Concerned over Cultural Marxism


Off-Topic Discussions

1,051 to 1,100 of 1,362 << first < prev | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | next > last >>

I'm going to have to go dig out my books on the American Revolution. Although they didn't lop off anyone's heads, I do seem to remember that it wasn't all Freedom and Liberty and, I believe, Anglophonic Canada is full of the descendants of Tories who weren't exactly pet and coddled by the '76ers.


DarkLightHitomi wrote:

They call him black, but he looks arab to me, I just don't see the black thing at all. So I comprimised, I heard he was actually half black but whatever.

Dude, existentialism does not apply to readily verifiable facts.


Anyway, time to get some Musical Interludes back up in this biznitch.

I'm going back to the plight of black women because I've been listening to my 10 volume collection of seventies soul hits.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Set wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Not so much because they cut off the heads of the aristos and their stooges, but because they quickly progressed to cutting off everyone's heads and then to installing a new dictator who tried to conquer Europe.

One problem with bloody revolutions is that it's so hard to decide where to stop. Sure, the guys at the front of the crowd got their fill, but the guys at the back of the crowd missed all the fun and still want to lop some heads!

When the mob runs out of obvious enemies, it happily turns on itself. Democracy requires a great enemy (the Nazis, the Soviets, the Chinese, the Middle East), to rally the people against. Without it, civil war is the next step, as the mob turns on itself.

Enemies are useful for all forms of government to keep the people distracted, especially when that government is mistreating it's citizens. I don't think democracies are particularly vulnerable to this. Without an outside enemy, you just have to treat your own people better.


More Frida Payne


Don Juan de Doodlebug wrote:
I'm going to have to go dig out my books on the American Revolution. Although they didn't lop off anyone's heads, I do seem to remember that it wasn't all Freedom and Liberty and, I believe, Anglophonic Canada is full of the descendants of Tories who weren't exactly pet and coddled by the '76ers.

We're looking at it from different angles here. I'm not saying the American Revolution was perfect and led to a land of milk and honey or that they were always just and fair to minorities or the opposition. They certainly weren't. There's a lot of abuse ignored in our founding myths.

All I'm saying is that, unlike the French Revolution, even 10 or 15 years someone in another country opposing their particular tyrant could look at the US and say "That worked. Democracy can work. If we overthrow our evil king, we don't have to choose between another one and collapsing into chaos and violence."

Of course, that only matters if you think that democracies are, in general, a better form of government than monarchies or dictatorships, even when they don't include everyone.


Well, we'll have to ask our European brethren, but I do believe that European radicals and even liberals throughout the 19th century and well into the 20th were more than happy to look back to the inspiration of Liberte, Fraternite and Egalite.

Not that they didn't also take inspiration from 1776 (see Lenin's letter above), but I think you're underselling the French Revolutionary tradition in European politics.


France was *the* cultural/intellectual/military superpower in Europe for a very long time, so the French Revolution had a huge impact when it occurred (not many contemporary European poems/pieces of music written to honour/about the American revolution that I know of, but several written in response to the French revolution - 'The Prelude', by Wordsworth, for example; 'The Fall of Robespierre' by Southey; 'Europe - a prophecy' by Blake* ) ; Beethoven's Third Symphony? Etc, probably)

Most C19th/20th European revolutionaries, up until the Russian Revolution (which took pole position thereafter, until 1989, anyway), definitely saw themselves carrying on that tradition - the Italians did, the Greeks did, the Poles did - taking a position for or against it put you on one side or another of the political fence for a long time, and probably still does (in a way).

Maybe (probably not) the American revolution was seen (at the time) to be just another squabble between two groups of Britshnizoids, who were always doing that sort of thing. We executed *our* king and set up a republic before the French, after all, without the world at large making such a bleeding fuss about it.

*who also wrote 'America- a prophecy'

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Don Juan de Doodlebug wrote:

I think all you pinkskins suck, even if your skin isn't pink.

Green pride!

Some of us suck in the best kind of way. Not that you would know, considering the average goblin's grill. Yeeowch.


