Reductio ad Racismerum

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

Following the Reducatio ad Hitlerum and Godwin's law, I present to you;

Danyal's law, or the Reductio ad Racismerum.

That was in the news just one hour ago. Seriously? She's a racist because she celebrates Australia Day?

I've heard people say that 'islamophobes' are 'racists'. I've heard people say that those who oppose homosexuality are 'racists'. I've seen the word 'racism' way too often and the actually act of racism doesn't happen nearly as often as the accusation of it.

Races aren't identical and to treat them always the same everywhere no matter what is mindless political correctness, and it's wrong.
To think about race or blame race when it isn't relevant is stupid and wrong, and it's actually what racism is.

So I would just like to ask; stop accusing other people of racism, and if you do it, explain them WHY they are racists.

What is racist?
I've heard people that we should ban white males from becoming bankers, because white, male bankers have causes the financial crises. That's racism. Specifically claiming one race sucks at banking without backing it up and banning an entire race from a specific job without reason is racism.

What isn't racist?
Carrying your nation's flag, for example.

Of the 102 people surveyed who attached a flag to their cars on the national holiday, 43 per cent agreed with a statement that the "White Australia" policy - which prevented non-Europeans from migrating to the country until after World War II -- had "saved Australia from many problems experienced by other countries".

Professor Fozdar said only 25 per cent of people who did not fly Australia car flags agreed.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/australia/6306878/Aussies-with-flags-more-racist-says-study

Over 80% of Moroccan youths in Amsterdam is criminal. Over 90% of all Somalis in the Netherlands lives on welfare benefits.

Those are true facts.

Fact is, that a lot of the wealthiest countries are 'white countries', while white people are only a small part of the entire world population.

To assume being white causes this wealth is racist if you can't back it up with facts.
I've read an article about the book Guns, Germs and Steel and it seems to explain pretty good why Europe and North America are so rich.

So instead of..
A. Being White causes B. Being Wealthy
It's way more likely that
C. Europe causes people to be A. White and B. Wealthy.

Correlation, causation, blabla.

So assuming white people are, IN GENERAL, WORLDWIDE, more wealthy and more adjusted to the values of Australia and thus less criminal, isn't racism, it's common sense and backed up by facts.

So please people, I ask you, please accuse less people of racism and explain better why you think they are racist!

Danyal:
Following the Reducatio ad Hitlerum and Godwin's law, I present to you;

Danyal's law, or the Reductio ad Racismerum.

That was in the news just one hour ago. Seriously? She's a racist because she celebrates Australia Day?

Did they say that, though, or merely choose Australia/Invasion Day to protest? It's a day of significance for Aboriginal people, and there is an awful lot of racism directed at the Aboriginal community.

Having a go at the PM for Australia Day stuff is very different from having a go at the PM for the failures of the nation to address racism on a symbolically powerful day.

...

Yes, there's lots of accusations of racism around, but then again there's lots of racism around. The overlap may not be perfect, but there seems to be more people interested in denying racism that exists than falsely drumming it up for an argument.

I don't think you quite understand the situation regarding Australia Day or the White Australia policy.

thaluikhain:

Did they say that, though, or merely choose Australia/Invasion Day to protest? It's a day of significance for Aboriginal people, and there is an awful lot of racism directed at the Aboriginal community.

Having a go at the PM for Australia Day stuff is very different from having a go at the PM for the failures of the nation to address racism on a symbolically powerful day.

...

Yes, there's lots of accusations of racism around, but then again there's lots of racism around. The overlap may not be perfect, but there seems to be more people interested in denying racism that exists than falsely drumming it up for an argument.

As far as I understand it, they thought the PM was a racist because she celebrated Australia Day and the protesters think Australia Day is racist. Certainly, drunk Australians may make racist remarks during Australia Day, but the festival nor the PM seems racist, and blaming the entire festival for the remarks of some drunks is like calling all Muslims terrorists because of Osama bin Laden.[1]

[1] Doing that would make people call you a... racist.

Knight Templar:
I don't think you quite understand the situation regarding Australia Day or the White Australia policy.

Explain it to me, than? I don't know that much about them but it's doesn't seem horribly racist.

thaluikhain:

Danyal:
Following the Reducatio ad Hitlerum and Godwin's law, I present to you;

Danyal's law, or the Reductio ad Racismerum.

That was in the news just one hour ago. Seriously? She's a racist because she celebrates Australia Day?

Did they say that?

Nope. Has nothing to do with Julia Gillard at all, she was just having lunch with Tony Abbott. The protesters were going after Tony Abbott because of remarks he made during a radio interview in which he said he thought the aboriginal tent embassy no longer served a valid purpose (or words to that effect). Since the aboriginal tent embassy was created to represent aboriginal rights, and since aboriginal people in Australia are still severely marginilased and probably do need representation, than Abbott's remarks can be taken in a negative light. Hence the chants of racism. Probably still a long bow to draw (but it was a hot day and Canberra is a very boring place), but nothing to do with Gillard or Australia day.

