If Mort Divine ruled the world

[Dak]

The Cathedral sometimes moves slowly, but consistently.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

they have won

http://money.cnn.com/2017/04/05/news/companies/nivea-white-is-purity-racist-ad/index.html?sr=twCNN040517nivea-white-is-purity-racist-ad1107AMN/ALink&linkId=36206099

That's just standard corporate pandering to the lowest common denominator in return for the highest profit. Liberals cry racist, white supremacists cheer, everyone's speech is still protected. It was their choice to pull the ad.

 

[rms]

thats like saying it was pepsi's choice to remove their ad. sure, ultimately. but there was quite a response to that one

 

[zabu of nΩd]

There's "quite a response" to millions of controversies. Pepsi chooses to back down, while Trump chooses not to. It's not exactly censorship we're talking about here.

 

[rms]

i didn't think anything from my post had to do with government censorship

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Sorry, tried to reword it, but I assume by "they have won" you were referring to some form of censorship.

 

[rms]

yes, but it's cenorship-lite via the large and maybe only effective twitter mob in the U.S.

 

[CiG]

It's self-censorship.

 

[Talos of Atmora]

To be fair, it was an astonishingly ridiculous ad.

 

[CiG]

Next far left position from the twilight zone: race is a social construct.

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/04/01/us/rachel-dolezal-race-social-construct-cnntv/index.html

Why is CNN playing along with this? It'd be like if FOX went along with a flat-earther or a young earth creationist.

 

[rms]

race is undeniably a social construct. the fact that anyone on the left might deny it is ridiculous

 

[CiG]

I hope that's sarcasm or something.

 

[rms]

nope

 

[EternalMetal]

I always thought race was traditionally defined by genetic and cultural heritage that arose throughout history due to isolated cultures. Calling it a social construct ignores the biological and regional aspects of race as it were originally defined. I would argue that a white man born and raised in Japan cannot accurately say that his race is Japanese; only his nationality can be considered Japanese. This is why I do not see race as simply a cultural identity, but an identity with lineage. Race goes deeper than nationality, something that Dolezal clearly thinks is the reverse. She should be arguing that cultural and social norms should not be nationally or racially defined, not the idea that she fits into a category that she clearly does not.

Countries like the US which do not inherently have a racial identity are gradually diluting race into obscurity. Immigration dilutes race. Only mass immigration dilutes national culture. Dolazel is doing what some would say is 'cultural appropriation'. And even worse, she is trying to diminish the idea of racial identity and reduce it to something that you can claim admittance to, which is objectively impossible. Race is not a social construct; it is a biological construct that people are incorrectly trying to define as a social one due to rampant immigration in the modern world. Racial purity is a real thing, whether people other than indigenous Americans like to admit it or not.

 

[rms]

Race is a different classification than ethnicity, not nationality. Nationality's only parameters are to what country are you a citizen of?

but an identity with lineage.

this is the problem. An african descendant in America is the same race as an African descendant living in Iceland. That is why race classifications are dumb, lineage is ignored. It's primary focus is the color of your skin, and once there are inconsistencies within that color group (african americans and african immigrants to the U.S., for example) it debunks the entire thing, to me.

Countries like the US which do not inherently have a racial identity

this is just wrong since the foundation

She should be arguing that cultural and social norms should not be nationally or racially defined

don't see how one can separate racial identity from cultural/societal norms within a specific nation-state

Race is not a social construct; it is a biological construct

what's the difference between going into another gender(sex) and going from "white" to "black" ?

Racial purity is a real thing, whether people other than indigenous Americans like to admit it or not.

indigenous is an incorrect word choice here, but 'racial purity' is a weird thing to suggest in terms of racial categories. Racial identity, especially where blacks (who are the predominant victim and now proponents of racial theory IMO) intends to unify all blacks into one category, not distinguish between which blacks are 'pure'

 

[Einherjar86]

I disagree that there is any such thing as "racial purity." It's an ideal, a paranoid fantasy perpetrated by those with racist agendas. There are certainly biological differences between people from North America and those from Africa, or people from Asia and those from Australia. All this means is that environmental differences likely have some causal role in evolutionary trends throughout the human species.

I don't like saying that "race is a social construct" because the phrase is often abused, which is what Dolezal has done. She's making a salient point but seems to have a complete disregard for the kind of "passing" that she performed. Basically, light-skinned blacks could pass as white, and did so in order to be viewed as white within society--because it's better to be a white person in America than a black person. Dolezal's passing is a kind of demented parlor trick, one of those poor-taste Halloween costumes that she got carried away with and decided never to take off. She's not entirely incorrect that race is a construct, but she completely disregards the reason why race is a social construct--that is, racial identity is obligatory.

Blacks identify as black because that's how society views them. Same with being white, or brown, or Asian, etc. When light-skinned blacks were able to pass as white, they did so out of fear. It wasn't selective in the sense that it was that much of a choice; they saw the possibility for a better life and took it. Dolezal's stunt is purely selective, and parades this idea around that "race can be fun!" Really disrespectful, in my opinion.

But all that said, yeah... race is primarily a social construct. Or rather, race is an obligatory identity. It's not something you are, it's what others view you as (but this doesn't mean that racial identity isn't a powerful and unifying force).

 

[EternalMetal]

Race is a different classification than ethnicity, not nationality. Nationality's only parameters are to what country are you a citizen of?

Ethnicity is more specific than race, which applies to a larger region. As for nationality, yes.

this is the problem. An african descendant in America is the same race as an African descendant living in Iceland. That is why race classifications are dumb, lineage is ignored. It's primary focus is the color of your skin, and once there are inconsistencies within that color group (african americans and african immigrants to the U.S., for example) it debunks the entire thing, to me.