Don Juan de Doodlebug wrote:

I think all you pinkskins suck, even if your skin isn't pink.

Green pride!

Look, Doodlebug, if you've got something to say to me, you can just go ahead ahead and say it to my face, instead of trying to be subtle. . .


Set wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Not so much because they cut off the heads of the aristos and their stooges, but because they quickly progressed to cutting off everyone's heads and then to installing a new dictator who tried to conquer Europe.

One problem with bloody revolutions is that it's so hard to decide where to stop. Sure, the guys at the front of the crowd got their fill, but the guys at the back of the crowd missed all the fun and still want to lop some heads!

When the mob runs out of obvious enemies, it happily turns on itself. Democracy requires a great enemy (the Nazis, the Soviets, the Chinese, the Middle East), to rally the people against. Without it, civil war is the next step, as the mob turns on itself.

This is my wife's theory and fear.

Lantern Lodge

thejeff wrote:
Icyshadow wrote:
Then you're racist if you use the term "white people" too.

No, but if you think the President must be Arab because he doesn't look black enough to you, there is something seriously wrong with your thought process. Of course, given some prior posts, it probably ties in with all the "Obama is a secret Muslim" crap. Since all Muslims are Arabs, it follows that he's an Arab. Or something else evil. We don't know what. All we know is that he's out to destroy America. With health care. Or something.

There are reasons I don't bother responding to DLH.

You sir don't pay very well attention to what I say.

1
It's not just his color, it's also his facial structure. He really does look like a half breed anyway. Besides how can we call something so subjective as race "verifiable" anyway? Unless you're gonna tell me race is more then cosmetics.

2
I only suspected he was muslim, cause he isn't christian and refused to put his hand on the bible when being sworn into office (a jew wouldn't have any problem with the bible, as far as I know). The suspect part is kinda important as I don't what he even claims to be.

3
Who said all muslims are arabs?


DarkLightHitomi wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Icyshadow wrote:
Then you're racist if you use the term "white people" too.

No, but if you think the President must be Arab because he doesn't look black enough to you, there is something seriously wrong with your thought process. Of course, given some prior posts, it probably ties in with all the "Obama is a secret Muslim" crap. Since all Muslims are Arabs, it follows that he's an Arab. Or something else evil. We don't know what. All we know is that he's out to destroy America. With health care. Or something.

There are reasons I don't bother responding to DLH.

You sir don't pay very well attention to what I say.

1
It's not just his color, it's also his facial structure. He really does look like a half breed anyway. Besides how can we call something so subjective as race "verifiable" anyway? Unless you're gonna tell me race is more then cosmetics.

2
I only suspected he was muslim, cause he isn't christian and refused to put his hand on the bible when being sworn into office (a jew wouldn't have any problem with the bible, as far as I know). The suspect part is kinda important as I don't what he even claims to be.

3
Who said all muslims are arabs?

1. My mom and late grandmother look hella white. Tell my mom that you think she is white and she will correct you. Tell my wife's grandmother (who is still with us, thankfully) this, and she will consider cutting you.

2. A very serous jew would indeed have a problem with this. Someone who isn't all that into their faith would not.
3. No, they are not indeed.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
DarkLightHitomi wrote:
It's not just his color, it's also his facial structure. He really does look like a half breed anyway. Besides how can we call something so subjective as race "verifiable" anyway? Unless you're gonna tell me race is more then cosmetics.

Actually it is. While we're all close enough to breed, there are genetic differences between the various bloodline strains which are more subtle and complicated than just "white" "black" and "other".

Lantern Lodge

You missed the point on number 3. He made a statement implying that I thought all muslims were arabs, I was refuting that implication.

2 I figured since the jews hold to the old testment which is in the bible and I'm not sure what they think about the new testament, so I didn't know for sure. All three religions are technically of the bible, christians use the old and new testaments, jews stick mostly to the old, but muslims stick to Muhummad's recitings and them having anything to do with the old testament was never mentioned or hinted at except that they do consider jews and christians to also be religions of the book. So not sure how strongly they think about the old testament compared the quran.

