Racial stereotyping

[Urist]

I`m not offended
Is stereotyping just a bad word for general cultural norms?

 

[Dave]

I`m not offended
Is stereotyping just a bad word for general cultural norms?

It would seem so.

 

[[)roi(]]

So basically you have decided he's racist and nothing he says can dissuade you.....

I did? When exactly?

Dave has implied that anyone arguing that freedom of expression is paramount is in his word "crazy shit"
-- hence it's that moron's opinion that everyone who defends that civil liberty is by definition "crazy", including:

“The concept of “microaggression” is just one of many tactics used to stifle differences of opinion by declaring some opinions to be “hate speech,” instead of debating those differences in a marketplace of ideas. To accuse people of aggression for not marching in lockstep with political correctness is to set the stage for justifying real aggression against them.”
― Thomas Sowell

“Man must be able to think freely and he must be able to express his thoughts freely! He who is against this is not only fascist and primitive but at the same time is a very great coward also! Only the brave and the honourable men are never afraid of freedom of thought and freedom of expression of ideas! Just like the cockroaches do not like the light, evil minds also do not like the freedom of thoughts!”
-- Mehmet Murat ildan

“If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all.”
― Noam Chomsky

In The Friends of Voltaire, Hall wrote the phrase: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
-- Evelyn Beatrice Hall

"One certain effect of war is to diminish freedom of expression.”
— Howard Zinn

...if that's the moron's definition of crazy -- then I'm in good company.

Those who justify attacks on freedom of expression
The only people in history who have justified their attack on that civil liberty were Marxists, Socialists, Fascists and Nazis.
Which if taken to their reasoned conclusion (theirs, not mine); conclusions that were written by Marx, Engels, Hitler, ... imply that racism is somehow justifiable and by consequence genocide.

My argument which this moron clearly missed (or maybe it was purposefully so) -- is that any generalisation and/or stereotyping of ANYONE on the basis of their race -- is by definition racism; and its only the Marxists who justify this today.

 

[Dave]

Dave has implied that anyone arguing that freedom of expression is paramount is in his word "crazy shit"

Nope, I said you are full of crazy shit. You wouldn't know freedom of expression if it smacked you in the face.

 

[[)roi(]]

I`m not offended
Is stereotyping just a bad word for general cultural norms?

Ask yourself this?

Are any of those traits restricted to "whiteness" i.e. no other race has ever shared any of those traits.

• If so then what is the purpose of this chart except to racially stereotype a race.
  • Are there not many groups of whites for whom most of these traits would not be applicable?
• Would you be similarly be "not offended" if such a chart was published by the Smithsonian for "blackness", "jewishness", etc.
• ..or does labelling something "whiteness" make it acceptable, whereas labelling something "blackness" make it not?

 

[[)roi(]]

Nope, I said you are full of crazy shit. You wouldn't know freedom of expression if it smacked you in the face.

You are in no position to label anything "crazy shit" -- you have so far demonstrated no comprehension of freedom of expression.
Hence my conclusion is you're either a moron, a marxist or both.

 

[Dave]

/checks current position

yep, you're full of crazy shit and in need of psychiatric help.

 

[[)roi(]]

/checks current position

yep, you're full of crazy shit and in need of psychiatric help.

Shame... apparently you lack any of faculties needed for debate
-- like all of the morons on the left; your default grab bag is insult.

 

[LD50]

All humans are self centered - "I'm right everybody else is wrong"
My shit smells 5 - 95% better than yours.
I'm not racist, you are racist
me me me me me me me me me me me
you? you can go fuck yourself

^Humanity summed up

 

[[)roi(]]

All humans are self centered - "I'm right everybody else is wrong"
My shit smells 5 - 95% better than yours.
I'm not racist, you are racist
me me me me me me me me me me me
you? you can go fuck yourself

^Humanity summed up

No problem; it's your opinion.

It however adds nothing to the topic of racial stereotyping, freedom of expression, or the left's false flag re "hate speech"

 

[Dave]

All humans are self centered - "I'm right everybody else is wrong"
My shit smells 5 - 95% better than yours.
I'm not racist, you are racist
me me me me me me me me me me me
you? you can go fuck yourself

^Humanity summed up

One of the more sensible posts in this thread of fruitloopery.

 

[Dave]

Shame... apparently you lack any of faculties needed for debate
-- like all of the morons on the left; your default grab bag is insult.

You really are as nutty as a fucking fruitcake.

 

[[)roi(]]

You really are as nutty as a fucking fruitcake.

Again your default grab bag is insult
-- which proves only 1 thing; you must be a moron; one who uses insults to shield over an ineptitude for debate.

 

[Dave]

Again your default grab bag is insult
-- which proves only 1 thing; you must be a moron; one who uses insults to shield over an ineptitude for debate.

It's an observation, not an insult. You come over as maniacal and crazy, the type of person who believes 5G is the cause of Covid.

Have you ever been prescribed medication for a mental condition?

 

[[)roi(]]

It's an observation, not an insult.

The fact that leftists are actively rewriting history and dictionaries does not make that lame excuse valid.

You come over as maniacal and crazy, the type of person who believes 5G is the cause of Covid.

That's your stretch of imagination -- as Shakespeare said "The lady doth protest too much, methinks" -- I wonder why?

Psychiatric term is projection; you made me think of this guy.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1284785421352919041

Have you ever been prescribed medication for a mental condition?

Still unable to debate... shame, there you go again with your default grab bag.

 

[rambo919]

Ask yourself this?

Are any of those traits restricted to "whiteness" i.e. no other race has ever shared any of those traits.

