You are completely wrong. Race and appearance are not independent variables. I don’t have the slightest fucking clue how you could think they are.
I find Steophan’s “I’m not racist, I just happen to denigrate blacks on every issue and think they’re all bunch of thugs!” shtick generally unconvincing, and **magellan01’**s endless games of racial “I’m not touching you!” tiresome at best, but when you make claims like this, you lose me completely, and I doubt I’m alone.
Talk about assuming your conclusions…
If there was a correlation, degree of “Blackness” (by which, let’s say we mean West African-ness, as that’s what America-based racists usually mean by Black) would always track skin colour or hair kink. And it mostly does, that’s not the trick.
The trick is that hair or skin has to also track degree of Blackness the other way. And it definitely doesn’t - the kinkiest hair in the world doesn’t belong to Black people, and the colour of skin is all over the place, globally. Fact is, appearances are deceptive and don’t really relate to degree of Sub-Saharan ancestry as cleanly as racists like to think. See that picture I spoilerboxed earlier.
The reason being, despite Steophan’s claim, race and appearance are independent variables - there’s nothing about phenotypic expressions - dark skin, kinky hair, epicanthic folds, blond hair, whatever - that is tied to any race.
That’s up to you, I guess. I don’t feel that, when a particular black guy acts like a thug, I have to pretend they’re not, or it’s not their fault, because political correctness. I’m pretty sure the only issue where I could be considered to have denigrated blacks is violent crime, and then it’s the specific group of young black men, who statistically commit far more of it that any other group, at least in the US and the UK. Observing that no more makes me racist than sexist or ageist, and no more makes me racist that someone claiming that the overwhelming majority of serious fraud is committed by middle-aged white guys.
Tied to? No, that’s why it’s correlation not causation. But linked to? Absolutely there is. Having brown skin and frizzy hair is a strong indicator of blackness. Being black is a strong indicator of having brown skin and frizzy hair.
Why do you keep trying to deny this? Do you really think that accepting it will lead back to 19th century classification of people as octoroons and so forth? Denying clearly observable facts is just moronic.
"Strong indicator’ =/= correlation, idiot. For there to be correlation, there has to be covariance of the variables i.e the people with the darkest skin/frizziest hair are the Blackest, and vice versa.
All you’re saying when you misuse the word “correlation” is that there’s some association of Blackness and dark skin/kinky hair. Well, duh! That’s how you people defined Blacks. Tautology much?
It still bears no relation to genetics, though.
Of course, Steophan, you could always prove me wrong and show your calculation for the r value of Blackness vs skin colour or hair kink. I’ll expect it sometime after I get magellan’s, shall I?
throws martini in Steophan’s face
Them’s my people you denigrate there. We shall overcome!
“You people”?
Anyway, this strikes me as an entirely semantic issue. Am I right in thinking that if folks say “dark skin is associated with being black,” you’ll find that statement unobjectionable? If someone says, “being black is associated with having kinky hair,” you won’t have a problem with that?
As it is, I find many of your statements about race to be entirely bizarre and completely unlike statements I’ve ever heard anyone else of any racial or ethnic background to make. It seems to me that you’re using words in a way that’s not how they’re generally used.
Well, I guess white skin doesn’t mean white either.
Racially? Nope.
Oh please Cracker…
Ha! I’d point out your No True Scotsman fallacy here, but I’m sure you’re of the kind that would be ridiculous since the concept of “Scotsman” is man-made and arbitrary, depending on where one draws the narrational boundaries.
Keep digging.
So, you grow weary of wanting to claim I’m touching you even though you know I’m not. Hmmm, it doesn’t seem that your particular problem might reside in a place other than with me.
Right. And in all fairness, I may just have a skewed impression, having only seen your extensive contributions to threads about black criminality. I’m sure you’ve said lots of complimentary things about black people that I’ve just missed.
Certainly in real life I have. The most recent one, as it’s in my memory now, is hoping that the rumour that they’re going to have the Mike Morales Spider-man in the new Avengers film, not the Peter Parker one.
You seem to be making a leap from me criticising specific black individuals to criticising any group in general. Also, I will criticise any culture that prizes violence and ignorance - such as the neo-nazi scum I occasionally saw at punk gigs in my youth, any group (usually religious, specifically christian or muslim) that wants to treat women as second class citizens, or - and this may well be what you’re thinking of - any culture that things the best way out of poverty is criminality and celebrates violence, theft, conspicuous consumption of dubiously acquired items and (again) the treating of women badly - in this case specifically, the whole celebration of “pimping”.
Hopefully you are aware, as I am, that the majority of black people don’t fall into the latter group, any more than the majority of white people are neo-nazis. But I’m not going to refuse to criticise the cultures, or the negative effects they have on (mostly) young people, because of political correctness.
In my opinion, such views only become bigoted if I assume without confirmation that a skinhead is a nazi, or a Muslim is a terrorist, or a black guy is a gangsta.
Or, say, a thug. Definitely not the sort of conclusion a fair-minded, totally non-racist individual like yourself would ever blindly jump.
There is absolutely no place for this kind of outlandish assertion. For shame!
Not blindly, no, as you’d know if you read the thread.