Racism & Other Prejudices

Butterfree said:

I really don't understand your reasoning. Shinji lover's argument isn't "white people used to live in cold places, therefore white people still live in cold places, therefore they survive better in cold places"; it's "white people evolved in cold places, therefore they're better adapted to environments with less sun". There is nothing circular about that, and the fact people of all races live all over the place today is irrelevant since they haven't had the time to readapt.

I also don't see why people feel the need to dispute this. The fact is humans aren't all genetically identical. The concept of equality is about treating all people as people instead of discriminating against some phenotypes, based on facts such as that there is much greater genetic variety within races than between them, not about pretending there is no difference at all.

Click to expand...

I accept your re-presentation of the arguments as logical, but I didn't have any actual dispute with the spirit of the premises, merely how they were laid out and demonstrated, which was what Shinji-lover was criticizing in the disputes of the premises offered.

I'm fairly sure that no one disagreed with Shinji's statement, merely the way he phrased it, like Eloi, and earlier, I, said.
I would also like to say to Shinji that his response to my post... What is this I don't even. I never said that your argument was bad!
"i never said you were stupid, i said you didnt understand my last post. which you didnt if you disagree."(Note: That is a direct copy-paste from one of Shinji Lover's posts) Isn't something you say in a debating hall. What you did was state something. When someone argued against it, you stated that anyone who disagreed did not understand your post. I never said your argument was bad. I never said your argument "isnt as good". I merely pointed out one thing in your argument you should avoid saying.

It really isn't always that far off to say that if you disagree you didn't understand. I'd genuinely argue that if you don't believe in evolution, for instance, it's because you don't understand it, because once you do understand it it is obvious that evolution happens; it follows as logically as Pythagoras' theorem follows from basic Euclidean geometry. If somebody claims their argument is of this nature and you believe it isn't, then argue for that position by demonstrating your understanding of their argument and then countering it (which nobody here did in response to Shinji lover) instead of stopping at "if you disagree you didn't understand it" and acting as if that statement in itself makes the argument bad or invalid.

Butterfree said:

It really isn't always that far off to say that if you disagree you didn't understand. I'd genuinely argue that if you don't believe in evolution, for instance, it's because you don't understand it, because once you do understand it it is obvious that evolution happens; it follows as logically as Pythagoras' theorem follows from basic Euclidean geometry. If somebody claims their argument is of this nature and you believe it isn't, then argue for that position by demonstrating your understanding of their argument and then countering it (which nobody here did in response to Shinji lover) instead of stopping at "if you disagree you didn't understand it" and acting as if that statement in itself makes the argument bad or invalid.

Click to expand...

I'm neither condoning that nor doing that. I was merely giving the tip that saying that is a horrible idea while in the debating hall. The point is that saying that if you disagree you don't understand implies that the statement is and must be true, which is against the point of the debating hall. I would also like to state that I think Shinji Lover's argument is true, although I also think it's much less of an argument than a statement.

Butterfree said:

It really isn't always that far off to say that if you disagree you didn't understand. I'd genuinely argue that if you don't believe in evolution, for instance, it's because you don't understand it, because once you do understand it it is obvious that evolution happens; it follows as logically as Pythagoras' theorem follows from basic Euclidean geometry. If somebody claims their argument is of this nature and you believe it isn't, then argue for that position by demonstrating your understanding of their argument and then countering it instead of stopping at "if you disagree you didn't understand it" and acting as if that statement makes the argument bad or invalid.

Click to expand...

But if someone were to come up to me and say:

"Revealed religions are untrue because there is many mutual exclusive holy scriptures, therefore all holy scriptures are untrue, and thus all revealed religions are untrue."

I wouldn't be like, "Yes totally!" I would be like:

"I think you misunderstood the Argument from inconsistent revelations. That is, many mutual exclusive accounts of events doesn't mean all accounts are untrue, if that were so, it would mean that almost all of history is untrue. Rather, the difference between holy scripture and history is that the former demands 'faith', blindly accepting principles without rationally considering what they are (which thus means there is no choice-making apparatus to pick a revealed religion, thus making any revealed religion you could have arbitrary.), wherein history has a methodology that can be used as a choice-making apparatus. Heck, historical methodology can be applied back to holy scripture and make it possibly falsifiable."

And in saying that, I would teach who I am talking with how to argue their position better in future arguments where the person they are arguing with doesn't agree with them and will take any poor reasoning as a sign that the argument in its entirety is false because the concepts are not obvious to them.

