Jump to content
A Star Is Born
celeb

Mother of H&M kid : "Get over it!"

Featured Posts

loathereality
On 11/01/2018 at 11:04 AM, illbekind said:

Hun, you need to calm down. You’re literally shook. Not everyone in the world is against you! Do you need help? I can refer you to a few places. 

he just wants a nice d 

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
rpggal
4 minutes ago, LM said:

I told you we are talking about people so I wanted to tell you that your argument about natural world without mind is irrelevant because most humans usually have minds ;) I thought ur smart enough to get that

I also didn't say racism can't be studied by science, I said you can't compare how much is a generation racist compared to the other

Again you based your whole reply on a thing I never said

Sad

Tragic

but I guess you just want to keep saying your stuff and you don't even bother if you're actually answering or just putting words into my mouth.

not surprised but still tragic
bye

ape_waving_hand_lg_wht.gif~c200

"Racism is not a thing you can measure on a sample of people and apply that results to the whole population... Racism is not rationally based and you can't predict if someone will be a racist or not, thus you can't make a relevant study about this topic. Even if they would ask 100 000 people, they still can't apply their results to whole generations and compare them."

You clearly stated that racism is not predictable and not amenable to science. You literally said you can't make a study about it.

You also clearly don't understand how logic works if you can't see that "racism is irrational and therefore cannot be studied" is only valid on the premise that irrational things cannot be studied, whether we're talking about people, animals, objects, etc. If that premise is falsified, which it easily is by counterexample which I have done, then the argument is invalid. It's logic and syllogisms 101. Take a class on it sometime.

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
LM
8 minutes ago, rpggal said:

"Racism is not a thing you can measure on a sample of people and apply that results to the whole population... Racism is not rationally based and you can't predict if someone will be a racist or not, thus you can't make a relevant study about this topic. Even if they would ask 100 000 people, they still can't apply their results to whole generations and compare them."

You clearly stated that racism is not predictable and not amenable to science. You literally said you can't make a study about it.

You also clearly don't understand how logic works if you can't see that "racism is irrational and therefore cannot be studied" is only valid on the premise that irrational things cannot be studied, whether we're talking about people, animals, objects, etc. If that premise is falsified

, which it easily is by counterexample which I have done, then the argument is invalid. It's logic and syllogisms 101. Take a class on it sometime.

1

Oh boy

Racism is not rationally based so you cant predict if someone is going to be racist or not so you can't make a study about that

you still can make studies about racism but saying how much is a generation racist based on data from like 1000 ppl is just not relevant result. 

So I didn't say racism is not amenable to science, I said comparing the level of racism in generations is not comparable. That's what I meant by the word "topic"

 

8 minutes ago, rpggal said:

"racism is irrational and therefore cannot be studied"

I never said that, you better take class on reading

 

Edited by LM

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
rpggal
14 minutes ago, LM said:

Oh boy

Racism is not rationally based so you cant predict if someone is going to be racist or not so you can't make a study about that

you still can make studies about racism but saying how much is a generation racist based on data from like 1000 ppl is just not relevant result. 

So I didn't say racism is not amenable to science, I said comparing the level of racism in generations is not comparable. That's what I meant by the word "topic"

 

I never said that, you better take class on reading

 

No, you said:

"Racism is not a thing you can measure on a sample of people and apply that results to the whole population... Even if they would ask 100 000 people, they still can't apply their results to whole generations and compare them."

Your clearly stated that, no matter how large the sample size, racism is not something you can measure, predict, or apply to a population. So tell me, if you can't measure, predict, quantify, or compare, no matter how large the sample size, how exactly is that different from saying it can't be studied?

Edited by rpggal

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
LM
11 minutes ago, rpggal said:

No, you said:

"Racism is not a thing you can measure on a sample of people and apply that results to the whole population... Even if they would ask 100 000 people, they still can't apply their results to whole generations and compare them."

Your clearly stated that, no matter how large the sample size, racism is not something you can measure, predict, or apply to a population. So tell me, if you can't measure, predict, quantify, it compare, no matter how large the sample size, how exactly is that different from saying it can't be studied?

Because you can study its effect on society, its history, how big influence do family, friends, education have on a racist person etc...You just can't compare how racistic generations are

Edited by LM

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
rpggal
1 minute ago, LM said:

Because you can study its effect on society, its history, how big influence do family, friends, education have on a racist person etc...You just can't compare how much are generations racistic

But how could you study any of those things if you couldn't quantify how racist a person was? Surely the first step of any of those studies would be to quantify the baseline racism in the societies or individuals at the time the study began. And if you're talking about retroactively looking into the past through historical data, that's not a scientific study that's historical analysis. And if you do believe that you can quantify a person's racism in order to study those things, why wouldn't you be able to compare them between generations? Once a parameter has been been quantified comparison simply involves statistical analysis. The math doesn't care about which generation the numbers came from.