(I don't remember how to spell his name so apologies if it's wrong)

For point 1, everyone thinks differently on the subject, I am native american, irish, italian, french, I think asian but not sure if that was my branch of the family though. Frankly I just don't care about it specifically, I take pride in having connections to things like my native american heritage, but I don't really care what people would racially profile me as, since race really isn't an important consideration to me at all. Other take pride in their race (which, I believe,, is why racism has lasted so long)

Lantern Lodge

LazarX wrote:
DarkLightHitomi wrote:
It's not just his color, it's also his facial structure. He really does look like a half breed anyway. Besides how can we call something so subjective as race "verifiable" anyway? Unless you're gonna tell me race is more then cosmetics.
Actually it is. While we're all close enough to breed, there are genetic differences between the various bloodline strains which are more subtle and complicated than just "white" "black" and "other".

Cosmetics are based on genetics, so of course there are gentics involved in the differences, that doesn't automatically equate to race being more then cosmetics.

Anything more then cosmetics and you begin to imply that racism is based on truth.

So yeah, I'm pretty sure that race is just cosmetic.

If you are so sure it's not cosmetic, just what does race effect other then looks? Intelligence? Reflexes? Strength?

Careful, that could lead right down a very bad path.

Lantern Lodge

Also note that many of the great apes have much greater genetic variety then the whole human species, and with much less variation on looks.


Now would probably be a good time to respond to this:

Set wrote:
Don Juan de Doodlebug wrote:
And if I may be so bold, Set, what's made you start coming into the politroll threads lately? I don't think I've ever seen you in here before the last week or so.

I used to visit OT, way back in the day, but lost interest and minimized it. I blame you for my coming back, as I was reading some of your posts and they led me here.

I'll probably wander off again soon, since I have a signal to noise ratio I prefer to keep tuned more towards 'signal' than 'noise,' but, for now, I'm enjoying using my powers for evil.

Well, that's too bad. You give good post.

I love it here. There's always so many smart, funny people to talk to, and, yeah, there's "noise," but I guess my s2n ratio is more tolerant of noise.

Also, I learn so much in these threads. Other people post interesting stuff, or make you go look stuff up, or have awesome book recommendations. Right now, sitting on my booktable I've got 2 books on the 1848 revolutions, my old Intro to Cult Anthro 101 textbook and I was briefly considering re-reading Mary Wollstonecraft.

Instead, I opted to finally finish The Hunger Games. I got up to the part where Katniss is sleeping up in the tree and overhears Peeta kill that poor girl from District 4. F~@%ing men!

Smash Panem Through Workers Revolution!


Limeylongears wrote:

Maybe (probably not) the American revolution was seen (at the time) to be just another squabble between two groups of Britshnizoids, who were always doing that sort of thing. We executed *our* king and set up a republic before the French, after all, without the world at large making such a bleeding fuss about it.

*who also wrote 'America- a prophecy'

Privyet tovaravisch! I knew if I kept it up, I'd eventually drag you down here. I just wish Comrade Samnell would pop in again.

Anyway, the Am Rev was certainly big in France. Benjamin Franklin was a genuine popular celebrity, Thomas Paine was elected to the Constituent Assembly (or the Legislative Assembly...or was it the National Assembly...and I just read this shiznit!), I'll just mention the Marquis de Lafayette, etc., etc.

Other than that, I think you also give great post and that one sure was awesome.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Some of us suck in the best kind of way. Not that you would know, considering the average goblin's grill. Yeeowch.

Goblins can suck just fine.


Dicey the House Goblin wrote:


Look, Doodlebug, if you've got something to say to me, you can just go ahead ahead and say it to my face, instead of trying to be subtle. . .

[Smacks Dicey]


Freehold DM wrote:
This is my wife's theory and fear.

Never fear! When the shiznit hits the fan, you and Mrs. Freehold just stick with the Anklebiters and you'll be fine.

Vive le Galt!


[Ignores rest of the thread]


meatrace wrote:

I feel like an asshat for having to bring up nazis again, but let's not forget that nazis were basically the military arm of the Catholic right wing.