Thus, correcting presentation and reasoning methods is not a pretentious indulgence into nitpicking, its me trying to help the debater who I agree with in future arguments with other debaters who don't agree.

Okay, okay. Here are my points, because I don't want to tone argue. I don't agree that a black person will be better suited for hot places because they are black, etc. There are black people now who live in cold environments and white people now who live in hot environments and were raised there and that has a larger impact. I'm used to cold (I'm from NY), everyone I know here is used to heat (Israel), we're all the same skin tone. The point is, evolution in humans is pretty much a dud because we disregard it and replace it with clothing and air-conditioning.

Eloi said:

Thus, correcting presentation and reasoning methods is not a pretentious indulgence into nitpicking, its me trying to help the debater who I agree with in future arguments with other debaters who don't agree.

Click to expand...

That is not anywhere close to what I said. Of course you should dispute bad reasoning in any form, no matter the truth value of the conclusion. My point was that Shinji lover's argument wasn't bad reasoning. "I'm saying you didn't understand, which you don't if you disagree" is not an argument; she's not saying "I'm right because if you disagree you didn't understand". She's just saying "Clearly you didn't understand what I was saying, because actually what I said was indisputable". It carries an irritated tone, but seeing as other people here have been much more irritated and condescending in their arguments and nobody's jumping down their throats about it, and the actual substance of the post was perfectly justified, it really, really does not warrant everyone getting up in arms and going "saying that means you're not debating right!"

Moo, being used to certain temperatures by nurture doesn't change the physical properties of your skin. It does create a lot of noise of extra considerations that complicate any individual instance of people comparing their ability to deal with cold/heat, but the generalized principle that white skin is better for less sun than black skin is sound, and because nurture does not actually change the person's skin color, that does mean that on average white people are at a disadvantage in hot environments and black people in cold environments - individuals raised in different places will be able to make up for that disadvantage, but it does not simply vanish from the equation. No matter how used you are to cold environments, it is still even better if your skin is light (just like it's even better if you're fat, thanks to the better insulation), and vice versa for sun. (Of course, Antarctica was probably not the best example to take, since the influence of skin color probably is nullified by the fact when you're in Antarctica you're probably covering every inch of your skin at all times while outside, but I don't think Shinji lover was trying to claim that skin color magically affects things through thick clothing.)

wait. people are actually saying that skin color is influenced by temperature!?
first off this is wrong and plainly uninformed speculation. the latest theory (from experts who study genetics and biology) claim that melanin in the skin is there to absorb UV rays and quickly dissipate it as heat. UV rays can damage DNA.

when humans moved from territories closer to the equator (ones highest with UV rays) to other regions with less sun exposure, the trait for UV protection wasn't the highest.
over thousands of years, and I mean a veeerrryyy slow process, the genetic trait that produced high concentration melanin was removed from the gene pool. in other words, people who have lighter skin color don't have all the genes that produce tons of melanin.

and if we set up an experiment (where incest was allowed) a family who is white will NEVER become darker because those genes were removed from the family ages ago.
the only way to add them is to have another family who IS darker.

many people think of genetics as a blending of DNA, it isn't. it's more like a shuffle of two decks. while adaptation removes DNA or makes a certain traits more likely to physically show.

leo33wii said:

wait. people are actually saying that skin color is influenced by temperature!?
first off this is wrong and plainly uninformed speculation. the latest theory (from experts who study genetics and biology) claim that melanin in the skin is there to absorb UV rays and quickly dissipate it as heat. UV rays can damage DNA.

Click to expand...

Uh... No, nobody was saying that at all.
The usage of words like "cold" and "hot" are being used because colder climates generally have less sunlight and warmer climates generally have more sunlight. Lighter skin developed in response to the migration of humans to areas with less sun, which have lower temperatures on average. This change occurred because darker skin can cause problems such as vitamin D deficiency in climates with less sun because the melanin blocks a higher percentage of sunlight than it blocks when in sunnier climates, which are warmer. So in this sense, light skinned people have evolved to be better adapted to colder, less sunny climates while darker skinned people are better suited for warmer, sunnier climates, though this isn't an evolutionary adaptation in the same sense because humans were originally of darker skin and lived in sunnier, hotter climates. However (so as to be politically and scientifically correct), dark skin can be seen as an evolutionary adaptation to compensate for the loss of thick, dark fur/hair that covered the early hominids and their ancestors.
Nobody was correlating skin color to temperature. It would honestly be absurd to suggest that a hotter temperature could cause darker skin.

well, in either case, we cannot prove that skin color changed due to a factor of the sun. biologist and evolution researchers who have Ph.D's cannot prove this as well. they only have a theory at the moment and with a good majority agreeing with:
"the less UV exposure to the epidermis their is a less requirement for melanin."

seeing as we're not experts, we must not conjecture

leo33wii said:

well, in either case, we cannot prove that skin color changed due to a factor of the sun. biologist and evolution researchers who have Ph.D's cannot prove this as well. they only have a theory at the moment and with a good majority agreeing with:
"the less UV exposure to the epidermis their is a less requirement for melanin."

seeing as we're not experts, we must not conjecture

Click to expand...