Australia Day marks the date the First Fleet landed in Sydney, colonising the nation and fucking over the people who already lived there. The Aboriginal peoples are still much worse off than Australians as a whole, and the government continually shies away from taking any useful action about it. Occasionally, the general public will go through a spasm of "this is terrible, someone should do something, why didn't we know?", the government will think of a good soundbite and impose it on the Northern Territory, ignoring the concerns of the people who actually live there, and the whole thing is forgotten for a few years.

...

So, the OP has decided that something isn't racist at all, and that the people involved that claim is it are lying, despite not knowing anything about it? This is sort of the problem with people automatically denying things are racist.

BringBackBuck:

thaluikhain:

Danyal:
Following the Reducatio ad Hitlerum and Godwin's law, I present to you;

Danyal's law, or the Reductio ad Racismerum.

That was in the news just one hour ago. Seriously? She's a racist because she celebrates Australia Day?

Did they say that?

Nope. Has nothing to do with Julia Gillard at all, she was just having lunch with Tony Abbott. The protesters were going after Tony Abbott because of remarks he made during a radio interview in which he said he thought the aboriginal tent embassy no longer served a valid purpose (or words to that effect). Since the aboriginal tent embassy was created to represent aboriginal rights, and since aboriginal people in Australia are still severely marginilased and probably do need representation, than Abbott's remarks can be taken in a negative light. Hence the chants of racism. Probably still a long bow to draw (but it was a hot day and Canberra is a very boring place), but nothing to do with Gillard or Australia day.

Well that proves once again that Dutch Public Broadcasting sucks.

But...

nothing to do with Gillard

image

Danyal:

I've heard people say that 'islamophobes' are 'racists'. I've heard people say that those who oppose homosexuality are 'racists'. I've seen the word 'racism' way too often and the actually act of racism doesn't happen nearly as often as the accusation of it.

Saying that Islam as a religion sucks is fine, but hating all Muslims because they follow that religion (the definition of Islamophobia) is entirely unacceptable.

Danyal:

Races aren't identical and to treat them always the same everywhere no matter what is mindless political correctness, and it's wrong.
To think about race or blame race when it isn't relevant is stupid and wrong, and it's actually what racism is.

Because race doesn't have any real meaning! Biologically the concept of race is useless and discredited it, so why use it to categorise people? Socioeconomic conditions have far more of an effect than race does on a person's life.

Danyal:

What is racist?
I've heard people that we should ban white males from becoming bankers, because white, male bankers have causes the financial crises. That's racism. Specifically claiming one race sucks at banking without backing it up and banning an entire race from a specific job without reason is racism.

What isn't racist?
Carrying your nation's flag, for example.

Of the 102 people surveyed who attached a flag to their cars on the national holiday, 43 per cent agreed with a statement that the "White Australia" policy - which prevented non-Europeans from migrating to the country until after World War II -- had "saved Australia from many problems experienced by other countries".

Professor Fozdar said only 25 per cent of people who did not fly Australia car flags agreed.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/australia/6306878/Aussies-with-flags-more-racist-says-study

That study isn't valid, firstly it's a survey, secondly it has a very small sample group, and thirdly, it doesn't seem to be related to your point. Otherwise I agree with all those points.

Danyal:

So instead of..
A. Being White causes B. Being Wealthy
It's way more likely that
C. Europe causes people to be A. White and B. Wealthy.

Fixed.

Danyal:

So assuming white people are, IN GENERAL, WORLDWIDE, more wealthy and more adjusted to the values of Australia and thus less criminal, isn't racism, it's common sense and backed up by facts.

This statement is true, but if you wanted a true generalisation, you'd just say that people with more opportunities in life are less likely to be criminals. Race doesn't have to come into this issue at all, especially if you haven't been specifically talking about it (because this will just make you look like a racist).

thaluikhain:

So, the OP has decided that something isn't racist at all, and that the people involved that claim is it are lying, despite not knowing anything about it? This is sort of the problem with people automatically denying things are racist.

No, it was about all wrong accusations of racism I encounter so often.

I've heard people say that 'islamophobes' are 'racists'. I've heard people say that those who oppose homosexuality are 'racists'. I've seen the word 'racism' way too often and the actually act of racism doesn't happen nearly as often as the accusation of it.

Dutch public broadcasting made it sound like those people screaming RACIST were against Australia Day and called it Invasion Day.

I have a problem with that survey. The question posed does not measure racism. Just because someone agrees that the White Australia policy helped us does not mean they were racist, it means they are a realist.

