The difference of isms.

[chikusho]

After thousands of years of evolution within completely different environments there's bound to be many genetic differences.

Skin colour is just one of the mechanisms developed for survival in said environment.

Um.. No, there's not. There doesn't exist enough genetic differences in humans for a "race" to even exist. Most genetic variation is individual and completely irrelevant to skin color.

 

[wulf3n]

After thousands of years of evolution within completely different environments there's bound to be many genetic differences.

Skin colour is just one of the mechanisms developed for survival in said environment.

Um.. No, there's not. There doesn't exist enough genetic differences in humans for a "race" to even exist. Most genetic variation is individual and completely irrelevant to skin color.

So you're saying the only difference between races is skin colour?

If you were to say the only differences are appearance related, I may have agreed with you, but you're going to need something more than "Um.. No" if you're going to sway me on that.

edit:

Besides I'm not really sure what you're trying to say.

Most genetic variation is individual and completely irrelevant to skin color."

Does that mean skin color is not a genetic difference?

and Most, that implies there's genetic variation that isn't individual, which is kind of arguing my speculation.

There doesn't exist enough genetic differences in humans for a "race" to even exist

Then how do races exist? There must exist enough common genetic differences for us to actually have racial distinctions.

 

[The-Traveling-Bard]

snip

Making jokes are one thing.

Using derogatory statements implying weakness or lesser value towards gender, race or sexuality based on insulting imagery and stereotypes rooted in a long heritage of oppression and hate is another. That thing is called being a sexist, racist or homophobe. Or any combination of the three.

Also, you are seriously deluded if you think sexism is just about hatred and anger towards the other gender.

Besides you're very naive if you think the only difference between a white person and a black person is melanin.

... Pray tell.. What are some of the other differences you're referring to here?

And do making derogatory statements actually mean your sexist?
No it fucking doesn't.

I make sexist/racist statements all the time, but I still believe everyone should be treated equally.

My point is just because someone says something sexist doesn't they actually fucking believe it.

If you can't separate the two and just clump everyone together because you want to be morally right is idiotic.

 

[wulf3n]

If you aren't getting it, I don't know that anything I can say will illuminate the issue.

I get that there's a difference, I just don't see how that difference has any bearing on an assumption.

Given what you've said I don't think you do either.

And I don't think the only difference between black and white people is melanin, but you're very ignorant if you think those other differences justify labeling one as more athletic without knowing more about the people.

You keep using buzz words like "label" and "judge" as if they actually mean something here.

I'm talking about assumptions based on ones potentially limited knowledge, and how it's only considered bad in certain situations.

I even gave you an example that wasn't choice related, but instead of arguing that you've gone off on a tangent about Judging people based on the colour of their skin.

 

[wulf3n]

And assumptions based on what a person is, as opposed to what their choices are, are bad because they are baseless. Can you provide me an example to the opposite effect?

I already have which you seem to keep ignoring.


Someone assumes that a white american with a southern accent likes Nascar.

Does that make them a bad person?

Another closer to my home.

As an Australian living in Victoria, anyone outside of Victoria assumes that I like AFL over NRL, does that make them bad people?

 

[wulf3n]

I would say yes. Why is it not bad to hold baseless assumptions? Especially ones that will make you look like an ignorant dipshit if they turn out incorrect?

How do you know they're baseless?

For all you know everyone with a southern accent the Assumer knows likes Nascar.

For the Victorian liking AFL it's a pretty safe bet that it's true.

You must be an especially hateful person to think someone's an "ignorant dipshit" because they thought you like a sport based on where you're from.

 

[michael87cn]

Strength of character is a choice one makes internally at some point in their lives. It is not something that is beaten into you by abuse. (Bullying)

Abused individuals often suffer, and become weak, afraid, cowardly, etc. It's a side effect of the evil inflicted on them.

Your lack of compassion shown in this thread on the first page (OP), shows me just how weak your character is. You demand, and expect a great deal from others (bravery, courage, "thick skin" in the face of provocation (bullying)) but yet you display a myriad of extremely weak character flaws.

Good men do not provoke, neither do they become provoked. Nor are we quick to anger and violence. We don't wear pride around our necks and we don't associate ourselves with fools who would provoke us to begin with. Wisdom is a tool to prevent pain and suffering of all kinds.

Real or not, these things should not be said. 'ist' or not, they should not be said. You should not have such a filthy tongue that you need to even joke about belittling women. You talk a lot about growing up... atleast on the first page (about all I could stand to read) but you seem still very much steeped in the mindset of a teenage male.

 

[michael87cn]

Often times I like to be a very happy and upbeat person on these forums, but sometimes you read these kind of extremely dark posts and you remember just how wicked humanity can be.

