But I must say this: Racism is originally defined as something intrinsically illogical (and I'm willing to say something bad). Racism is " the belief that groups of humans possess different behavioral traits corresponding to physical appearance, and can be divided based on the superiority of one race over another. It may also mean prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against other people because they are of a different race or ethnicity." I am willing to say that enforcing a no racism policy is a good compromise of freedom of speech.
I'm also willing to say that racism and similar principles are being used way too broadly in modern day society. Your example of "jews controlling the media" is a good example; nowadays it's almost considered unacceptable to say things that facts confirm if they aren't what people want to hear. People then often cry racism/bigotry, but this is in my opinion not correct.
However, I do think actual racism is really something we cannot and should not accept. In that sense I disagree with your post. Comparing actual racism to opinions like communism or hating Trump seems very far off. I do think you did not mean to say that, but you did imply that you think actual racism is the same as an unusual opinion. As far Dolan, I think sometimes he errs on the side of actual racism (or sexism, or similar unbased prejudices/beliefs that certain groups of people are intrinsically superior).
Would I be able to circumvent the anti-racism rules if I divided humans into genetic taxonomies called Bites, Clacks, and Ayjans, and I argued that the Ayjans were the best group because of their genes? This isn't judging based on looks; although, looks are a derivative of genetics, and Bites, Blacks, and Ayjans would incidentally match up perfectly with Whites, Blacks, and Asians.
Now I'll ask about my own personal beliefs. I do believe in genetic differences between races, and that these genetic differences cause behavioral differences among different races. However, I don't think it's possible to objectively declare one race superior to another, because the standard by which a race is judged is going to vary depending on the race doing the judging. Imagine an explorer who meets a tribe of natives, the explorer climbs a tree to look off into the distance, but the natives laugh at him and say "This guy's crazy. Only animals climb trees." I think that every people is naturally going to see itself as the best, and recognizing this, see an ethnopluralistic world as an ideal, and a multiracial democracy as a disaster that will only result in war and genocide. Am I racist? Should I be banned?
I also want to address the fact that you see things like communist revolutions as merely "unusual opinions." Why do people who hold beliefs that are hateful and harmful to society, to Christians, to people who like their country, etc get to be given the benefit of an "unusual opinion," yet racism is an ultimate sin? You are arbitrarily ascribing severity to beliefs, and granting protected status to certain groups, based purely on what happens to fit the political agenda of a certain group.
I don't believe that accepting that there is on average a difference between two groups is racism though, given the 'and' in the initial definition of "the belief that groups of humans possess different behavioral traits corresponding to physical appearance, and can be divided based on the superiority of one race over another." However, applying these findings to certain individuals beforehand would fall under racism as per the second definition (as it is a prejudice, and acting on solely on that prejudice is also discrimination).
I am not against people expressing beliefs that are potentially harmful, nor am I necessarily against people expressing hateful beliefs. I am also not saying that racism is the ultimate sin. What I am saying is that forbidding racist opinions as by the definition of racism that I provided, seems sensible to me, given that racism appears to me as inherently illogical and harmful.
So would it be fine to argue that, say, Iraqis have a lower IQ because of genetics? What if I insulted Iraqis and called them "stupid?" You wouldn't be wrong to call them stupid if they had a low IQ, but it's technically insulting a race, because "stupid" is an insult. I'll take it as given that calling Iraqis gay, or some other generic insult would be unacceptable.
Well, first and formost: IQ is related to education, so I'd contest the statement that Iraqis have a lower IQ because of genetics if a research where to show that they have a lower IQ. But your poorly chosen example aside, I'm not against "insulting" a race, as long as it's an "insult" based on anything, and assuming this is actually done in good faith, just like how I'm not against "praising" a race, as long as that is based on something. Like I said, I mostly agree with you, except that I think it's good to draw a line at racism as I defined racism.
I don't actually know what the average Iraqi IQ is. It was just an example. Regardless, if someone could insult a race as long as there was some sort of logical foundation to that insult (such as that group having lower IQs), what about insults that are unable to be proven right or wrong; e.g., aboriginals don't have souls? Or suppose someone just expressed dislike for a group; e.g., I hate Danes? Should these be allowed?
Nobody has a soul, sorry to break it to you.
Also, I frequently hear stuff like "I dont like the French" (they're generally speaking not very nice to tourists) and I think that is completely fine. So I hate the Danes, sure.
So I hate the jews; I hate the blacks; and I hate any other race are all fine to say?
The one thing that rubs me the wrong way is that you're basing your opinion then on race, rather than on culture. I think you do make it clear its hard to draw a line though. One thing to consider is that hating a race is more harmful than hating people from a country, which is why I'm more inclined to deem that unacceptable.
Actually I thought about this some more, I think for the health of a forum it might be good to draw the line somewhat sooner, at for example statements that serve no purpose other than to be hateful.
Hateful to anyone, any group, or only certain groups?
gibson wrote:I would bet money that there is a stronger correlation between time studied and IQ than there is between "Actual intelligence" and IQ. Obviously theres no way to go about demonstrating this, but it seems likely to me
gibson wrote:I would bet money that there is a stronger correlation between time studied and IQ than there is between "Actual intelligence" and IQ. Obviously theres no way to go about demonstrating this, but it seems likely to me
gibson wrote:I would bet money that there is a stronger correlation between time studied and IQ than there is between "Actual intelligence" and IQ. Obviously theres no way to go about demonstrating this, but it seems likely to me
someone scored poorly on an IQ test in the past?