I understand that the WA policy was a racist policy, but I also understand that it had a purpose and that it succeeded in that purpose. I understand that there would have been better ways of limiting migration, such as the way we do it not.

The question posed is did the WA help us avoid problems faced by other countries and the answer is simple, yes. It was not right, but it helped.

Danyal:

thaluikhain:

So, the OP has decided that something isn't racist at all, and that the people involved that claim is it are lying, despite not knowing anything about it? This is sort of the problem with people automatically denying things are racist.

No, it was about all wrong accusations of racism I encounter so often.

I've heard people say that 'islamophobes' are 'racists'. I've heard people say that those who oppose homosexuality are 'racists'. I've seen the word 'racism' way too often and the actually act of racism doesn't happen nearly as often as the accusation of it.

Dutch public broadcasting made it sound like those people screaming RACIST were against Australia Day and called it Invasion Day.

From the point of view of some Australia day represents the European take over. Like pretty much everything the media reports on it is just a minority that are shouting louder than anyone else. The vast vast vast vast majority of Australia does not celebrate the conquering of the natives by European forces, they celebrate the work by everyone that has made Australia what it is today.

Danyal:
Well that proves once again that Dutch Public Broadcasting sucks.

?

They literally said about the motive:
"De demonstranten waren boos op oppositieleider Tony Abbott vanwege recente uitspraken die hij had gedaan over de Aboriginal-actiegroep."

Or in English:
The demonstrators [quite a stretch to call a lynchmob that] were angry at opposition leader Tony Abbott because of things he recently said about the Aboriginal-action group.

Sounds pretty accurate to me. If anything the report was covering for those crazed idiots attacking Gillard and Abott. It would've been perfectly accurate to describe them as rioters, attackers or criminals instead of 'demonstrators', yet they didn't.

Danyal:

thaluikhain:

So, the OP has decided that something isn't racist at all, and that the people involved that claim is it are lying, despite not knowing anything about it? This is sort of the problem with people automatically denying things are racist.

No, it was about all wrong accusations of racism I encounter so often.

And you've just said you've included in that something you admit not to knowing anything about.

Ok, maybe that's not something you usually do (though it's not helping your credibility much), but it seems rather common in people who take it upon themselves to determine when things aren't racist.

Danyal:

Knight Templar:
I don't think you quite understand the situation regarding Australia Day or the White Australia policy.

Explain it to me, than? I don't know that much about them but it's doesn't seem horribly racist.

The Australia day issue is a bit too complex for me to get into when posting from a mobile, however the white Australia policy was rather clearly racist. The tests and criteria had nothing to do with skill or smarts and were slated against non-europeans. Testing someboy on their French in an English speeking nation is a test you have set them on to fail, if they pass you keep giving the test untill they fail.

Again I'm posting from a mobile so I can't really respond as much as you might like be aware it was a racist policy that wasn't about how skilled a person may be, but about where they came from.

Esotera:

Saying that Islam as a religion sucks is fine, but hating all Muslims because they follow that religion (the definition of Islamophobia) is entirely unacceptable.

Is there an official definition of Islamophobia?
Also, even if islamophobics hate all Muslim, it still isn't racism.

Because race doesn't have any real meaning! Biologically the concept of race is useless and discredited it, so why use it to categorise people? Socioeconomic conditions have far more of an effect than race does on a person's life.

I'm talking about the common sense usage of race, as in 'white people', 'black people', etcetera. Not allowing black people entry to your beach or restaurant is racist.

That study isn't valid, firstly it's a survey, secondly it has a very small sample group, and thirdly, it doesn't seem to be related to your point. Otherwise I agree with all those points.

The researchers concluded people were racist because they thought the policy that didn't give non-whites access to the country had saved Australia from problems that others countries have. Calling that 'racist' is wrong. If I say that slavery had big economic benefits for certain parts of the US, that isn't racist.

So instead of..
A. Being White causes B. Being Wealthy
It's way more likely that
C. Europe causes people to be A. White and B. Wealthy.

As far as I know, Guns, Germs and Steel conclude that the geographical position of Europe is very advantageous for it's inhabitants. Natural resources, sea, temperature, fertility, local plants and animals, etcetera. So the continent Europe makes it inhabitants wealthy.
In the same way, Europe makes it inhabitants white. If you, homo sapiens, travel from sunny Africa to cold Europe, your skin will turn white. Evolution!

This statement is true, but if you wanted a true generalisation, you'd just say that people with more opportunities in life are less likely to be criminals. Race doesn't have to come into this issue at all, especially if you haven't been specifically talking about it (because this will just make you look like a racist).

It doesn't have to come into this issue, but if you are asking people about racist policies, there is no denying that they can be beneficial.