No, they weren't.

(Sorry to bring that up, as it's OT.)


Fabius Maximus wrote:
meatrace wrote:

I feel like an asshat for having to bring up nazis again, but let's not forget that nazis were basically the military arm of the Catholic right wing.

No, they weren't.

Well, you sure showed me!


DarkLightHitomi wrote:

2

I only suspected he was muslim, cause he isn't christian and refused to put his hand on the bible when being sworn into office (a jew wouldn't have any problem with the bible, as far as I know). The suspect part is kinda important as I don't what he even claims to be.

What are you even talking about?

First, Barack Obama is a Christian. He attended Christian churches.
This stuff about Obama not swearing in on a bible is nonsense. Chief Justice John Roberts swore him in in 2009 on a regular old bible, just like presidents before him.

There was an email sent out, back in 2007 when his name was in the hat for a presidential bid, that he swore in to the Senate with a Quran. This is a myth, that was Keith Ellison who is, indeed, a muslim.

Here is a snopes rundown of a lot of anti-Obama myths. Please familiarize yourself with the facts before you make yourself look even more ignorant.


meatrace wrote:
DarkLightHitomi wrote:

2

I only suspected he was muslim, cause he isn't christian and refused to put his hand on the bible when being sworn into office (a jew wouldn't have any problem with the bible, as far as I know). The suspect part is kinda important as I don't what he even claims to be.

What are you even talking about?

First, Barack Obama is a Christian. He attended Christian churches.

Don't be silly. He's a Muslim whose pastor hates whites.


thejeff wrote:

Don't be silly. He's a Muslim whose pastor hates whites.

Oh I forgot.

While I won't defend Jeremiah Wright, he's a CHRISTIAN pastor.
So...yeah...


DarkLightHitomi wrote:
It's not just his color, it's also his facial structure. He really does look like a half breed anyway. Besides how can we call something so subjective as race "verifiable" anyway?

When a mommy and a daddy love each other very much, they give each other a very special hug. 9 months later the baby comes out of the mothers belly.

If you know the race of the mother (and we do), and you know the race of the father (and we do) , you know the race of the kid, since it was not actually delivered by the stork.

and now you have half the battle.


Saui Arabia Beheads Maid

US Diplomat's Family Enslaved and Regularly Raped Yemeni Woman

Defense contractor awards Abu Ghraib torture victims meager $5 million settlement

Round-up of interesting articles from Russia Today.


Ooooooh... I am sorry, I just can't not respond to this.

Using functional MR scans, fMRI, and various other techniques for imaging the functions of the various brain areas, we have now gotten to the point that specific functions of the human brain can be mapped down to more or less single cubic millimeters of neuronal tissue. It is not absolutely certain that these things match EXACTLY, but they do match up between individuals roughly. The brain does come with a highly advanced structure already set up from birth and even earlier. The old myth about a child being a blank slate is officially bullcrap.

Now... the important thing is that these patterns are only guidelines. Nothing is copied from a stone tablet anywhere. The guidelines form the basis for the fractals that determine our anatomy. A proof of this is that cats who have been cloned have the same GENERAL fur pattern, but can look quite different even so, despite having the EXACT SAME genetic code. This is the reason you will in all likelihood look much like your siblings, but not exactly. You won't be an exact copy even if you are identical twins.

So... if there are cosmetic differences between people, they amount to several cubic centimeters of differently placed tissue. This is thousands of times as much tissue as the neuronal tissue areas we have identified in the brain as performing the same functions. Otherwise put, the brain areas are equally mutable as the cosmetic differences of the skin. You didn't think the brain was handed down perfect from God, did you?

So... if you can accept cosmetic differences between different people, and races, then it would be strange to refuse to acknowledge differences in brain structure between people and races. Leave you with a bitter aftertaste?

Racism is not about claiming that people are different. It never has been. Racism is when you refuse to attribute people the same value DESPITE the differences you can see and those you can not.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
DarkLightHitomi wrote:
LazarX wrote:
DarkLightHitomi wrote:
It's not just his color, it's also his facial structure. He really does look like a half breed anyway. Besides how can we call something so subjective as race "verifiable" anyway? Unless you're gonna tell me race is more then cosmetics.
Actually it is. While we're all close enough to breed, there are genetic differences between the various bloodline strains which are more subtle and complicated than just "white" "black" and "other".

