No problem, not offended at all.
Anyone who thinks that “you still have one foot in the jungle” said to a Black person, is not racist, is just wilfully, consciously disingenuous.
He didn’t say it to you - you’re not black.
Regards,
Shodan
:rolleyes: About a Black person, then, Mr Pedant. Delon wasn’t addressing me at all in that little rant, and I never suggested he was.
I was about to say this… no, Princhester said it far more eloquently than I could have.
And the rule has always been that one can make disparaging remarks about groups, even if some Dopers are members of those groups. Witness the near-constant barrage of such remarks about Republicans, Christians, anti-abortionists, Israelis, and so on, and so on and so on.
But a remark about the “masses” in South Africa not knowing how to act in a modern democracy gets moderated.
It was a crude way of putting it. But it is a perfectly defensible statement.
It doesn’t seem like any of the moderators in GD can allow discussions of racial topics without these hair-trigger accusations of racism and bad faith.
So you are shutting down expressions of opinion in GD too?
Regards,
Shodan
This is a screeching hijack, but I have to object to your characterization of farmers. Most modern farmers are technologically sophisticated businessmen who have to keep a sharp eye on markets. They could probably pick up the finer points of corporate finance at least as quickly as any other entrepreneur. Also, they often have friends or relatives who live in the city, so while gentrification doesn’t affect them directly I’m sure they can grasp the concept. It’s something that can be explained in one sentence. I am also confident they can hail a cab. I’m sure most have at one point or another.
Sorry, just a pet peeve. My cousin is a farmer, and manages a moderately large and complex operation. He spends as much time on a laptop as he does on a tractor.
end hijack.
Right. No other racist speech would ever get moderated.:rolleyes: Try dropping “Jews really love them some money” in an Israel thread, see how that goes down.
But do go on disingenuously calling it “disparaging remarks” rather than what it was - racist speech.:dubious:
I’ll fully admit the notion is outdated.
Ain’t no problem. 
That’s the problem. You are assuming that any disparaging remark about the masses in South Africa is racist. That is not necessarily the case.
“Part of the problem in South Africa is due to the fact that most of its populace is not experienced in living in a modern democracy”. That’s a politically correct way of saying the same thing.
But Marley23 doesn’t like that opinion, so he did what accusations of racism are meant to do - shut down a poster so you don’t have to make an argument. Because if you debate an opinion, you might lose. Simply threaten a poster with banning? There’s no way a mod can lose that argument. So it’s a lot easier.
Regards,
Shodan
All native born South Africans, black, white and colored, have the same amount of experience living in a democracy. Setting aside the few who went to school in England, for example.
Shodan’s translation is laughable.
That, of course, explains why we keep having threads complaining that the mods have not shut down the topics (or posters) who are being accused of racism.*
Yeah, the mods are always just cutting off any discussion of that sort. 
- E.G.,
Why isn’t racism “being a jerk”?
Why are thinly veiled racist threads continually allowed in GD?
(Got any counter examples outside your imagination? 
)
You think that the black experience in South Africa is the same as the white experience? That they have all had equivalent access to education? That they all have similar access to quality information? That they all have, in short, equivalent access to the tools one needs to maximise one’s ability to participate and run a liberal democracy? Would that it were so, but in any other context you would, I suspect, argue ferociously to the contrary.
There is something laughable here, but I’m not sure it’s what Shodan said. Irritating as it is for me to have to agree with Shodan.
I’m assuming no such thing. I’m reading this one actual statement exactly as it’s bloody well written.
Don’t you get it? It is precisely what was said that made it racist. And they are not saying the same thing: what’s the link between “no experience with democracy” and “living in the bush”? None.
Your gloss on it is just disingenuous excuse-making for racism. The person you’re defending was painting the vast majority of South Africans as one step removed from literal uncivilized hunter-gatherers, a characterisation that has absolutely zero connection with any reality now, or even in the pre-colonial past.
No, you are assuming, which is why you keep changing what was said to make it look worse.
One is politically correct, and the other is not. They express the same opinion.
Repetition isn’t proof.
Regards,
Shodan
Your use of the term “scientific racists” and your characterization of their position is just absolutely ridiculous. You seem to not want to learn about this issue, but I will try.
Let’s say a scientist gets a group of people together. He then assigns those group of people to different races using some criteria that he fully explains. He then takes various measurements of the people and determines if those measurements correlate to the races he’s assigned. He then reports the results.
All that scientist did was standard science. There’s nothing “racist” about it.
Racism is the belief that another person is inherently and irredeemably inferior solely on account of their race, not based on any particular measurement. A racist doesn’t need studies reporting anything–they believe that a person of one race is inferior to another based simply on their race alone. And the inferiority is of a fundamental natue–it’s not related to any particular performance metric–it goes to the core of the subject’s being. And the inferiority can’t change over time–the inferior race will never evolve to be equal to or superior than the superior race.
A scientist that does the above and determines that people of one race tend to have IQs that are lower than people of another race is not automatically a racist just because they reported that conclusion. The scientist is not saying that one race is inherently inferior in the way described above–he’s just saying that one race tends to have a certain measure that is less than the average of another race, no different than height or jumping ability or whatever. And the scientist fully recognizes that the average measurements can change over time. And he recognizes that his determination of which race a particular person falls into is subjective and there’s no one way to assign people to races.
A person who reads that scientist’s work and doesn’t automatically reject it as not a racist based simply on such non-rejection.
I don’t believe Shodan was accusing mods of closing down discussions. Rather, he’s accusing other posters of jumping to accusations of racism.
This is apparently a difference of opinion over what the phrase “living in the bush” means.
And while I certainly can see a part of the phrase “living in the bush” meaning something like “not fully adapted to modern urban society”, there is a definite element there that steps beyond that statement. It carries an air of “jungle bunny”.
Rand, I’m very familiar with the ridiculous theories you’re talking about.
They were discredited almost a hundred years ago and have as much validity as people arguing in favor of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
Also, the scientific racists didn’t and don’t practice “standard science” but practice pseudo-science.
Also, despite your suggestion, I’m not using the term “scientific racist” and “scientific racism” as an insult but because it’s an accurate description of their beliefs and the way they’re regularly described in academia. For example Stephen Jay Gould in his writings on the Eugenics movement and the Eugenicists regularly referred to them as “scientific racists” and their beliefs as “scientific racism”. Peter Novick in his book That Noble Drem, describing the creation of the American historical profession regularly used the same terminology and Eric Foner, one of America’s most prominent historians regularly uses those terms as well.
I’m using the term to accurately describe their beliefs and using commonly accepted terms.
Who, exactly, are “they”? Can you point to posts on this messageboard posted by one of “them”?
Because a 19th century eugenicist is a far cry from someone who’s read the Bell Curve and doesn’t reflexively dismiss it.