BR Reminder?

Quote:

---

Just as a reminder.

Attacks in regards to race, sex, sexuality, ethnicity and other such bearings have never been permitted on the .ORG, the rules in regards of these are in the post above this. Any such statements will be met with a polite reminder and an infraction

Thank you.

---

How can one attack culture without attacking ethnicity?

How can one attack certain parts of the geographical sphere without attacking ethnicity?


I claim Swedish guys use more snuff than any other part of the world, BECAUSE THEY ARE SWEDISH.

Will I get an infraction now?

The rules have not been 'Updated' there was a reminder they are there. If you read the rules, you will see the following to answer your question:

Quote:

---

Nation and Religion Bashing

This occupation, a variant of trolling behaviour, deserves special mention. It is perfectly acceptable to take issue with a government or religious grouping, but we frown upon generalised insults.
Acceptable: "I can't stand the Lilliputian government's excessive use of hemp rope against innocents"
Unacceptable: " Lilliputians are small-minded pygmies"

Just remember that Respect thing we talked about. Would you like what you wrote said about your own nationality?

Religion is another powder keg. Please remember that we have patrons of all religions and none here, and that their beliefs are sincerely held. They are also very often very important to a person's self-image - literally "sacred" - and insults aimed at fellow believers (and unbelievers) provoke hurt and upset. There's nothing wrong with using historical and factual data to make a point, but with care please.

---

I hope this answers your question.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiaexz

The rules have not been 'Updated' there was a reminder they are there. If you read the rules, you will see the following to answer your question:


I hope this answers your question.

---

It does.

Sorry, I still have a hard time shaking off the last moderators impact.

MEH!! My bad, please lock or preferably delete thread. :bow:

Quote:

---

How can one attack culture without attacking ethnicity

---

The two are not the same.

Actually, I thought it was ironic that Kadagar asked the question in the OP.

On some level, he has embodied the answer to his own question for months if not years.

He's taken shots at "USAnian" values, and ways of doing things -- in short, an attack on aspects of culture -- while using labels that make it clear that no particular US ethnicity is involved. The USA, being multi-ethnic, has a culture that superimposes (though never supplants) ethnic culture.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Actually, I thought it was ironic that Kadagar asked the question in the OP.

On some level, he has embodied the answer to his own question for months if not years.

He's taken shots at "USAnian" values, and ways of doing things -- in short, an attack on aspects of culture -- while using labels that make it clear that no particular US ethnicity is involved. The USA, being multi-ethnic, has a culture that superimposes (though never supplants) ethnic culture.

---

I still find the rule problematic, as the line between ethnicity and culture at times are razor thin... Take gypsies as an example, or jews. Also, discussing racial traits would be.... problematic... no?

Would I be allowed to say that white guys sure seem to run worse than black guys? It's (kind of) an attack on ethnicity, but then a quick look at the olympics make it a fair point.

Is there a USAnian ethnicity? How many hundred years can you have a nation before you start talking ethnicity?

However, I think moderation works real well now, great even. Specially when you consider the 50 shades of grey that is the BR :2thumbsup:

You want to know a secret, @Kadagar_AV ?

The way I do I moderation is like this. If you can make a thought-out logical and reasoned post, I will not give you an infraction. If you make a foolish error of judgement, you can usually catch yourself sometimes and edit it away, and I won't give you an infraction.

I would only give an infraction for foolishly-given statements that are obviously offensive and I will 'deduce' the nature of the spirit it is given. You are simply spiteful and hateful, trying to be as offensive as possible, I will point it out and give the infraction. If you simply badly worded something and it is clear you tried, I would/will message you pointing out where you went wrong and how to do it better next time and I may be lenient, perhaps just edit the post and/or give a warning, infraction still if really bad but I would attempt to assist you in my message.