Um, "less UV exposure = less melanin" (to paraphrase it) isn't just a theory. First, the proper wording for the "theory" would involve sun exposure, not UV exposure, as UV exposure only encompasses skin damage issues and not other factors taken into account. Second, it's proven by the facts that a) lighter skinned people receive more skin damage from UV exposure and b) darker skinned people get less vitamin D from the sun and therefore need more sun exposure to compensate. Those things have been studied and documented, they aren't just theories, and I am not conjecturing; I'm stating already-known facts.

ultraviolet said:

do you not see a marked difference in calling someone a racial slur because they are black (for example) and calling someone a name regardless of their ethnicity? [...]

Click to expand...

Yes, of course it's more offensive because of the history behind it and the current social structure and white privilege and all that. But, really, the level of offensiveness is irrelevant. Free speech is free speech. I'm not arguing in favor of racism or racial slurs, I'm arguing in favor of the freedom of a person to say whatever they want and being able to accept the consequences that follow.

what exactly is child-like about telling an authority that someone's being verbally abusive? I don't understand. what they're doing isn't *illegal*, sure, but they're still being a bully for no reason other than they can and because they want to be racist.

Click to expand...

Telling the government isn't the answer! The only reason to report speech would be with the intent to punish the speech. And punishing certain forms of speech is a very slippery slope. Like I've said, we must tolerate hateful speech in order for free speech to mean anything!

what about someone's right to be happy? if you call someone a racial slur it is harmful and pretending it isn't is... silly. punching someone also does none of those things, so I'm not really sure what you mean here. arguably someone's quality of life comes into it somewhere, and I would definitely call being racist to people affecting their quality of life?

Click to expand...

There's a difference between an emotional response to racism and a physical response to a punch in the face! Assault has the potential to be life-threatening, hence why it's banned virtually everywhere. In addition, I follow the doctrine of self-ownership, which basically means your body is your property. So any violence against my body is violence against my property.

Racial slurs do not physically harm the person, and thus fall under free speech. I realize this isn't a popular position to take, but free speech for me is very broad because I err on the side of individual liberty.

Eloi said:

Which exists because the representatives of the majority of the U.S. American population created it. Seriously, there is no big scary Government monster that's going to eat you, its a group of people elected by an even bigger group of people that obviously approves of the actions of the aforesaid due to the elected officials maintaining office.

Click to expand...

How naive are you? Does a perfect, transparent democratic government actually exist now? The FCC is completely unelected and promotes a very conservative censorship program according to its own standards.

Yes, in one-on-one personal interaction that would be silly, but people being allowed to use slurs in mass media (what we were talking about) will create the impression of massive oppression, which could and does lead to suicide (at least amount QUILTBAGgers), and is otherwise known as discrimination.

Click to expand...

The solution to this, in a world without an FCC, would be public outcry. I was watching a show the other day about a sitcom in the 90s that portrayed a black butler that was in the service of Abraham Lincoln. The outcry from the black population was immense, and the show was cancelled.

When it gets down to it, it's about money. Networks get money from viewership. Having successful TV shows makes money. Now, would it not be in the network's best interest to not broadcast programs that alienate whole communities, like the black or gay community? Networks top fear when broadcasting shows is not fear of FCC fines and censorship, it's loss of viewers.

Furthermore, you not being able to say slurs doesn't take your life, steal your liberty, or harm your property. But discrimination in all forms harms life and liberty in the people discriminated.

I am not sure why saying slurs is a right you're worried about protecting.

Click to expand...

Um... censorship takes away my liberty to express myself how I wish. So yes, it steals my liberty.

Aobaru said:

Telling the government isn't the answer! The only reason to report speech would be with the intent to punish the speech. And punishing certain forms of speech is a very slippery slope. Like I've said, we must tolerate hateful speech in order for free speech to mean anything!

Click to expand...

No. Punishment is not why you report someone. You report them in order to educate and thus stop them. If I wanted to punish them I'd do it myself via violence or something. Clearly, that is not my intention. On the other hand, you can also report people because what they are saying is so offensive and harmful to you that you just need it to stop.

There's a difference between an emotional response to racism and a physical response to a punch in the face! Assault has the potential to be life-threatening, hence why it's banned virtually everywhere. In addition, I follow the doctrine of self-ownership, which basically means your body is your property. So any violence against my body is violence against my property.

Racial slurs do not physically harm the person, and thus fall under free speech. I realize this isn't a popular position to take, but free speech for me is very broad because I err on the side of individual liberty.

Click to expand...

Here, you are showing your privilege. There often is not a difference between emotional and physical reactions. Has no one ever said anything to you that hurt you so much, emotionally, it set off a physically painful reaction? It hurt you? It made you go blind with rage, pain, made you shiver, anxious and panicy? Any of the above? That is what a trigger is. It is a physical and/or emotional reaction to something. Racial slurs do that to people, they do that to me, and you saying that there is no physical reaction just shows how lucky you are that you have never had such a reaction.

I don't understand the whole argument with censorship, honestly. I'm not trying to 'censor' anyone; just please don't say words that you know are clearly offensive and harmful to people. And I don't know why you'd want to say them.

Aobaru said:

Yes, of course it's more offensive because of the history behind it and the current social structure and white privilege and all that. But, really, the level of offensiveness is irrelevant. Free speech is free speech. I'm not arguing in favor of racism or racial slurs, I'm arguing in favor of the freedom of a person to say whatever they want and being able to accept the consequences that follow.

Click to expand...

... well yeah, you kind of are. o.o you can't argue for free speech and not racial slurs if you're saying racial slurs are free speech. it's not about 'offensiveness', it's about whether that damages someone's liberty. Would me following black people around and verbally abusing them fall under free speech? am I entitled to do that to someone if it is free speech?

out of curiousity, have you ever been discriminated against (as a minority)? I'm getting a strong impression that you've never ... really had to deal with racism - correct me if I'm wrong, and if I am, I apologise.

Telling the government isn't the answer! The only reason to report speech would be with the intent to punish the speech. And punishing certain forms of speech is a very slippery slope. Like I've said, we must tolerate hateful speech in order for free speech to mean anything!

Click to expand...

How exactly is it a 'slippery slope' - you've not given any examples (possibly to avoid a slippery slope fallacy)? The government telling someone off because they called someone else a nigger isn't oppression. o.o it's kind of ... stopping oppression? if the government takes a stand against racism, isn't that a good thing?

There's a difference between an emotional response to racism and a physical response to a punch in the face! Assault has the potential to be life-threatening, hence why it's banned virtually everywhere. In addition, I follow the doctrine of self-ownership, which basically means your body is your property. So any violence against my body is violence against my property.

Click to expand...

sure, fair enough; is your mental stability/wellbeing also your property? do you consider slander/verbal abuse to be damaging? I know people who aren't comfortable in society because they are discriminated against; can you imagine living with emotional discomfort every day and feeling good about yourself or healthy (or free)? I don't see how you can advocate physical assault as harming liberty and mental/emotional assult to not be.

Racial slurs do not physically harm the person, and thus fall under free speech. I realize this isn't a popular position to take, but free speech for me is very broad because I err on the side of individual liberty.

Click to expand...

You don't think racial oppression limits someone's free speech or liberty? Do you think someone who is marginalised against because of something they cannot change is truly free? Freedom of speech works both ways; if you're using freedom of speech to oppress someone, you're taking someone else's liberty, no? People can't walk away from racism! People can't go 'oh well, that person called me a nigger; time to go off and have some freedom now' - that's not how it works! if everyone were equally free and liberated, racism would not *be* a problem.

consider: thousands of homosexuals kill themselves every year because they're discriminated against by people who feel they're entitled to do so. Who is at fault here? If I persecute someone non-violently, so much that they commit suicide, can you really say that it's not damaging? am I right to do this, because I'm exercising my free speech?

I can understand the benefits of having freedom of speech, but I also don't feel that anyone is entitled to be abusive to someone and claim that as 'free speech'. it's not free anymore if you're using it to oppress. The issue I take with racism being protected under 'free speech' is that it assumes racism to be equally valid to non-racist discourse, which it is not. Discrimination is not valid, and it's certainly a far cry from say, political or philosophical discourse. Racism serves no other purpose than to harm, and I don't see how you can justify racism under free speech, because nobody is entitled to racism. I am not entitled to be disrespectful, to abuse you or to harm you because of your identity, whether that's because you're black or gay or cisgendered or anything.

Me being racist isn't me being entitled to free speech, it's me using free speech as an excuse to harm someone else.

How exactly is it a 'slippery slope' - you've not given any examples (possibly to avoid a slippery slope fallacy)? The government telling someone off because they called someone else a nigger isn't oppression. o.o it's kind of ... stopping oppression? if the government takes a stand against racism, isn't that a good thing?

Click to expand...

The slippery slope fallacy doesn't really apply here. Legislating speech, even for a noble cause like preventing discrimination, creates a precedent which governments can exploit. For example, businesspeople can use laws against hate speech to gag those who condemn their business practices on the grounds that they're receiving discrimination (which admittedly is not how discrimination works, but a 'sympathetic' judge might not quite understand that particular subtlety). Look at how Trafigura and other companies in the UK abused super-injunctions - another law with the similarly noble aim of protecting the privacy of those involved in court cases - in order to cover up their dirty laundry.

I agree that discriminatory speech is horrible to experience, and comments such as

Racial slurs do not physically harm the person, and thus fall under free speech.

Click to expand...

are just ignorant, but censorship is too dangerous for the government to meddle with. What needs to happen is cultural change. Rather than rely on the government to suppress hate speech, people (especially individuals with privilege) need to speak up when others use discriminatory language. If your friend makes a racist statement, you call them out for it. With luck, they'll start doing the same, and so the number of people who actively condemn discriminatory speech increases.

Take smoking as a analogy. Smoking is in decline partly thanks to legislative efforts, especially the ban on smoking in pubs, but also it's a cultural shift. People are more aware of the risks of smoking, so it's no longer seen as a socially acceptable activity (at least to the same degree that it was in previous decades). Thus, people are less likely to smoke around non-smokers and they're also less likely to take it up in the first place (since the social factor is one of the main reasons for smoking). People talk negatively about peer pressure, but it can be used for positive ends.

goldenquagsire said:

but censorship is too dangerous for the government to meddle with.

Click to expand...

Why? I don't get what rights are being taken away by specifically censoring slurs.

So there's a kid whose parents tell it every day what a failure it is, how they hate it and how their lives would be better without it. And there's another kid whose parents sometimes smack it when it misbehaves.

Sounds like we'd both consider one of these kids abused, Aobaru, just different ones.

goldenquagsire said:

Take smoking as a analogy. Smoking is in decline partly thanks to legislative efforts, especially the ban on smoking in pubs, but also it's a cultural shift. People are more aware of the risks of smoking, so it's no longer seen as a socially acceptable activity (at least to the same degree that it was in previous decades). Thus, people are less likely to smoke around non-smokers and they're also less likely to take it up in the first place (since the social factor is one of the main reasons for smoking). People talk negatively about peer pressure, but it can be used for positive ends.

Click to expand...

I find it difficult to take this analogy seriously when teen smoking here is actually on the rise. The situation is far different in places where tensions are higher -- for example, the conservative, Christian southern US. I cannot tell you how much I often I put up with accusations being "illegal". I cannot feel safe coming out in public, either, due to the harrassment.

I dislike the general concept of being picky and choosy, but no real harm comes from censoring slurs. The needs of many > the needs of few. There is so much grey area regarding definitions, it is almost pointless to try since nobody could ever come to a consensus.

Dannichu said:

So there's a kid whose parents tell it every day what a failure it is, how they hate it and how their lives would be better without it. And there's another kid whose parents sometimes smack it when it misbehaves.

Sounds like we'd both consider one of these kids abused, Aobaru, just different ones.

Click to expand...

I'd say both of them are abused?
:?

Legendaryseeker99 said:

I'd say both of them are abused?
:?

Click to expand...

one is being psychologically abused. the other is "sometimes" smacked for misbehaving. not sure how hard the smack is, so i'll give the benefit of the doubt, and say that it's discipline and not abuse.
however if the child was physically beaten, it would mean something else.

but the word smack is therefore arbitrary in this case.

-------------

something that i've noticed while on deployments and actually traveling around the world and experiencing is that being P.C. just makes things worse. it's actually more racist to be publicly correct than not. you're stating "hey, i'm aware that you're different, and i'm gonna treat you special for some reason, because being nice to you will make me feel better"

which is a ton of bull. once you stop caring about that, i mean seriously, i've been places where a white guy called a black guy "nigger" and not be offended (both american). once we don't care about our differences, i think we'll be capable of seeing each other for who we really are.