Blablahb:

Danyal:
Well that proves once again that Dutch Public Broadcasting sucks.

?

They literally said about the motive:
"De demonstranten waren boos op oppositieleider Tony Abbott vanwege recente uitspraken die hij had gedaan over de Aboriginal-actiegroep."

Or in English:
The demonstrators [quite a stretch to call a lynchmob that] were angry at opposition leader Tony Abbott because of things he recently said about the Aboriginal-action group.

Sounds pretty accurate to me. If anything the report was covering for those crazed idiots attacking Gillard and Abott. It would've been perfectly accurate to describe them as rioters, attackers or criminals instead of 'demonstrators', yet they didn't.

That's the NOS website right? I was talking about the news on television from 12 'o clock. Also, when people around me found out that it was about the 'Australia', they had to loudly discuss the Australian Open, so I may not have heard everything correctly. But I saw a large crowd chanting RACIST, RACIST, RACIST and it was explained how they called Australia Day Invasion Day etcetera. I can certainly understand people who get angry about Australia Day, but it doesn't seem racist.

Danyal:

Esotera:

Saying that Islam as a religion sucks is fine, but hating all Muslims because they follow that religion (the definition of Islamophobia) is entirely unacceptable.

Is there an official definition of Islamophobia?
Also, even if islamophobics hate all Muslim, it still isn't racism.

How isn't it racist to hate ~1 billion people because they are different to someone else by one common feature?

A few definitions, I think wikipedia gets it best:

- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamophobia
- http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/islamophobia

Danyal:

Esotera:

Because race doesn't have any real meaning! Biologically the concept of race is useless and discredited it, so why use it to categorise people? Socioeconomic conditions have far more of an effect than race does on a person's life.

I'm talking about the common sense usage of race, as in 'white people', 'black people', etcetera. Not allowing black people entry to your beach or restaurant is racist.

Why did you say that races are different from each other then? There are small differences between groups, but nothing worthy of categorising.

Danyal:

That study isn't valid, firstly it's a survey, secondly it has a very small sample group, and thirdly, it doesn't seem to be related to your point. Otherwise I agree with all those points.

The researchers concluded people were racist because they thought the policy that didn't give non-whites access to the country had saved Australia from problems that others countries have. Calling that 'racist' is wrong. If I say that slavery had big economic benefits for certain parts of the US, that isn't racist.

I think we can both agree that the study sucks.

Danyal:

Danyal:

So instead of..
A. Being White causes B. Being Wealthy
It's way more likely that
C. Europe causes people to be A. White and B. Wealthy.

As far as I know, Guns, Germs and Steel conclude that the geographical position of Europe is very advantageous for it's inhabitants. Natural resources, sea, temperature, fertility, local plants and animals, etcetera. So the continent Europe makes it inhabitants wealthy.
In the same way, Europe makes it inhabitants white. If you, homo sapiens, travel from sunny Africa to cold Europe, your skin will turn white. Evolution!

Over a very long time period, yes, but I don't think that's applicable to the individual. I'd say that Europe is more advanced in terms of civilisation, so there are more opportunities available & therefore less crime/bad things compared to other nations.

Danyal:

It doesn't have to come into this issue, but if you are asking people about racist policies, there is no denying that they can be beneficial.

Not really. If you're doing something like profiling, that's based on the number of crimes a certain socioeconomic group has committed (or should be). You could argue that that's racist (and could be if implemented poorly), but if the numbers match then there's nothing wrong with it.

Esotera:

How isn't it racist to hate ~1 billion people because they are different to someone else by one common feature?

A few definitions, I think wikipedia gets it best:

- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamophobia
- http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/islamophobia

hatred or irrational fear of Islam or Muslims
dread or hatred of Islam and therefore, to the fear and dislike of all Muslims

Hatred of fear of islam is classified as islamophobia. You yourself said

Esotera:

Saying that Islam as a religion sucks is fine

Compare it to communism. Does a fear or hatred of communism means you hate all communists and inhabitants of communist countries?[1]
No, it doesn't. And even if you did that, even if you hated all communists, and even if communist are more than one billion people, it still isn't racism.

Esotera:

Why did you say that races are different from each other then? There are small differences between groups, but nothing worthy of categorising.

Well, races, in the common sense usage of race, are different from each other. One race is black, another race is white, another race is neither. And I thought that for example Sickle-cell disease occurs nearly only in black people. We've had specific campaigns in the Netherlands targeting black people to get checked for this disease.
I thought I've also read that the muscles of black children develop faster and better.

I think we can both agree that the study sucks.

Yup. It's a good example of false accusations of racism.

Over a very long time period, yes, but I don't think that's applicable to the individual. I'd say that Europe is more advanced in terms of civilisation, so there are more opportunities available & therefore less crime/bad things compared to other nations.