I would avoid to be seen as being bias too, so I would never punish you for thinking red is the best colour, opposed to blue, for example. If a post is openly offensive to me myself. I would 'report' the post myself, then edit any major infringements, then I would have another moderator/admin review the post to cast any judgements upon it.

I would like/hope to think you are in safe-hands, if not, feel free to report me, even! :bow:

Quote:

---

I still find the rule problematic, as the line between ethnicity and culture at times are razor thin... Take gypsies as an example, or jews. Also, discussing racial traits would be.... problematic... no?

---

I do not feel qualified to talk about the Roma, however...

Which Jews are you talking about?

It's funny to read stuff like this, partially because your reasoning seems to imply that globalisation and people mixing is a modern process, and that mixed marriages are a new phenomenon. However, a quick glance at the history of basically..anywhere reveals that through trade, or conquest, or for whatever other reason, people have been moving from one place to another for a very long time.

To use an example; when I was in Tallinn (Estonia) this summer, I was standing in the lobby of this hostel and I was talking to some random guy about how I'd been travelling through Estonia for some time, at which point he said that I wouldn't find any "true" Estonians in Tallinn. I asked him to specify what he meant exactly by saying that, especially when you look at Estonia's history, and especially when you consider that it was under German, Danish, Swedish, Polish-Lithuanian and Russian domination at different times in history.

Of course, this is just an example, but "even" nations that have never been dominated by any foreign power will have had ethnic mixing. It's been happening for a very long time and it will probably happen for a very long time as well. Cultural identification has nothing to do with "race" or "ethnicity" but with how people see themselves and others.

What is the difference between a Norwegian, Swede, a Dane, an Icelander and a Faroer?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

I do not feel qualified to talk about the Roma, however...

Which Jews are you talking about?

It's funny to read stuff like this, partially because your reasoning seems to imply that globalisation and people mixing is a modern process, and that mixed marriages are a new phenomenon. However, a quick glance at the history of basically..anywhere reveals that through trade, or conquest, or for whatever other reason, people have been moving from one place to another for a very long time.

To use an example; when I was in Tallinn (Estonia) this summer, I was standing in the lobby of this hostel and I was talking to some random guy about how I'd been travelling through Estonia for some time, at which point he said that I wouldn't find any "true" Estonians in Tallinn. I asked him to specify what he meant exactly by saying that, especially when you look at Estonia's history, and especially when you consider that it was under German, Danish, Swedish, Polish-Lithuanian and Russian domination at different times in history.

Of course, this is just an example, but "even" nations that have never been dominated by any foreign power will have had ethnic mixing. It's been happening for a very long time and it will probably happen for a very long time as well. Cultural identification has nothing to do with "race" or "ethnicity" but with how people see themselves and others.

What is the difference between a Norwegian, Swede, a Dane, an Icelander and a Faroer?

---

You seem to read a whole lot of stuff into what I said. Don't. Doesn't make you come off as very intellectual.

Oh, and if you claim there is no such thing as "Jews", giving them a state sure seems like a bad idea. Though they seemed all up for it, no?

Quote:

---

Cultural identification has nothing to do with "race" or "ethnicity" but with how people see themselves and others.

---

Yeah, but how they see themselves and others are tied together with what race and ethnicity they are... So.... Yeah... Kind of a moot point.

Quote:

---

Yeah, but how they see themselves and others are tied together with what race and ethnicity they are... So.... Yeah... Kind of a moot point.

---

Race is not a valid scientific term.

Where it concerns ethnicity, well, now everything is so mixed anyways that it doesn't really make a lot of sense. Look at the Baltic states, for example.

Quote:

---

Oh, and if you claim there is no such thing as "Jews", giving them a state sure seems like a bad idea. Though they seemed all up for it, no?

---

Who is reading too much into something here? I never said there is no such thing as "Jews"; I simply demonstrated that the cultural self-identification as "Jewish" clearly transcends ethnic lines.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

Race is not a valid scientific term.

---

No?

You sure you don't just not want it to be?

