I heard that Afroman guy did something outrageous. Anybody remember anything about that?
To the extent that blackness correlates with appearance, that’s almost entirely true. I’ve known exactly one person who identified as black but didn’t have brown skin and dark frizzy hair. I doubt anyone has known a significant amount of people who identify as black but aren’t visually identifiable as such.
Another idiot racist who has no fucking clue what correlation means.
Not at all. My statement was entirely factually correct.
What percentage of people who identify as black would you consider have brown skin and frizzy hair? I’d be amazed if it’s not well over 95%.
Afroman likes tall cans.
The thread was gonna talk about Afroman, but then it got hi-----jacked.
I already said you have no idea what correlation means, you don’t have to repeatedly show anyone with a grasp of elementary stats that it’s true.
But I’m feeling generous, here’s a clue: it’s not about people who’re Black having frizzy hair and brown skin, it’s about people with brown skin and frizzy hair being Black. And the slope of the line.
Just as another little hint, because I like you* - the people with the frizziest hair in the world are not Black.
- I really, really don’t like you.
So, you’re not going to answer the question, just as you dodged it when magellan asked it. Do you really think that most people couldn’t, with a high degree of success, identify black people by sight?
I don’t have to answer questions from racist idiots who don’t know what the words they use actually mean, especially when I’ve answered that precise question many times before in actual debate threads.
You must have this forum confused for Great Debates. This is the forum where I get to call racist idiots what they are, not one where they get to JAQ off at me.
No, this is the forum where you call people racist idiots because they’re asking you questions that you can’t answer without demonstrating your own ignorance. If you’ve answered the question with anything other than “nearly all black people have brown skin and frizzy hair” then you’re a delusional moron.
Yes, yes it is 
I wouldn’t call it ignorance. More like that other thing…what is it, again? Oh yes. Awareness!
Oh, yeah, you’re totally not a racist, dude.
So I see that’s still a “No, I don’t know what correlation means” from you? Well, at least you seem proud of being an ignoramus.
I completely understand and respect that history.
That being said, depending on the community or group of people involved, the word nappy is used by the folks in question to describe their own hair.
Context is important. When Don Imus said “nappy-headed ho” he was being deliberately disrespectful, and there was absolutely no context or need to comment on their hair. He was also referring to a group, and saying they all had nappy hair, and that they were all whores.
These were youth athletes who could kick his ass at everything, including rhetoric.
But, the word nappy is a *descriptor *which can be used in a non-racist context.
I think darkie is pretty much unambiguously a racist slur and can’t be used in any other way, though. If Magellan01 said that term in a way that couldn’t possibly be justified, and I struggle to think of any possible example… then sure, that’s racist as fuck.
Did I miss where that happened? I may have.
I agree. But I also think we can relax a little bit on calling people klansmen and nazis for using the term nappy.
There is some sort of rational middle ground where everything does not need to be taken to extremes.
There may be right and wrong, but there degrees of right and wrong. If you forget to pay your phone bill, the reaction shouldn’t be to demolish a house.
Overreaction is just as unjustified as poorly thought out action.
I was told by someone I was delivering to (when I still did such things) to get my cracker ass off of his property, and this is one second after I knocked on the door. I had literally said and done nothing yet to warrant such a slur. I was offended, and I left, and when someone came out and said they wanted their pizza, I just repeated verbatim what I was told, and I left. I told my boss, who is black, how I was treated, and I wasn’t required to go back there. Because why should I be required to serve someone who is being deliberately abusive?
Yep, cracker and honky are not exactly earth-shattering insults. :rolleyes: This is very true.
Why- because they don’t have the ugly history of centuries of oppression to back them up. I concur.
But, the *intent *behind the word is the same. It is to reduce me to my skin color and in an insulting manner.
The word is equivalent, even if the impact is not.
I mean, you can make fun of someone for being a straight, white, American male, but it does lack the impact of making fun of someone for being gay, black, or hispanic, or transgender. Because of history.
But the intent behind racist slurs is the same- it seeks to denigrate someone. You don’t need to have a generational history of racial mistreatment for racist mistreatment today to still be wrong.
I remember one day I was hanging out with a friend, who was hanging out with a friend of theirs who was gay. Nothing against the guy, but he referred to straight people as “breeders”, using the term as an insult and a slur against all straight people.
Without flipping my shit, I just calmly pointed out that I have no children and pointed out I’m about 30. So I’m as much of a breeder as he is. What I do is not all that dissimilar from what he does, which is sex for pleasure and intimacy.
But if you accept the double standard which is that people who have historically been maligned can now use racist or sexist slurs against you, because their slurs lack “impact”, that’s confusing to me.
I felt the idea behind progressing socially was to get rid of the usage of sexist and racist slurs, not add more to the pile.
Ugly terms don’t need an ugly history to be ugly today.
That does not give racists a pass to use it, anymore than ingroup usage of nigger or fag gives bigots an out.
If it were an isolated incident, you’d be right. But it’s not.
Sometime, seemingly-over-reaction is the best reaction, anything else is just pissing in the wind. We’re talking about racists whose conception of Black people is at the caricature level (just look at how desperate they are to cling to their dark skin+frizzy hair image). Those kinds of simple-minded tools can’t be calmly reasoned with. They deserve derisive laughter, not the respect of calm debate.
Are you really claiming being black doesn’t correlate strongly with having brown skin and frizzy hair? Really? That might actually be the stupidest think I’ve ever heard. The vast, vast majority of people who identify as black have brown skin and frizzy hair, and a (slightly smaller) majority of people with brown skin and frizzy hair identify as black.
To claim otherwise is absurd, it requires literally ignoring the world around you.
Yes, really.
That you don’t know the correct meaning of “correlate” (amongst many, many other English words, such as “racist” ) tells me you don’t have very good handle on what is and isn’t stupid
This, even if true (it’s not) doesn’t mean correlation, you scientific illiterate.
Most people in the world don’t, in fact, self-identify into races at all. Surprise, I know.
Was it this guy?
Naah, it was probably this woman.
Correlate. Applies strongly to black people and physical features. Not perfectly, but strongly - race is too fuzzy a concept for there to be any perfect correlations.
That there are small groups of people with brown skin and frizzy hair who aren’t black, or a number of individuals for whom the opposite is true, doesn’t mean there isn’t correlation.
No, you idiot: correlate. If you’re going to use a technical term, link to a technical definition,even a Wiki one, not a dictionary.
There’s no correlation between skin colour and Blackness, or hair texture and Blackness.
Assuming by “Blackness” you mean something racial, not tautological, of course. But with you, who knows?