Cosmetics are based on genetics, so of course there are gentics involved in the differences, that doesn't automatically equate to race being more then cosmetics.

Anything more then cosmetics and you begin to imply that racism is based on truth.

So yeah, I'm pretty sure that race is just cosmetic.

If you are so sure it's not cosmetic, just what does race effect other then looks? Intelligence? Reflexes? Strength?

Careful, that could lead right down a very bad path.

There are many single gene genetic disorders that differ in frequency between different populations. Some examples are discussed below.

Cystic fibrosis is the most common life-limiting autosomal recessive disease among people of European heritage.

Sickle-cell anemia is most prevalent in populations of sub-Saharan African ancestry, but it is also common among Latin-American, Indian, Saudi Arab, and Mediterranean populations such as Turkey, Greece, and Italy.[7][8]

Tay-Sachs Disease is an autosomal recessive disorder that is more frequent among Ashkenazi Jews than among other Jewish groups and non-Jewish populations.[9]

Hereditary hemochromatosis is most common among those of Northern European ancestry, in particular those of Celtic descendent.

Lactose intolerance is another examples of single gene genetic disorders that differ in frequency between populations.[1

There are many other diseases which disproportionately hit groups differently.

"Race" itself is a problematic term, a better one would be more along the lines of major genetic groups.

You can find some more information on the subject here.


meatrace wrote:
Fabius Maximus wrote:
meatrace wrote:

I feel like an asshat for having to bring up nazis again, but let's not forget that nazis were basically the military arm of the Catholic right wing.

No, they weren't.

Well, you sure showed me!

Alright, alright.

The antisemitism of the Nazis wasn't religiously motivated, but nationalistic. The roots lay in the German nationalist movement of the 19th century. Since there was no common political or cultural ground to be found among all the small states of the former Holy Roman Empire, the nationalists fell back on "blood". Hence their antisemitism, since, by that reasoning, Jews couldn't considered to be of German descent. The Nazis took that to the extreme.


Well, the catholics sure showed the nazis not to mess with the catholic church. They excommunicated Goebbels because he remarried.


Fabius Maximus wrote:

Alright, alright.

The antisemitism of the Nazis wasn't religiously motivated, but nationalistic. The roots lay in the German nationalist movement of the 19th century. Since there was no common political or cultural ground to be found among all the small states of the former Holy Roman Empire, the nationalists fell back on "blood". Hence their antisemitism, since, by that reasoning, Jews couldn't considered to be of German descent. The Nazis took that to the extreme.

I agree with Fabius Maximus, although that sure sounds like a plutocrat name to me.

The way I've always read it that the Nazis, as nationalists par excellence, despised the Catholic Church with its, um, catholicism.

Anyway, I know the New Atheists like to claim that Hitler was really, secretly, a Catholic, but I don't think I believe it.


LazarX wrote:
Sickle-cell anemia is most prevalent in populations of sub-Saharan African ancestry, but it is also common among Latin-American, Indian, Saudi Arab, and Mediterranean populations such as Turkey, Greece, and Italy.

Amusing tale from the shopfloor:

Spoiler:
My carpool buddy, who is not very well educated as opposed to stupid, was having chronic stomach problems. After a couple of weeks and a battery of tests, he came back to work one morning and told me that the doctors said there was something wrong with his sickle-cells.

"Sickle-cells? What, you mean you have sickle-cell anemia?"

"Yeah, what's that?"

"Um, you remember back in middle school biology when you first started learning about genes and cells and stuff?"

"No." He spent most of his childhood years in youth detention centers.

"Um, well, I'm no doctor, but it's, like, one of the textbook example of genetics, you know, black people have really high rates of sickle-cell anemia."

"But I'm not black!"

Anyway, as the day went on, I guess more and more semi- to non-educated people kept telling him about what they had learned in grade school. After break, management wanted to sit down with him and go over his doctor's notes and stuff.

