meh
You are looking at a Public Service Announcement aimed at North Americans.
All you have done is provide an example of the sort of thing I mentioned previously.
You will have to wait for MrDibble’s response to see whether you qualify as a racist or just a smart ass with inadequate reading skills. 
Does v-Bulletin support attaching an “R” to usernames that quality?
I read it. But that wasn’t the statement I quoted, now was it? Like I said, if you say “Blacks [something scientific]” you’re just wrong.
Anytime you group all Black people together, you’re wrong.
But is that how the actual studies are constructed? And yes, those PSAs/popularizations are wrong.
:rolleyes: OK, I’ll add the caveat “unless you’re being a facetious fuckhole” to my statement. Happy?
Than Dravidians and Melanesians? And if they’re from Ethiopia or Somalia?
Hell yes, it’s racist to assume Blacks have more melanin than non-Blacks.
Not so much, no. Congratulations, you’ve found a scientific-ish statement that works. My entire position is now invalidated.:rolleyes:
…or an Indian or a Turk or a Kuwaiti.. And NOT a Zulu or a Mozambican or a Namibian or a Somalian or Ethiopian. Despite the latter being Black.
See the racism now?
No. There’s no racism in that statement, or any of the ones I talked about. Racism is discrimination against people because of their skin colour. Grouping people by race for neutral purposes is not racism. Saying black people are more likely to get sickle cell than white people is not racist. Saying black and white people need different hair care products isn’t racist.
Hell, saying that black Americans on average do worse in school than others isn’t racist. But saying that any given black person must be stupid, and treating them as such because of their skin colour, would be. Whether you like this or not, frankly, doesn’t matter.
Actual facts, actual observations cannot be racist.
So I now can haz Iggy® as my updated username!?
But that’s the way a certain type of person deals with actual facts and observations that are uncomfortable - deny that they are facts, and then shut off the discussion by crying racism.
Fortunately, they often deal with the problem by descending (or ascending) into self-parody, as in “any scientific observation about blacks is racist”. Then the rest of us know when to argue back, and when just to point and laugh.
Regards,
Shodan
I’m very happy. But you’re just wrong. Hedging doesn’t change that.
Well, C.S. Lewis wrote that he became an atheist as a young man partly as a result of his mother’s death. Really, I have no idea how common it is, but I don’t doubt that it is true in some cases.
No, Fox News does not get its facts right, and it does not represent its facts fairly. And Media Matters for America is a group with an agenda, but one that nonetheless publishes full transcripts that you can view yourself. Or are full transcipts biased in your worldview?
Right Wing Watch is sponsored by People for the American Way. If you can’t distinguish spin from fact you need to work harder in my opinion.
Fox News false claims from the past week. From Media Matters for America: Fox host Neil Cavuto pretended that the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) ban on gender discrimination, which requires all policies to include maternity care coverage, was never “telegraphed” to the American people when the law was first discussed – Cavuto is right, if you ignore repeated remarks made by President Obama, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, and multiple media outlets prior to the bill’s passage. And here’s another example: After attacking Obamacare by highlighting easily debunked personal anectodes, Fox hosted another guest who falsely claimed the health care law would harm him personally without checking to make sure his story was accurate.
The Economist Magazine and the news section of the Wall Street Journal are conservative publications in their home countries but they generally get their facts straight. When they don’t, they issue clarification and correction. Fox News is nothing like that: they consistently screw up their facts. Notice that I took examples from the past week (past 3 days actually). You can do that most of the time.
Factual inaccuracy: this is a feature for most modern US conservatives. We know this because they won’t denounce Fox News.
I find the vast panoply of humanity to be underrepresented here, but still this is the best message board I have ever been a member of (and we are talking about since 1974 when a bunch of us wrote a program at Georgia Tech called ‘forum’). That having been said, the outriders of any dataset of humans (and I believe Der Trihs matches those specifications) are the most interesting to me. Irritating and outrageous, yes. Commonly wrong and difficult to process, but interesting nevertheless.
And, based upon the information from this website (noted upthread) http://ovalkwiki.com/Lieutenant+Commander+John+Der+Trihs we probably should cut this guy some slack.
It’s used a lot in surveys, scientific and otherwise, partly because single words of less than 8 letters code well.
Race is commonly used as a control variable in the social sciences with US samples.
Yep. It’s amazing. Even with the red type and underlining, the point, sharpened to dangerous obviousness, was unable to penetrate the fat around the brain.
Excellent!. B I think that the Broad Brush Bullshit Brothers rolls off the tongue even better. Though you’re version would be better for the insignia on their dunce caps.
According to him, it sounds like reality has a racist bias.
Nope. Not even close. Your confusing racial with racist.
Good. Glad you finally see the light.
And this is why I was happy to have the conversation move away from Der Trihs a bit and have some of these people try to support their whines of racism. The former has a low bar and very little reward. Only the most blindly partisan apologists will seek to defend him. But holding to the fire the feet of those who you describe above is much more rewarding. I particularly love the fact that they seem so surprised that they would be challenged at all. It’s as if their "thought process: is simply.
And when cornered, “B-b-b-but there’s not such thing as race”.
Chuckle. Chuckle. Yawn. Chuckle.
Repeatedly grouping people wrongly by their skin colour when we know that it is bad science, j*ust because *of their skin colour and continent of origin and for no other reasons, is racist.
Yes, it is. Are Turks not White? Are Italians? Are Zulus not Black? And Somalis? It is both wrong and racist to say Sickle cell is a Black trait.
It’s just barely “science”, too. There’s a hidden tautology there - you must actually already be defining Black people as those dark people with kinky hair - or else, why are the Dravidians not Black? And also doesn’t distinguish between Blacks, Melanesians and Aborigines. In fact, it creates a simple little classification scheme - is everyone either Black or White, in this picture? On what basis?
“ethnicity” =/= race. I don’t object to science using the former, I object to it using the latter. I’m getting the sense that in America, it’s being used synonymously with African-American, which greatly confuses the discussion. But that isn’t how I use it. I use it to mean “Sub-Saharan African” And for clarity, by race I mean anytime anyone uses the traditional 3-7 races model.
This is a meaningless distinction only racists like to make. Which, no surprises there.