• If so then what is the purpose of this chart except to racially stereotype a race.
  • Are there not many groups of whites for whom most of these traits would not be applicable?
• Would you be similarly be "not offended" if such a chart was published by the Smithsonian for "blackness", "jewishness", etc.
• ..or does labelling something "whiteness" make it acceptable, whereas labelling something "blackness" make it not?

People should just have let them be for a while, let them brag about how "un-white" they are...... sometimes the worst punishment is to just give an idiot what he asks for....

Unfortunately there are enough blacks in murica that are not insane or are "white" by those criteria and all the fun was spoiled.......

 

[[)roi(]]

People should just have let them be for a while, let them brag about how "un-white" they are...... sometimes the worst punishment is to just give an idiot what he asks for....

Maybe

Unfortunately there are enough blacks in murica that are not insane or are "white" by those criteria and all the fun was spoiled.......

Agreed.

Had that chart been published as shared western values, then for the most part I would have had no major concerns with it; although I wouldn't agree with some of their bracketed commentary or the isingling out of British, etc... Plus the value of such of chart would then be questionable, because it's not as if other nations don't similarly share many of these traits.

What's considered west; has IMO always been a bit of a euphemism for the melting pot of nationalities sharing a common vision. What's prescribed as "whiteness" serves no purpose to acknowledge that fact and hence can only be seen as another attempt to divide a nation by pushing the identity politics agenda of the left.

 

[rambo919]

What's considered west; has IMO always been a bit of a euphemism for the melting pot of nationalities sharing a common vision. What's prescribed as "whiteness" serves no purpose to acknowledge that fact and hence can only be seen as another attempt to divide a nation by pushing the identity politics agenda of the left.

It's similar to the insanity of classifying japanese and american blacks as whites under apartheid..... this was a classification based upon perceived civilization levels not race.

Yes you can acknowledge the root of a set of ideas but at some point you have to stop being so literal about something that is obviously not.

It's really funny that the beurocracy forced the then government to classify people of foreign and local descent with mostly exactly the same genetic and cultural makeups as colourd or white depending on their origin though.... ludicrous really if you think about it. That alone should have proved the impossibility of the structure.... nvm the pencil thing.

 

[Urist]

Ask yourself this?

Are any of those traits restricted to "whiteness" i.e. no other race has ever shared any of those traits.

• If so then what is the purpose of this chart except to racially stereotype a race.
  • Are there not many groups of whites for whom most of these traits would not be applicable?
• Would you be similarly be "not offended" if such a chart was published by the Smithsonian for "blackness", "jewishness", etc.
• ..or does labelling something "whiteness" make it acceptable, whereas labelling something "blackness" make it not?

Not whiteness, but from my perspective framework those values seem normal, so maybe whiteness objectively. I'm really not offended because those values seem to be what is expected of my... so true even though i'm not white american, but we seem to have pretty much the same values
I'm concious of my afr ng kerk upbringing, and try to see stuff objectively, but for the life of me..I see most of those points as positive, must have been written by a white person trying not to be offensive.

 

[[)roi(]]

It's similar to the insanity of classifying japanese and american blacks as whites under apartheid..... this was a classification based upon perceived civilization levels not race.

Yes you can acknowledge the root of a set of ideas but at some point you have to stop being so literal about something that is obviously not.

It's really funny that the beurocracy forced the then government to classify people of foreign and local descent with mostly exactly the same genetic and cultural makeups as colourd or white depending on their origin though.... ludicrous really if you think about it. That alone should have proved the impossibility of the structure.... nvm the pencil thing.

Agreed.

Plus civil liberty protecting societies at large already have rules governing acceptability; laws against injustices;,where things go wrong is as Federic Bastiat described in The Law, when socialists try to pervert the idea of laws to create what they naively argue would be some type of utopia -- if only they could have laws to make plunder legal...etc...

Excerpt from The Law, Federic Bastiat, published in 1850

The Basis for Stable Government

Law is justice. In this proposition a simple and enduring government can be conceived. And I defy anyone to say how even the thought of revolution, of insurrection, of the slightest uprising could arise against a government whose organized force was confined only to suppressing injustice.

Under such a regime, there would be the most prosperity—and it would be the most equally distributed. As for the sufferings that are inseparable from humanity, none would even think of blaming the government for them. This is true because, if the force of government were limited to suppressing injustice, then government would be as innocent of these sufferings as it is now innocent of changes in the temperature.

As proof of this statement, consider this question: Have the people ever been known to rise against the Court of Appeals, or mob a Justice of the Peace, in order to get higher wages, free credit, tools of production, favorable tariffs, or government-creaged jobs? Everyone knows perfectly well that such matters are not within the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals or a Justice of the Peace. And if government were limited to its proper func- tions, everyone would soon learn that these matters are not within the jurisdiction of the law itself.

But make the laws upon the principle of fraternity—proclaim that all good, and all bad, stem from the law; that the law is responsible for all individual misfortunes and all social inequalities—then the door is open to an endless succession of complaints, irritations, troubles, and revolutions.

Justice Means Equal Rights

Law is justice. And it would indeed be strange if law could properly be anything else! Is not justice right? Are not rights equal? By what right does the law force me to conform to the social plans of Mr. Mimerel, Mr. de Melun, Mr. Thiers, or Mr. Louis Blanc? If the law has a moral right to do this, why does it not, then, force these gentlemen to submit to my plans? Is it logical to suppose that nature has not given me sufficient imagination to dream up a utopia also? Should the law choose one fan- tasy among many, and put the organized force of government at its service only?

Law is justice. And let it not be said—as it continually is said—that under this concept, the law would be atheistic, indi- vidualistic, and heartless; that it would make mankind in its own image. This is an absurd conclusion, worthy only of those wor- shippers of government who believe that the law is mankind.

Nonsense! Do those worshippers of government believe that free persons will cease to act?