just have themselves to blame.

    Even rappers are tired of the whining. I mean when a rapper goes on Dr. Phil and tells some kid from an all black neighborhood to quit complaining and get a job, you just know it's over.

    Not satisfied? What did Ann Coulter just call Edwards? What did that Jewish comic from Seinfeld just get through screaming at an audience?

    Of course, some people, when they get their hands around a big stick, they just can't get enough of it. I knew a Man who had a bulldog. That dog would hump anything it could get himself around and it's owner never did a thing to stop him. Now I never went back to that house, but I am sure that dog will never be satisfied and will never heed the word no.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I knew you wouldn't be able to help yourself :D
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Where exactly are we at with this thread now? I suspect we're not defining white anymore! :D
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Well shall we get back to that then?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    barkmoss wrote: »
    Oh please! We've got Donny D. talking about it on "The Big Idea," Paula Zahn talking about it on her show and Tim Russert interviewing Greenberg and he says, Jews don't mind so much being called "kike" just don't call them "jew-boy."

    When the accusations of anti-semitism lost traction, that was the "writing on the wall" for words like "racist" and "homophobic" and "misogynistic."

    It's kinda like when Honda built an assembly plant in Ohio, something changed.

    The reality is, Jews, Blacks, Women and Perverts (no one is born that way) are rich and powerful and the ones who aren't yet, have plenty of opportunity. So, most people who aren't, just have themselves to blame.

    Even rappers are tired of the whining. I mean when a rapper goes on Dr. Phil and tells some kid from an all black neighborhood to quit complaining and get a job, you just know it's over.

    Not satisfied? What did Ann Coulter just call Edwards? What did that Jewish comic from Seinfeld just get through screaming at an audience?

    Of course, some people, when they get their hands around a big stick, they just can't get enough of it. I knew a Man who had a bulldog. That dog would hump anything it could get himself around and it's owner never did a thing to stop him. Now I never went back to that house, but I am sure that dog will never be satisfied and will never heed the word no.
    What the fuck are you on about? :lol:

    And more to the point, apart from the old loony you no doubt worship, who do you think actually gives a fuck amongst the people?

    Answer: nobody but the odd racist jerk. :D

    So I'll ask again: who wants to have a 'serious' debate about race, other than the usual assortment of Stormfronters and similar fruitcakes?

    This was the scene on the route of a march demanding such debate, yesterday:


    tumbleweed.jpg


    :D :wave:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    barkmoss wrote: »
    Even rappers are tired of the whining. I mean when a rapper goes on Dr. Phil and tells some kid from an all black neighborhood to quit complaining and get a job, you just know it's over.

    Not satisfied? What did Ann Coulter just call Edwards? What did that Jewish comic from Seinfeld just get through screaming at an audience?

    Maybe some references to people that anyone in this country gives a shit about or has heard of might go down well?

    Anyone ever notice that only a racist will ever argue that there's no such thing as racism?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    He's been banned.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Ah well, I thought it was pretty clear he was a troll, the second he dragged up a thread from three months ago, just to have another race-related rant.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Bit of a shame, really. As I may have said before, I'm fairly tolerant of trolls. They can brighten up a forum and even spark debate. Just take them with a pinch of salt and learn to spot the diversionary tactics.

    Did XXXX get banned too? I would have liked to hear him/her square that 'scientists and race' thing...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Ah, I see, having got to page 12 or so, that it was covered. I still think that 'race' is a concept scientists are stepping back from, though. 'Discrimination on the grounds of colour' might not be as pithy as 'racist', but it sounds more sensible.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta wrote: »
    He's been banned.

    With no thought to my ongoing discourse on "meanings" :sour:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Uncle Joe wrote: »
    This may already have been covered at some point in the next eight pages after the post I'm replying to, but... when have scientists, outside of the human, social, context, ever talked about 'race'? Races of dogs? Races of whales? Rather, they speak of species', and genus' (genii?). 'Race' is very much a political concept, as you acknowledge in the next post...
    This is simply not the case Uncle Joe - you are falling into the Blagsterist fallacy of believing what dishonest scientists say and which gets trumpeted by a lay media selected for its easy submission to political orthodoxy.

