Ultraconservatives pretend homophobia/racism doesn't exist

Post Reply New Topic

So people can make jokes about a white guy and it is okay but if they make the same jokes about a guy whom happens to be black they are a racist... Sorry but that's like the boy who cried wolf.

It's only racist if it emphasizes his blackness, and especially so if it emphasizes blackness and equates it with primitiveness, lack of education, or dangerousness. 'Jokes' or ads that are racist against Latinos and Asians tend to emphasize their dark skin, different facial features, and portray them as 'other,' 'un-American,' foreign, or 'not like us,' and fail to differentiate between native-born and actual foreign Latinos and Asians; they sometimes further insinuate that even native-born Latinos and Asians are not legitimate citizens but rather 'anchor babies,' implying that their parents are not legitimate citizens as well.

Does that help?

1) That doesn't answer Inuyasha's question.

2) I've probably heard and told a whole lot more ethnic jokes than you, and joking about skin color would be boring. Asians are often darker than Mexicans yet I hardly ever hear or tell any jokes about them (or talk crap about them) because they assimilate into society better. Very few people for hate people for darker skin. There are almost always other reasons why people hate other races for reasons that have to do with widespread patterns of bad behavior or gross deficiencies in their culture that are bad enough to cause problems for others.

Stop with the spin and actually respond to what I said...

@John_Browning

It wasn't a question at this point but an observation, it has gotten to the point where one doesn't need to ask a question because the double-standard is so blatent.

1)what question?

2)who said anything about skin tones? I was talking about ethnicities.

We are referring to this.

The point is LKL, you are giving one group of people preferential treatment over another group of people just based on their skin pigmentation. People can make fun of people despite the fact there is a different skin color and not actually be a racist. Their making fun of the person could have absolutely nothing to do with race!

see my reply. I think I explained it pretty clearly and completely.

I saw you response and rightfully pointed out that you are advocating a form of racism.

If it's not clear to you, then there's nothing more to say.

No your explanation was completely clear, it isn't my fault you can't recognize how your statement was elevating one group of people over another based on race.

It looks like you are trying to reconcile your knowledge of biology with the propaganda you've been fed all your life about the "evil" of "racism", and have ended up quite confused.

1. You start by saying racial differences don't matter, and then you use the fact of racial differences to argue for the benefits of hybrid vigour. You can't have it both ways.
2. Hybrid vigour might be a useful concept for farmers, but is far less so for the long term health of human populations. This is because hybrid vigour decreases with each generation (which is why farmers usually don't let hybrids breed among themselves).
3. "Previously isolated populations" survived as such for thousands of years. Since the "aim" of life is genetic continuity, you cannot maintain that genetically distant populations (say whites, blacks and orientals) mixing with each other is "adaptive" for any of those populations unless you seriously believe the survival of the human race depends upon it.
4. Just to make it clear, I don't argue against cooperation among nations.
5. Race-blind co-operation within a nation is not necessarily adaptive. It is clearly not adaptive if I (being White) give support to some organisation of non-whites who are working to ensure that within a few generations in Britain people like me will be outnumbered by people like them.

I said that racial differences don't matter *enough in the long run.* Hybrid vigor is a short-term phenomenon.


See above. In the medium-term, hybridization results in novel gene combinations that make a population more adaptable; in the long run, the population becomes homogenized at a more adapted level.



On the contrary; most of the species that have ever existed have died out, partly due to over-specilization to a unique niche that eventually ceased to exist -look at cheetahs for an example: supremely adapted to a vanishing niche. Look also at Florida panthers; the population survived on its own for thousands of years, but would have gone extinct without the deliberate introduction of genes from the Texan population of cougars. Long-term survival of a species depends on generalization. Lions, unlike cheetahs, are not endangered.
As Dawkins presented in The Selfish Gene, and as is now acknowledged by biologists everywhere, the 'goal' is continuity of individual genes that mix and match over time; the 'races' represent sets of genes, and there is no reason one set should not mix and match with other sets.


That depends on whether or not 'they' are actually a more adaptive gene set for Britain to have (and if they are reproducing more due to biological, rather than social, reasons, they probably are). If they are, then you would actually do well to support them because the vast majority of their genes are the same as yours and elevating them elevates most of your own genes as well because it means that the country as a whole will do better.

You are (almost literally) arguing that black equals white. It's hard to know how to respond to this sort of thing.
As a native Briton, my long-term genetic interests are best served by trying to ensure the continued existence of people who are genetically similar to me, i.e, native Britons (and, at the next layer of the onion, Whites). This means opposing the mass immigration of non-Whites into Britain and other historically White lands.
Your assertion that I should support these non-Whites because their genes might be more "adaptive" "for Britain" is meaningless nonsense. It is a bit like saying I should welcome squatters and their cats, dogs and gerbils into my home on the basis that their higher reproductive rates indicate "a more adaptive gene set" for my house.
I can't help wondering if you are just confused or if you are advancing your own ethnic interests with this stuff.