Quote:

---

Where it concerns ethnicity, well, now everything is so mixed anyways that it doesn't really make a lot of sense. Look at the Baltic states, for example.

---

I don't agree. Even with pillaged-out western places like the Baltic States, you can still tell they are caucasian and not of the unnameable race known for dwelling on the African continent sub-sahara.

Quote:

---

Who is reading too much into something here? I never said there is no such thing as "Jews"; I simply demonstrated that the cultural self-identification as "Jewish" clearly transcends ethnic lines.

---

So there are Jews then, of all sorts.


What are we debating and why?

Quote:

---

you can still tell they are caucasian

---

What is a Caucasian?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

What is a Caucasian?

---

White.

What could be more worthless than a category based on skin color? That's even less than the "race" the others here reject.

Okay, let's go along with your logic.

Where does "white" stop. Are Iranians white? Or Russians?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

Okay, let's go along with your logic.

Where does "white" stop. Are Iranians white? Or Russians?

---

White Iranians and white Russians, sure? Doh!

So what does the term white mean, exactly? What are its characteristics and what are its implications?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

So what does the term white mean, exactly? What are its characteristics and what are its implications?

---

Caucasian are white, what's the big deal. If there isn't any hostility or downgrading involved what's the problem. It's not a classification.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Caucasian are white, what's the big deal. If there isn't any hostility or downgrading involved what's the problem. It's not a classification.

---

But are there any "whites" in Caucasus?

Okay, then let's call a train a zurgiblopk, because it doesn't mean anything. You can make stuff up for things if you want to, but it has nothing to do with reality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

Okay, then let's call a train a zurgiblopk, because it doesn't mean anything. You can make stuff up for things if you want to, but it has nothing to do with reality.

---

I actually like zurgiblopk fine. It sounds more trainish then train..;)

Sorry sometimes the urge to troll is too much to bear.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

So what does the term white mean, exactly? What are its characteristics and what are its implications?

---

I don't believe there is an exact definition of what "white" means, exactly. But then, some things are more easily definable by exclusion, not inclusion.

Extremely broadly speaking I have found that [nope] seem more civilized than people of [nope]. IMHO still mainly a cultural thing, but then I do find [nope] to be trash :creep:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

I don't believe there is an exact definition of what "white" means, exactly.

---

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/white

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

Quote:

---

It is the color produced by the reflection, transmission or emission of all wavelengths of visible light, without absorption.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kagemusha

I actually like zurgiblopk fine. It sounds more trainish then train..;)

Sorry sometimes the urge to troll is too much to bear.

---

So do I, that's why I mentioned it. Come on, "train"; it just sounds made up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

No?

You sure you don't just not want it to be?

---

Kadagar I thought you were one of those intellectuals who trusted science over ideology. Scientists have discarded racial categories because they are useless for studying humanity. In the first half of the 20th century any attempt at a scientific system of racial classification had to include dozens of "sub-races", and the boundaries between them were very hard to define. Which features and traits do you base your classifications on? How do you define groups like the Ainu, who have thick body hair and other European features, but have lived in Japan for thousands of years and have Asian traits as well?

I do agree that ethnicity is heavily intertwined with culture. To say that it's not amounts to using the term as another word for race. So how do you attack culture without attacking ethnicity? You don't. I think most people would be just as offended by having their culture called trash as they would their ethnicity. Your culture is your way of life, after all, and it's a big part of what makes you who you are.

A lot of the abuses minority groups face are caused in part by the belief that their culture is inferior to the culture of the majority. The experiences of Native Americans in boarding schools are a good example of this phenomenon. The majority culture of the US and Canada believed that American Indian cultures were savage and an impediment to civilized life, so they began forcing Indian children to go to boarding schools where they weren't allowed to speak their language and were taught how to live as Euro-Americans.