In America 60 is considered very high
can we count this as offensive towards mentally disabled ppl?
But I must say this: Racism is originally defined as something intrinsically illogical (and I'm willing to say something bad). Racism is " the belief that groups of humans possess different behavioral traits corresponding to physical appearance, and can be divided based on the superiority of one race over another. It may also mean prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against other people because they are of a different race or ethnicity." I am willing to say that enforcing a no racism policy is a good compromise of freedom of speech.
I'm also willing to say that racism and similar principles are being used way too broadly in modern day society. Your example of "jews controlling the media" is a good example; nowadays it's almost considered unacceptable to say things that facts confirm if they aren't what people want to hear. People then often cry racism/bigotry, but this is in my opinion not correct.
However, I do think actual racism is really something we cannot and should not accept. In that sense I disagree with your post. Comparing actual racism to opinions like communism or hating Trump seems very far off. I do think you did not mean to say that, but you did imply that you think actual racism is the same as an unusual opinion. As far Dolan, I think sometimes he errs on the side of actual racism (or sexism, or similar unbased prejudices/beliefs that certain groups of people are intrinsically superior).
Would I be able to circumvent the anti-racism rules if I divided humans into genetic taxonomies called Bites, Clacks, and Ayjans, and I argued that the Ayjans were the best group because of their genes? This isn't judging based on looks; although, looks are a derivative of genetics, and Bites, Blacks, and Ayjans would incidentally match up perfectly with Whites, Blacks, and Asians.
Now I'll ask about my own personal beliefs. I do believe in genetic differences between races, and that these genetic differences cause behavioral differences among different races. However, I don't think it's possible to objectively declare one race superior to another, because the standard by which a race is judged is going to vary depending on the race doing the judging. Imagine an explorer who meets a tribe of natives, the explorer climbs a tree to look off into the distance, but the natives laugh at him and say "This guy's crazy. Only animals climb trees." I think that every people is naturally going to see itself as the best, and recognizing this, see an ethnopluralistic world as an ideal, and a multiracial democracy as a disaster that will only result in war and genocide. Am I racist? Should I be banned?
I also want to address the fact that you see things like communist revolutions as merely "unusual opinions." Why do people who hold beliefs that are hateful and harmful to society, to Christians, to people who like their country, etc get to be given the benefit of an "unusual opinion," yet racism is an ultimate sin? You are arbitrarily ascribing severity to beliefs, and granting protected status to certain groups, based purely on what happens to fit the political agenda of a certain group.
I don't believe that accepting that there is on average a difference between two groups is racism though, given the 'and' in the initial definition of "the belief that groups of humans possess different behavioral traits corresponding to physical appearance, and can be divided based on the superiority of one race over another." However, applying these findings to certain individuals beforehand would fall under racism as per the second definition (as it is a prejudice, and acting on solely on that prejudice is also discrimination).
I am not against people expressing beliefs that are potentially harmful, nor am I necessarily against people expressing hateful beliefs. I am also not saying that racism is the ultimate sin. What I am saying is that forbidding racist opinions as by the definition of racism that I provided, seems sensible to me, given that racism appears to me as inherently illogical and harmful.
So would it be fine to argue that, say, Iraqis have a lower IQ because of genetics? What if I insulted Iraqis and called them "stupid?" You wouldn't be wrong to call them stupid if they had a low IQ, but it's technically insulting a race, because "stupid" is an insult. I'll take it as given that calling Iraqis gay, or some other generic insult would be unacceptable.
Well, first and formost: IQ is related to education, so I'd contest the statement that Iraqis have a lower IQ because of genetics if a research where to show that they have a lower IQ. But your poorly chosen example aside, I'm not against "insulting" a race, as long as it's an "insult" based on anything, and assuming this is actually done in good faith, just like how I'm not against "praising" a race, as long as that is based on something. Like I said, I mostly agree with you, except that I think it's good to draw a line at racism as I defined racism.
I don't actually know what the average Iraqi IQ is. It was just an example. Regardless, if someone could insult a race as long as there was some sort of logical foundation to that insult (such as that group having lower IQs), what about insults that are unable to be proven right or wrong; e.g., aboriginals don't have souls? Or suppose someone just expressed dislike for a group; e.g., I hate Danes? Should these be allowed?
Nobody has a soul, sorry to break it to you.
Also, I frequently hear stuff like "I dont like the French" (they're generally speaking not very nice to tourists) and I think that is completely fine. So I hate the Danes, sure.
So I hate the jews; I hate the blacks; and I hate any other race are all fine to say?
The one thing that rubs me the wrong way is that you're basing your opinion then on race, rather than on culture. I think you do make it clear its hard to draw a line though. One thing to consider is that hating a race is more harmful than hating people from a country, which is why I'm more inclined to deem that unacceptable.
Actually I thought about this some more, I think for the health of a forum it might be good to draw the line somewhat sooner, at for example statements that serve no purpose other than to be hateful.