    Definitions of race and its synonyms current to different scientific disciplines according to the Oxford University's authoritative Reference range of academic dictionaries:

    Race 1. (in biology) A category used in the classification of organisms that consists of a group of individuals within a species that are geographically, ecologically, physiologically, or chromosomally distinct from other members of the species. The term is frequently used in the same sense as subspecies. Physiological races, for example, are identical in appearance but differ in function. They include strains of fungi adapted to infect different varieties of the same crop species.

    2. (in anthropology) A distinct human type possessing several characteristics that are genetically inherited. The major races are Mongoloid, Caucasian, Negroid, and Australoid.

    Source: "race" A Dictionary of Biology. Oxford University Press, 2004. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press. Oxford University Dept of Continuing Education. 26 April 2007 http://www.oxfordreference.com/views/ENTRY.html?subview=Main&entry=t6.e3730

    Subspecies A group of individuals within a species that breed more freely among themselves than with other members of the species and resemble each other in more characteristics. Reproductive isolation of a subspecies may become so extreme that a new species is formed (see speciation). Subspecies are sometimes given a third Latin name, e.g. the mountain gorilla, Gorilla gorilla beringei.

    Source: "subspecies" A Dictionary of Biology. Oxford University Press, 2004. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press. Oxford University Dept of Continuing Education. 26 April 2007 http://www.oxfordreference.com/views/ENTRY.html?subview=Main&entry=t6.e4270

    Variety: A category used in the classification of plants and animals below the species level. A variety consists of a group of individuals that differ distinctly from but can interbreed with other varieties of the same species. The characteristics of a variety are genetically inherited. Examples of varieties include breeds of domestic animals and human races. See also cultivar. Compare subspecies.

    Source: "variety" A Dictionary of Biology. Oxford University Press, 2004. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press. Oxford University Dept of Continuing Education. 26 April 2007 http://www.oxfordreference.com/views/ENTRY.html?subview=Main&entry=t6.e4628

    Race: An interbreeding group of individuals all of whom are genetically distinct from the members of other such groups of the same species. Usually these groups are geographically isolated from one another, so there are barriers to gene flow. Examples are island races of birds and mammals, such as the Skomer vole and the St Kilda wren. See subspecies.

    Source: "race" A Dictionary of Zoology. Ed. Michael Allaby. Oxford University Press, 1999. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press. Oxford University Dept of Continuing Education. 26 April 2007 http://www.oxfordreference.com/views/ENTRY.html?subview=Main&entry=t8.e7338

    Subspecies: Technically, a race of a species that is allocated a Latin name. The number of races recognized within a species and the allocation of names to them is somewhat arbitrary. Systematic and phenotypic variations do occur within species, but there are no clear rules for identifying them as races or subspecies except that they must be: (a) geographically distinct; (b) populations, not merely morphospecies; and (c) different to some degree from other geographic populations .

    Source: "subspecies" A Dictionary of Zoology. Ed. Michael Allaby. Oxford University Press, 1999. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press. Oxford University Dept of Continuing Education. 26 April 2007 http://www.oxfordreference.com/views/ENTRY.html?subview=Main&entry=t8.e8533

    Race: a phenotypically and/or geographically distinctive subspecific group, composed of individuals inhabiting a defined geographical and/or ecological region, and possessing characteristic phenotypic and gene frequencies that distinguish it from other such groups. The number of racial groups that one wishes to recognize within a species is usually arbitrary but suitable for the purposes under investigation. See ecotype, subspecies.

    Source: "race" A Dictionary of Genetics. Robert C. King, William D. Stansfield, and Pamela K. Mulligan. Oxford University Press, 2007. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press. Oxford University Dept of Continuing Education. 26 April 2007 http://www.oxfordreference.com/views/ENTRY.html?subview=Main&entry=t224.e5354


    Subspecies: 1. a taxonomically recognized subdivision of a species. 2. geographically and/or ecologically defined subdivisions of a species with distinctive characteristics. See race.