As far as I know, Guns, Germs and Steels tries to explain why Europe developed to be so wealthy.

Guns, Germs and Steel: A short history of everybody for the last 13,000 years.[2] The book attempts to explain why Eurasian civilizations (in which he includes North Africa) have survived and conquered others, while refuting the assumption that Eurasian hegemony is due to any form of Eurasian intellectual, moral or inherent genetic superiority. Diamond argues that the gaps in power and technology between human societies originate in environmental differences, which are amplified by various positive feedback loops. When cultural or genetic differences have favored Eurasians (for example, written language or the development among Eurasians of resistance to endemic diseases), he asserts that these advantages occurred because of the influence of geography on societies and cultures, and were not inherent in the Eurasian genomes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns_germs_and_steel

H. sapiens reached Europe around 40,000 years ago, eventually replacing the Neanderthal population.

Europeans became white in the last 40,000 years and wealthy in the last 13,000 years. So if any group of Homo Sapiens had moved to Europe, they would have become white and wealthy.

[1] You count 1 billion people as Muslims. If being born in an islamic country with a death penalty for apostates means your Muslim, all inhabitants of communist countries can be counted as communists

I suspect Hanlon's Razor applies here, so I wouldn't expect the Lawmakers of teh Internets to take it up.

Otherwise, yes, it's thrown around too liberally sometimes, which makes it lose potency if nothing else.

Danyal:

Over 80% of Moroccan youths in Amsterdam is criminal. Over 90% of all Somalis in the Netherlands lives on welfare benefits.

Those are true facts.

Except, upon reading up on these claims, they are possibly not true.

29% of Somalis have a job, 33% are unemployed (the rest presumably dependents); 46% claim welfare benefits. 'Only' 50% might be a more appropriate figure in terms of Moroccan criminals - although that itself a loose description. Other studies may vary, obviously. As per:

http://www.forum.nl/Portals/International/English-pdf/Factsheet-Somalis-EN.pdf
http://soerenkern.com/web/?p=800

On the one hand, it can hardly be argued there isn't some form of problem with both Somalis being unemployed and Moroccans getting in trouble with the police in the Netherlands, which could be calmly discussed. However on the other, if you grossly exaggerate such figures and make out a problem far worse than it is people may indeed wonder why, and you've made yourself vulnerable to accusations of racism.

* * *

More to the point, it's how facts and figures are employed in a wider context.

If you talk about other groups and relentlessly assign them negative characteristics, negative associations, bring up negative facts about them, we might well think you are racist/xenophobic/etc. You can be so even with facts; actually many racists are brimming with (real or erroneous) facts to justify and rationalise their racism.

Agema:
If you talk about other groups and relentlessly assign them negative characteristics, negative associations, bring up negative facts about them, we might well think you are racist/xenophobic/etc. You can be so even with facts; actually many racists are brimming with (real or erroneous) facts to justify and rationalise their racism.

If supposed racists bring real facts to a discussion and those are dismissed by a false accusation of racism, the 'anti-racists' are wrong.

But seriously. People claim homophobia is racism.

The tale concerns a shepherd boy who repeatedly tricks nearby villagers into thinking a wolf is attacking his flock. When a wolf actually does appear, the villagers do not believe the boy's cries for help, and the flock is destroyed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Boy_Who_Cried_Wolf

Danyal:

hatred or irrational fear of Islam or Muslims
dread or hatred of Islam and therefore, to the fear and dislike of all Muslims

Hatred of fear of islam is classified as islamophobia. You yourself said

Esotera:

Saying that Islam as a religion sucks is fine

Hatred/fear of Islam =/= thinking that Islam as a philosophy is toxic in its attitude towards women (amongst other things)

Danyal:

Compare it to communism. Does a fear or hatred of communism means you hate all communists and inhabitants of communist countries?[1]
No, it doesn't. And even if you did that, even if you hated all communists, and even if communist are more than one billion people, it still isn't racism.

The exact number isn't important or relevant to the argument. The point is that hating all members of a religion, just because they follow that religion, is absolutely unacceptable.

Danyal:

Esotera:

Why did you say that races are different from each other then? There are small differences between groups, but nothing worthy of categorising.

Well, races, in the common sense usage of race, are different from each other. One race is black, another race is white, another race is neither. And I thought that for example Sickle-cell disease occurs nearly only in black people. We've had specific campaigns in the Netherlands targeting black people to get checked for this disease.
I thought I've also read that the muscles of black children develop faster and better.

You're obviously going to get variations in terms of healthcare, and it's right that there should be campaigns that target people at risk. However, this doesn't mean that using races to describe anything else, such as criminality, is useful. In nearly all cases it's counter-productive.