Hateful to anyone, any group, or only certain groups?
But I must say this: Racism is originally defined as something intrinsically illogical (and I'm willing to say something bad). Racism is " the belief that groups of humans possess different behavioral traits corresponding to physical appearance, and can be divided based on the superiority of one race over another. It may also mean prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against other people because they are of a different race or ethnicity." I am willing to say that enforcing a no racism policy is a good compromise of freedom of speech.
I'm also willing to say that racism and similar principles are being used way too broadly in modern day society. Your example of "jews controlling the media" is a good example; nowadays it's almost considered unacceptable to say things that facts confirm if they aren't what people want to hear. People then often cry racism/bigotry, but this is in my opinion not correct.
However, I do think actual racism is really something we cannot and should not accept. In that sense I disagree with your post. Comparing actual racism to opinions like communism or hating Trump seems very far off. I do think you did not mean to say that, but you did imply that you think actual racism is the same as an unusual opinion. As far Dolan, I think sometimes he errs on the side of actual racism (or sexism, or similar unbased prejudices/beliefs that certain groups of people are intrinsically superior).
Would I be able to circumvent the anti-racism rules if I divided humans into genetic taxonomies called Bites, Clacks, and Ayjans, and I argued that the Ayjans were the best group because of their genes? This isn't judging based on looks; although, looks are a derivative of genetics, and Bites, Blacks, and Ayjans would incidentally match up perfectly with Whites, Blacks, and Asians.
Now I'll ask about my own personal beliefs. I do believe in genetic differences between races, and that these genetic differences cause behavioral differences among different races. However, I don't think it's possible to objectively declare one race superior to another, because the standard by which a race is judged is going to vary depending on the race doing the judging. Imagine an explorer who meets a tribe of natives, the explorer climbs a tree to look off into the distance, but the natives laugh at him and say "This guy's crazy. Only animals climb trees." I think that every people is naturally going to see itself as the best, and recognizing this, see an ethnopluralistic world as an ideal, and a multiracial democracy as a disaster that will only result in war and genocide. Am I racist? Should I be banned?
I also want to address the fact that you see things like communist revolutions as merely "unusual opinions." Why do people who hold beliefs that are hateful and harmful to society, to Christians, to people who like their country, etc get to be given the benefit of an "unusual opinion," yet racism is an ultimate sin? You are arbitrarily ascribing severity to beliefs, and granting protected status to certain groups, based purely on what happens to fit the political agenda of a certain group.
I don't believe that accepting that there is on average a difference between two groups is racism though, given the 'and' in the initial definition of "the belief that groups of humans possess different behavioral traits corresponding to physical appearance, and can be divided based on the superiority of one race over another." However, applying these findings to certain individuals beforehand would fall under racism as per the second definition (as it is a prejudice, and acting on solely on that prejudice is also discrimination).
I am not against people expressing beliefs that are potentially harmful, nor am I necessarily against people expressing hateful beliefs. I am also not saying that racism is the ultimate sin. What I am saying is that forbidding racist opinions as by the definition of racism that I provided, seems sensible to me, given that racism appears to me as inherently illogical and harmful.
So would it be fine to argue that, say, Iraqis have a lower IQ because of genetics? What if I insulted Iraqis and called them "stupid?" You wouldn't be wrong to call them stupid if they had a low IQ, but it's technically insulting a race, because "stupid" is an insult. I'll take it as given that calling Iraqis gay, or some other generic insult would be unacceptable.
Well, first and formost: IQ is related to education, so I'd contest the statement that Iraqis have a lower IQ because of genetics if a research where to show that they have a lower IQ. But your poorly chosen example aside, I'm not against "insulting" a race, as long as it's an "insult" based on anything, and assuming this is actually done in good faith, just like how I'm not against "praising" a race, as long as that is based on something. Like I said, I mostly agree with you, except that I think it's good to draw a line at racism as I defined racism.
I don't actually know what the average Iraqi IQ is. It was just an example. Regardless, if someone could insult a race as long as there was some sort of logical foundation to that insult (such as that group having lower IQs), what about insults that are unable to be proven right or wrong; e.g., aboriginals don't have souls? Or suppose someone just expressed dislike for a group; e.g., I hate Danes? Should these be allowed?
Nobody has a soul, sorry to break it to you.
Also, I frequently hear stuff like "I dont like the French" (they're generally speaking not very nice to tourists) and I think that is completely fine. So I hate the Danes, sure.
So I hate the jews; I hate the blacks; and I hate any other race are all fine to say?
The one thing that rubs me the wrong way is that you're basing your opinion then on race, rather than on culture. I think you do make it clear its hard to draw a line though. One thing to consider is that hating a race is more harmful than hating people from a country, which is why I'm more inclined to deem that unacceptable.
Actually I thought about this some more, I think for the health of a forum it might be good to draw the line somewhat sooner, at for example statements that serve no purpose other than to be hateful.
Hateful to anyone, any group, or only certain groups?
Anyone and any group.
So none of the following posts are acceptable?
-I hate you.
-Conservatives are morons.
-Black people suck.