This was a traumatic experience for many of the children, because they didn't speak English and they were beaten and laughed at whenever they tried to speak in their own language. When they were allowed to return home, they couldn't communicate with family members and they didn't fit into the community anymore, so their family and social ties were broken. The attack on American Indian cultures was an attack on American Indian people.

That being said, I don't think it's necessary to attack a culture for aspects you don't approve of. Culture is not static, it is fluid and it evolves over time. Practices and beliefs can be modified or discontinued without radically changing the culture as a whole. Also, just because a practice is prevalent in a certain culture doesn't always mean that all members of the culture approve or engage in that practice. A culture is the sum of its parts, and I believe there is both good and bad in all cultures.

This doesn't mean immigrants should be given special treatment either. If you immigrate to a country, you should be prepared to follow its laws and deal with some of its customs that you might not like. Throwing Muslims in jail for honor killings does not amount to asking them to give up their language, food and religion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

What is the difference between a Norwegian, Swede, a Dane, an Icelander and a Faroer?

---

I feel this question has not been answered properly.

Outsiders might not see any obvious differences, but they exist.

Swedes might claim to be good at skiing, but reality shows they suck. Dane skiiers are non-existent. If a dane claims to be a skiier, its a lie. Iceland? ... HAHAHAHHA!!! Færøying.. what?
Danes are simple potato farmers - and seem to have one stuck in their throats (maybe they could try rice for a change?). Their laid-back farmer style made them snooze when the North Sea was divided between equal superiors.
Swedes on the seas? HAHAHA.. Their best effort capsized 2 meter from port. Danes on the seas is non-existent. If a dane claims to be a sailor, its a lie.
Icelanders are more or less the ancestors of Norwegian convicts, not unlike the relation between UK and Australia. There is a significant difference though - the mother land is superior in every aspect.
Færøyningene are the unholy union of Irish and Scottish settlers and Norwegian rejects.

Which can only lead to one conclusion: Norwegians are superior in every way.
Wait.. I am not done.
Within the borders of the blessed realm of superior beings, some are more exalted. The holy beings of the west coast outshine any of the other lesser beings.
But one group of the exalted and holy most perfect creation of the almighty, is more godly then the rest. Yes I am referring to the Bergenser. Oh Holy and most sacred of Gods creations, angels dwelling on sacred soil, barely able to stay material.
One more whiff of goodness will uproot this most sacred of cities and be places alongside the city of Enoch in the eternal realm of blessed exaltedness.

Which leads to the final conclusion - Norway, the blessed realm is surrounded by evil lesser beggar/liar nations. Any attempt by any of them to claim superiority over Gods people in the North are lies. You have been forewarned and will therefore clearly see it for what it is when materialized - as it will, in this thread.

Suddenly Norway joining the nazis in WW2 makes a lot more sense.
Edit: in case noone gets it, :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

Suddenly Norway joining the nazis in WW2 makes a lot more sense.

---

There is a whale stuck in your sarcasm detector, get the poor thing out

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

There is a whale stuck in your sarcasm detector, get the poor thing out

---

And a spaceship is stuck in yours: https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...post2053574751

I just attributed it to there only being jötunn in Norway.
:shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

There is a whale stuck in your sarcasm detector, get the poor thing out

---

Ah the internet where the absence of a smilie automatically designates a comment as 100% serious.

Faen, Sigurd, you're ruining everything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

I don't believe there is an exact definition of what "white" means, exactly. But then, some things are more easily definable by exclusion, not inclusion.

Extremely broadly speaking I have found that [nope] seem more civilized than people of [nope]. IMHO still mainly a cultural thing, but then I do find [nope] to be trash :creep:

---

With the latest infraction, I guess I got the answer to the initial question.

Deleted words are, in no specific order:

1. sub-saharan legacy
2. white guys
3. sub saharan cultures

So basically... If I understand this right... Some political ideas and thoughts are not allowed here?

