Etymology was a poor word choice on my part. The problem with “Oriental” isn’t it’s derivation, it’s the Imperialist / othering connotations it acquired in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.
The objections are overstated, but it had become a more loaded term than just meaning “from the east.”
I’m using the term “blue” in a certain way – to mean a certain colour observed most commonly in strawberries, tomatoes and penis heads. If you want to refer to that colour in some other way, feel free - but don’t accuse me of using insane definitions or being intentionally misleading in any way !
There’s glory for you. It’s not surprising that you’d use terms in certain ways, after all you have a creative interpretation on what “banned” means.
I refer to them, and have in this thread, as “non-racists,” which appeared to unaccountably confuse you, but didn’t.
Fine. Bring that evidence to NDD’s ongoing GD thread on race and IQ (which inspired this Pit thread), and we’ll all see how well it stands up to Doperly ignorance-fighting. It won’t, unless you have something to add that NDD has not already posted.
Lie.
Go for it. It might be more helpful to use a different term, but I certainly don’t own the dictionary.
By the way, do you associate the egalitarian hypothesis more strongly with the political Left or the political Right?
Fine, then substitute your word for Leftist in the point I first made. Which stands.
Lol, I’m sure it seems that way to you.
You jumped into this thread defending a stupid racist while calling every else “leftists”; in later posts you also claim: superior intelligence, better judgement and (amazingly) emotional impartiality. You are both a liar and a fool.
Someone more intelligent (then yourself) would recognize the flaws of such an approach.
Lol, I’m sure it seems that way to you.
Well, as long as you realize you’re using a different language than everyone else, and as such have no hope of reaching through to anybody but your masturbatory self…
The point of language is to communicate with each other. Making your own shit up and using your own made-up definitions is masturbatory as well as at best counter-productive, at worst deliberate misdirection and misinformation.
TL,DR: piss off, you nonce.
I don’t think it has any direct connection or correlation to either. Left and right are and have traditionally always been defined, at heart, by different attitudes towards personal property and the protection thereof. There are racist leftists (the Soviet Union was notoriously anti-Semitic as well as discriminating towards Ukrainians, Cossacks and pretty much all ethnicities in the Union that weren’t Russians for example ; Communist China is overwhelmingly Han-centric), just as there are colourblind right wingers.
“Leftist” is a commonly used word with connotations right along the lines I was expressing.
This is from Wikipedia:
My use of the word “Leftist” was completely in line with this explanation.
You can see, then, how a person who does not accept the hypothesis (doesn’t really deserve to be rated a “theory”) of hereditary race-differences in IQ does not necessarily fall within that definition. You’ll find many such in the GOP and many such in the Libertarian Party. (Don’t ask me about the Tea Party.)
This is the point you first made – the bit about the Church picnic – and it don’t stand up to a raindrop.
Don’t be a little bitch with your chitchat, just show me where your dick’s at.
Anyone who’s read about half my posts knows I can’t resist a good Ke$ha reference.
And this is precisely the proof that brazil’s little argument rules allow him to think discredited things and then use his rules to never actually change those thoughts.
We’ve provided evidence after evidence that he is wrong, but he won’t listen. He’ll use any tactic to continue to believe what he believes. And despite protestations to the contrary, that’s not rational.
Seriously: discard everything you’ve ever heard about how blacks are inferior, and try to construct a world where it is untrue. Then compare it to this world. It will be the same world. And thus you will conclude the only reason to continue to believe in inherent differences is because you hold racist beliefs.
This is a bare minimum required for claiming rationality.
Well, we are who we are.
I’m not sure what your point is here, but like I said I’m not going to waste time arguing semantics with you.
I’m sure it seems that way to you.
I’m sure it seems that way to you. However, in reality you are the one with a log in your eye, so to speak.
Let me ask you this:
(1) Do you accept the egalitarian hypothesis?
(2) If the egalitarian hypothesis were false to a small but significant extent, how would the world be different from the way it is now?
It is not a matter of “semantics.” You picked and defined the terms. You defined the “egalitarian hypothesis”. You equated the “egalitarian hypothesis” with “the Left.” You defined “the Left.” Then I pointed out the plain and obvious truth that applying your definitions, it is by no means only “the Left” that holds the “egalitarian hypothesis,” many conservatives and libertarians – persons falling well outside your definition of “the Left” – hold it too. You played semantic games to try to make out the “egalitarian hypothesis” as some sort of left-radical-fringe position one must take on “faith,” and it is not, it is the conventional wisdom and established consensus practically everywhere, including the scientific community. You are simply and blatantly wrong, as usual. And now squirming and dodging as usual, you dishonest piece of shit.
They do, which is why arguments like yours always fail: they’re based on phenotypes or socio-cultural groupings or geographical populations, underscored by the assumption that the members of those group share a common genotype.
Except that they don’t, and it’s been conclusively proven that they don’t, and it gets mentioned in every single freaking one of these threads that they don’t, and then the handwaving and equivocation begins. From a genetic standpoint there is no such unified (or even loosely connected) population as “blacks”; the genotypical groups that are part of the standard phenotypical or socio-cultural groupings are too diverse. And thus it can’t be demonstrated that “blacks” are genetically inferior, superior or anything else.
Lol, do you even know what “semantics” means?
Anyway, please show me where I defined “the Left.”
In a sense, the egalitarian hypothesis is the reigning ideology in America today. To a large extent, the conservatives and libertarians you speak of are terrified to challenge it.
None of this changes my basic point though, which is that Leftists (or anti-racists if you like) have a (ETA: strong) tendency to be nasty and abusive towards those who challenge their dogma.
Sure, in the sense that anyone in politics or science who knows what’s good for him doesn’t speak out against it.
Please quote the assertion I made which was “blatantly wrong.”