-You can tell that someone is scum based on whether or not they drink soda.
gibson wrote:I would bet money that there is a stronger correlation between time studied and IQ than there is between "Actual intelligence" and IQ. Obviously theres no way to go about demonstrating this, but it seems likely to me
Iirc there were some studies showing that education is close to irrelevant compared to genetics, when it comes to IQ. Basically if you have a twin and he gets a terrible education while you get a great one, you'll still have roughly the same IQ. Sadly I can't (or am too lazy to?) find the source right now.
Then I guess another question is whether IQ describes "intelligence" accurately or not.
Regardless, I do think studying is really overrated
LoOk_tOm wrote:I have something in particular against Kaisar (GERMANY NOOB mercenary LAMME FOREVER) And the other people (noobs) like suck kaiser ... just this ..
But I must say this: Racism is originally defined as something intrinsically illogical (and I'm willing to say something bad). Racism is " the belief that groups of humans possess different behavioral traits corresponding to physical appearance, and can be divided based on the superiority of one race over another. It may also mean prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against other people because they are of a different race or ethnicity." I am willing to say that enforcing a no racism policy is a good compromise of freedom of speech.
I'm also willing to say that racism and similar principles are being used way too broadly in modern day society. Your example of "jews controlling the media" is a good example; nowadays it's almost considered unacceptable to say things that facts confirm if they aren't what people want to hear. People then often cry racism/bigotry, but this is in my opinion not correct.
However, I do think actual racism is really something we cannot and should not accept. In that sense I disagree with your post. Comparing actual racism to opinions like communism or hating Trump seems very far off. I do think you did not mean to say that, but you did imply that you think actual racism is the same as an unusual opinion. As far Dolan, I think sometimes he errs on the side of actual racism (or sexism, or similar unbased prejudices/beliefs that certain groups of people are intrinsically superior).
Would I be able to circumvent the anti-racism rules if I divided humans into genetic taxonomies called Bites, Clacks, and Ayjans, and I argued that the Ayjans were the best group because of their genes? This isn't judging based on looks; although, looks are a derivative of genetics, and Bites, Blacks, and Ayjans would incidentally match up perfectly with Whites, Blacks, and Asians.
Now I'll ask about my own personal beliefs. I do believe in genetic differences between races, and that these genetic differences cause behavioral differences among different races. However, I don't think it's possible to objectively declare one race superior to another, because the standard by which a race is judged is going to vary depending on the race doing the judging. Imagine an explorer who meets a tribe of natives, the explorer climbs a tree to look off into the distance, but the natives laugh at him and say "This guy's crazy. Only animals climb trees." I think that every people is naturally going to see itself as the best, and recognizing this, see an ethnopluralistic world as an ideal, and a multiracial democracy as a disaster that will only result in war and genocide. Am I racist? Should I be banned?
I also want to address the fact that you see things like communist revolutions as merely "unusual opinions." Why do people who hold beliefs that are hateful and harmful to society, to Christians, to people who like their country, etc get to be given the benefit of an "unusual opinion," yet racism is an ultimate sin? You are arbitrarily ascribing severity to beliefs, and granting protected status to certain groups, based purely on what happens to fit the political agenda of a certain group.
I don't believe that accepting that there is on average a difference between two groups is racism though, given the 'and' in the initial definition of "the belief that groups of humans possess different behavioral traits corresponding to physical appearance, and can be divided based on the superiority of one race over another." However, applying these findings to certain individuals beforehand would fall under racism as per the second definition (as it is a prejudice, and acting on solely on that prejudice is also discrimination).
I am not against people expressing beliefs that are potentially harmful, nor am I necessarily against people expressing hateful beliefs. I am also not saying that racism is the ultimate sin. What I am saying is that forbidding racist opinions as by the definition of racism that I provided, seems sensible to me, given that racism appears to me as inherently illogical and harmful.
So would it be fine to argue that, say, Iraqis have a lower IQ because of genetics? What if I insulted Iraqis and called them "stupid?" You wouldn't be wrong to call them stupid if they had a low IQ, but it's technically insulting a race, because "stupid" is an insult. I'll take it as given that calling Iraqis gay, or some other generic insult would be unacceptable.
Well, first and formost: IQ is related to education, so I'd contest the statement that Iraqis have a lower IQ because of genetics if a research where to show that they have a lower IQ. But your poorly chosen example aside, I'm not against "insulting" a race, as long as it's an "insult" based on anything, and assuming this is actually done in good faith, just like how I'm not against "praising" a race, as long as that is based on something. Like I said, I mostly agree with you, except that I think it's good to draw a line at racism as I defined racism.
I don't actually know what the average Iraqi IQ is. It was just an example. Regardless, if someone could insult a race as long as there was some sort of logical foundation to that insult (such as that group having lower IQs), what about insults that are unable to be proven right or wrong; e.g., aboriginals don't have souls? Or suppose someone just expressed dislike for a group; e.g., I hate Danes? Should these be allowed?
Nobody has a soul, sorry to break it to you.
Also, I frequently hear stuff like "I dont like the French" (they're generally speaking not very nice to tourists) and I think that is completely fine. So I hate the Danes, sure.
So I hate the jews; I hate the blacks; and I hate any other race are all fine to say?
The one thing that rubs me the wrong way is that you're basing your opinion then on race, rather than on culture. I think you do make it clear its hard to draw a line though. One thing to consider is that hating a race is more harmful than hating people from a country, which is why I'm more inclined to deem that unacceptable.