I honestly do find sub-saharan cultures to be trash (infraction no. 2 now I guess). Their general look on women could be used as a typical example of what I find uncivilized about them, not to mention horrible.



Do I have to pander to some black guys who get upset when I write what I think, or can we have an open international political discussion? If we can not talk about stuff like that, there isn't much use in having an international politics board, no?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

Do I have to pander to some black guys who get upset when I write what I think, or can we have an open international political discussion? If we can not talk about stuff like that, there isn't much use in having an international politics board, no?

---

But as I said in my PM at the time, your statements are far to general and stereotypical and it was clear you was bringing up ethnicity and race into the equation. Then you start using terms such as 'trash' when applying these statements.

This isn't what is allowed.

*Rant version when not wearing my moderator cap :beam:*

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Racism isn't allowed on the forum. This is clear by your 'white guys' and 'trash sub-saharan legacy' which is code for 'Black people', your public post on this matter as i clearly quoted states 'black guys' which fully justifies my action as you state that you fully intended to mean as such.

It is nothing to do with an 'open discussion' when you simply refer to people as inferiors based which hole they popped out of randomly in the world, it simply isn't tolerated here. There are communities out there which pander to that sort of thing but not here and society in general for good reason.

Law in the land also dictates 'Innocent before Proven Guilty' as a way to stop prejudice by attempting to have the law qualify to a jury of peers why a persons liberty should be taken. How come it is acceptable to condemn people as 'trash' 'rapists' and other such terms when the vast majority of innocent of such crimes ? Do you think people should hold you to account for actions you have not performed yourself ?

Would it be acceptable for me to label you with such terms and shrug my shoulders and go "Why should I pander to Kadagar_AV ?"

I am not a religious person, but there is one message in there which rings true is "Treat others as you would like to be treated yourself". So don't condemn innocents unless you want to be condemned yourself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiaexz

Racism isn't allowed on the forum.

---

Am I allowed to say that black guys seem to trend to run better than white guys?

That is racism, you know. It is of course also true.

Quote:

---

This is clear by your 'white guys' and 'trash sub-saharan legacy' which is code for 'Black people', your public post on this matter as i clearly quoted states 'black guys' which fully justifies my action as you state that you fully intended to mean as such.

---

Actually I meant a word that starts with "n" and ends with "oes", but I have been warned to use that fully functional word.

Quote:

---

It is nothing to do with an 'open discussion' when you simply refer to people as inferiors based which hole they popped out of randomly in the world, it simply isn't tolerated here. There are communities out there which pander to that sort of thing but not here and society in general for good reason.

---

I think I have kept to talking about cultures. PEOPLE from a certain culture of course will have certain advantages / disadvantages. Are we allowed to talk about cultures as inferior?

Quote:

---

Law in the land also dictates 'Innocent before Proven Guilty' as a way to stop prejudice by attempting to have the law qualify to a jury of peers why a persons liberty should be taken. How come it is acceptable to condemn people as 'trash' 'rapists' and other such terms when the vast majority of innocent of such crimes ? Do you think people should hold you to account for actions you have not performed yourself ?

---

If you accept a ****load of Swedes into your culture, you WILL start to have to deal with dental problems concerning the use of snus.

Does that mean every Swede use snus? C'mon, you are not an idiot. Just like some cultures are more prone to use a drug like snus, some cultures are more prone to, say, rape. Does that mean that every individual from that culture will snus/rape? OF COURSE NOT, and it's an absolutely idiotic argument you bring up here. Also certainly one I haven't used.

Bring a ****load of Swedes to Africa and snus-addiction levels will sky rocket.
Bring a ****load of Africans to Sweden and rape levels HAVE sky rocketed.

Should we NOT be able to discuss things like this on an international political discussions board? Seriously??

Quote:

---

Would it be acceptable for me to label you with such terms and shrug my shoulders and go "Why should I pander to Kadagar_AV ?"