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
illbekind
7 hours ago, rpggal said:

No, they didn't just put them into graphs, they analyzed the data to look for trends, which is what a study is. How is it a fact that the study is useless and irrelevant? If you read the article, why did you ask so many questions that are directly answered within the first few paragraphs? What facts did I make up? I'm not pressed about the hoodie, I just like to call out the intellectually lazy on here, particularly when they're the ones accusing others of it.

 

I understand what you're saying, I just don't think you understand how problematic your views are. Both entitlement and racism are views about the world (the view that you deserve certain things you really don't and the view that certain races behave according to simplistic tropes), so if you think your views don't reflect anything about you as a person, then by that logic I also didn't say anything about you as a person, just your views. But the reason you believe those are personal attacks is because you know that someone's views have everything to do with who they are as a person. You can't couch behind "it's just my opinion." You are your opinions. Peace.

You don’t because if you did you wouldn’t be calling me a racist. Which by the way, is a personal attack to me because I would be deeply offended if anyone thought I don’t treat everyone the same regardless of colour. But you literally take little samples of what people say and draw these massive conclusions about them from it. I understand I am my opinion but your view that my opinion is racist is your perception of it. Just like it’s your perception that the sweater is racist. It’s not fact. 

  • Love 1

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
LM
2 minutes ago, rpggal said:

But how could you study any of those things if you couldn't quantify how racist a person was? Surely the first step of any of those studies would be to quantify the baseline racism in the societies or individuals at the time the study began. And if you're talking about retroactively looking into the past through historical data, that's not a scientific study that's historical analysis. And if you do believe that you can quantify a person's racism in order to study those things, why wouldn't you be able to compare them between generations? Once a parameter has been been quantified comparison simply involves statistical analysis. The math doesn't care about which generation the numbers came from.

Well, you are either racist or you are not. There is no in between. Also, racism was a different thing back in 1960 and now. Comparing what millennials and people born in 1960 think about racism is not possible. Both of these generations imagine a racist person differently and while the term "racist" remains objectively the same, both generations perceive it so much differently.

But please, let's just end this. Maybe we are both right and just don't get what the other person is trying to say since the beginning and this argument is completely useless. It's also a difficult thing to discuss here on ggd and it would require much more time than we have on this forum. Maybe if we would discuss this topic in person I would get your point and think you're right. So if you agree, I'd end this conversation like this:hug:

  • Like 1

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
rpggal
9 minutes ago, illbekind said:

You don’t because if you did you wouldn’t be calling me a racist. Which by the way, is a personal attack to me because I would be deeply offended if anyone thought I don’t treat everyone the same regardless of colour. But you literally take little samples of what people say and draw these massive conclusions about them from it. I understand I am my opinion but your view that my opinion is racist is your perception of it. Just like it’s your perception that the sweater is racist. It’s not fact. 

I didn't say it was a fact, I said "you might just be a little bit racist." I think it's pretty clear that that's my opinion, and I don't think that's so horribly offensive or a massive conclusion. Everybody is at least a little racist, the important thing is acknowledging when our views might be being affected by that bias and correcting for it. It doesn't mean you consciously treat people differently because of their skin color. It means none of us are without bias and that in this case it might be some implicit bias affecting your judgment of people's reactions to the sweater. I don't see what's so deeply offensive about that.

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
Inferno

This whole thing is dumb sorry. I can see being like "wtf" for a minute but you move on and its really just a dumb mistake that was not purposeful and thats really the end of the story. Everyone being so melodramatic about it is irrational. Period.

  • Like 1

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
FrankGutz
On 11/1/2018 at 12:58 AM, PsychicGuru said:

My mom calls me and my siblings “changos” which means monkeys in Spanish🐒 

 

On 11/1/2018 at 1:09 AM, 666 others said:

Why is "monkey" a slur word  and how is it equivalent to n*gger? (Genuine question. I'm not American. In my country monkey is not considered an offensive term.)

 

we shoul all be offended because america is the center of the universe and God forgive us to not be offended by SJW and what americans think is offensive

MANDY MOORE | SOPHIE ELLIS-BEXTOR | LADY GAGA | JESSIE J
  • Like 2
  • LMAO 2

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
aaronyoji

for people trying to erase the context of racism behind calling a black person a "monkey" try addressing a random black person you don't know and say "oh hi monkey!" and see what their reaction is. 

  • Like 1

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
LM
42 minutes ago, aaronyoji said:

for people trying to erase the context of racism behind calling a black person a "monkey" try addressing a random black person you don't know and say "oh hi monkey!" and see what their reaction is. 

But we are not talking about adults. Children are called monkeys no matter what their skin colour is. 

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
aaronyoji
5 minutes ago, LM said:

But we are not talking about adults. Children are called monkeys no matter what their skin colour is. 

no i get that, but not all races where targeted with the slur of 'monkeys' 

like, people keep reiterating a different context to this and not the right one, if that makes sense? 

like you would think it'd be very simple- don't allude or make the connection between black people (kid or adult) to monkeys, it has a racist connotation. and everyones like "but children all around the world can be referred to as monkeys! so there for, bringing up that connotation is ridiculous!" its argument x, and people keep saying but argument y ! two different points that don't correlate. 

  • Like 2

Share


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. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×