Actually I thought about this some more, I think for the health of a forum it might be good to draw the line somewhat sooner, at for example statements that serve no purpose other than to be hateful.
Hateful to anyone, any group, or only certain groups?
Anyone and any group.
So none of the following posts are acceptable?
-I hate you.
-Conservatives are morons.
-Black people suck.
-You can tell that someone is scum based on whether or not they drink soda.
I suppose I hate you is somewhat acceptable.
Somehow "you can tell someone is scum based on whether or not they drink soda" is just funny to me.
Second place goes to Conservatives are morons. Not necessarily acceptable, but if you consider all conservative ideas stupid then I suppose its more reasonable to say you think conservatives are stupid. But the same is true for democrats are morons.
gibson wrote:I would bet money that there is a stronger correlation between time studied and IQ than there is between "Actual intelligence" and IQ. Obviously theres no way to go about demonstrating this, but it seems likely to me
Iirc there were some studies showing that education is close to irrelevant compared to genetics, when it comes to IQ. Basically if you have a twin and he gets a terrible education while you get a great one, you'll still have roughly the same IQ. Sadly I can't (or am too lazy to?) find the source right now.
Then I guess another question is whether IQ describes "intelligence" accurately or not.
Regardless, I do think studying is really overrated
Actually I think studying was not quite the right term for me to use. I meant being educated about a certain subject. Like if you take 2 people, and person A is naturally much better at math than person B, but person B has taken calculus 2 and person A hasnt, if they are both asked to find the surface area of a solid of revolution, person B will probably get the right answer, or at least close to it, while person A probably won't(unless they are some sort of math savient). Also, studying itself isn't so important when you're learning basics, but as you get to more advanced classes it becomes much more important.
I think the general rule of thumb is it's fine to make fun of people for things that are within their control, and less fine(to varying degrees) to do so for things outside of their control.
gibson wrote:I think the general rule of thumb is it's fine to make fun of people for things that are within their control, and less fine(to varying degrees) to do so for things outside of their control.
A thing a lot of people here seem to be struggling with (or are just making arguments in bad faith) is that there aren't always clear lines with things. Sometimes you have to understand how social cues work
gibson wrote:I think the general rule of thumb is it's fine to make fun of people for things that are within their control, and less fine(to varying degrees) to do so for things outside of their control.
A thing a lot of people here seem to be struggling with (or are just making arguments in bad faith) is that there aren't always clear lines with things. Sometimes you have to understand how social cues work
What some people struggle with is that even if its okay it might not be a nice thing to say.
@gibson Sure, if you ask them something really specific like that calculating that area (which requires a formula). But if you test their overall logic, like in IQ tests I believe, A would score higher.
LoOk_tOm wrote:I have something in particular against Kaisar (GERMANY NOOB mercenary LAMME FOREVER) And the other people (noobs) like suck kaiser ... just this ..
gibson wrote:I think the general rule of thumb is it's fine to make fun of people for things that are within their control, and less fine(to varying degrees) to do so for things outside of their control.
A thing a lot of people here seem to be struggling with (or are just making arguments in bad faith) is that there aren't always clear lines with things. Sometimes you have to understand how social cues work
Well yes and when I say fine I don't mean that its a good or nice thing do, but rather its fair game when insulting someone.
Ive always believed that trying to understand complex things trains your brain a bit. So if you take apart twins and just try to make one guy understand high school stuff and let the other just sit around and do nothing, that the latter would end up having a lower iq.
But I must say this: Racism is originally defined as something intrinsically illogical (and I'm willing to say something bad). Racism is " the belief that groups of humans possess different behavioral traits corresponding to physical appearance, and can be divided based on the superiority of one race over another. It may also mean prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against other people because they are of a different race or ethnicity." I am willing to say that enforcing a no racism policy is a good compromise of freedom of speech.
I'm also willing to say that racism and similar principles are being used way too broadly in modern day society. Your example of "jews controlling the media" is a good example; nowadays it's almost considered unacceptable to say things that facts confirm if they aren't what people want to hear. People then often cry racism/bigotry, but this is in my opinion not correct.
However, I do think actual racism is really something we cannot and should not accept. In that sense I disagree with your post. Comparing actual racism to opinions like communism or hating Trump seems very far off. I do think you did not mean to say that, but you did imply that you think actual racism is the same as an unusual opinion. As far Dolan, I think sometimes he errs on the side of actual racism (or sexism, or similar unbased prejudices/beliefs that certain groups of people are intrinsically superior).
Would I be able to circumvent the anti-racism rules if I divided humans into genetic taxonomies called Bites, Clacks, and Ayjans, and I argued that the Ayjans were the best group because of their genes? This isn't judging based on looks; although, looks are a derivative of genetics, and Bites, Blacks, and Ayjans would incidentally match up perfectly with Whites, Blacks, and Asians.