    Source: "subspecies" A Dictionary of Genetics. Robert C. King, William D. Stansfield, and Pamela K. Mulligan. Oxford University Press, 2007. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press. Oxford University Dept of Continuing Education. 26 April 2007 http://www.oxfordreference.com/views/ENTRY.html?subview=Main&entry=t224.e6247


    variety n.: The quality or condition of being diversified, or a collection of unlike things. In biology, a taxonomic group into which a species is divided, containing organisms that are genetically differentiable from other members of the same species by the relative frequencies of their polymorphic genes . Also called a microspecies, race , or subspecies. [From Latin varietas variety, from varius various]

    Source: "variety n." A Dictionary of Psychology. Andrew M. Colman. Oxford University Press, 2006. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press. Oxford University Dept of Continuing Education. 26 April 2007 http://www.oxfordreference.com/views/ENTRY.html?subview=Main&entry=t87.e8737


    subspecies n.: In biology, a taxonomic group into which a species is divided, containing organisms that are genetically differentiable from other members of the same species by the relative frequencies of their polymorphic genes. Also called a microspecies, race, or variety.

    Source: "subspecies n." A Dictionary of Psychology. Andrew M. Colman. Oxford University Press, 2006. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press. Oxford University Dept of Continuing Education. 26 April 2007 http://www.oxfordreference.com/views/ENTRY.html?subview=Main&entry=t87.e8100

    Uncle Joe - please tell me that's ironic - I have never seen a single definition of 'race' in its scientific sense (rather than its secular social or poetic meanings) which would prevent our assigning the major human groups to different races – and no-one has produced one in this thread. According to ALL the definitions above, humans would qualify for subdivision in precisely the same way as any other species might.

    It is disagreement with the social and political ends to which human racial distinctions were formerly put that motivates the rejection of subspecification for humans – it is not a scientific dispute – and it does nobody any credit to pretend differently. The lies, personal attacks, and other dishonourable tactics to which people like Boas, Clark, Gould, Mead and others resorted to further their political agendas (collated in the following post), not only fall well outside acceptable academic standards – but they tend to discredit the ideas that they are proposing. You don't want to buy anything from someone you know is a liar and who threatens you if you don't fall for his sales patter – and you certainly don't believe he has a well-founded confidence in his product.

    Btw Blagsta, the same goes for organisations like the SPLC and Searchlight whom you quoted to 'prove' Rushton should be ignored – if what they claim about Rushton and Jared Taylor's Amren.com were true, the joke would be:

    # How do you spot a neo-nazi White-supremacist in a crowd?
    # He's the one who believes Jews and Asians are smarter and make better citizens than White people.

    Consider: people who lie to deliberately frighten people - and profit from it - are far more morally culpable than people whose honestly held beliefs might scare those same people.

    I think that's partly why we see the shift from the old guard – Montagu, Lewontin, and Gould - whose arguments and conduct is discredited, to a new generation of public intellectuals who are reconciling - without much difficulty - a more open-minded, honestly scientific approach to race and possible race differences, with a natural understanding that this has little to do with supremacism, Hitler, or (capitalised) Hate – people like Armand Leroi, Nicholas Wade, and Steven Pinker. The other reason for the shift is that advanced genetics is turning up important race-based differences with increasing regularity, making even the race-does-not-matter mantra out-dated - never mind the race-does-not-exist crock.

    If you are more interested in the science of genes and race than the other Uncle Joe, you can do worse than start here:
    http://dienekes.blogspot.com/
    http://www.gnxp.com/

    Rushton: http://www.ssc.uwo.ca/psychology/faculty/rushton_pubs.htm
    Leroi: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/14/opinion/14leroi.html?ex=1268542800&en=bd4affa4aea0f85c&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland
    Wade: http://www.anthro.utah.edu/~rogers/ant1050/Readings/selection-ongoing_wade.html
    Pinker: http://pinker.wjh.harvard.edu/articles/media/2006_06_17_thenewrepublic.html
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blox: having talked up my collected litany of lies, crimes, hoaxes, and other assorted mischief by the race-deniers, I find I haven't saved the doc. to disk as I thought I had.

