If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
I haven't seen them make any explicitly "racist" statements, although its probable that they are racist. But why does that mean nothing has to be done?
The opposite is the case. If "racists" make cases based on science (or pseudo science) which advocate discrimination, all the more effort needs to be made to ensure their argument is totally shot down. If you just sarcastically dismiss them as "racists" and leave it at that, anybody who is undecided on the matter is more than likely to agree with them, not you. They'll see you as the prejudiced party who holds unjustified opinions, not them.
It's a case of reading between the lines of what they say - we've seen a few around here and it never takes long to twig them for the scum which they are. The racist parties and promoters are getting wiser to the concept of spin. Rather than just come out with they bigotry they try to justify their hatred with science or lies. It's just a simple fact of how these people work.
That you could see their racist undertones is proof that it tends not to work.
Anyone new, certainly.
Look at their sources, look at the message they are trying to get across. there is no science - in the tru sense - which backs up their arguments any more than the fact that Bill Gates wearing glassess means that people with poor eyesight are genetically predisposed to be rich.
You will also note the things which haven't been said in this thread by the racists. The number of evaded questions, the instant accusational approach when questioned...
Now, if people cannot see that for themselves then a detailed pulling apart of a "scientific" argument won't help either.
I agree to some extent with your analysis of racist argumentation/methods. However, it isn't the point.
In terms of "objective truth" whats the difference between the "bigotry" of a predisposed racist and the "bigotry" of a presidposed anti-racist? The point is that racism is a plausible belief system/worldview. It perfectly possible that objective science could completely exonerate a racist perspective. Therefore simply identifying someone as "racist" doesn't mean you win the argument or win over anybody who is following the debate. Sure, you might win over some people who are predisposed to dislike and/or dismiss racists, but you don't win over anybody who is trying to approach the matter scientifically or objectively. In fact, quite the opposite; those people are likely to assume that the "anti-racist" argument is weaker and therefore its advocates have to resort to simple denunciations of their opponents, rather than actually tackle their arguments. Thats what breeds more racists.
Well, firstly, I've been around long enough and followed enough arguments on this issue (on this forum and others) to be able to recognise such arguments and motivations. The "target audience" is not likely to be in such a position. Even if they are, it doesn't mean that their argument is inherently dismissable, as...
Secondly, the potential fact that they are "racist" is largely irrelevant to the debate. So what if they are? As I said, racism is a plausible worldview/perspective and could be supported by scientific evidence. Therefore, if you want to defeat the argument, reply in an appropriately scientific/objective manner. Trying to shout them down will convince impartial observers that you're in the wrong, all you're going to achieve is a temporary victory over people who are presidposed to dislike/disagree with racists anyway.
If their argument is so flawed, invalidate it and put an end to it. Then you can denounce them as unjustified racists.
the racists in this argument have avoided every single decent argument put to them i have asked like 6 questions or something to test the scientific validity of their arguments and i have yet to get a reply to my knowledge - that answers the fact they are using stupid argumentsto prove their point
they're racists, they aren't stupid and they know good way of arguing their views but their arguments still are nonetheless pointless as they are yet to show any real difference between 'races' than what can be more explained by person to person differences
Ok, so I got your last question, which is:
Now that isn't countering anything, its a preposterous request. You'd be extremely hard pressed to find any theory that could be applied 100% of the time on everyone. And why would there be no point in discriminating if not? Everybody uses discrimination daily in order to make decisions, none of it is based on a theory or descriptive paradigm that "can be applied 100% of the time on everyone."
Could those posters be more specific and name names ?
Your question may not be specifically for me, but I`d suggest that you re-read the quote you offered.
I suspect you are seeing what you WANT to see rather than what has actually has been written and asked.
MoK,
I may have "seen" things wrong, but if your post above refers to what XXXX has said in this thread may I be so bold as to suggest you read
WHAT XXXX HAS ACTUALLY POSTED
(My conclusions have resulted from that very suggestion but may have been biased by this early line from XXXX
)
I'm as soggy a liberal as the next man, especially if the next man is Marcus Brigstocke, but I can still see that relying on a general assumption that arguments for racism, however scientific they may appear superficially, can simply be derided and dismissed out of hand, puts one at risk of looking horribly cliquey. That said, what we have here is the problem the BNP presents to the general public in microcosm; reject them totally, and make them seem heroically persecuted, or engage them, and lend them a sheen of respectability. It may not a be a coincidence that the local elections are about to take place.