You can call it dumb, but that is what race is.

this is just wrong since the foundation

So Caucasian then? Only in the loosest sense then, since the country was basically established as a migrant country for all.

don't see how one can separate racial identity from cultural/societal norms within a specific nation-state

Is it un-American for a white person to "act" black, or vice versa? Should Asians act a certain way in the US? I thought a lot of people considered this shit racist?

what's the difference between going into another gender(sex) and going from "white" to "black" ?

Sex is entirely biological, unlike the modern concept of gender. Otherwise the difference is very little, both are disingenuous. You cant make a full change from male to female (or vice versa), and you cant change your race. Appearances are superficial in the classification of both.

indigenous is an incorrect word choice here, but 'racial purity' is a weird thing to suggest in terms of racial categories. Racial identity, especially where blacks (who are the predominant victim and now proponents of racial theory IMO) intends to unify all blacks into one category, not distinguish between which blacks are 'pure'

Im referring to native Americans btw, which the correct term these days is indigenous people to America, no? (CIG recently posted something about a certain tribe wanting to exclude those who werent part of their race, which was always an issue with native Americans) I really dont care how liberal that modern proponents of racial theory want to be these days, but race definitely has a purity component to it. Could I call myself black if I had a few black ancestors? How dark would my skin have to be to qualify? It is definitely a spectrum, whether people like it or not.

I disagree that there is any such thing as "racial purity." It's an ideal, a paranoid fantasy perpetrated by those with racist agendas. There are certainly biological differences between people from North America and those from Africa, or people from Asia and those from Australia. All this means is that environmental differences likely have some causal role in evolutionary trends throughout the human species.

Well I disagree with you too, lol. I dont think one has to have an agenda to talk about the purity of a racial lineage. Im going to use the popular case study of Darwin's finches. Nobody is trying to dismiss their differences, nor is anyone trying to say that one is better than another. They are just different evolutionary examples of breeding in isolation. The interbreeding of such animals in an environment that allows for the survival of all types inevitably dilutes the original evolutionary specificity of the original isolated samples. I wont even start going all Varg on you and start claiming intellectual superiority or any such divisive shit cause I dont care enough. Im just not going to ignore the idea that race exists because of different evolutionary paths that developed because of relatively long periods of isolation. It happened in mankind's past and cant unhappen just because we all eventually came together (except there is still so much fucking tension over the merger).

I don't like saying that "race is a social construct" because the phrase is often abused, which is what Dolezal has done. She's making a salient point but seems to have a complete disregard for the kind of "passing" that she performed. Basically, light-skinned blacks could pass as white, and did so in order to be viewed as white within society--because it's better to be a white person in America than a black person. Dolezal's passing is a kind of demented parlor trick, one of those poor-taste Halloween costumes that she got carried away with and decided never to take off. She's not entirely incorrect that race is a construct, but she completely disregards the reason why race is a social construct--that is, racial identity is obligatory.

Blacks identify as black because that's how society views them. Same with being white, or brown, or Asian, etc. When light-skinned blacks were able to pass as white, they did so out of fear. It wasn't selective in the sense that it was that much of a choice; they saw the possibility for a better life and took it. Dolezal's stunt is purely selective, and parades this idea around that "race can be fun!" Really disrespectful, in my opinion.

But all that said, yeah... race is primarily a social construct. Or rather, race is an obligatory identity. It's not something you are, it's what others view you as (but this doesn't mean that racial identity isn't a powerful and unifying force).

Race is only a social construct because of the primary biological differences. We are all animals from different environments trying to come together. The biological differences precede the social ones, not the other way around; otherwise I agree with the sentiment of your stance.

 

[Einherjar86]

Well I disagree with you too, lol. I dont think one has to have an agenda to talk about the purity of a racial lineage. Im going to use the popular case study of Darwin's finches. Nobody is trying to dismiss their differences, nor is anyone trying to say that one is better than another. They are just different evolutionary examples of breeding in isolation.

But the discourse on race didn't originate from studies on the evolutionary discrepancies or disparities between human beings of different skin color. It originated as a discourse of profiling, disenfranchisement, and hierarchy. When we talk about the biological differences between humans we're not talking about "race." Race is something entirely different, with a different cultural function and different cultural origins. Its original relationship to science is tenuous at best (and shoddy science, no less), and it didn't serve scientific purposes--it served social and political purposes. That's what race is predominantly a social construct.

 

[rms]

So Caucasian then? Only in the loosest sense then, since the country was basically established as a migrant country for all.

no man America has denied or halted entry for any immigrant since it was a British colony. The only people Europeans wanted on N. America were slaves and they didn't have any rights.

Is it un-American for a white person to "act" black, or vice versa? Should Asians act a certain way in the US? I thought a lot of people considered this shit racist?

huh? obviously not un-American but American identity of black culture is different than Rwanda's black culture, for instance. I don't know why you went with this weird tangent of yours

Could I call myself black if I had a few black ancestors? How dark would my skin have to be to qualify? It is definitely a spectrum, whether people like it or not.

the first point is you don't get to call yourself black, you either are viewed as black or you aren't. If you're anything but white you aren't considered white, unless your features don't show.

It's quite obvious who is considered what, people from specific regions of the globe look a certain way and that pigeonholes them into "white" "brown" or "black"

 

[CiG]

Can't doctors or scientists tell just from bones of a deceased person whether they are negroid, caucasoid or mongoloid?

Also, aren't there certain infections, diseases and health risks specifically associated with race?