Political Correctness

[TenEightyOne]

What planet are you on, ofcourse there are differences ... intelligence though im not really sure that has been extensively tested.

It hasn't. That's the "eugenics" movement you're thinking of. It had quite some traction at the end of the 19th Century and pottered about into the middle of the 20th... but it's bollocks.

The only correlation you'll find is a large number of African babies with underdeveloped brains than in other test groups (that includes white and black Africans). That's a side-effect of sickle-cell disease and other malaria-related problems. Those conditions aren't exclusively African (they occur in any area with a big mosquito population) but they're most prevalent there. To that end you'll find some modern "literature" that still uses studies in that field to justify an intelligence deficit associated with African heritage, but that "literature" has to cherry-pick quite extensively to reach their foregone conclusions.

 

[Imari]

And yet race clearly doesn't exist as a biological difference within humans, so as i said it's an artificial difference.

So no it doesn't unless you subscribe to the view that some ethnic groups are biological superior.

Hold up. There are statistical differences in the biological characteristics of people descended from different areas or genetic heritage. That's why there are different skin colours. The idea that there's no such thing as race falls over when there are easily observable common characteristics that have significantly different prevalence based on location or heritage.

As far as biological superiority, it depends what you're measuring and which groups. If you take two populations, one is always going to have an average height that is taller than the other. One could say that makes them superior, or one could simply note that as an interesting fact and move on.

I think you're getting caught by the politically correct notion that we can't think about these things at all. We can, and there are valid reasons to compare populations by geographical location or genetic heritage. But using that information to belittle or subjugate individuals is still wrong.

 

[Scaff]

Hold up. There are statistical differences in the biological characteristics of people descended from different areas or genetic heritage. That's why there are different skin colours. The idea that there's no such thing as race falls over when there are easily observable common characteristics that have significantly different prevalence based on location or heritage.

As far as biological superiority, it depends what you're measuring and which groups. If you take two populations, one is always going to have an average height that is taller than the other. One could say that makes them superior, or one could simply note that as an interesting fact and move on.

I think you're getting caught by the politically correct notion that we can't think about these things at all. We can, and there are valid reasons to compare populations by geographical location or genetic heritage. But using that information to belittle or subjugate individuals is still wrong.

Which is why is said race is not a result of biological differences but at best of cultural and traditional similarity. I also said that genetic difference does exist, but it's not a locked absolute difference.

I even used height as an example of how this can be mistaken for a 'racial' trait with regard to Asians being short. A difference caused by diet not genetics.

The example was used of long distance runners earlier, seeming to forget it ignore that once you get to ultra marathons it falls over.

Why someone or a group of people are successful at a certain activity can have origins in genetics, but the vast majority of the time it's also down to social and economic factors as well.

To suggest that black runners are better simply because they are black is both a massive oversimplification and avoids the fact that they still have to train as hard as anyone else. It's more arguable that what black runners have in common is poverty or a low socio-economic upbringing. Sport is one of the few routes out of which, and as such the motivation for some to succeed is higher.

You then get the opposite with sports that are expensive to partake in, or do you think that white people dominate Motorsport because we are racially better at it?

This has nothing at all to do with being PC and I have not ignored genetics as a factor in part (but they are not locked or as universal as racial theory would suggest), but has everything to with science (both pure and social).

Do you not find it odd that this is something we only do with humans and no other animal on the planet? Oh and if anyone wants to mention different animal breeds you first need to show me a wild Pomeranian and then realise they are a result of man made selective breeding, and what happens if man stops getting involved.

Keep in mind that I am not just pulling this out of my ass, but paraphrasing the work of the Human Genome Institute.

"Genetic methods do not support the classification of humans into discrete races, [and] racial assumptions are not good biological guideposts. Races are not genetically homogenous and lack clear-cut genetic boundaries. And because of this, using race as a proxy to make clinical predictions is about probability."

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_56b8db83e4b04f9b57da89ed/amp

 

[Com Fox]

Which is why is said race is not a result of biological differences but at best of cultural and traditional similarity. I also said that genetic difference does exist, but it's not a locked absolute difference.

I even used height as an example of how this can be mistaken for a 'racial' trait with regard to Asians being short. A difference caused by diet not genetics.

The example was used of long distance runners earlier, seeming to forget it ignore that once you get to ultra marathons it falls over.

Why someone or a group of people are successful at a certain activity can have origins in genetics, but the vast majority of the time it's also down to social and economic factors as well.

