What's new
By:

Am I racist?

fishonjazz said:
Ok, so you don't think that stereotypes are purely a weapon of oppression.

That was all I was trying to get from you. It would have been really easy for you to just post that in the first place.

Better late than never though! Thanks
Click to expand...

Would have been just as easy if you read through the thread and noticed the post when i told you, what, 2 pages ago.
 
Siro said:
One is a violation of social expectations, the other inflicts substantive harm. The distinction is clear, and the two should not be equated because doing so devalues the moral worth of doing harm.
Click to expand...

This is a cut-and-dry definition-- but not all differences between two terms are this cut and dry. The distinction between redskin and Indian being clear is subjective. IMO

I think there is something to the claim of cultural differences. For example, I was with a group of friends, and one friend mentioned "Eskimos" only to be corrected by a Canadian guy. Apparently, the correct term is Inuit. None of us had heard that before.

But yes, I too am drained. :)
Click to expand...

Hehe. That's hilarious, actually. Eskimos is definitely considered offensive to most that I've talked to. Many are trying to change the name of a local football team as a result.

Me too, tho.
 
dalamon said:
Would have been just as easy if you read through the thread and noticed the post when i told you, what, 2 pages ago.
Click to expand...
I didn't get your answer from your discussion with siro though. Maybe you expect to much from me.
I'm not particularly smart and don't catch everything in a convo especially if it's not obvious or direct or the vocabulary goes over my.

In the future I would suggest that when dealing with a question from me specifically to either answer it or don't answer rather than tell me to look through a thread for it.

I promise that if you try to discuss something with me and ask me something that I will try my best to answer you directly rather than tell you to go hunt through the thread for where I had already talked about it
 
dalamon said:
Blacks being good dancers is a pretty poor example of a positive stereotype. Blacks being good at dancing has for decades been tied closely together to their purported sexual promiscuity, which whites have long used as a stereotype against black people.
Click to expand...

Nah, bro. Blacks being good at dancing is from the long history of shaking their bodies to the beat of the tribal drum.
 
fishonjazz said:
I didn't get your answer from your discussion with siro though. Maybe you expect to much from me.
I'm not particularly smart and don't catch everything in a convo especially if it's not obvious or direct or the vocabulary goes over my.

In the future I would suggest that when dealing with a question from me specifically to either answer it or don't answer rather than tell me to look through a thread for it.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. And cut that "i'm not particularly smart" nonsense out of here. Anyone and everyone is intelligent-- we are intelligent beings. Some try to harness this gift of intelligence more than others. Intelligence is so multifactorial, and so dynamic-- that it's impossible to objectively call one person 'smarter' than another. The measure of how you assess that is inherently biased to what you consider the measure of intelligence to be. (tl;dr ur smart)
 
LazyD said:
Nah, bro. Blacks being good at dancing is from the long history of shaking their bodies to the beat of the tribal drum.
Click to expand...

Nm
I have been an a hole enough for one night.
 
LazyD said:
Nah, bro. Blacks being good at dancing is from the long history of shaking their bodies to the beat of the tribal drum.
Click to expand...

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to LazyD again.

10/10 troll.
 
dalamon said:
Fair enough. And cut that "i'm not particularly smart" nonsense out of here. Anyone and everyone is intelligent-- we are intelligent beings. Some try to harness this gift of intelligence more than others. Intelligence is so multifactorial, and so dynamic-- that it's impossible to objectively call one person 'smarter' than another. The measure of how you assess that is inherently biased to what you consider the measure of intelligence to be. (tl;dr ur smart)
Click to expand...
You are seriously way out of my league though bro
 
fishonjazz said:
You are seriously way out of my league though bro
Click to expand...

when it comes to talking about biological terms? Maybe. Sociocultural discussions? Maybe. But these are like 2 of 90340937434 ways we can assess intelligence.

Let's talk about how to raise a dog, how to communicate with a dog. How to train a dog, how to reason with a dog. I don't know **** about dogs-- you'd whoop my *** in every measure in this realm, intellectually-speaking. Relationship-knowledge? You know more. THere's many other categories where you probably know more. Does that make you smarter than me? Well, ya! Same goes for fights-- Floyd Mayweather has a PhD in it, whereas I don't know ****.

Intelligence isn't monolithic.
 
dalamon said:
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to LazyD again.

10/10 troll.
Click to expand...

It is the reason, though, right? I mean, it is the reason the stereotype exists. It is related to their supposed sense of rhythm. It stems from derogatory reference to their tribalism.
 
Siro said:
It is the reason, though, right? I mean, it is the reason the stereotype exists. It is related to their supposed sense of rhythm. It stems from derogatory reference to their tribalism.
Click to expand...

I think the whole dancing stereotype has been irreversibly meshed with black hyperexuality. And that stems from something else. So it's a bit convoluted IMO.
 
dalamon said:
when it comes to talking about biological terms? Maybe. Sociocultural discussions? Maybe. But these are like 2 of 90340937434 ways we can assess intelligence.

Let's talk about how to raise a dog, how to communicate with a dog. How to train a dog, how to reason with a dog. I don't know **** about dogs-- you'd whoop my *** in every measure in this realm, intellectually-speaking. Does that make you smarter than me? Well, ya! Same goes for fights-- Floyd Mayweather has a PhD in it, whereas I don't know ****.

Intelligence isn't monolithic.
Click to expand...

I consider intelligence as more monolololithic than you believe it to be. A lot of what you discuss above I'd probably call knowledge. Personally, I characterize the rate at which someone can obtain and retain knowledge to be a more accurate assessment of their intelligence.
 
not sure if dis is real or troll topic tbh.
how did OP know what race these people were anyway? and 'mexican' isn't even a race, it's a nationality.
 
LazyD said:
I consider intelligence as more monolololithic than you believe it to be. A lot of what you discuss above I'd probably call knowledge. Personally, I characterize the rate at which someone can obtain and retain knowledge to be a more accurate assessment of their intelligence.
Click to expand...

So rate > possession of knowledge in your eyes? Is possession of knowledge not intelligence in any way-- in your opinion?
 
LazyD said:
I consider intelligence as more monolololithic than you believe it to be. A lot of what you discuss above I'd probably call knowledge. Personally, I characterize the rate at which someone can obtain and retain knowledge to be a more accurate assessment of their intelligence.
Click to expand...

you're rate at picking up musical instruments and learning them > mine


my rate at picking up, and understanding math most likely > yours (never got below 90% in any math mark since the 5th grade-- i've gotten only A+s in my college math courses).

Who's smarter?
 
dalamon said:
So rate > possession of knowledge in your eyes? Is possession of knowledge not intelligence in any way-- in your opinion?
Click to expand...

Yes, in most cases I consider the ability to learn as intelligence more so than a sum of what one has learned.
 
LazyD said:
Yes, in most cases I consider the ability to learn as intelligence more so than a sum of what one has learned.
Click to expand...

but mathematically, there will be an inherent point (if we assume that possession of knowledge accounts for SOME measure of intelligence-- just not as much, proportionately speaking, as rate) where a person who knows more is smarter than a person who can learn quick-- but has spent an entire life in solitude, and hasn't used his gifts. Who is smarter?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top