 

[wulf3n]

I would say yes. Why is it not bad to hold baseless assumptions? Especially ones that will make you look like an ignorant dipshit if they turn out incorrect?

How do you know they're baseless?

For all you know everyone with a southern accent the Assumer knows likes Nascar.

For the Victorian liking AFL it's a pretty safe bet that it's true.

You must be an especially hateful person to think someone's an "ignorant dipshit" because they thought you like a sport based on where you're from.

And you must be exceptionally prejudiced if you think it's okay to make those kinds of assumptions.

Yep, I'm very prejudiced because I think people from Queensland like NRL.

 

[Lionsfan]

Seriously Escapist.

Pardon me, but is that in reference to the OP or the site? Because I can assure you that they do not speak for anyone but himself/herself. He's just one man/lady/muppet/potato/etc. Anyway, back on topic. It's absolutely fine to make jokes among friends. Traveling-Bard, that kind of logic doesn't quite work on the internet. Tone is very difficult to get across. And everyone reads it differently. Statements are taken at face value.

Sure this guy only speaks for himself, but lately there's been a pretty clear anti-female trend from a lot of posters on the Escapist

ive been noticing an exact opposite trend, as evident with how rarely people gang up on a female poster regardless of the topic or what they said. Granted, I assume it was meant as a joke, but once again people usually take things seriously, and it wasn't this time.

The only female poster whom I saw the forum gang up on in the two years ive been here was gunsmithkitten during her....expose....on japan. And even that was extremely light compared to equivalent offenses by male posters.

not going to point fingers, but recently we had a female poster make a scathing post in a...controversial topic that would make even sexist old men slack-jawed...or pop a boner im not sure which one. Not a single damn thing was said.

I'm not saying that people are ganging up on female posters, but a vast majority of posters are attacking females in general. There's a lot of women hate on here right now, even if it's not confined to attacking specific posters

Well there is obviously a lot of tension/hate/criticism regarding feminism (Anita being the easiest example), but there is a lot of hate in the other directions too on here.

This is just a personal opinion, mind you, but it seems like this is due to moderates basically giving up the fight. All it takes is one sexist (or more precisely a sexist comment) from either side to turn any gender topic into a war. It seems like a daunting task lately to have any kind of critic about gender that doesnt either turn into a war or an echo chamber, neither of which accomplishes anything. You cant make a criticism about men, women, feminism, or whatever without it turning into a spat. At least on the internet, real life is a little different, probably because context is easier to get across.

I don't think I've seen a lot of male hate on here, at least not the kind you're referring to. But I do agree that it seems like the mods are just giving up on it.

I mean every now and again maybe some post will get a warning, but it seems rare. Not to mention the CoC is very very vague, with the only tangible rule being "Don't Be A Jerk", and when people have asked for clarification about sexist comments and where to draw the line, the Mods/Staff have just responded by reiterating the CoC and saying "everything is covered there, don't worry about it".

 

[ThreeName]

Yep, I'm very prejudiced because I think people from Queensland like NRL.

HOW DARE YOU, YOU BASTARD

What do you mean assumptions can be based on statistical likelihoods? You take that back right now!

 

[chikusho]

Then how do races exist? There must exist enough common genetic differences for us to actually have racial distinctions.

They don't. "Race" is a social construct.
[link]http://www.realfuture.org/GIST/Readings/Templeton%281998%29.pdf[/link]

Using derogatory statements implying weakness or lesser value towards gender, race or sexuality based on insulting imagery and stereotypes rooted in a long heritage of oppression and hate is another. That thing is called being a sexist, racist or homophobe. Or any combination of the three.

Also, you are seriously deluded if you think sexism is just about hatred and anger towards the other gender.

And do making derogatory statements actually mean your sexist?
No it fucking doesn't.

I make sexist/racist statements all the time, but I still believe everyone should be treated equally.

My point is just because someone says something sexist doesn't they actually fucking believe it.

If you can't separate the two and just clump everyone together because you want to be morally right is idiotic.

Making derogatory statements doesn't mean you're sexist, but please read beyond the first 3 words in that sentence before replying next time.

My point is that you are not treating everyone equally when you are perpetuating the notion that one gender is inherently weaker, less valuable, less capable and should conform to your expectations.
If you don't realize that, then yes, you are sexist.

Your lack of compassion shown in this thread on the first page (OP), shows me just how weak your character is. You demand, and expect a great deal from others (bravery, courage, "thick skin" in the face of provocation (bullying)) but yet you display a myriad of extremely weak character flaws.