To suggest that black runners are better simply because they are black is both a massive oversimplification and avoids the fact that they still have to train as hard as anyone else. It's more arguable that what black runners have in common is poverty or a low socio-economic upbringing. Sport is one of the few routes out of which, and as such the motivation for some to succeed is higher.

You then get the opposite with sports that are expensive to partake in, or do you think that white people dominate Motorsport because we are racially better at it?

This has nothing at all to do with being PC and I have not ignored genetics as a factor in part (but they are not locked or as universal as racial theory would suggest), but has everything to with science (both pure and social).

Do you not find it odd that this is something we only do with humans and no other animal on the planet? Oh and if anyone wants to mention different animal breeds you first need to show me a wild Pomeranian and then realise they are a result of man made selective breeding, and what happens if man stops getting involved.

Keep in mind that I am not just pulling this out of my ass, but paraphrasing the work of the Human Genome Institute.

"Genetic methods do not support the classification of humans into discrete races, [and] racial assumptions are not good biological guideposts. Races are not genetically homogenous and lack clear-cut genetic boundaries. And because of this, using race as a proxy to make clinical predictions is about probability."

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_56b8db83e4b04f9b57da89ed/amp

From what I gather it doesn't make any sense.

I thought the whole point of race is that you are born with it, it's apart of you, you can't change unless you're Michael Jackson. The whole point racism and why it is so bad was that it was people discriminating against people just buy what they were born with and had no control over.

I can't choose to be Black, Asian or Hispanic, I was born White. Islam isn't anything like that, I can choose to be Muslim if I was convinced enough to join their ideology and people who are "born Muslin" can choose to leave it if they wanted to. Just because I was born White, doesn't mean I'm instantly associated with social aspects of white people and practices, same with people who are born Black, Asian and Hispanic.

If Islam was a "race"? How would we handle the situation of races we can choose to be apart of and races that we're stuck with.

 

[Scaff]

From what I gather it doesn't make any sense.

I thought the whole point of race is that you are born with it, it's apart of you, you can't change unless you're Michael Jackson. The whole point racism and why it is so bad was that it was people discriminating against people just buy what they were born with and had no control over.

I can't choose to be Black, Asian or Hispanic, I was born White. Islam isn't anything like that, I can choose to be Muslim if I was convinced enough to join their ideology and people who are "born Muslin" can choose to leave it if they wanted to. Just because I was born White, doesn't mean I'm instantly associated with social aspects of white people and practices, same with people who are born Black, Asian and Hispanic.

If Islam was a "race"? How would we handle the situation of races we can choose to be apart of and races that we're stuck with.

Hence the reason why race, even as a social aspect is inherently unhelpful.

Let me illustrate it via a question. How many white Muslims have been caught up in the recent changes in airport screening in the US? How many people have been attacked since 9/11 because they were presumed to be Muslim based only on skin colour?

That's my entire point around asking what 'race are Muslims', it's pointless in the extreme as race as a genetic concept is so weak as to be useless and race as a social construct is so missunderstood (as it's instantly turned into what colour are you) as to be useless.

It's a concept that quite frankly I've seldom seen used as anything but a tool for misuse.

Take anyone who has had one of those ancestry genetic markers tests done and take a look at the breakdown and it quickly becomes clear how unhelpful it's is to try a turn race into seperate discreet blocks of people.

 

[Com Fox]

Let me illustrate it via a question. How many white Muslims have been caught up in the recent changes in airport screening in the US? How many people have been attacked since 9/11 because they were presumed to be Muslim based only on skin colour?

Airport screenings are done on people from countries dominated by Muslim not by Muslims in general and hardly anyone from those countries are white, so the answer doesn't give us any idea.

As for people attacked since 9/11 because they are presumed Muslim based only on skin colour, I don't really know if the stereotypical Muslim skin colour is either Black or Asian BUT even then I'd still argue not a lot. Muslim Women are stereotypically identifiable by their berka (don't know how to spell it) that they wear as part of their ideology and as for Men, while they don't have anything really identifiable, I don't see much attacks on Blacks or Asians going up to suggest some of them are people who are assumed to be Muslim.

That's my entire point around asking what 'race are Muslims', it's pointless in the extreme as race as a genetic concept is so weak as to be useless and race as a social construct is so missunderstood (as it's instantly turned into what colour are you) as to be useless.