    Monday.

    Btw Blagsta - you think that disproportionate Jewish wealth and influence in Weimar Germany was a product of something other than natural inequity?

    Similar goes to you King of Glasgow - do you think something unnatural/B] is occuring whereby the in-control native peoples of Britain work to make Jews, Indians, Lebanese, east Asians and other minorities better educated and more financially renumerated for their work than the CRE's White British, and also to make the Black British less so - but not the Black African!

    Who manages all this?

    The government can't even keep illegal immigrants from working at the Home Office - so how do you explain this incredibly successful micro-management of different ethnic groups' social outcomes? (And if you're not aware -the groups tend to perform similarly across the globe whether majority or minority - somebody somewhere is seriously powerful).

    Is it possible you give too much credit to an (imaginary and bizarrely fickle) racist cabal supposedly controlling things - and not enough credit to individuals of all races and ethnic groups that they have responsibility for their own lives?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    LOL! :D

    You sound a little nuts tbf.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Feel free to justify, or offer a positive view of your own. Naturally, feel free as well to assume all your audience share your prejudices.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'm just sitting here sniggering at you tbh.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta wrote: »
    I'm just sitting here sniggering at you tbh.
    I do not wish to be in gross error. If I am wrong about something the mature and decent thing is to correct me. Mockery is for the playground bully.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Sorry, but anyone who comes out with crap like you just have, doesn't deserve to be taken seriously.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Tell me - why your "hmmm?" about my 'natural equities' - you posted it, you had a clear and right understanding of the matter - explain it. :)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta wrote: »
    Sorry, but anyone who comes out with crap like you just have, doesn't deserve to be taken seriously.
    I leave it to the gallery to judge.

    I said to JimV that this article was about "the politicisation of resentments caused by natural inequities, and the abuse of government power to expropriate resources and opportunities from individuals, merely on account of their race, and allocate them to others, again, according to race."

    You quoted "natural inequities" and said "Hmmm?"

    When challenged to explain whether you therefore "think that disproportionate Jewish wealth and influence in Weimar Germany was a product of something other than natural inequity?"

    You... do what you did. - There isn't a term for it in normal discourse - it could only happen online.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yep, that's fine with me.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    all i ask of barkmoss is that he gives me a link to show there is signifigant biological difference between 'races' that can be applied 100% of the time on everyone, if not there is no point discriminating, and if there is a scale for darkness :p

    gotta love stormfronters
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    One gone, one to go... :rolleyes:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    XXXX wrote: »
    I leave it to the gallery to judge.

    Thank you for the invite.

    I`ve read all your posts in this thread,and I`ve reached a conclusion thus far.

    Allowing for my very limited supposed knowledge, even more limited certainty and ,of course, assuming you put the letters in the order you intended in your posts, I gotta say I can`t find anything disagreeable so far.

    But that`s me.

    I`m sure you have noticed but you do seem to have a few detractors.

    For what reasons, I`m not sure :confused::confused:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    One gone, one to go... :rolleyes:

    :confused::confused:

    What are you talking about ?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I have to agree with seeker here; the "racists" have won this argument due to their opposition's dismissive attitude and refusal to engage in the debate.

    Real shame.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Do you really think that shit like this
    XXXX wrote: »
    Similar goes to you King of Glasgow - do you think something unnatural/B] is occuring whereby the in-control native peoples of Britain work to make Jews, Indians, Lebanese, east Asians and other minorities better educated and more financially renumerated for their work than the CRE's White British, and also to make the Black British less so - but not the Black African!

    Who manages all this?


    deserves a meaningful response?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    carlito wrote: »
    I have to agree with seeker here; the "racists" have won this argument due to their opposition's dismissive attitude and refusal to engage in the debate.

    Real shame.

    Hardly. The fact that you can see them for what they are - racists - shows that nothing need be done. Their views have nothing to do with science just bigotry pure and simple - they just try to give it a sugar coating of misinformation to make it sound palatable.

    We used to do the same to get medicine downs kids necks.
Sign In or Register to comment.