It’s not respect if you answer arguments and accusations with nothing but meaningless phrases. It is not possible for you to respect my opinion that you are the sock for some banned poster.
I believe debates should be objective and rational. As such, I am polite and don’t use insults, name-callings, or ad hominem attacks. Others are the opposite, as has been evident in the threads I have started.
Regards.
If you want rational and objective, don’t cite freaking Pat Buchanan and similar racist nutcases.
I am not attacking your character because your arguments are too tough for me to handle. I am attacking your character because I think that is why your “arguments” were screwed from the start. They were never going to launch any real debate, because there is no “Science Girl” but just some white supremacist who came in here to preach.
If you’re not a sock, why not just deny it?
Okey, I have never been to this forum before, this is my first time. I discovered this forum through http://www.big-boards.com/ And anyway, have you ever seen a White person with my personality? I am pretty sure you would not find a single White person who is as cool-headed and objective as I at Stormfront.org, where REAL “White Supremacist” types hang out. Most Whites are very sentimental by nature, as Professor Kevin MacDonald has studied in his works on differential psychology. Unless I am one of those rare statistical anomolies, I can only be non-White.
Regards
I think it would be more fair to classify SG as a racial supremecist guilt-ridden minority, rather than as a white supremecist. She clearly is racist, for whatever logical reasons she cites.
In fact, though, once again, SG, your vaunted “logic” is faulty. There are a number of “cool headed” and “objective” (though if you were truly objective, you would never use such terms as, “this is wrong because I don’t agree with it” and freely admit that you are not using primary sources - and I prefer to thinj of that personality type as berift of personality) racists, including white supremecists who use the same “data” that you have been spewing. So, no, it does not mean that you can “only” be non-white.
Could you be so kind as to tell me how exactly you came to discover the theories of this ‘Prof. MacDonald’ person, please.
That is possibly the most preposterous thing ever posted in the history of the SDMB.
I would ask for proof white people are disproportionately sentimental, but I have a feeling you don’t have one. I can’t even imagine how you would measure that.
What fascinats me is that when a white racist wants to impersonate someone who’s not white, they can onlyimpersonate a non-white racist.
This failure of imagination may explain a lot of how they justify their beliefs: they cannot conceive that a person of a different skin color could possibly be less racist than they themselves are. Were they to realize that some brown, tawny, mahagony, and russet people DIDN’T care much about skin color, then maybe they would call pink people like myself race traitors.
They’re similar to anti-racists, inasmuch as they believe everyone is the same under their skin. They just think everyone is, deep down, equally racist.
Fighting ignorance is one thing, but it can’t be done when the opposition is dishonest. You can’t play basketball with someone who tucks the ball under her arm and sprints across the parking lot to her car and drives away; you can’t debate with someone who starts from a deceitful position.
Daniel
Just on the off-chance that the OP was asking a genuine question…
Q: “What is racism?”
A: “This. This is racism.”
Any time you categorize people–make judgements about them–solely on the basis of their skin color, that is “racism”.
Saying, “Most Whites are very sentimental by nature” is exactly the same thing as saying, “Most Blacks are very sentimental by nature”.
Which as a matter of fact was something that did used to be said. In earlier eras Blacks were considered child-like and emotional creatures, who wept easily over things.
hey, just like women!
Okay, let’s have a quick show of hands. Anyone believe Science Girl’s claim that she’s a “person of color”? Anyone?
Eh, he/she’s not “lying” when she they says she is a “person of color”. And she’s not lying when claiming to be brown. But she is certainly very very very very light brown. And since very very very very light brown is a color, she is therefore a “person of color”. A color that most of us would call “white”, but of course that is inaccurate! White people aren’t really white skinned! Black people aren’t really black skinned! She isn’t anti-semitic because she doesn’t hate Arabs, just Jews! She isn’t a racist, she is a white separatist! She doesn’t hate other races, she just loves her own race!
For some reason white racists like to play these semantic games when posting on non-racist parts of the internet. Almost like they’re ASHAMED of themselves.
Science Girl is the sock of someone who came here with their idiotic white supremacist ideas in full view and got shot down in flames.
Therefore, he decided not to change his views but rather just come back, change his ‘appearance’ and spew the same kind of hateful nonsense but attempt to look more lovable while doing it.
The reason this irritates me so much is that he’s too much of a coward to speak his mind and be himself. Come on out, Science Gir, you’re not fooling anyone. You might as well take off the Klan hood and let us see your true colours.
I seem to recall something about a Razor… being simple… Oh well, doesn’t matter, I’m sure.
Look. Whatever Science Girl may be, it displays an equal bias against all races on grounds of assumed logic. Labelling it a white supremecist because it has similar arguments to one is asinine, and ignores several key facts, one of which is that racism exists in other cultures and colors besides white. It is, in fact, rather ignorant to presume so - this is especially important here because SG has actually been arguing that East Asians are statistically superior to everyone, and whites are the median.
As I said, I don’t find reason to doubt its claims at being “ethnic” from a white point of view. She likely holds a deep sorrow and regret at being “brown,” hating herself and her society for it, which makes her more malleable to these arguments. It isn’t the first time in history that someone has hated their ethnicity, and racial guilt is certainly nothing new, especially to white folk like, I presume, most of you, who immediately perceive all forms of racism as being white supremacy.
I disagree. It is using techniques commonly used by white supremacists - it appears to be following tactics mentioned in the recent pit thread. It cites white supremacist authors, displays a knowledge of Stormfront etc.
Ockham’s Razor, in this case - If it quacks like a duck, it’s a duck.
The “girl’s” as white as her sheet. 
[Moderator Hat ON]
Discssion of who is a sock or a troll should not be done in the forums; please email a mod if you suspect someone is a sock or troll. Wanna get back to the debate here?
[Moderator Hat OFF]
…there’s a debate here? 
The OP had nothing but a link and excerpts from an article. When pressed for a debateable OP, it provided the following:
Seems we’ve spent most of the thread discussing the possible gender(s) and skin color(s) of the OP. So, shall we get back to that?
One vote here for “null gender” and “pixel-colored”.
Sure thing. What was the debate again? 
In the beginning, I think it was about non white’s not being condemned for racist statements, whereas whites are, I think, but as this thread has gone on, I’m beginning to wonder if it’s lost all meaning. Is there a clear debate here, and if so, what is it?
I have no clue about her gender, but I’ll assume she is female, for now. And I won’t accuse her of being a sock puppet or troll, because I honestly don’t know, and even if I suspected, as Gaudere mentioned, you’re not supposed to go around accusing somebody of that openly.
However, what I will question, is her skin color. She claims to be brown, but won’t say what ethnicity she belongs too. Ironic in a thread where she’s talking about how proud she is of her heritage. If she’s so proud, then she should have no problem saying “I’m black” or “I’m Mexican” or “I’m Indian” or whatever. But yet, she refuses, leading me to believe that the charges made against her that she’s white are true, or that the other charges about her being ashamed of her race are true.
As for the OP, I already responded to it earlier, when I knew, or thought I knew what the debate is about. It’s seemed to have changed though, seeing as how I have no clue why she posted a link to something that Pat Buchanan said about race relations.
Has this debate changed to being about race relations in general? And if so, where’s the debate?