Good men do not provoke, neither do they become provoked. Nor are we quick to anger and violence. We don't wear pride around our necks and we don't associate ourselves with fools who would provoke us to begin with. Wisdom is a tool to prevent pain and suffering of all kinds.

Real or not, these things should not be said. 'ist' or not, they should not be said. You should not have such a filthy tongue that you need to even joke about belittling women. You talk a lot about growing up... atleast on the first page (about all I could stand to read) but you seem still very much steeped in the mindset of a teenage male.

Co-sign.

 

[FalloutJack]

I'm going to do a very honest, fair, and equal-sharing thing for all parties concerned by just not caring.

 

[wulf3n]

Then how do races exist? There must exist enough common genetic differences for us to actually have racial distinctions.

They don't. "Race" is a social construct.
[link]http://www.realfuture.org/GIST/Readings/Templeton%281998%29.pdf[/link]

While I don't completely disagree with Dr. Templeton's research, mostly in that "race" is poorly defined, I believe treating race as a synonym for sub-species is incorrect, and why he reaches the conclusions he does.

Given that there is no agreed upon distinction of how much diversity/commonality distinguishes race it's all ultimately moot.

In the end, it has no bearing on my original point either so...


edit:

Looking back I'm not really sure what you were even trying to achieve with your initial response.

It looks as though you were trying to trick me into saying something racist, but comes off as incredibly disingenuous.

 

[chikusho]

While I don't completely disagree with Dr. Templeton's research, mostly in that "race" is poorly defined, I believe treating race as a synonym for sub-species is incorrect, and why he reaches the conclusions he does.

Given that there is no agreed upon distinction of how much diversity/commonality distinguishes race it's all ultimately moot.

In the end, it has no bearing on my original point either so...

edit:

Looking back I'm not really sure what you were even trying to achieve with your initial response.

It looks as though you were trying to trick me into saying something racist, but comes off as incredibly disingenuous.

You were implying differences in human beings other than skin color. Naturally I was curious as to what you meant by that.

Human "race" is nothing but a social construct.

It still has enormous bearing on your original point. If you are pointing out biological or genetic differences between a "black man" and a "white man" as being more than skin color, when the differences in genetics and biology are larger on an individual level rather than between "races", there isn't be any consistent argument you could make that would be correct.

So, to conclude, if there are no consistent differences between dark skinned and light skinned, how is it "naive" to consider "amount of melanin in their skin" to be the only relevant difference?

 

[wulf3n]

You were implying differences in human beings other than skin color. Naturally I was curious as to what you meant by that.

Human "race" is nothing but a social construct.

It still has enormous bearing on your original point. If you are pointing out biological or genetic differences between a "black man" and a "white man" as being more than skin color, when the differences in genetics and biology are larger on an individual level rather than between "races", there isn't be any consistent argument you could make that would be correct.

So, to conclude, if there are no consistent differences between dark skinned and light skinned, how is it "naive" to consider "amount of melanin in their skin" to be the only relevant difference?

The idea comes from seeing those with Albinism [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albinism] in which the skin [among everything else] is white but they don't look "white"

This demonstrates that skin colour is only one aspect of what the average person identifies as a part of race.

But I still don't see how this relates in any way to the point I was making regarding the human propensity for assumptions.

 

[The-Traveling-Bard]

Strength of character is a choice one makes internally at some point in their lives. It is not something that is beaten into you by abuse. (Bullying)

Abused individuals often suffer, and become weak, afraid, cowardly, etc. It's a side effect of the evil inflicted on them.

Your lack of compassion shown in this thread on the first page (OP), shows me just how weak your character is. You demand, and expect a great deal from others (bravery, courage, "thick skin" in the face of provocation (bullying)) but yet you display a myriad of extremely weak character flaws.

Good men do not provoke, neither do they become provoked. Nor are we quick to anger and violence. We don't wear pride around our necks and we don't associate ourselves with fools who would provoke us to begin with. Wisdom is a tool to prevent pain and suffering of all kinds.

Real or not, these things should not be said. 'ist' or not, they should not be said. You should not have such a filthy tongue that you need to even joke about belittling women. You talk a lot about growing up... atleast on the first page (about all I could stand to read) but you seem still very much steeped in the mindset of a teenage male.

You are totally right "-isms" have become a hysterical cult with their acolytes so convinced of their own moral and intellectual superiority they feel they can ban, prohibit and bully on a whim.

I am deeply worried about the aggressive imposition of extreme left wing morality, "because it's right", on society, so much more so that any the far right does these day, they are fairly useless all told. The extreme left wing is insidious.

You only have to look at some of the ridiculous naval gazing on here to see how utterly self-absorbed, sanctimonious and generally censorious many of these proponents of "-isms" become.

You just have to ignore it because they are ironically almost fascist in their self belief.

