Welcome to Open Carnage

A resource for Halo 1 modding and tech, with unique means of rewarding individual content creation and support. Have a wander to see why we're worth the time! EST. 2012

Weps

World Conflict Thread

280 posts in this topic

Not all of it pertains to the recent posts, but I wanted to make a point.

I'll keep it short so we don't have to keep going back and forth. In the United States, white is largely considered a single race, because European origins have blended together. Even so, it really wouldn't be a different reaction at all if he'd said, "fuck Ireland, they're scumbags," and then talked about the IRA. Nobody would immediately think he meant because the people were Irish.

Also it's more than a single news article, I just found a really concise one to post. I'm not saying it's a conspiracy but it's worth noting that the media has plenty of influence in everything.

Skin tone can be explained via migration from the equator (from Africa) and vitamin D differences in northern areas in the world. Humanity at its core is black and can be traced back through breakthroughs in biology. Places with less sunlight and less exposure to sunlight during the year are more prone to having lighter skin tone than those with more exposure and sunlight during the year at the equator. This carries over genetically from generation to generation. Differences in facial and skeletal structures (minute differences) are explained by genetic mutations that get passed on from generation to generation by breeding. Race in itself is a pretty convincing myth based on stereotypes and what we see on the surface. It has no scientific foundation on which to stand on that hasn't already been disproven that race isn't biological, but media, businesses and politics use it unethically for their own advantages. There is only one human race. However, there are different ethnicities (regions in which common traits are bred genetically). Culture (religion, conventions, etc) are then built in these areas with language. Culture is not yet proven or disproven as a result to genetic background. What I mean by this is the common argument that "African Americans are genetically more prone to criminal actions than Whites." Statistically, yes, there are more incarcerated African Americans than Whites in the United States, but that doesn't mean their origins from Africa produce these statistics. Social and environmental factors contribute to a lot of why these statistics are higher than Whites.

 

This is just an interview of the creators of this video series, but they do a pretty good job of explaining their purpose for the videos. I'm not sure where the videos can be found at the moment, but I'll try to look harder for them.

RACE - The Power of an Illusion

 

Edit: Found the video series, but you unfortunately either have to buy it or rent it. I don't know why something like this isn't online.

RACE - The Power of an Illusion Video Series

 

Racism, as it's been incorrectly explained by tumblrites and SJWs alike, are policies and actions taken against these ethnicities based on the myth that races exist biologically. The immigrants that came to the US during the industrial revolution were also subjected to racist policies under the assumption they were not civilized like the Anglo-Saxon whites that had immigrated to the US before the American Revolution.

 

Many people will disagree with this, but Jews (Israel; nationally) are about as nationalist as they come when it comes to their ethnic identity, just as the Nazi occult was with their Aryan/Germanic ancestry. Germany saw that anything that happened that wasn't favorable to Aryan/Germanic descendants was seen as an attack on their race. Jews/Israelites feel the same exact way when policies are built to not give them special treatment or compensation for their unfortunate situations in the past and present. Anything that isn't in favor of Israel can be considered Anti-Semitic, per definition. We are starting to see that same nationalist behavior from Russia, stating that it's protecting "Ethnic Russians" by annexing Crimea and arming the rebels (which they have been caught countless times) in Ukraine. (At least they are correct that Russians are an ethnic group and not race)

 

I agree with you on the point on the misrepresentation of the victims of the holocaust. The narrative and myth that everyone who was a victim of a holocaust was a Jew or LGBT is starting to lose its ground through studies of the sites and documents and people are starting to ask questions on whether a good portion of those prisoners were defectors, prisoners of war, political prisoners, prisoners who committed crimes against the state, etc.

 

My whole point is that we've been so focused on the issue of race and its misuse as a definition that it puts any debate on history, foreign policy or domestic politics into tunnel vision. We miss the bigger picture of the underlying evidence that contributes to these topics.

 

Just wanted to throw this out there before this turns into "X is a racist!"

 

Edit: Also, this

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

 

Create controlled opposition in the media and online, then you have a narrow tunnel that is live with debate, while the bigger issues are discarded.

Edited by iTails
TCK and Weps like this

Grumpy UNIX and Cloud Administrator | 90's Boomer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Members of Open Carnage never see off-site ads.

Yeah, that's a good bit true; although sharing common ancestors doesn't make differences bred into us nonexistent. You have to consider with dogs that it's widely accepted that different breeds are more or less prone to different behaviors, biologically; it's a stretch to think that humans are entirely different.

I understand what you're saying about the technicality of anti-Semitism and how it can apply to any opposition of Semitic activity; I just wanted to be clear that I thought, if the implication was that DH was against them because they were Jewish, it was a bit of a jump on the gun.

I'm not planning to plunge everyone into the depths of a holocaust discussion ("where are them gas chambers, kids?") but I always appreciate hearing more perspectives on it.

Edited by TCK

Umh7x1l.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, that's a good bit true; although sharing common ancestors doesn't make differences bred into us nonexistent. You have to consider with dogs that it's widely accepted that different breeds are more or less prone to different behaviors, biologically; it's a stretch to think that humans are entirely different.

Actually, we are different. Human brains are far too complex to be largely affected by basic behavioral genes, other than those affecting stress tolerance. Periods of high plasticity, such as those through early life and puberty, nearly completely destroy the effects of basic behavioral genes. The only type of behavioral genes that affect the human brain, to an even modest extent, are genes that modify the brain's structure and activity/stimulation levels. (Extremes are considered defects). Such changes are easily observed and tested, which easily reveals they have nothing to do with ethnicity.

xvii and Weps like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes that is a classic argument that's usually made against profiling. Brain structure and activity/stimulation levels as well as stress tolerance aren't factors to be brushed away lightly, however. Those are the factors that go into every decision we make. We like to think of ourselves as logical but in fact we operate largely on whim; the combination of our current stress and stimulation levels could be (and often is) the difference between yelling and walking away, and the difference needn't be more than subtle to sway the decision one direction or the other. What studies suggest that these genes are unrelated to ethnicity?

Edited by TCK

Umh7x1l.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll keep it short so we don't have to keep going back and forth. In the United States, white is largely considered a single race, because European origins have blended together. Even so, it really wouldn't be a different reaction at all if he'd said, "fuck Ireland, they're scumbags," and then talked about the IRA. Nobody would immediately think he meant because the people were Irish.

Also it's more than a single news article, I just found a really concise one to post. I'm not saying it's a conspiracy but it's worth noting that the media has plenty of influence in everything.

 

Have you ever spent time in Boston, New York, or various other places where ethnic pride is a large part of individual lives and self-identification.

 

You've missed the boat, this isn't about "race", it's about ethnicity.

 

I think the Irish would beg to differ on that point and the IRA is a political paramilitary faction...of which has no baring in the conversation. DH didn't mention a particular faction in Israel, he was speaking of the country and the people within it. 

 

Of course the media does, it's the media. It's also is really worth noting that the paper wasn't disseminating between ethnic or religious Jews. 

 

Had DH come into the discussion pointing out specific instances and various policies utilized by Israel, that they found distasteful, there wouldn't be an issue. However, that's not what happened. 

 

I don't find the actions of various countries, ethnic, or religious groups particularly tasteful, I find some of it repugnant. An example is England, I find their domestic policies to be ridiculous, I find their meddling in foreign affairs pre-1950's to be unwarranted, and I find the establishment of a penal colony on an island, displacing the indigenous peoples to be ultimately a dick move. 

 

I don't call the English scumbags, I don't state they "don't belong", I don't show a lack in empathy for the "London Blitz".

 

I like England especially their culture, their ethnic heritage, and their people. 

 

Notice I don't take issue with Floofies stance, it's because he isn't attacking them, he provides a rational and supported basis in the argument. I don't always agree with him, but I can respect his positions because he applies rationale, logic, and reason to his points. 

xvii and Floofies like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I must be fully desensitized to identity politics, then. Again, I can understand the technicality of anti-Semitism when it comes to simply "you oppose the actions of Semites" but it still doesn't seem to me that his opposition is based on them being Semitic. They happen to be Jewish, and he called them scumbags based on their country's actions, the two just don't seem related at all to me.

I will never really understand that line of thinking, to me it seems like appeal to emotion; but thanks for talking about it when I commented on it even though it was 8 months ago.

Edited by TCK

Umh7x1l.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What studies suggest that these genes are unrelated to ethnicity?

How about you back up your own argument first instead of asking me to prove a negative?

xvii likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What studies suggest that these genes are unrelated to ethnicity?

My point above explains this.

 

Culture is not yet proven or disproven as a result to genetic background.

 

There are some pretty good theories from all sides, but they are not set in stone. The way people operate cognitively in their environment is one of the biggest arguments.


Grumpy UNIX and Cloud Administrator | 90's Boomer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about you back up your own argument first instead of asking me to prove a negative?

So, basically, "no u?" I think you're being a little too defensive.

I never asked you to prove it, I asked what studies suggest it.

Also you clearly said

Such changes are easily observed and tested, which easily reveals they have nothing to do with ethnicity.

It sounds like you claimed it could be proven in the first place; easily, apparently. You're projecting the blame of "claim/request proof of negative" onto me.

I never claimed my argument was based on any studies, I was making a point based on our common experiences as humans. If you do not see this as common knowledge, then here - sources showing that humans operate more on the whim of how they feel at the moment than thinking logically (listed as studies paired with pages mentioning that study in an interpretive way):

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/21/magazine/do-you-suffer-from-decision-fatigue.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

http://www.pnas.org/content/108/17/6889

Three men doing time in Israeli prisons recently appeared before a parole board consisting of a judge, a criminologist and a social worker. The three prisoners had completed at least two-thirds of their sentences, but the parole board granted freedom to only one of them.

There was a pattern to the parole board’s decisions... It was all about timing... Prisoners who appeared early in the morning received parole about 70 percent of the time, while those who appeared late in the day were paroled less than 10 percent of the time.

Are judicial rulings based solely on laws and facts? Legal formalism holds that judges apply legal reasons to the facts of a case in a rational, mechanical, and deliberative manner. In contrast, legal realists argue that the rational application of legal reasons does not sufficiently explain the decisions of judges and that psychological, political, and social factors influence judicial rulings. We test the common caricature of realism that justice is “what the judge ate for breakfast” in sequential parole decisions made by experienced judges. We record the judges’ two daily food breaks, which result in segmenting the deliberations of the day into three distinct “decision sessions.” We find that the percentage of favorable rulings drops gradually from ≈65% to nearly zero within each decision session and returns abruptly to ≈65% after a break. Our findings suggest that judicial rulings can be swayed by extraneous variables that should have no bearing on legal decisions.

http://www.sparringmind.com/creative-thinking/

http://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ494059

The research shows that an insidious problem that many people have is that they will often take the path of “least mental resistance,”

Results of 5 experiments involving 385 undergraduates imagining animals from another galaxy are consistent with the idea that similar structures and processes underlie creative and noncreative aspects of cognition. The concept of structured imagination and the role of characteristic properties are explored.

The second one has to do with memories rather than stress/stimulation but it furthers the point that the mind follows simple patterns in thinking (operates on the whim of "this is easier" as difficulty can cause stress).

@Tails, true, we can only really share what we personally find most likely to be true.

Edited by TCK

Umh7x1l.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, basically, "no u?" I think you're being a little too defensive.

I never asked you to prove it, I asked what studies suggest it.

It sounds like you claimed it could be proven in the first place; easily, apparently. You're projecting the blame of "claim/request proof of negative" onto me.

No one needs to prove anything but yourself. Until something scientific is proven, it is to be assumed false.

Here, just to humor you, Google Scholar has papers on the topic: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=behavioural+genetics+race

You will see a blend of opinions, even some that support what you're saying (Although, they are full of pseudoscience and assumptions themselves. One is even described as "racist trash", which sounds great for you to read). The division in conclusion is because this is what the scientific community looks like when the hypothesis has not been proven to the extent of theoretical means. There is no evidence (proof) strong enough to unify any explanation that says behavioural genes are exclusive to any ethnicity.

All I asked was that you prove the thing you're asserting. Any less than that, and anyone can assume that you just made it up. If you truly believe what you've posted, you should have actually researched it before posting, as it's a scientific claim. I'll admit, though, that maybe I jumped the gun in expecting you to value the scientific process (such as the fact that no one really needs to prove a negative before the positive assertion is proven).

I never claimed my argument was based on any studies, I was making a point based on our common experiences as humans. If you do not see this as common knowledge, then here - sources showing that humans operate more on the whim of how they feel at the moment than thinking logically (listed as studies paired with pages mentioning that study in an interpretive way):

The second one has to do with memories rather than stress/stimulation but it furthers the point that the mind follows simple patterns in thinking (operates on the whim of "this is easier" as difficulty can cause stress).

I don't disagree with, or doubt any of that. What I do disagree with is your (self-admittedly made up) presumption that it has anything to do with ethnicity. "Common knowledge" and "common experiences" is not valid scientific data. You've also basically admitted that you are wrong in a scientific sense. Until you can prove a scientific claim, in a fashion acceptable in a scientific process, it's only an imaginary hypothesis (and it's definitely not science).

xvii likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.