So, we're all talking and he mentions sickle-cell anemia. The supervisor, who's kind a snooty, NPR-listening yuppie, says "Oh, sickle-cell anemia. That's a disease most common with people of African descent."

My carpool buddy goes: "But, XXXX, I'm not African. I've never even slept with an African!"

I tried my best to maintain a straight face. The supervisor rolled his eyes, shook his head, and, with clear exasperation in his voice, told us to go back to work.

Hee hee!


If any other non-Americans would like to weigh in on how the French Revolution was seen in the history of your country or even today, please, feel free.


After the revolution, le petit general took power. This guy had an associate he needed a post for. Luckily, one was available as king of Sweden. Jean Baptiste Bernadotte was crowned king to improve swedish relations with Napoleon. Okay, maybe not exactly the revolution, but hey. If it has to be the revolution itself, the closest we got was Axel von Fersen who had an affair with Marie Antoinette. He made plans to get her away from the revolution too. I wonder if he succeeded.


Hmm. Not exactly what I was looking for, but thank you, Sissyl.

Lantern Lodge

Sissyl wrote:

Ooooooh... I am sorry, I just can't not respond to this.

Using functional MR scans, fMRI, and various other techniques for imaging the functions of the various brain areas, we have now gotten to the point that specific functions of the human brain can be mapped down to more or less single cubic millimeters of neuronal tissue. It is not absolutely certain that these things match EXACTLY, but they do match up between individuals roughly. The brain does come with a highly advanced structure already set up from birth and even earlier. The old myth about a child being a blank slate is officially bullcrap.

Now... the important thing is that these patterns are only guidelines. Nothing is copied from a stone tablet anywhere. The guidelines form the basis for the fractals that determine our anatomy. A proof of this is that cats who have been cloned have the same GENERAL fur pattern, but can look quite different even so, despite having the EXACT SAME genetic code. This is the reason you will in all likelihood look much like your siblings, but not exactly. You won't be an exact copy even if you are identical twins.

So... if there are cosmetic differences between people, they amount to several cubic centimeters of differently placed tissue. This is thousands of times as much tissue as the neuronal tissue areas we have identified in the brain as performing the same functions. Otherwise put, the brain areas are equally mutable as the cosmetic differences of the skin. You didn't think the brain was handed down perfect from God, did you?

So... if you can accept cosmetic differences between different people, and races, then it would be strange to refuse to acknowledge differences in brain structure between people and races. Leave you with a bitter aftertaste?

Racism is not about claiming that people are different. It never has been. Racism is when you refuse to attribute people the same value DESPITE the differences you can see and those you can not.

The brain has a whole bunch of tools, but how those tools are used is up to the individual and environment. For example, the brain is hardwired for language, yet we have to create the actual languages to use. There might be slight changes in where those tools are located or in their exact function, but since tools to not equate with end result, it just means different people may need to find their own way to the end result, it does not mean that they are somehow incapable of achieving the same end result as someone else.

Racism was never about refusing to attribute the same value despite differences, it was always an excuse to attribute different value because of differences, which is always going to occur anyway, so the goal is to make the determining differences be merit rather then something that doesn't actually make a difference in someones merit.

Besides, it's more important to focus on how things change between individuals, rather then things that stay the same based on race. For two reasons, one, most such things do not truly affect an individuals capacity to be or do anything, Two, too many people would use that idea as an excuse to be racist, "because science proves it!"


Fabius Maximus wrote:
meatrace wrote:
Fabius Maximus wrote:
meatrace wrote:

I feel like an asshat for having to bring up nazis again, but let's not forget that nazis were basically the military arm of the Catholic right wing.

No, they weren't.

Well, you sure showed me!

Alright, alright.

The antisemitism of the Nazis wasn't religiously motivated, but nationalistic. The roots lay in the German nationalist movement of the 19th century. Since there was no common political or cultural ground to be found among all the small states of the former Holy Roman Empire, the nationalists fell back on "blood". Hence their antisemitism, since, by that reasoning, Jews couldn't considered to be of German descent. The Nazis took that to the extreme.

Which is why, when they conquered other countries they put all those Frenchmen and Poles and Ukrainians and everyone else in death camps since they weren't of German descent. Pure nationalism, nothing religious about it.


Vive le Resistance!

Lantern Lodge

@Laserx
Okay, not cosmetic, however, from my post you couldn't tell that diseases didn't exactly apply as what I was refering to?

So to restate, do you actually believe that minor genetic variations between races are responsible in making individuals more, or less, capable in any particularly meaningful way, such as being smarter, stronger, faster, better at leadership, better at menial labor, etc?


Don Juan de Doodlebug wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Sickle-cell anemia is most prevalent in populations of sub-Saharan African ancestry, but it is also common among Latin-American, Indian, Saudi Arab, and Mediterranean populations such as Turkey, Greece, and Italy.

Amusing tale from the shopfloor:

** spoiler omitted **

Hee hee!

I used to be good at determining who might have sickle cell by sight. Then I met more white people and lost the knack.


White people?!?

(Would link a certain Sly and the Family Stone song, but, nah, we don't need any envelope-pushing today.)

;)


DarkLightHitomi: No. We all have different tools, and we have different preferences (yes, also due to genetics) that make us apply them for different ends. While it is true that most people (certainly not all) are able to reach the same "end result" as most other people, their different genetic makeup WILL make them aim for other "end results".

Another difficult concept: If you take two groups, say, men and women, and you measure their heights. You will end up with roughly the same statistic spread, and two different average/median heights. While it IS true that any given girl MIGHT grow up to be the tallest person in the world, it is EXCEEDINGLY unlikely. In fact, while the interpersonal variability is larger than intergroup variability, you will also find that out of the tallest 10.000 people in the world, a devastating majority of them will be men. In other words, yes, it is possible that your variability between people IS larger than the variability between groups, but the variability between groups is still highly relevant if you take a look at the ends of the scale. Now apply this to every sort of even vaguely measurable quality of various groups.

And the fact that people would use this fact to promote racism is completely irrelevant to the actual findings that genetics affect who we are. The scientific method does in no way concern itself with what the consequences of correlations might be, just that they exist. Far better to accept that people are different and have equal value than trying to deny ever stronger evidence that not everything depends only on nurture.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
DarkLightHitomi wrote:

@Laserx

Okay, not cosmetic, however, from my post you couldn't tell that diseases didn't exactly apply as what I was refering to?

So to restate, do you actually believe that minor genetic variations between races are responsible in making individuals more, or less, capable in any particularly meaningful way, such as being smarter, stronger, faster, better at leadership, better at menial labor, etc?

I don't think that at this time there is a competent way to ask that question much less answer it. I pretty much doubt that such a question could be separated from questions of history and culture which are very much tied into the equation. Issues of resources available, even mundane factors such as nutrition and diet are also part of the picture that would need to be looked at as well.


Sissyl wrote:
In other words, yes, it is possible that your variability between people IS larger than the variability between groups, but the variability between groups is still highly relevant if you take a look at the ends of the scale. Now apply this to every sort of even vaguely measurable quality of various groups.

Do you have a source you could cite about the variability between large groups? Everything I've seen has said that there isn't a large measurable difference between "races". For example looking at just genetic code, you can't predict if someone is from England, Russia or Saudia Arabia. You can tell they aren't from Asia or sub-saharan africa, but that's about the extent of 'race' that can be determined just from DNA. Even then, they aren't seeing specific genetic markers, but rather groupings of markers that have a higher statistical chance in certain regions and those statistical groupings aren't even guaranteed within a region (ignoring post-industrial era migration and what not).

I haven't seen much to suggest that race is a useful genetic grouping method for geneticists.


thejeff wrote:
Fabius Maximus wrote:
meatrace wrote:
Fabius Maximus wrote:
meatrace wrote:

I feel like an asshat for having to bring up nazis again, but let's not forget that nazis were basically the military arm of the Catholic right wing.

No, they weren't.

Well, you sure showed me!

Alright, alright.

The antisemitism of the Nazis wasn't religiously motivated, but nationalistic. The roots lay in the German nationalist movement of the 19th century. Since there was no common political or cultural ground to be found among all the small states of the former Holy Roman Empire, the nationalists fell back on "blood". Hence their antisemitism, since, by that reasoning, Jews couldn't considered to be of German descent. The Nazis took that to the extreme.

Which is why, when they conquered other countries they put all those Frenchmen and Poles and Ukrainians and everyone else in death camps since they weren't of German descent. Pure nationalism, nothing religious about it.

I'm not sure if that was sarcasm...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Fabius Maximus wrote:
The antisemitism of the Nazis wasn't religiously motivated, but nationalistic. The roots lay in the German nationalist movement of the 19th century. Since there was no common political or cultural ground to be found among all the small states of the former Holy Roman Empire, the nationalists fell back on "blood". Hence their antisemitism, since, by that reasoning, Jews couldn't considered to be of German descent. The Nazis took that to the extreme.

I'm going to spoiler tag this because it's long...

fascism:

No. I am unsure you know how fascism works. Fascism was a response to communism, which advocated workers rights and egalitarianism (even if it never achieved it, that's immaterial). Fascism is basically the act of using something to unite the proles against a common enemy (real or imagined) in order to distract them from their own misery and keep them working for the money power elite. It's really quite ingenious! This is also why we refer to regimes like the Taliban and Iran as "Islamofascist" because they use religious fervor as much as nationalism.

There was PLENTY of shared cultural ground across Germany, so that statement is frankly poppycock, but more importantly the biggest two strings to pull were 1) nationalism and 2) religion. The population of Europe had been pretty overwhelmingly Christian for quite some time now, as I'm sure you know.

What we're talking about is ethnicity, and ethnicity is a dirty brew that includes race, religion, and language. The Jews were not ethnic Germans: they didn't look like Germans, they had a strange religions, and they spoke their own language. They were outsiders. To say religion didn't play a part in that is to miscomprehend ethnicity.

My point is that they used BOTH nationalism AND religious memes to unite Germany. Nationalism in that they attempted to look back at the Holy Roman Empire (hmm...Religion as well) and also the Weimar Republic (the Second Reich) as being the only states having existed that united all the German people.

They used both pre-Roman German pagan as well as religious iconography, and they also used the icons of the HRE which itself inherited from Rome (the two-headed eagle). But don't mistake HRE imagery for irreligious. While it's true what Voltaire says that the Holy Roman Empire was "neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire," that oughtn't distract from the fact that it was united by Catholic christianity and administrated by the church. I'm just saying, just remember that the pining for the good old days of the Holy Roman Empire was explicitly pining for a time when religion and law were intertwined.

They also used old ethnic hatred of Jews, that had been fostered and perpetuated by the Catholic church for literally milennia (going back to old Rome and Constantine), as one of their ideological foci.

Another thing to understand about fascism is that it operates by creating a sort of tunnel vision. There has to be a clear vision of a goal, a positive outcome, as well as something to unite people in order to hate. In Germany the goal was the reunification of the German people, and the scapegoat if you will was an "infestation" of ethnically impure German Jews, blacks, gypsies, homosexuals, etc.

I'm not going to try to convince you that Hitler was a Catholic, because it's immaterial. The point is that the Nazi's breed of fascism drew on religious and cultural hatreds that wouldn't have existed were it not for the antisemitism that festered in the Catholic church, who was eager to regain a political and ideological foothold in Europe after its fall from power in the preceding century or so.

That, as Sissyl points out, no Nazi was ever excommunicated for participation in the Holocaust, speaks VOLUMES as to the actual viewpoint of the Catholic church on the subject. A good deal of high ranking Nazis were Catholic and, whether Hitler believed in it or not he went to church and paid lipservice to religion because he knew it was important to kiss the rings of the Catholic church and to convince his people that what he was doing was right in the eyes of god.

1,051 to 1,100 of 1,362 << first < prev | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / Concerned over Cultural Marxism All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.