I don't think anyone is arguing that socially, race is useless in judging a person, that's where racism comes from afterall.

 

[Scaff]

Airport screenings are done on people from countries dominated by Muslim not by Muslims in general and hardly anyone from those countries are white, so the answer doesn't give us any idea.

As for people attacked since 9/11 because they are presumed Muslim based only on skin colour, I don't really know if the stereotypical Muslim skin colour is either Black or Asian BUT even then I'd still argue not a lot. Muslim Women are stereotypically identifiable by their berka (don't know how to spell it) that they wear as part of their ideology and as for Men, while they don't have anything really identifiable, I don't see much attacks on Blacks or Asians going up to suggest some of them are people who are assumed to be Muslim.

Is Muhammad Ali's son from a country on the watch list? What about the school teacher from the UK?

Now as to the other one, two Indians were shot recently because they were presumed to be Iranians, a number of Sikh have been attacked and killed because they were wrongly assumed to be Muslim.

I'm not aware of that occuring to anyone white or Asian in appearance, despite white Muslims existing and the single biggest Muslim population being Asian.

I don't think anyone is arguing that socially, race is useless in judging a person, that's where racism comes from afterall.

No it's not its origins at all, eugenics and the theory of racial superiority is where it comes from to a large degree. The idea that a person's colour is an indication of worth.

It's a nonsense theory and well debunked, but unfortunately far from dead.

 

[Com Fox]

Is Muhammad Ali's son from a country on the watch list? What about the school teacher from the UK?

From what I heard, it was an issue with the workers at the airports not the actual law they were supposedly "enforcing"

Now as to the other one, two Indians were shot recently because they were presumed to be Iranians, a number of Sikh have been attacked and killed because they were wrongly assumed to be Muslim.

Interested in this, care to share links?

No it's not its origins at all, eugenics and the theory of racial superiority is where it comes from to a large degree. The idea that a person's colour is an indication of worth.

It's a nonsense theory and well debunked, but unfortunately far from dead

Don't think you got what I mean, the theory of racial superiority is judging people based on their race as you see others as inferior to others based on what race they are.

That has nothing to Muslim since it's a ideology not something the colour of the skin you're born

The theory of racial superiority is "far from dead", I won't argue racism isn't a thing anymore because there is still racists in the world BUT I mean we're far from Black slavery and the White Australian Policy being the norm and accepted.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Interested in this, care to share links?

You can't possibly have missed this one.

 

[Com Fox]

You can't possibly have missed this one.

From the quotes of the peoples reaction of the artical it doesn't seem like this horrible attack was treated anything other than negative, so it could the mans own stupid thoughts as if it was anything different, there would've been some sort of defense. While it is an attack assuming someone was Muslim, it doesn't make it appear to be a trend to make it anything like a "race". Feels a little individual.

 

[Scaff]

From the quotes of the peoples reaction of the artical it doesn't seem like this horrible attack was treated anything other than negative, so it could the mans own stupid thoughts as if it was anything different, there would've been some sort of defense. While it is an attack assuming someone was Muslim, it doesn't make it appear to be a trend to make it anything like a "race". Feels a little individual.

Just Google Sikhs mistaken for Muslims and take a read.

It's not isolated at all.

 

[Com Fox]

Just Google Sikhs mistaken for Muslims and take a read.

It's not isolated at all.

I know you're right because I just googled it but saying to someone "Just Google" doesn't really make your arguments seem convincing.

I do find the confusion interesting though (in a bad way) there are identifiable difference with Sikh and Muslims already. Shame that this isn't covered that well on mainstream media but again it's a confusion of ideologies since like Muslim, Sikh is more of an ideology than a race.

 

[Scaff]

I know you're right because I just googled it but saying to someone "Just Google" doesn't really make your arguments seem convincing.

I do find the confusion interesting though (in a bad way) there are identifiable difference with Sikh and Muslims already. Shame that this isn't covered that well on mainstream media but again it's a confusion of ideologies since like Muslim, Sikh is more of an ideology than a race.

Sorry i normally would provide the links, but I'm sat in my car in a huge load of traffic.

 

[Com Fox]

Sorry i normally would provide the links, but I'm sat in my car in a huge load of traffic.

Ok that's fair enough, I guess.

 

[stonesfan129]

I thought the whole idea behind the First Amendment and, more specifically, free speech; was to protect unpopular viewpoints from being censored. I feel that 'political correctness' is counter to this idea.

