Spouting your vile thoughts on line isn't nothing, I'm sure you are as abhorrent in real life too.So I oppress African-Americans by doing nothing? Wow either I do have superpowers or races are just different on average.
Spouting your vile thoughts on line isn't nothing, I'm sure you are as abhorrent in real life too.So I oppress African-Americans by doing nothing? Wow either I do have superpowers or races are just different on average.
The sources at the bottom of your page lists data from 2003-2011, and most of the links for them no longer work.https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/North-Korea/United-States/Crime
Violent crime > Murders per million people 150.88
Ranked 45th. 4 times more than United States42.01
Ranked 43th.
It is vile to believe that different outcomes must be the result of oppression. E.g. we could tell women that math geniuses are mostly male due to oppression. But it is untrue and creates resentment and hate.Spouting your vile thoughts on line isn't nothing, I'm sure you are as abhorrent in real life too.
Everyone is a race realist. We just like to pretend we are not. Just as we pretend Joe can be Joanna.lol is UDR doing that racist "race realist" shit again
No, only epistemic anti-realists are. Most people are normal and don't believe in shit that fails to be represented in data to this day, like a link between "race" and "IQ," as if either are actually anything more than environmental characteristics.Everyone is a race realist. We just like to pretend we are not. Just as we pretend Joe can be Joanna.
Wherever East Asian (in the US simply called "Asian") and Subsaharan African (in the US called "black") communities live - be it planet earth, the US, China, Germany, etc, a non-ideological mind will recognize a pattern. Since this pattern is seen around the world and you would have difficulty finding one example to the contrary, it is not environmental.No, only epistemic anti-realists are. Most people are normal and don't believe in shit that fails to be represented in data to this day, like a link between "race" and "IQ," as if either are actually anything more than environmental characteristics.
Do you have enough self-awareness to find it weird to say only a "non ideological mind" would see race as a biologically essentialist construct rather than what it is: the result of the North Atlantic slave trade? Because man you would probably blow your brains out if you knew what "race" was in Greece or Rome.Wherever East Asian (in the US simply called "Asian") and Subsaharan African (in the US called "black") communities live - be it planet earth, the US, China, Germany, etc, a non-ideological mind will recognize a pattern. Since this pattern is seen around the world and you would have difficulty finding one example to the contrary, it is not environmental.
But you would probably also deny the link between HIV and AIDS or a penis and a Y-chromosome.
You can´t meet my challenge, so you are deflecting.Do you have enough self-awareness to find it weird to say only a "non ideological mind" would see race as a biologically essentialist construct rather than what it is: the result of the North Atlantic slave trade? Because man you would probably blow your brains out if you knew what "race" was in Greece or Rome.
I gotta be brutally honest with you champ you sound really insecure here. I'm not interested in your pivot, when the topic was that race isn't genetic. There's a reason why what you think is the foundational existence of "race" has only existed for like, 300 or so years. If you go back to numerous other nations historically they didn't see this shit at all. Hell, you'd probably lose your shit if you heard how race was actually seen historically in the Roman empire.I´m still waiting for your example. You can´t even provide the exception that proves the rule. There are no exceptions. Women are shorter (height) in every society on planet earth and communities of East Asian heritage have lower crime rates, more success in school and higher IQs than those of Subsaharan African descent.
Calling me names changing nothing. We both know I am right. You just find the truth offensive.
Ok, i can get that BUT how would you feel if a White guy played a black guys role (No black face BS because that really rasict) and if you say that it is, Kaboom! You found a double standert! So ether its BOTH rasict or NOT racist because double standerts are fucked up.Yeah that's the point. Discussions on racism are fundamentally worthless as long as the other side believes that white characters being played by black actors is racism.
It wouldn't be racist, there's just better anti-capitalist critiques to make of that. In the most common cases where minority characters are played by a white actor, it's usually done by having some incredibly famous white actor do it, instead of A) finding new talent, and B) uplifting marginalized talent at that. There's also other factors in play here, IE, if someone thinks a white actor would look better than a black character, that sounds pretty damn racist to me. If, however, someone thought a white actor would do a better job than a black actor in the role, it'd still sound REALLY fucking weird but I'm not sure it'd be outright racist unless I were to hear other explanations from the director down the line. IE, the difference between "I like this actor a lot" and "I want this actor to do it because I don't think black people can act" is a really huge one.Ok, i can get that BUT how would you feel if a White guy played a black guys role (No black face BS because that really rasict) and if you say that it is, Kaboom! You found a double standert! So ether its BOTH rasict or NOT racist because double standerts are fucked up.
yea, you can say that. Oh well thanks for clearing it up. Its not rasict on both ends. I just dont get how people can call the most pettish of thing racist when its not. Oh well, Thanks anyways. i have to fix up my PSP.It wouldn't be racist, there's just better anti-capitalist critiques to make of that. In the most common cases where minority characters are played by a white actor, it's usually done by having some incredibly famous white actor do it, instead of A) finding new talent, and B) uplifting marginalized talent at that. There's also other factors in play here, IE, if someone thinks a white actor would look better than a black character, that sounds pretty damn racist to me. If, however, someone thought a white actor would do a better job than a black actor in the role, it'd still sound REALLY fucking weird but I'm not sure it'd be outright racist unless I were to hear other explanations from the director down the line. IE, the difference between "I like this actor a lot" and "I want this actor to do it because I don't think black people can act" is a really huge one.
So, to clarify.
Black actor plays a white role -> Not racist.
White actor plays a black role -> Can be, but isn't *immediately* racist.
If we follow the logic of "Hiring a black actor to play a white character is racism" then at that point you could argue that hiring a black guy over a white guy for a job may as well be racist too, a position these people hold typically. It's also not racist there either, before some moron tries to start that discussion.
Mother and father white: white babyI gotta be brutally honest with you champ you sound really insecure here. I'm not interested in your pivot, when the topic was that race isn't genetic.
Here's a question: Why is Obama the first black president?One parent black, one white: Obama-like