Now I'll ask about my own personal beliefs. I do believe in genetic differences between races, and that these genetic differences cause behavioral differences among different races. However, I don't think it's possible to objectively declare one race superior to another, because the standard by which a race is judged is going to vary depending on the race doing the judging. Imagine an explorer who meets a tribe of natives, the explorer climbs a tree to look off into the distance, but the natives laugh at him and say "This guy's crazy. Only animals climb trees." I think that every people is naturally going to see itself as the best, and recognizing this, see an ethnopluralistic world as an ideal, and a multiracial democracy as a disaster that will only result in war and genocide. Am I racist? Should I be banned?
I also want to address the fact that you see things like communist revolutions as merely "unusual opinions." Why do people who hold beliefs that are hateful and harmful to society, to Christians, to people who like their country, etc get to be given the benefit of an "unusual opinion," yet racism is an ultimate sin? You are arbitrarily ascribing severity to beliefs, and granting protected status to certain groups, based purely on what happens to fit the political agenda of a certain group.
I don't believe that accepting that there is on average a difference between two groups is racism though, given the 'and' in the initial definition of "the belief that groups of humans possess different behavioral traits corresponding to physical appearance, and can be divided based on the superiority of one race over another." However, applying these findings to certain individuals beforehand would fall under racism as per the second definition (as it is a prejudice, and acting on solely on that prejudice is also discrimination).
I am not against people expressing beliefs that are potentially harmful, nor am I necessarily against people expressing hateful beliefs. I am also not saying that racism is the ultimate sin. What I am saying is that forbidding racist opinions as by the definition of racism that I provided, seems sensible to me, given that racism appears to me as inherently illogical and harmful.
So would it be fine to argue that, say, Iraqis have a lower IQ because of genetics? What if I insulted Iraqis and called them "stupid?" You wouldn't be wrong to call them stupid if they had a low IQ, but it's technically insulting a race, because "stupid" is an insult. I'll take it as given that calling Iraqis gay, or some other generic insult would be unacceptable.
Well, first and formost: IQ is related to education, so I'd contest the statement that Iraqis have a lower IQ because of genetics if a research where to show that they have a lower IQ. But your poorly chosen example aside, I'm not against "insulting" a race, as long as it's an "insult" based on anything, and assuming this is actually done in good faith, just like how I'm not against "praising" a race, as long as that is based on something. Like I said, I mostly agree with you, except that I think it's good to draw a line at racism as I defined racism.
I don't actually know what the average Iraqi IQ is. It was just an example. Regardless, if someone could insult a race as long as there was some sort of logical foundation to that insult (such as that group having lower IQs), what about insults that are unable to be proven right or wrong; e.g., aboriginals don't have souls? Or suppose someone just expressed dislike for a group; e.g., I hate Danes? Should these be allowed?
Nobody has a soul, sorry to break it to you.
Also, I frequently hear stuff like "I dont like the French" (they're generally speaking not very nice to tourists) and I think that is completely fine. So I hate the Danes, sure.
So I hate the jews; I hate the blacks; and I hate any other race are all fine to say?
The one thing that rubs me the wrong way is that you're basing your opinion then on race, rather than on culture. I think you do make it clear its hard to draw a line though. One thing to consider is that hating a race is more harmful than hating people from a country, which is why I'm more inclined to deem that unacceptable.
Actually I thought about this some more, I think for the health of a forum it might be good to draw the line somewhat sooner, at for example statements that serve no purpose other than to be hateful.
Hateful to anyone, any group, or only certain groups?
Anyone and any group.
So none of the following posts are acceptable?
-I hate you.
-Conservatives are morons.
-Black people suck.
-You can tell that someone is scum based on whether or not they drink soda.
They're all fine except for the one on black people.
Why are black people the only ones immune from hate?
But I must say this: Racism is originally defined as something intrinsically illogical (and I'm willing to say something bad). Racism is " the belief that groups of humans possess different behavioral traits corresponding to physical appearance, and can be divided based on the superiority of one race over another. It may also mean prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against other people because they are of a different race or ethnicity." I am willing to say that enforcing a no racism policy is a good compromise of freedom of speech.
I'm also willing to say that racism and similar principles are being used way too broadly in modern day society. Your example of "jews controlling the media" is a good example; nowadays it's almost considered unacceptable to say things that facts confirm if they aren't what people want to hear. People then often cry racism/bigotry, but this is in my opinion not correct.
However, I do think actual racism is really something we cannot and should not accept. In that sense I disagree with your post. Comparing actual racism to opinions like communism or hating Trump seems very far off. I do think you did not mean to say that, but you did imply that you think actual racism is the same as an unusual opinion. As far Dolan, I think sometimes he errs on the side of actual racism (or sexism, or similar unbased prejudices/beliefs that certain groups of people are intrinsically superior).
Would I be able to circumvent the anti-racism rules if I divided humans into genetic taxonomies called Bites, Clacks, and Ayjans, and I argued that the Ayjans were the best group because of their genes? This isn't judging based on looks; although, looks are a derivative of genetics, and Bites, Blacks, and Ayjans would incidentally match up perfectly with Whites, Blacks, and Asians.
Now I'll ask about my own personal beliefs. I do believe in genetic differences between races, and that these genetic differences cause behavioral differences among different races. However, I don't think it's possible to objectively declare one race superior to another, because the standard by which a race is judged is going to vary depending on the race doing the judging. Imagine an explorer who meets a tribe of natives, the explorer climbs a tree to look off into the distance, but the natives laugh at him and say "This guy's crazy. Only animals climb trees." I think that every people is naturally going to see itself as the best, and recognizing this, see an ethnopluralistic world as an ideal, and a multiracial democracy as a disaster that will only result in war and genocide. Am I racist? Should I be banned?
I also want to address the fact that you see things like communist revolutions as merely "unusual opinions." Why do people who hold beliefs that are hateful and harmful to society, to Christians, to people who like their country, etc get to be given the benefit of an "unusual opinion," yet racism is an ultimate sin? You are arbitrarily ascribing severity to beliefs, and granting protected status to certain groups, based purely on what happens to fit the political agenda of a certain group.
I don't believe that accepting that there is on average a difference between two groups is racism though, given the 'and' in the initial definition of "the belief that groups of humans possess different behavioral traits corresponding to physical appearance, and can be divided based on the superiority of one race over another." However, applying these findings to certain individuals beforehand would fall under racism as per the second definition (as it is a prejudice, and acting on solely on that prejudice is also discrimination).
I am not against people expressing beliefs that are potentially harmful, nor am I necessarily against people expressing hateful beliefs. I am also not saying that racism is the ultimate sin. What I am saying is that forbidding racist opinions as by the definition of racism that I provided, seems sensible to me, given that racism appears to me as inherently illogical and harmful.
So would it be fine to argue that, say, Iraqis have a lower IQ because of genetics? What if I insulted Iraqis and called them "stupid?" You wouldn't be wrong to call them stupid if they had a low IQ, but it's technically insulting a race, because "stupid" is an insult. I'll take it as given that calling Iraqis gay, or some other generic insult would be unacceptable.
Well, first and formost: IQ is related to education, so I'd contest the statement that Iraqis have a lower IQ because of genetics if a research where to show that they have a lower IQ. But your poorly chosen example aside, I'm not against "insulting" a race, as long as it's an "insult" based on anything, and assuming this is actually done in good faith, just like how I'm not against "praising" a race, as long as that is based on something. Like I said, I mostly agree with you, except that I think it's good to draw a line at racism as I defined racism.
I don't actually know what the average Iraqi IQ is. It was just an example. Regardless, if someone could insult a race as long as there was some sort of logical foundation to that insult (such as that group having lower IQs), what about insults that are unable to be proven right or wrong; e.g., aboriginals don't have souls? Or suppose someone just expressed dislike for a group; e.g., I hate Danes? Should these be allowed?
Nobody has a soul, sorry to break it to you.
Also, I frequently hear stuff like "I dont like the French" (they're generally speaking not very nice to tourists) and I think that is completely fine. So I hate the Danes, sure.
So I hate the jews; I hate the blacks; and I hate any other race are all fine to say?
The one thing that rubs me the wrong way is that you're basing your opinion then on race, rather than on culture. I think you do make it clear its hard to draw a line though. One thing to consider is that hating a race is more harmful than hating people from a country, which is why I'm more inclined to deem that unacceptable.
Actually I thought about this some more, I think for the health of a forum it might be good to draw the line somewhat sooner, at for example statements that serve no purpose other than to be hateful.
Hateful to anyone, any group, or only certain groups?
Anyone and any group.
So none of the following posts are acceptable?
-I hate you.
-Conservatives are morons.
-Black people suck.
-You can tell that someone is scum based on whether or not they drink soda.
They're all fine except for the one on black people.
Why are black people the only ones immune from hate?
You didnt ask him if "white people suck" is okay, though.
Kaiserklein wrote:@gibson Sure, if you ask them something really specific like that calculating that area (which requires a formula). But if you test their overall logic, like in IQ tests I believe, A would score higher.
But isn't that all math is, finding the correct formula and applying it? I have never taken an iq test but I assume it's going to have more complex than 2+2x5. And it's the same for anything really that it relies on previous knowledge, not just logic. If a science section asks you whats the 4rd layer of the earth, since its multiple choice you can logically deduce that its probably not the crust, but your still left with several options and unless you remember that exact question from science class probably wont get it right. Or a social studies question asking who's 3rd in line to be president if the president, vice president, and speaker of the house die. Again if you don't remember this fact you can't really logically deduce it, even though knowing or not knowing this single fact dont have anything to do with one's intelligence, just whether or not you've been taught this fact. The point is there's no possible way that you can quantify someones intelligence via asking them a few hundred questions. What even is intelligence for that matter. You might be better at math than a car mechanic, but when it comes to rebuilding an engine he runs circles around you. Both of those skills show someone's intelligence, but only one of them is measured on an iq test.
But I must say this: Racism is originally defined as something intrinsically illogical (and I'm willing to say something bad). Racism is " the belief that groups of humans possess different behavioral traits corresponding to physical appearance, and can be divided based on the superiority of one race over another. It may also mean prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against other people because they are of a different race or ethnicity." I am willing to say that enforcing a no racism policy is a good compromise of freedom of speech.
I'm also willing to say that racism and similar principles are being used way too broadly in modern day society. Your example of "jews controlling the media" is a good example; nowadays it's almost considered unacceptable to say things that facts confirm if they aren't what people want to hear. People then often cry racism/bigotry, but this is in my opinion not correct.
However, I do think actual racism is really something we cannot and should not accept. In that sense I disagree with your post. Comparing actual racism to opinions like communism or hating Trump seems very far off. I do think you did not mean to say that, but you did imply that you think actual racism is the same as an unusual opinion. As far Dolan, I think sometimes he errs on the side of actual racism (or sexism, or similar unbased prejudices/beliefs that certain groups of people are intrinsically superior).
Would I be able to circumvent the anti-racism rules if I divided humans into genetic taxonomies called Bites, Clacks, and Ayjans, and I argued that the Ayjans were the best group because of their genes? This isn't judging based on looks; although, looks are a derivative of genetics, and Bites, Blacks, and Ayjans would incidentally match up perfectly with Whites, Blacks, and Asians.
Now I'll ask about my own personal beliefs. I do believe in genetic differences between races, and that these genetic differences cause behavioral differences among different races. However, I don't think it's possible to objectively declare one race superior to another, because the standard by which a race is judged is going to vary depending on the race doing the judging. Imagine an explorer who meets a tribe of natives, the explorer climbs a tree to look off into the distance, but the natives laugh at him and say "This guy's crazy. Only animals climb trees." I think that every people is naturally going to see itself as the best, and recognizing this, see an ethnopluralistic world as an ideal, and a multiracial democracy as a disaster that will only result in war and genocide. Am I racist? Should I be banned?
I also want to address the fact that you see things like communist revolutions as merely "unusual opinions." Why do people who hold beliefs that are hateful and harmful to society, to Christians, to people who like their country, etc get to be given the benefit of an "unusual opinion," yet racism is an ultimate sin? You are arbitrarily ascribing severity to beliefs, and granting protected status to certain groups, based purely on what happens to fit the political agenda of a certain group.
I don't believe that accepting that there is on average a difference between two groups is racism though, given the 'and' in the initial definition of "the belief that groups of humans possess different behavioral traits corresponding to physical appearance, and can be divided based on the superiority of one race over another." However, applying these findings to certain individuals beforehand would fall under racism as per the second definition (as it is a prejudice, and acting on solely on that prejudice is also discrimination).
I am not against people expressing beliefs that are potentially harmful, nor am I necessarily against people expressing hateful beliefs. I am also not saying that racism is the ultimate sin. What I am saying is that forbidding racist opinions as by the definition of racism that I provided, seems sensible to me, given that racism appears to me as inherently illogical and harmful.
So would it be fine to argue that, say, Iraqis have a lower IQ because of genetics? What if I insulted Iraqis and called them "stupid?" You wouldn't be wrong to call them stupid if they had a low IQ, but it's technically insulting a race, because "stupid" is an insult. I'll take it as given that calling Iraqis gay, or some other generic insult would be unacceptable.
Well, first and formost: IQ is related to education, so I'd contest the statement that Iraqis have a lower IQ because of genetics if a research where to show that they have a lower IQ. But your poorly chosen example aside, I'm not against "insulting" a race, as long as it's an "insult" based on anything, and assuming this is actually done in good faith, just like how I'm not against "praising" a race, as long as that is based on something. Like I said, I mostly agree with you, except that I think it's good to draw a line at racism as I defined racism.
I don't actually know what the average Iraqi IQ is. It was just an example. Regardless, if someone could insult a race as long as there was some sort of logical foundation to that insult (such as that group having lower IQs), what about insults that are unable to be proven right or wrong; e.g., aboriginals don't have souls? Or suppose someone just expressed dislike for a group; e.g., I hate Danes? Should these be allowed?
Nobody has a soul, sorry to break it to you.
Also, I frequently hear stuff like "I dont like the French" (they're generally speaking not very nice to tourists) and I think that is completely fine. So I hate the Danes, sure.
So I hate the jews; I hate the blacks; and I hate any other race are all fine to say?
The one thing that rubs me the wrong way is that you're basing your opinion then on race, rather than on culture. I think you do make it clear its hard to draw a line though. One thing to consider is that hating a race is more harmful than hating people from a country, which is why I'm more inclined to deem that unacceptable.
Actually I thought about this some more, I think for the health of a forum it might be good to draw the line somewhat sooner, at for example statements that serve no purpose other than to be hateful.
Hateful to anyone, any group, or only certain groups?
Anyone and any group.
So none of the following posts are acceptable?
-I hate you.
-Conservatives are morons.
-Black people suck.
-You can tell that someone is scum based on whether or not they drink soda.
They're all fine except for the one on black people.
Why are black people the only ones immune from hate?
Their skin color has nothing to do with their choices. It's an inherent quality of theirs, which has nothing to do with their quality as a person.
Suppose someone is an atheist, a determinist. They think that people don't actually have choices, and everything they do is the result of inherent qualities of theirs. Can this person insult someone over anything? Intelligence is also very dependent on someone's genes, so a lot of people can't help it if they're low IQ. Should we ban insulting people for their intelligence? Furthermore, why does race seem to be so emphasized in its protection? I feel like if a short man were to get on a stage and demand preferential employment, banning of jokes about short people, Napoleonic history month, etc, he would get laughed out of the room; yet races do it, and the entire world considers achieving those things a moral crusade.
RefluxSemantic 
Kaiserklein 