^ That all I am going to say because that poster said it better than I.

 

[chikusho]

The idea comes from seeing those with Albinism [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albinism] in which the skin [among everything else] is white but they don't look "white"

This demonstrates that skin colour is only one aspect of what the average person identifies as a part of race.

But I still don't see how this relates in any way to the point I was making regarding the human propensity for assumptions.

Yes, in the _social construct_ of "race", a person who is supposed to have a certain pigment, yet does not due to a genetic anomaly, is still considered to be part of that "race". I also love the fact that you think there's a specific "white" look, and that inheriting appearance from your parents constitute a _racial_ differences. Genetically, every human being alive is of mixed "race", and you need to realize that to know why this whole "race" thing is so ridiculous.
Also, curious how that doesn't work the other way around. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandra_Laing] *edited to correct link*

In case you hadn't guessed, it's because of racism.

*EDIT*

Oh, and also, I never asked you about assumptions.

You are totally right "-isms" have become a hysterical cult with their acolytes so convinced of their own moral and intellectual superiority they feel they can ban, prohibit and bully on a whim.

I am deeply worried about the aggressive imposition of extreme left wing morality, "because it's right", on society, so much more so that any the far right does these day, they are fairly useless all told. The extreme left wing is insidious.

You only have to look at some of the ridiculous naval gazing on here to see how utterly self-absorbed, sanctimonious and generally censorious many of these proponents of "-isms" become.

You just have to ignore it because they are ironically almost fascist in their self belief.

^ That all I am going to say because that poster said it better than I.

Yes, telling bullies to stop bullying is _obviously_ being "[so] convinced of their own moral and intellectual superiority they feel they can ban, prohibit and bully on a whim."

That was sarcastic, in case it isn't apparent to everyone.

 

[maffro]

You may assume all blacks can run super fast, which is a racist generalisation, even though many would believe it's a positive assumption and supported by the predominance of god-tier black sprinters.

Humans are naturally geared towards generalisations. We make assumptions based on the limited information we have, I don't know I'f i'd call this Racism.

Say the only time I'd seen men with long hair was at heavy metal concerts, then one day I bump into a guy with long hair and automatically assume he likes heavy metal.

Does this make me a bad person?

Yet if I were to do the same with the Black sprinters I'd be considered racist.

Captcha: sudo make sandwhich.

No captcha I'm talking about Racism not Sexism.

This is a good distinction, and one very much worth making.

While you're definitely expressing prejudice through that assumption, no, it doesn't make you a bad person at all. The difference here is kind of in regards to choice.

Long hair, mainly on white men, is a significant part of music culture from hard rock to the many metal genres. While it wouldn't be fair to assume all men with long hair associate with the metalheads, it is fair to observe how predominant the style is. It's pretty much the only way they can immediately identify one another no matter what clothes they're wearing.

So when you bump into that guy, it's a fair generalisation. He has chosen to grow his hair, a style with close ties to a very specific culture. He must have chosen to do so for a reason, so you assume it's because he's a part of that culture. You might be wrong, but no-one gets hurt.

In terms of racism, if I assume a black guy is amazing at running it gets more difficult. He hasn't chosen to be black, so he's not making a statement with his appearance. He may grow his hair, or buy certain clothes, or speak in a way which tells you something about his background, which is fair to make assumptions from. The issue with racism is taking the most visible, and unchangeable attribute of someone's appearance and defining them through that alone.

I used to get beaten up for having long hair, because people didn't like the culture I was a part of, so in the end I cut my hair, because I wanted to change the assumptions people made about me. But with race it doesn't matter how many statements you make with your appearance, they'll always define you by that one feature, if it deviates from the norm. The way people look tells you a lot about their choices and personality, and it's dehumanising to boil it down to their most base feature.

So yeah, I guess. Fashion cool, racists mean. Something like that.

 

[wulf3n]

Yes, in the _social construct_ of "race", a person who is supposed to have a certain pigment, yet does not due to a genetic anomaly, is still considered to be part of that "race".

You missed the point completely. Skin colour is only one visual cue used to identify race.

I also love the fact that you think there's a specific "white" look, and that inheriting appearance from your parents constitute a _racial_ differences.

I never said "specific". I merely pointed out there are visual traits other than skin colour, common amongst race.

Also, curious how that doesn't work the other way around. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albinism]

In case you hadn't guessed, it's because of racism.

What? Are you saying it's because of racism that no genetic anomaly exists that creates an abundance of Melanin [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melanosis]?

Oh, and also, I never asked you about assumptions.

I know, but it's what I was talking about. This whole side discussion, while not only off-topic, is completely irrelevant to anything I've actually been discussing.