Danyal:

H. sapiens reached Europe around 40,000 years ago, eventually replacing the Neanderthal population.

Europeans became white in the last 40,000 years and wealthy in the last 13,000 years. So if any group of Homo Sapiens had moved to Europe, they would have become white and wealthy.

Actually the latest evidence is that the two subspecies probably integrated with each other, it's far from being a firm fact, but it's a fairly cool theory. It would also explain the disappearance of Neanderthals, when they seemed just as well suited or superior to Sapiens in most traits.

[1] You count 1 billion people as Muslims. If being born in an islamic country with a death penalty for apostates means your Muslim, all inhabitants of communist countries can be counted as communists

Esotera:
The exact number isn't important or relevant to the argument. The point is that hating all members of a religion, just because they follow that religion, is absolutely unacceptable.

And hating all members of a religion =/= racism.
Also, being absolutely unacceptable =/= racism.

Esotera:

You're obviously going to get variations in terms of healthcare, and it's right that there should be campaigns that target people at risk. However, this doesn't mean that using races to describe anything else, such as criminality, is useful. In nearly all cases it's counter-productive.

I think this part of the discussion was about the study that we both dismissed as stupid.

Europe causes people to be white and wealthy. Stating that being white is an important factor in becoming wealthy[1] without backing that up with facts is racist. But the correlation between white and wealthy, and for example black and poor, is undeniable. And that poverty causes crime is also undeniable. So saying that you think that Australia's racist policies may have prevented problems, is not racist. You don't blame genes or the inherent inferiority of black people for their poverty.

Actually the latest evidence is that the two subspecies probably integrated with each other, it's far from being a firm fact, but it's a fairly cool theory. It would also explain the disappearance of Neanderthals, when they seemed just as well suited or superior to Sapiens in most traits.

With two subspecies you mean Homo Sapiens and Neanderthals? I've read a lot about it.

All the areas that are central to autism are related to species-typical adaptations that vary widely between species. These include nonverbal signals, social organization, sensory acuteness, motor skills, general preferences, sexuality, physical traits and biological adaptations. Some of this diversity in autistics is poorly understood and virtually unresearched and therefore is not published in peer-reviewed journals. Because of this lack of research, Aspie-quiz, an online questionnary, is heavily referenced for these traits.

Recent genetic research have demonstrated that the Out-of-Africa (OoA) model with no interbreeding fails to explain nuclear DNA diversity in Eurasia. Several models of interbreeding that do explain this diversity exists today. It therefore is quite likely that Neanderthals contributed to the Caucasian genome. Aspie-quiz have demonstrated in a large survey in the US population that Afroamericans have only 1/6 of the autism prevalence of Caucasians. The same survey also indicates that Asians and American Indians have about 1/2 of the autism prevalence of Caucasians.

Principal Component Analysis (PCA) of Aspie-quiz yields axises that seems to be related to the first Eurasian Homo, the formation of modern humans in Africa or South Asia and the hybridization between modern humans and Neanderthals in Europe. These axises seems to be 1.8 million years, 150,000 years and 37,000 years, which fits pretty good with the archaeologic evidences available.

http://rdos.net/eng/asperger.htm

[1] As in, whites are better/smarter, not as in black people have less chances because they get discriminated against

Danyal:

Esotera:
The exact number isn't important or relevant to the argument. The point is that hating all members of a religion, just because they follow that religion, is absolutely unacceptable.

And hating all members of a religion =/= racism.
Also, being absolutely unacceptable =/= racism.

If you don't want to call it racism, do you not believe that it's a form of discrimination?

Danyal:

Europe causes people to be white and wealthy. Stating that being white is an important factor in becoming wealthy[1] without backing that up with facts is racist. But the correlation between white and wealthy, and for example black and poor, is undeniable. And that poverty causes crime is also undeniable. So saying that you think that Australia's racist policies may have prevented problems, is not racist. You don't blame genes or the inherent inferiority of black people for their poverty.

Wouldn't it be more correct to say being European is a good indicator, rather than being white?

Also:

Danyal:

You don't blame genes or the inherent inferiority of black people for their poverty.

Seriously?!? That statement is blatant racism without a qualification, and subtle racism with one.

Danyal:

With two subspecies you mean Homo Sapiens and Neanderthals? I've read a lot about it.

Yep. Sequencing of the Neanderthal genome is still getting there, and the information hasn't really been mined that well, but it's looking that way.

[1] As in, whites are better/smarter, not as in black people have less chances because they get discriminated against

Danyal:
[quote="Esotera" post="528.339977.13755456"]The exact number isn't important or relevant to Europe causes people to be white and wealthy. Stating that being white is an important factor in becoming wealthy without backing that up with facts is racist. But the correlation between white and wealthy, and for example black and poor, is undeniable. And that poverty causes crime is also undeniable. So saying that you think that Australia's racist policies may have prevented problems, is not racist.