---

Yes, of course. I would accept if a country didn't much like Swedish immigration because we brought cultural problems with us, like snus. It doesn't mean I would, or that every Swede would. It would just mean that if you accept Swedish people, you have to accept Swedish problems.

Same goes with Africa... If you accept Africans, you will have to accept African problems.

Quote:

---

I am not a religious person, but there is one message in there which rings true is "Treat others as you would like to be treated yourself". So don't condemn innocents unless you want to be condemned yourself.

---

Well I don't give a **** about religion... Also, the quote you gave is simple human morals, seems completely idiotic to try and make it a religious one. Heck, monkeys get that message, and they can't even read.

I don't disagree with you but I do question you sometimes, it's just a feeling, not something I can back up with arguments.

Quote:

---

Actually I meant a word that starts with "n" and ends with "oes", but I have been warned to use that fully functional word.

---

'negroes' is against the rules, yes.

Quote:

---

If you accept a ****load of Swedes into your culture, you WILL start to have to deal with dental problems concerning the use of snus.

---

But we are not discussing how some one in place X prefers snus or eat spicey-foods or drink tea or other mundane examples, are we?

The example of "Tiaexz is a tea drinking Brit" doesn't compare to "Tiaexz is a trash rapist" does it?

Quote:

---

Bring a ****load of Swedes to Africa and snus-addiction levels will sky rocket.
Bring a ****load of Africans to Sweden and rape levels HAVE sky rocketed.

---

Lets put some perspective on that. I will even be generous here when I pull these figures from thin-air, but 'sky-rocket' in reality is a single digit percentage increase. Never-mind the fact Sweden has the most stringent 'rape' laws and its zeal in its classification.

Simply because there is a slightly higher percentage doesn't automatically mean this even small minority of a minority speaks for a whole. I am sure the reason they are 'rapists' isn't because they are 'black' either. I could make an argument saying why there are higher rape statistics without even mentioning 'black' or 'white' and the argument would be valid for whoever the nationality/ethnicity involved is. There are such things as 'White Swedish' rapists you know, perhaps the reason Sweden has those is similar to why Somalia has theirs? Your argument of 'because Sweden has higher rape statistics than Britain, that means all Swedes are rapists' doesn't really hold true.

It is not right and trying to justify it by in theory stating 'it is not racist because it is true" because there are currently 'black' people I can run faster and those who can run faster than me. Such silliness is so broad sweeping that it loses any intelligible meaning in any argument. For that argument to have real validity, 'black' people have to almost always run faster than the 'white' person, period and this really is not the case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiaexz

But we are not discussing how some one is place X prefers Snus or eat spicey-foods or drink tea or other mundane examples, are we?

---

No, we are supposed to discuss political issues. Race is one, culture is another, ethnicity a third...

What can we debate? I openly think black people tend to give less back to society than other RACE. Why? Because it seems to be a trend. It's not like the Asians who came here (or anywhere else) had better starting positions, nor the south Americans. Yet it always seem to be the blacks who struggle, need extra help, and should be hush hush to question.

Is it because they are black and they have it in their blood? Is it because of culture? Is it because of something else?

I honestly don't know, hence we have boards like this to discuss it. No? I for one claim it's mainly cultural, and that "black" cultures generally are, well, trash seen in western eyes. Is it the cultural heritage that keep them back generation after generation?

I don't know, let's discuss it so people can learn.

Quote:

---

Lets put some perspective on that. I will even be generous here when I pull these figures from thin-air, but 'sky-rocket' in reality is a single digit percentage increase. Never-mind the fact Sweden has the most stringent 'rape' laws and its zeal in its classification.

Simply because there is a slightly higher percentage doesn't automatically mean this even small minority of a minority speaks for a whole. I am sure the reason they are 'rapists' isn't because they are 'black' either. I could make an argument saying why there are higher rape statistics without even mentioning 'black' or 'white' and the argument would be value for whoever the nationality/ethnicity involved is. There are such things as 'White Swedish' rapists you know, perhaps the reason Sweden has those is similar to why Somalia has theirs?

It is not right and trying to justify it by in theory stating 'it is not racist because it is true" because there are currently 'black' people I can run faster and those who can run faster than me. Such silliness is so broad sweeping that it loses any intelligible meaning in any argument. For that argument to have real validity, 'black' people have to almost run faster than the 'white' person, period and this really is not the case.

---

I disagree. I live in a country where we accept more than 1% of our population a year as immigrants, often from the worlds worst hell holes.

After 10 years, that means that one out of ten people you meet is borne and bred in a hell hole.

After 30 years, about one in three you meet is borne and raised in a hell hole.

This has HUGE impacts on the structure of society. HUGE political ramifications. If not on an international politics board, where would you discuss it? If there is nothing rotten with the sub-Saharan culture and breed - why don't we just laugh any such arguments off, or pile on the studies?

Heck, reverse the argument: If someone wrote a post about white people being prone to rape or stupidity... You could just absolutely shower that person with data showing he is wrong...

Reverse it back again: And people run to a moderator because "buhu buhu hE Iz RazisT".

Africa didn't do to well before the white guy came. They didn't do to well while the white guy was there. They sure haven't done to well after the white guy decided to bug out.

Is it the white guys fault?

Is it my fault for pointing it out?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

What can we debate? I openly think black people tend to give less back to society than other RACE. Why? Because it seems to be a trend. It's not like the Asians who came here (or anywhere else) had better starting positions, nor the south Americans. Yet it always seem to be the blacks who struggle, need extra help, and should be hush hush to question.

---

Yet it doesn't stop with 'Blacks', next person will bring up 'Arabs', than the other will bring up 'Jews', then the other brings on 'Asians'...

It is always some outgroup being mislabelled, being characterised in some fashion which simply isn't true. Are all the 'black' people I see contributing more to society than 'white' people simply unreported invisibles in racist rant blogs? Is the hardworking taxpaying 'black' neighbour getting cussed out by 'white' benefit cheats for draining the economy really have logical basis to stand on?

There are a great many answers and they are all sadly pathetic when you look at them. It is people pinning their problems on scapegoats, because facing reality is far harder than whitewashing millions of people as simply evil barbarians. Sorry to say, all bicycle thieves don't simply look like Liverpudlians, all rapists are not simply 'black', all paedophiles don't simply look like Jimmy Saville, all genocides aren't simply led by men with moustaches. You might ask "What do these got to do with this?" but it is the same exact story, it is labelling a stereotype as a mental crutch, covers up a very dark part of the truth.

Evil doesn't have a mask, it is seen every day in the people all around you and even in the mirror, that is the scary reality of it all, it could be -you-.

So how are we going to discuss it? Going to discuss driving factors such as poverty, lack of security, the price of liberty, justice, pogroms and misinformation ? It is all pretty much existent it doesn't need repeating to the n'th degree. You can simply realise the errors of stereotyping and how dreadfully wrong you are by applying such labels on a mass scale.

Quote:

---

If there is nothing rotten with the sub-Saharan culture and breed - why don't we just laugh any such arguments off, or pile on the studies?

---

Because they mostly roll their eyes and go "Not again... seriously..." it is such a broad and flawed argument that simply understanding the concept of stereotyping makes it pretty clear how invalid it is. You don't really need any grand studies to throw it in the bin, it is like wondering if a fur covered apple with a repugnant aroma could be classified as 'fresh'.

The whole premises of the argument is flawed to begin with that such efforts are simply not worth it. Even the label 'White' has so many conflicts, with people calling people from Spain 'Hispanics' as if another race, then others think that 'Slavs' are not white, then you have nationalist Greeks who think Greek is their own race. Then you have others who say 'Slavs' 'Greeks' and 'Spanish' are all categorised as 'White'. It just gets so tedious that there is no point in even beginning to de-construct an imaginary construct which simply doesn't exist in reality but in the minds of those who fantasise about such things and attempt to enforce it on other people. With such broad and open ended categories with no logical pattern or order to them, almost any information can be twisted and abused to make completely incorrect arguments which are flawed from the offset then are presented as 'facts'.

Also, don't get started on that 'one-drop' theory stuff either...

Quote:

---

Africa didn't do to well before the white guy came. They didn't do to well while the white guy was there. They sure haven't done to well after the white guy decided to bug out.

---

If you consider many of the early civilians sprung up around Africa and the Middle East, I think 'didn't do too well before the white guy came' is being a little ignorant of history. After all, we all come from Africa originally anyway, or is that fact simply forgotten?

Hi all,

If anybody needs to move to a White Pride or EuroVictim forum, please do so now.

@Tiaexz, please use maximum force on the next person who formulates a new and interesting variant on "race X is bad and here's the reason why."

We're done with this.

Fully agree, this is not the place. I don't even disagree all that much but it doesn't belong here. It makes the place unpleasant and unwelcomming. Nothing wrong with free speech but it ain't an invitation, I would rather not see some things here.

Lynch mob mentality. "He's <insert colour of skin/culture> so must be <insert description of offence/crime/vice/whatever>". Of course if all the people with big noses in your part of town are bad at gardening, then that absolutely has to be true of all big nosed people worldwide...

Stereotyping is, unfortunately, going to remain with us for the foreseeable future.

Stereotyping -- labeling/evaluating an entire group based on a set of pre-conceived characteristics -- starts out as mental short-hand. We chunk phenomena into groups in our memories in order to avoid all the extra cognitive "processing" work of treating every individual as an individual.

When this is based on occupational role, for example, and not carried to an extreme, it is a useful cognitive tool. You can establish the category "convenience store clerk" in your mind, attach the needed communication protocols (politeness, clarity of message, degree of emotional display) to the category label and function effectively without having to treat each individual clerk as an individual with whom you must negotiate and enact a unique identity and relationship. This type of "stereotyping" saves time and effort.

Unfortunately, we tend to do this sort of short hand with entire groups based on our negative associations of having encountered a few individuals from that group or -- less forgivably -- having learned those characteristics third-hand from others experiences. We then extrapolate those negative labels to the entire group and cease dealing with those individuals as individuals. Inevitably, this begins to channel our perceptions into perceiving those things we want to perceive (selective attention) and thus reinforcing the "rightness" of our label. In practice, none of the groups so stereotyped can be accurately labeled en toto -- there are simply too many individuals with too many differing characteristics for the stereotype to be accurate. Of course, treating them all as individuals requires actual effort.....

Take, for example, Jews: Jews, Jews, Jews, a Jew, and Jews.

Obviously, they are all "the same".............not.

Stereotyping works more often than not, i.e. it is useful in day-to-day life. Which is why it's here to stay no matter what. It's a simple (often oversimplified) way of measurement. Often inaccurate, but usually accurate.

There is a difference from the casual usage of how to treat a shop keeper to the "all of group x are rapists" category level of stereotyping.

Expressions of racism are against backroom policy. Have been since 1892, when the Org functioned as an extended series of telegraphs.

Most Orgahs do not respond to blatant racism, but instead shake their heads, and PM some admin asking, "Why do we put up with this?"

Yes, there is, in fact, a reasonable discussion to be had about genetics, inherited traits, culture, and population trends. Cultures are not equal. People are not equal. Heck, men and women are not exactly the same.

But you know what? It takes tact, skill, and good taste to talk about it without sounding like an ass.

So for now, I'm going to strongly encourage the BR mod squad to take the harshest measures against those who play with racism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

So for now, I'm going to strongly encourage the BR mod squad to take the harshest measures against those who play with racism.

---

We can still hate on the whitey though, right?

Nap-time.