Codarac: 'whiteness' is a myth. 'Your genes' are a myth. What you have is a set of alleles that is mostly identical to the set of alleles that the immigrants have; black almost literally does equal white. We are a young, bottlenecked species with relatively little genetic diversity. If you believe that "they" are increasing in population because their set of alleles is genetically superior to yours, then your best bet to propagate those few of your alleles that are different from theirs is to hybridize with them and hope that, in the shuffling of alleles that happens over hundreds of generations, a few of your special alleles turn out to advantageous too. If you choose not to hybridize with them and they are genetically superior, then your special few alleles will die out, and good riddance to them but great for the majority of your genome because it's the same in both populations. Why should you pull the whole of humanity (or of Britain) down just to save a few inferior alleles?
Fitness = greater differential reproductive rate. That's all it is. That's all it ever was. It's not strength, it's not intelligence, it's not politeness, not civility, not cunning or family orientation. The one with the most grandkids wins the genetic competition.

If you think that their set of genes does not result in a superior phenotype, but that their increase in numbers is cultural, then the solution to your issue is cultural and not genetic.

What do pets have to do with anything? What does squatting have to do with anything? What does inviting them into your home have to do with anything?

Sure, 'whiteness' is a myth until universities want to brainwash kids with 'whiteness' studies, or until companies turn down well-qualified white people for jobs in the name of diversity, or until some black or asian gang goes out looking for a white kid to beat up. Just like 'race' is a myth until some mixed-race person finds it nearly impossible to find a bone marrow transplant.



I don't know why you are repeating the same point over and over as if I don't understand it. I do. I'm not the one posting the names of supposedly good-looking celebrities to make my point.



What I believe is that current cultural, economic and political conditions in Britain mean that it is is quite likely that people who are relatively genetically dissimilar to me (non-whites) will outnumber people who are relatively genetically similar to me (whites) within a few decades. It is in my genetic interests to prevent this happening, and so it is in my genetic interests that the cultural, economic and political conditions in Britain change so as to prevent this happening. (So the solution to my "issue" involves changing the cultural conditions to favour my genetic interests.)



I see. If whites prove to be inferior, then good riddance to them. Why should I drag humanity down by caring about my own useless kinsfolk? Would you say the same to a Tibetan?

Anyway, I can see there is no use in trying to get through to you. To be honest, I am only keeping this conversation going so that any fence-sitters reading can witness the attitude and debating tactics of an "enlightened" liberal (ie, LKL).

Ethnic studies in universities are about culture, not genetics. The term 'brainwash' implies that the information given to students in these classes is false, but it is generally data-driven (unlike the 'white supremacist' gobledegook that one finds on the internet).


Which happens less than well-qualified non-white people being turned down due to subconscious racism (there is data for this). In general, capitalistic companies are interested in making money, not in 'looking diverse.'


Which, again, happens probably about as much, or less than, the inverse.

In any case, I'm arguing that racism is based on a myth; that counts for reverse racism as well as the more common type.


I never said that there weren't differences, but the differences that exist between human ethnicities do not fit the biological definition of 'race.' Given that there's less than a 30% chance of finding a perfect marrow match even within one's own family, it's not too surprising that matches could be difficult to find for unusual ethnic haplotypes. Note that tissue-type differences are due more to SNP differences than to allele differences.


No, you clearly don't. You keep on arguing as if 'whites' are a solid, separate group from other humans, as opposed to a set of mostly-the-same alleles, and acting all 'oppressed' as if there were some great conspiracy, biological or otherwise, keeping the 'poor white folk' from reproducing.


I honestly don't get why this idea bothers you so much. It's like nepotism on a grand scale; I wouldn't want the people I work with to be judged based on whether or not they are family (in fact, I declined to have my Grandfather advocate for me when I was applying for a job at the hospital, despite my grandparents having donated $$$ to the hospital), so why would I want them to be judged on race? The same goes for the general mix of people around me. I like my family, but I'm not going to choose to live next to the loser cousin over the hard-working Mexican family.


I don't know how many times I have to say this, but there is no such thing as the uniquely white genome. Most of your alleles are the same as those of any other person on the planet. Most of those alleles - the vast majority of your alleles - will still be around even if 'whites' go extinct tomorrow. You are crying and gnashing your teeth over a very few alleles.


Likewise, except that I would say that you're a perfect example of a racist struggling against logic to find a 'scientific' excuse for your racism.