Well, that would depend on why you think the White Australian policy prevented problems.

I personally don't think it's true, however, or at least not for those reasons. While the policy was in place, Australia took in lots of refugees from Europe. Now, these were white, but they were also poor, had their own customs, were unlikely to speak English, and many of them did very well out here.

...

As an aside, I'm told that my forbears on my dad's side had the chance of going to the US or Australia, and watched a US gangster movie the night before they decided. So they went to the country that wasn't the US.

Esotera:

If you don't want to call it racism, do you not believe that it's a form of discrimination?

If someone is consistent and applies the rules by which he decided that he hates/fears islam to all religions/groups/ideologies/philosophies I wouldn't call it discrimination.

Discrimination is the prejudicial treatment of an individual based on their membership in a certain group or category.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination

If somebody doesn't know anything about islam, but just says "I'm a christian, he's not, I hate him!", of course it's discrimination.

Wouldn't it be more correct to say being European is a good indicator, rather than being white?

That discussion was about the study which we agreed was stupid. That study asked people if they thought that the policies that didn't gave access to the country to non-whites was beneficial, or if they had 'prevented problems other countries are dealing with'.

Seriously?!? That statement is blatant racism without a qualification, and subtle racism with one.

I said...

So saying that you think that Australia's racist policies may have prevented problems, is not racist. You don't blame genes or the inherent inferiority of black people for their poverty.

If you agreed with that study, you didn't say you thought genes or inherent inferiority caused the poverty in Africa. Saying that is racism.

in∑her∑ent (n-hÓrnt, -hr-)
adj.
Existing as an essential constituent or characteristic; intrinsic.

Saying being black causes you to be less wealthy because of discrimination is not blaming intrinsic causes.
Saying being black causes you to be less wealthy because you are just a stupid half-monkey is incredibly racist and states that black people have some kind of inherent inferiority.

thaluikhain:

I personally don't think it's true, however, or at least not for those reasons. While the policy was in place, Australia took in lots of refugees from Europe. Now, these were white, but they were also poor, had their own customs, were unlikely to speak English, and many of them did very well out here.

In the time of those policies, white=European. America was white, but also quite European.
White people, Europeans, were poor, but also more wealthy than non-Europeans. Compared to our 2012 standards, nearly everyone was poor in 1945.
Their customs were maybe non-Australian, but they were European, and European customs are way more like Australian customs than non-European customs.

As an aside, I'm told that my forbears on my dad's side had the chance of going to the US or Australia, and watched a US gangster movie the night before they decided. So they went to the country that wasn't the US.

And you are still living in Australia?
That's an amazing anecdote to know about your ancestors and and incredibly funny reason to move to Australia :P

Personally, Australian spiders make sure I'm moving to the US if I had to choose. Shelob from LOTR is way more scary than Mafia II :P

image

Danyal:
In the time of those policies, white=European. America was white, but also quite European.
White people, Europeans, were poor, but also more wealthy than non-Europeans. Compared to our 2012 standards, nearly everyone was poor in 1945.
Their customs were maybe non-Australian, but they were European, and European customs are way more like Australian customs than non-European customs.

Well, when I mean poor, I was thinking in particular of those coming out here with more or less nothing, running from the Nazis or the Soviets or both.

Likewise, thinking of refugees from place like Soviet Russia, I wouldn't have thought their customes would be that much more similar.

Danyal:
And you are still living in Australia?
That's an amazing anecdote to know about your ancestors and and incredibly funny reason to move to Australia :P

Personally, Australian spiders make sure I'm moving to the US if I had to choose. Shelob from LOTR is way more scary than Mafia II :P

image

Yeah, still here.

Though, Australian spiders have a bit of a bad reputation, they've not killed anyone by biting them since anti-venom was introduced. They've learnt to attack people while driving to get them to crash their cars instead, but you don't have to be a spider to do that.

Now, fruitbats are still killing people with their diseases, but they're cute so nobody gets too worked up over them.

thaluikhain:

Well, when I mean poor, I was thinking in particular of those coming out here with more or less nothing, running from the Nazis or the Soviets or both.

Likewise, thinking of refugees from place like Soviet Russia, I wouldn't have thought their customes would be that much more similar.

Does Australia have many refugees from the Soviet Union? I didn't know that.
But even than, while Soviet Russia may seem to be quite opposed to Australian customs, refugees tend to disagree with those communist customs.

Yeah, still here.

Though, Australian spiders have a bit of a bad reputation, they've not killed anyone by biting them since anti-venom was introduced. They've learnt to attack people while driving to get them to crash their cars instead, but you don't have to be a spider to do that.