 

[polysmut]

I thought the whole idea behind the First Amendment and, more specifically, free speech; was to protect unpopular viewpoints from being censored. I feel that 'political correctness' is counter to this idea.

They're different things.
One is a matter of it not being illegal to say things, the other is a matter of trying not to unnecessarily offend. One is legal, the other social.

 

[mustafur]

They're different things.
One is a matter of it not being illegal to say things, the other is a matter of trying not to unnecessarily offend. One is legal, the other social.

They're not though when it does indeed become Law.

 

[ryzno]

Sorry i normally would provide the links, but I'm sat in my car in a huge load of traffic.

Texting and driving eh?
Shame.
Shame.

 

[Scaff]

Texting and driving eh?
Shame.
Shame.

Nope, only at a standstill. They take your licence away in the UK for it.

 

[polysmut]

They're not though when it does indeed become Law.

That would be a free speech issue not a political correctness issue.

 

[DLR_Mysterion]

Easter Egg hunts....without the Easter

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4378176/PM-hits-National-Trust-Easter-lost-egg-hunt.html

Just a shame the original Cadbury was a Quaker who built houses for his workers, a Church and made provision for schools.

 

[Scaff]

Easter Egg hunts....without the Easter

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4378176/PM-hits-National-Trust-Easter-lost-egg-hunt.html

Just a shame the original Cadbury was a Quaker who built houses for his workers, a Church and made provision for schools.

Just a few points.

The campaign does mention Easter, it's one of the biggest words in the advert copy.
Quakers don't celebrate specific holy days, they consider all to be equally holy.
Easter eggs are not Christian.

Seriously this has been shown to be utter nonsense as a claim to an embarrassingly large degree.

 

[polysmut]

Also, if a huge confectionery businesses didn't mention Easter in their posters for an egg hunt, you could pretty safely guess it was a marketing choice & nothing to do with political correctness. They did mention it though as @Scaff pointed out.

 

[Scaff]

Also, if a huge confectionery businesses didn't mention Easter in their posters for an egg hunt, you could pretty safely guess it was a marketing choice & nothing to do with political correctness. They did mention it though as @Scaff pointed out.

Indeed, just for those outside the UK, this is what the apparent removal of Easter looks like:

And this is what the Christian PC brigade latched onto as proof:

A single image taken out of context to try and make a story when one doesn't exist.

 

[Com Fox]

While I am one to jump on the anti-PC bandwagon, I have to be impartial on my belief that a reason why is the most important and we lack any official reason for the removal of Easter of the poster, it could be for something that isn't PC.

 

[Scaff]

While I am one to jump on the anti-PC bandwagon, I have to be impartial on my belief that a reason why is the most important and we lack any official reason for the removal of Easter of the poster, it could be for something that isn't PC.

The word Easter was not removed.

 

[Com Fox]

The word Easter was not removed.

I meant the image that you posted per say as I thought it was a comparison, my bad

 

[DLR_Mysterion]

Just a few points.

The campaign does mention Easter, it's one of the biggest words in the advert copy.
Quakers don't celebrate specific holy days, they consider all to be equally holy.
Easter eggs are not Christian.

Seriously this has been shown to be utter nonsense as a claim to an embarrassingly large degree.

Hmm but if I google "Easter egg hunt" the official National Trust page is:

https://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/features/join-the-cadbury-egg-hunts-this-easter

As in Egg hunts this Easter holidays.

And if it was "utter nonsense" why this message?

Cadbury, which sponsors the event, said that it wanted to appeal to non-Christians, saying: "We invite people from all faiths and none to enjoy our seasonal treats."

 

[PeterJB]

Hmm but if I google "Easter egg hunt" the official National Trust page is:

https://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/features/join-the-cadbury-egg-hunts-this-easter

As in Egg hunts this Easter holidays.

And if it was "utter nonsense" why this message?

Where is the problem?

 

[TenEightyOne]

Hmm but if I google "Easter egg hunt" the official National Trust page is:

https://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/features/join-the-cadbury-egg-hunts-this-easter

As in Egg hunts this Easter holidays.

And if it was "utter nonsense" why this message?

Cadbury's are sponsoring the egg hunt... the Cadbury's egg hunt. Easter is the time for egg hunts and gets an equal mention... Cadbury's Egg hunt at Easter.

Cadbury's want people from all faiths to purchase their products.

Those two sets of facts don't add up to what it seems you're trying to say they add up to.