The only thing worth asking of these pseudo plausible types, is: what's your point? What significance does your argument have for society? I believe these questions have been asked, amid all the vitriol, and evaded. Worth plugging away at it, though.
A lot of talk there of 'subspecies' and far less of 'variations', when the latter is more accurate and less potentially offensive. When all humans, however much they may vary in appearance, can produce offspring successfully, the idea of subgroups looks a little meaningless. I'll give you one definition, from Wikipedia (maybe I've just fallen into a Blagsterist fallacy, but it makes sense to me):
So is there a Doberman race, or a Minke race? Humans all trace their ancestry back to the same bipedal primates. We never evolved to the point of being sexually incompatable. Certainly, being geographically isolated led to the development of different characteristics, and early explorers may have believed there were discovering creatures distinct from the 'human race'. Other races, by definition. We know they were mistaken now. No-one speaks of races of dogs, and only lingering 'racism' leads some of us to think of Africans or Chinese as 'other'.
i always say black and white because its easier than getting all technical. some of my white friends are shocked when i say black but my black friends dont seem to mind.
sometimes i might sound a bit tackless or offensive but i dont mean to be thats just how i am, i think when you have been brought up with people from different race or colour to you or whatever you accept it and dont notice it and use a shared terminology e.g. black/white and its not offensive but to some of my more 'sheltered' friends they think black if offensive so they use the word 'coloured' which i think is harsh.
No-one is denying that a sub-group/sub-species can't interbreed with another; if it couldn't, it wouldn't be sub-group in the first place - it would be an altogether different species!
Of course there is a Doberman race, just as there is a Poodle race, a Dachshund race and so on. Likewise there are different races of foxes, birds, plants etc.
The only difference is that people tend to use the term 'breed' instead of 'race' (at least nowadays).
This is all basic biology. Didn't you get taught this in school
Btw, does "lingering racism" also lead the dog-breeder to consider his Dobermans as 'other' to his Poodles? 'Coz that's your logic.
Which is the crucial difference, and my point. Dogs are 'bred' by humans to vary. No scientist would refer to 'races' of dogs.
I don't know why you need to be so snippy. And of course the dog-breeder would consider his Doberman's as 'other' to his Poodles. At least, if the bitches were in heat. We're not supposed to have the same pre-occupation with the 'purity of the breed'.
The Thread That Will Not Die!
Artificial or natural selection doesn't matter. The end product is still a distinct breed.
As for no scientist referring to 'races' of dog...Ask a biologist if a breed of animal - artificial or naturally selected - can be referred to a race and the answer will be yes.
You seem to think that the onus is on me to find a scientist who will agree with you. Are you supporting XXX's views? Do you think that dark-skinned Africans, say, and pale-skinned Europeans are separate races?
XXXX`s views ? ?
Far be it from me to assume that you DON`T have a closer relationship with XXXX than what you have read on this board, but if you do could you make that clear ?
WHEN MARTIN (heidegger) MET ZEN ?
"When we fill the jug, the pouring that fills it flows into the empty jug. The emptiness, the void, is what does the vessel's holding. The empty space, this nothing of the jug, is what the jug is as the holding vessel.The vessel's thingness does not lie at all in the material of which it consists, but in the void that holds."
p.s. "NEVER" seems like a long time to me
Lol, yeah. I can see this thread going on forever... why isn't it locked? It'll turn up in a few months again I bet too.
God bless google.
Also this:
The issue of defining ethnicity is not so esoteric or untopical that it would kill anyone to have this thread hang around, anyway, unless some poster/s tried to disrupt it. Why sweat it?
I dunno... My old flatmate was Latina, so she was more beige than white... But then I am more pink than white... *shrug*
"White" doesn't refer to colour of skin, it was original used to describe people of lighter skin than those of African descent. The only white people I see are albinos and even they are not totally white.
Yeah. It's just this thread is going in circles and stuff, and geting nowhere. Seeker doesn't help. :rolleyes: Thias issue is not going to get resolved. It can't be due to the circular nature of many arguments about race.
Meh. I guess it'll get closed if it gets dragged up alot.
The 'end product' is genetic stabilisation.
Errr...no. I'm suggesting you ask someone who's properly qualified to clear up your confusion over the fundamentals of biology.
I don't know what his views are. I do agree with his statement of scientific fact - that race exists - just as I'd agree with someone who is arguing that the Earth is round.
I'm disagreeing with you because you're treating long-established biological fact as fallacy and making absolutely false claims (such as that 'race' cannot be applied to sub-species and breeds of animal and plant).