Now, fruitbats are still killing people with their diseases, but they're cute so nobody gets too worked up over them.

I'm scared of harmless Dutch spider, so I'm incredibly scared of harmful Australian spiders![1] Also, I watched this television show last week called 'I was bitten', and when I saw the effects of the bite of a brown recluse spider.. yeah. No holiday in Australia for me. No holiday, and I am certainly not gonna live there!

Cute and murderous fruitbats, nice.

[1] RACISM! Very appropriate in this topic.

Danyal:

thaluikhain:

Well, when I mean poor, I was thinking in particular of those coming out here with more or less nothing, running from the Nazis or the Soviets or both.

Likewise, thinking of refugees from place like Soviet Russia, I wouldn't have thought their customes would be that much more similar.

Does Australia have many refugees from the Soviet Union? I didn't know that.
But even than, while Soviet Russia may seem to be quite opposed to Australian customs, refugees tend to disagree with those communist customs.

Not sure how many, but there were at least some, my dad's family were from that area.

I didn't mean their political views, just that they've grown up in a country very different from Australia, they are going to have different customs.

...

In my grandmother's case, though, she left when she was too young to understand what it was actually like in Latvia, so she was determined to raise good Latvian kids who'd grow up to be doctors and marry other good Latvians and have more good Latvian kids and everyone was going to go "back" to Latvia once the US had liberated it or whatever.

She never actually got round to moving back, and those old enough to remember what it was like didn't want to either.

Danyal:

If supposed racists bring real facts to a discussion and those are dismissed by a false accusation of racism, the 'anti-racists' are wrong.

This is just stating the obvious. So what?

But seriously. People claim homophobia is racism.

"How dare you say I'm irrationally prejudiced against people of different ethnicity when in fact I'm irrationally prejudiced against people of different sexuality!"

Well, I guess that means there's nothing wrong, then.

Danyal:

That was in the news just one hour ago. Seriously? She's a racist because she celebrates Australia Day?

Given how this thread has progressed, it's clear you don't live here in Aus and haven't much knowledge on the Indigenous civil rights movement.

Australia day for Aboriginal people is known colloquially as 'Invasion', or 'Survival' day. European colonials came with an adapted form of social Darwinism which was reflected in many of the policies implemented by the provisional government prior to federation and extended/expanded upon by the state, post-federation. The effects of these policies are still keenly felt today, with inter-generational trauma creating and perpetuating unhealthy statistics. Ergo, there are many raw nerves within the Aboriginal community because the nation has been built entirely at their expense.

To contextualize:

The angry mob were very unimpressed with words expressed by the leader of the federal opposition, which had an implied imposition upon one of the most important symbols of the ongoing struggle for Aboriginal sovereignty in Australia. It was a poorly worded and ill-timed statement, with the current prime minister is seen by a large portion of the Indigenous community as being indifferent to Aboriginal sovereignty; it also doesn't help that she is seen as 'lacking authority' by a lot of Australians.

The roots of the overall inequality are very much embedded in racism and its pervasive history. Racism is a social construction which has very tangible effects and it is foolish to ignore the concept and the power it still has over cultural psyches. Much of the issue can be explained through the concept of whiteness, as the power structures of the society have been built by white people for white people, and this is reflected in the dominant power structures and the privileges that 'white' Australians take for granted.

Well, after seeing the Kinect motion sensor being accused of racism, I kind of gave up on taking any claim of racism seriously, unless it is supported by substantial evidence that the behaviour/product/person labelled racist was beyond all reasonable doubt motivated by the belief that one or more races are inferior/superior to others.

...you know, the thing that actually qualifies as racism.

In short, when someone is crying wolf, then the burden of proof is on them to actually present that wolf. The time where you could actually trust one to be present based on their words is long since gone.

Imperator_DK:
Well, after seeing the Kinect motion sensor being accused of racism, I kind of gave up on taking any claim of racism seriously, unless it is supported by substantial evidence that the behaviour/product/person labelled racist was beyond all reasonable doubt motivated by the belief that one or more races are inferior/superior to others.

...you know, the thing that actually qualifies as racism.

In short, when someone is crying wolf, then the burden of proof is on them to actually present that wolf. The time where you could actually trust one to be present based on their words is long since gone.

I agree.

But... Kinect is racist?! Seriously?! Why how who?!?!

Danyal:
...
But... Kinect is racist?! Seriously?! Why how who?!?!

Apparently claims that the detectors did not detect the movements of dark skin as well as white skin - even untrue as they were - was enough to label the product racist. All without the slightest indication that there had ever been any racial motive in play, or the slightest consideration that a white surface will naturally reflect more light than a black one.

...guess nature is racist too, eh?

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked