Total Posts:67|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Sociology courses teaching victimhood.

Cooperroo123
Posts: 1
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2013 1:19:32 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I attend a state university and noticed that our sociology courses teach us about the "oppressed". These "oppressed" are women, Hispanics, and blacks. First off, if anyone has noticed that universities teach us Liberal ideals please share. So, our sociology courses teach us that everyone expect white men are victims and oppressed. (Completely negating the fact that white Europeans have been oppressed in this country and the world.) Black people aren't oppressed. They receive extra points on the civil service for being black - as do Hispanics -have a black president and attorney general, and benefit from affirmative action. There is Black Entertainment Television and now White Entertainment Television. Also, a white man could never get on TV and act like Al Sharpton. It'd be racist. Women don't make less than men. That's illegal. Obama signed a bill making unequal pay for equal work illegal. And when women do make less it's because women don't major in engineering or math. Not that anything stops them from doing so. They don't work in dangerous environments, and on average work less hours than man anyway. Think about it, most women don't choose to become a corrections officer or a firefighter. That's this "Male domination" non sense. As for Hispanics they get similar benefits to blacks and are also victims as taught to us in class. This post is by NO means an attack on any community. I am not racist or hateful just observing. Incase you're wondering I date outside my race and am heterosexual for those of you who will cry racism. Has anyone taken these courses and noticed that they teach ethnic groups and women that they're victims, yet it is not so? I am not denying that racism exists either, I am simply stating that this 1960's style movement to equalize blacks and women is ridiculous as it doesn't happen on a massive scale. Has anyone ever noticed this in these courses?
ironmaiden
Posts: 456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2013 1:45:30 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/3/2013 1:19:32 AM, Cooperroo123 wrote:
I attend a state university and noticed that our sociology courses teach us about the "oppressed". These "oppressed" are women, Hispanics, and blacks. First off, if anyone has noticed that universities teach us Liberal ideals please share. So, our sociology courses teach us that everyone expect white men are victims and oppressed. (Completely negating the fact that white Europeans have been oppressed in this country and the world.) Black people aren't oppressed. They receive extra points on the civil service for being black - as do Hispanics -have a black president and attorney general, and benefit from affirmative action. There is Black Entertainment Television and now White Entertainment Television. Also, a white man could never get on TV and act like Al Sharpton. It'd be racist. Women don't make less than men. That's illegal. Obama signed a bill making unequal pay for equal work illegal. And when women do make less it's because women don't major in engineering or math. Not that anything stops them from doing so. They don't work in dangerous environments, and on average work less hours than man anyway. Think about it, most women don't choose to become a corrections officer or a firefighter. That's this "Male domination" non sense. As for Hispanics they get similar benefits to blacks and are also victims as taught to us in class. This post is by NO means an attack on any community. I am not racist or hateful just observing. Incase you're wondering I date outside my race and am heterosexual for those of you who will cry racism. Has anyone taken these courses and noticed that they teach ethnic groups and women that they're victims, yet it is not so? I am not denying that racism exists either, I am simply stating that this 1960's style movement to equalize blacks and women is ridiculous as it doesn't happen on a massive scale. Has anyone ever noticed this in these courses?

I'm not in college yet but I know this is what they teach.

I've been labeled a racist because I observed that there are more blacks than whites in the NFL, and that blacks are generally better athletes than other races. If anything, I am complimenting the black race. But "truth is an offense," to quote Metallica.

I don't know who's being oppressed anymore. It's all political BS spread by leftists who are trying to destroy the Republican party. And unfortunately, they are succeeding, because of all the blind idiots in America who fall for the bait. I feel like I'm being oppressed (I'm white) because illegal aliens from Mexico get discounts on their education while I have to pay more simply because I'm white. I feel like I'm being oppressed because I'm white--which somehow makes me a racist.
"I know what you're thinking. 'Did he fire six shots or only five?' Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement I kinda lost track myself. But being that his is a .44 Magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world and will blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself a question. 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya, punk?"
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2013 2:21:32 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/3/2013 1:19:32 AM, Cooperroo123 wrote:
I attend a state university and noticed that our sociology courses teach us about the "oppressed". These "oppressed" are women, Hispanics, and blacks.

OK....

First off, if anyone has noticed that universities teach us Liberal ideals please share.

Maybe the bigger question should be why you're attaching a political ideology to a study of society. Is the lack of study of society mean a university is more conservative?

So, our sociology courses teach us that everyone expect white men are victims and oppressed. (Completely negating the fact that white Europeans have been oppressed in this country and the world.)

Right. I think the point of any course teaching that is the fact that white males in recent history have been the main source of oppression in the world, and even today a white male born in an industrialized country has a chance at a better life than any other group. It isn't that white males cannot be victims, but the fact is that in most cases they're the ones who have benefitted the most of systemic discrimination.

Out of curiosity, do you believe Caucasians are inherently superior to other races?

Black people aren't oppressed. They receive extra points on the civil service for being black - as do Hispanics -have a black president and attorney general, and benefit from affirmative action. There is Black Entertainment Television and now White Entertainment Television. Also, a white man could never get on TV and act like Al Sharpton. It'd be racist. Women don't make less than men. That's illegal. Obama signed a bill making unequal pay for equal work illegal. And when women do make less it's because women don't major in engineering or math. Not that anything stops them from doing so. They don't work in dangerous environments, and on average work less hours than man anyway. Think about it, most women don't choose to become a corrections officer or a firefighter. That's this "Male domination" non sense. As for Hispanics they get similar benefits to blacks and are also victims as taught to us in class. This post is by NO means an attack on any community. I am not racist or hateful just observing. Incase you're wondering I date outside my race and am heterosexual for those of you who will cry racism. Has anyone taken these courses and noticed that they teach ethnic groups and women that they're victims, yet it is not so? I am not denying that racism exists either, I am simply stating that this 1960's style movement to equalize blacks and women is ridiculous as it doesn't happen on a massive scale. Has anyone ever noticed this in these courses?

Yeah, I have a feeling you're either a troll, or are a rich white male who has managed to get into an educational instutition you maybe shouldn't be in.

Many of the things you've pointed out - that blacks get affirmative action, that Obama signed the equal pay act, etc. - have come about in reaction to the systemtic discrimination that those groups faced. That is why they're there, and those things have hardly solved the problems they've set out to. Blacks still make up a disproportionate share of people living under the poverty line in the US, not to mention those incarcerated. Women still make less on the dollar compared to men, regardless of whether or not they do equal work, or even more. The situation for many Hispanics in the US is probably on the verge of becoming a crisis, as many are discriminated against, work without protections, and live in constant fear of the authorities or their own communities.

Whether you like to admit it or not, discrimination exists. That is the first thing my sociology classes taught me. It is inescapable and virulent. To pretend it doesn't is to be blind to the suffering of your fellow human beings.

But I suspect this will fall on deaf ears.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2013 3:24:55 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/3/2013 1:19:32 AM, Cooperroo123 wrote:
... Obama signed a bill making unequal pay for equal work illegal. ...

LOL, no he didn't.
That has long been the law.

What he did sign was an increase to the statute of limitations allowing for more time for a lawsuit to be brought (I think 30 years now). Frankly, it was a stupid law, as it doesn't help anyone already damaged, and I'm assuming there are few companies that actually discriminate to any noticeable degree.
My work here is, finally, done.
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2013 8:13:00 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I am currently in a rural sociology course, and while I can't say that she is victimizing rural communities that much, I have caught her teaching very skewed course material. She is always attacking big business, and I am always pointing out possible flaws in her arguments. She even gave us a study about the relationship between how close a person feels to their community, and the persons drug habits, and the study actually called the correlation causational. My teacher didn't want to believe me when I asserted that the drugs could cause the lack of community ties, since her way of looking at it (and what the study stated) was that the lack of community ties causes the drug habits.

Also, what ironmaiden said about race-specific complements are considered racist. Seriously, if I make the point that the reason why one of my high school's valedictorians was an Asian, that should be considered a complement to her heritage, not a lame excuse.
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
ironmaiden
Posts: 456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2013 9:46:28 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I just think it's sad that instead of actually trying to bring racial equality, people bring some form of discrimination, whether it's black people getting a disadvantage because they're black or it's black people getting an advantage over white people because they're "the oppressed." I might say that the roles are kind of reversing. I think one day the minorities (probably Mexicans) will become the majority and oppress the whites. That's when people will say "OK, now we have racial equality."

The fact is that I'm not racist or discriminant, but people of other races are getting advantages over me because of stupid reasons. I think that's wrong. I think it's just time for people to cut the crap and say, "Hey, look, everybody working the same job/position will be paid the same. There will be no racial discrimination."

But that will never happen.
"I know what you're thinking. 'Did he fire six shots or only five?' Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement I kinda lost track myself. But being that his is a .44 Magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world and will blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself a question. 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya, punk?"
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2013 9:56:58 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/3/2013 9:46:28 AM, ironmaiden wrote:
But that will never happen.

Never say never, but do you know why its rather unlikely? Its because of this statement:

"Hey, look, everybody working the same job/position will be paid the same. There will be no racial discrimination."

While this is the sentiment we all want to strive for, the fact is that workplace discrimination still exists. It is systemic, which means it is a part of the system, built into it over generations of a certain group hording power. That is a hard process to reverse, and while we've made great strides towards doing so, it is far from a reality yet.
ironmaiden
Posts: 456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2013 10:39:18 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/3/2013 2:21:32 AM, Volkov wrote:
Blacks still make up a disproportionate share of people living under the poverty line in the US, not to mention those incarcerated.

I don't think this is all because of white people. Many blacks aren't as motivated as others to get an education or do a good job. That's just how some are. And if someone is incarcerated, that is no one's fault but his own, no matter who he is.

The situation for many Hispanics in the US is probably on the verge of becoming a crisis, as many are discriminated against, work without protections, and live in constant fear of the authorities or their own communities.

Hispanics? Uh, you should see how some of them treat white people. While Mexicans at my school can't hold back from trash talking white people, I refrain from using racial slurs against them because 1) that's just how I am and 2) if I do, they'll jump me. Like I said, they're becoming the oppressors. What was that story about illegal aliens being granted residence in hotels, living off of our tax dollars? No other race has been granted something like this that I'm aware of. I'm also worried that my neighbors (who are Mexican) will attack my family one day. And last year in my Gov/Econ class, the whole class (which is 75% Mexican) cheered when my teacher stated that Mexicans will soon become the majority. I was kind of offended.

I guess it all depends on location. I live in Southern California, which is practically Mexico. So everything I've said would make more sense to someone if they lived here as well.
"I know what you're thinking. 'Did he fire six shots or only five?' Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement I kinda lost track myself. But being that his is a .44 Magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world and will blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself a question. 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya, punk?"
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2013 1:37:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/3/2013 10:39:18 AM, ironmaiden wrote:
I don't think this is all because of white people. Many blacks aren't as motivated as others to get an education or do a good job. That's just how some are. And if someone is incarcerated, that is no one's fault but his own, no matter who he is.

The above statement is a sign that continuing the conversation isn't worth it. If you can't accept the fact that society influences the paths individuals take, then the study of sociology is not for you, as that is pretty much what its all about.

Hispanics? Uh, you should see how some of them treat white people. While Mexicans at my school can't hold back from trash talking white people, I refrain from using racial slurs against them because 1) that's just how I am and 2) if I do, they'll jump me. Like I said, they're becoming the oppressors.

Your high school drama =/= the general situation of Hispanics in the US.

I'm also worried that my neighbors (who are Mexican) will attack my family one day. And last year in my Gov/Econ class, the whole class (which is 75% Mexican) cheered when my teacher stated that Mexicans will soon become the majority. I was kind of offended.

In other words, you're paranoid of your Hispanic neighbours without apparent good reason (give us one, i.e., they killed my dog or made overt threats to me and my family), you're offended because they take pride in their own culture (despite you doing the same), and your Gov/Econ class sounds like it is being hosted by Glenn Beck (unless they're talking about Hispanics becoming a majority in SoCal, which I can see).

I guess it all depends on location. I live in Southern California, which is practically Mexico. So everything I've said would make more sense to someone if they lived here as well.

Maybe, though I have grown up in areas where I've been the minority, and I certainly have not come to the same xenophobic conclusions you appear to have.
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2013 3:36:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/3/2013 1:19:32 AM, Cooperroo123 wrote:
I attend a state university and noticed that our sociology courses teach us about the "oppressed". These "oppressed" are women, Hispanics, and blacks. First off, if anyone has noticed that universities teach us Liberal ideals please share. So, our sociology courses teach us that everyone expect white men are victims and oppressed. (Completely negating the fact that white Europeans have been oppressed in this country and the world.) Black people aren't oppressed. They receive extra points on the civil service for being black - as do Hispanics -have a black president and attorney general, and benefit from affirmative action. There is Black Entertainment Television and now White Entertainment Television. Also, a white man could never get on TV and act like Al Sharpton. It'd be racist. Women don't make less than men. That's illegal. Obama signed a bill making unequal pay for equal work illegal. And when women do make less it's because women don't major in engineering or math. Not that anything stops them from doing so. They don't work in dangerous environments, and on average work less hours than man anyway. Think about it, most women don't choose to become a corrections officer or a firefighter. That's this "Male domination" non sense. As for Hispanics they get similar benefits to blacks and are also victims as taught to us in class. This post is by NO means an attack on any community. I am not racist or hateful just observing. Incase you're wondering I date outside my race and am heterosexual for those of you who will cry racism. Has anyone taken these courses and noticed that they teach ethnic groups and women that they're victims, yet it is not so? I am not denying that racism exists either, I am simply stating that this 1960's style movement to equalize blacks and women is ridiculous as it doesn't happen on a massive scale. Has anyone ever noticed this in these courses?

When I took sociology I didn't enjoy it all that much. But not for any of the non-existent bullshlt you just posted (I figure yer ramblings are indicative of problematic presuppositions you held prior to taking the class); I just didn't like it because the professor was a functionalist lol.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
ironmaiden
Posts: 456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2013 6:45:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/3/2013 1:37:30 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 11/3/2013 10:39:18 AM, ironmaiden wrote:
I don't think this is all because of white people. Many blacks aren't as motivated as others to get an education or do a good job. That's just how some are. And if someone is incarcerated, that is no one's fault but his own, no matter who he is.

The above statement is a sign that continuing the conversation isn't worth it. If you can't accept the fact that society influences the paths individuals take, then the study of sociology is not for you, as that is pretty much what its all about.

You're right. Sociology is not for me. I hate society and if I had a chance to live on a different planet so I could get away from the rest of humanity, I would do it.

Hispanics? Uh, you should see how some of them treat white people. While Mexicans at my school can't hold back from trash talking white people, I refrain from using racial slurs against them because 1) that's just how I am and 2) if I do, they'll jump me. Like I said, they're becoming the oppressors.

Your high school drama =/= the general situation of Hispanics in the US.

That's how it is in many schools. You might see it as high school drama, but that kinda sh!t will carry on into real life.

I'm also worried that my neighbors (who are Mexican) will attack my family one day. And last year in my Gov/Econ class, the whole class (which is 75% Mexican) cheered when my teacher stated that Mexicans will soon become the majority. I was kind of offended.

In other words, you're paranoid of your Hispanic neighbours without apparent good reason (give us one, i.e., they killed my dog or made overt threats to me and my family),

Well, they have fights in front of my house often; on occasion someone brings out a baseball bat, and one time a fight broke out at 2 am, and it ended when someone screamed as if they had been stabbed...so we know they're a little hostile. Ever since they moved here the neighborhood has become worse. It's not as safe, the cops stroll through here more often, and there are a lot more gangbangers walking around. One guy ran through my backyard while a woman screamed "Call the cops, he was beating me up!" in the alley behind us. They give me dirty looks every now and then. One time I went to go set the sprinkler up and a bunch of gangbangers next door were staring me down.

Maybe I'm exaggerating a little bit when I say they might attack my family, but I honestly wouldn't be that surprised if they did. And I'm not saying that they're like this because they're Mexican. I know many Mexicans who are really good people, and I have seen white people who are as bad as my neighbors. I was just pointing out that some Mexicans might fear their white neighbors...well, I'm white and I fear my Mexican neighbors.

you're offended because they take pride in their own culture (despite you doing the same), and your Gov/Econ class sounds like it is being hosted by Glenn Beck (unless they're talking about Hispanics becoming a majority in SoCal, which I can see).

Well, I have pride for my culture, but I'm not that open and in other people's faces about it. They just had to rub it in and be in my face about it. And my teacher was saying that in a few years Mexicans would be the dominant race/nationality/whatever. Whether she's smoking crack, I don't know.

I guess it all depends on location. I live in Southern California, which is practically Mexico. So everything I've said would make more sense to someone if they lived here as well.

Maybe, though I have grown up in areas where I've been the minority, and I certainly have not come to the same xenophobic conclusions you appear to have.

I may have shown a bit of xenophobia, but I'm not racist, I'm not prejudiced, I'm not discriminant. I have many black friends. More than half my friends are either Asian or Mexican. I do not mind. I have very few white friends. Whites may be the majority in the nation, I am the minority where I live.
"I know what you're thinking. 'Did he fire six shots or only five?' Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement I kinda lost track myself. But being that his is a .44 Magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world and will blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself a question. 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya, punk?"
tulle
Posts: 4,445
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2013 7:27:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/3/2013 6:45:47 PM, ironmaiden wrote:

I may have shown a bit of xenophobia, but I'm not racist, I'm not prejudiced, I'm not discriminant. I have many black friends. More than half my friends are either Asian or Mexican. I do not mind. I have very few white friends. Whites may be the majority in the nation, I am the minority where I live.

LOLOLOL Does that ever get old though?
yang.
ironmaiden
Posts: 456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2013 7:48:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/3/2013 7:27:52 PM, tulle wrote:
At 11/3/2013 6:45:47 PM, ironmaiden wrote:

I may have shown a bit of xenophobia, but I'm not racist, I'm not prejudiced, I'm not discriminant. I have many black friends. More than half my friends are either Asian or Mexican. I do not mind. I have very few white friends. Whites may be the majority in the nation, I am the minority where I live.

LOLOLOL Does that ever get old though?

What do you mean? Does having black friends get old? No, it doesn't.
"I know what you're thinking. 'Did he fire six shots or only five?' Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement I kinda lost track myself. But being that his is a .44 Magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world and will blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself a question. 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya, punk?"
Enji
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2013 8:00:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/3/2013 7:48:45 PM, ironmaiden wrote:
At 11/3/2013 7:27:52 PM, tulle wrote:
At 11/3/2013 6:45:47 PM, ironmaiden wrote:

I may have shown a bit of xenophobia, but I'm not racist, I'm not prejudiced, I'm not discriminant. I have many black friends. More than half my friends are either Asian or Mexican. I do not mind. I have very few white friends. Whites may be the majority in the nation, I am the minority where I live.

LOLOLOL Does that ever get old though?

What do you mean? Does having black friends get old? No, it doesn't.

Nonono - the "I'm not racist and I have black friends, but [insert racist comment here]." Claiming that "blacks aren't as motivated as others to get an education or do a good job - that's just how they are" isn't a racist comment is absurd, even if you try to soften the significance of your claim by saying that "this doesn't necessarily apply to all blacks". (quotations are paraphrased)
ironmaiden
Posts: 456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2013 10:36:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/3/2013 8:00:06 PM, Enji wrote:
Nonono - the "I'm not racist and I have black friends, but [insert racist comment here]." Claiming that "blacks aren't as motivated as others to get an education or do a good job - that's just how they are" isn't a racist comment is absurd, even if you try to soften the significance of your claim by saying that "this doesn't necessarily apply to all blacks". (quotations are paraphrased)

Oh, please, you misquoted me.

"Many blacks aren't as motivated as others to get an education or do a good job. That's just how some are."

You forgot "many" and "some." That doesn't mean "all" or "most," it means exactly what it says. If I say "many whites are rednecks," does that mean "all" or "most" whites are rednecks? No. So when I say it doesn't apply to all, it doesn't apply to all.

And I do have black friends. One of them happens to be one of the best people I know.

I could see how--especially in these dark days--a statement like this could be deemed racist by people. People these days have a meltdown when you tell them facts. Maybe it's best I just keep my mouth shut. Like I said before, I've been labeled a racist for complimenting blacks for their amazing athleticism. Let me ask you, would you call me racist for pointing out that most football players are black?
"I know what you're thinking. 'Did he fire six shots or only five?' Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement I kinda lost track myself. But being that his is a .44 Magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world and will blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself a question. 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya, punk?"
Enji
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2013 11:21:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/3/2013 10:36:51 PM, ironmaiden wrote:

Oh, please, you misquoted me.

I did specify that the quotes weren't exact, and I did note that you didn't say it applied to all blacks.

And I do have black friends. One of them happens to be one of the best people I know.

I could see how--especially in these dark days--a statement like this could be deemed racist by people. People these days have a meltdown when you tell them facts. Maybe it's best I just keep my mouth shut. Like I said before, I've been labeled a racist for complimenting blacks for their amazing athleticism. Let me ask you, would you call me racist for pointing out that most football players are black?

The claim "Most football players are black" is very different from "Blacks are more athletic/better at sports." The former is a factual statement without any racial implications, the latter attributes shared abilities to race and ranks the black race superior to the white race (in sports). That is the definition of racism: the belief that members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race such as intellect or athleticism, esp. so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another. [https://www.google.com...]

Similarly "Many blacks are poor." is a very different claim from "Many blacks aren't motivated to learn or do a good job." The former is a factual statement - you can cite demographics which show you that blacks are disproportionally poorer. In contrast, the latter attributes motivation and willingness to do a good job to race and ranks blacks lower than other races based on the trait of motivation. This isn't a factual statement, and it is racist (even if you have black friends and even if one of your black friends doesn't conform to this racial stereotype and is one of the best people you know).
ironmaiden
Posts: 456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2013 11:47:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/3/2013 11:21:43 PM, Enji wrote:
At 11/3/2013 10:36:51 PM, ironmaiden wrote:

Oh, please, you misquoted me.

I did specify that the quotes weren't exact, and I did note that you didn't say it applied to all blacks.

When you paraphrase someone, you don't leave out key words that could change the whole meaning of the statement.

And I do have black friends. One of them happens to be one of the best people I know.

I could see how--especially in these dark days--a statement like this could be deemed racist by people. People these days have a meltdown when you tell them facts. Maybe it's best I just keep my mouth shut. Like I said before, I've been labeled a racist for complimenting blacks for their amazing athleticism. Let me ask you, would you call me racist for pointing out that most football players are black?

The claim "Most football players are black" is very different from "Blacks are more athletic/better at sports." The former is a factual statement without any racial implications, the latter attributes shared abilities to race and ranks the black race superior to the white race (in sports). That is the definition of racism: the belief that members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race such as intellect or athleticism, esp. so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another.

Jesus friggin christ. I get so tired of this BS, you don't even know. I'm sorry, but it drives me up the wall. This is an exact representation of society. You can't even notice a difference between races, even if they are positive or factual, or both.

Normal person: "Blacks are generally better at sports."

Society: "RACIST!!!"

Normal person: "Many Asians are bad drivers."

Society: "RACIST!!!"

The claim "Most football players are black" is very different from "Blacks are more athletic/better at sports." The former is a factual statement without any racial implications, the latter attributes shared abilities to race and ranks the black race superior to the white race (in sports).

Has it not occurred to you that blacks make up the majority in many sports? Football, basketball. There's Tiger Woods in golf. There are many blacks in baseball. Many athletic runners are black. I've seen so many Kenyan runners. It's all factual. It all points to what I'm saying. Is it an insult to anyone? NO. It's a flipping fact.

That is the definition of racism: the belief that members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race such as intellect or athleticism, esp. so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another.

No, it's not. Racism is the belief that one race is dominant over another, or others.

I'm not saying any race is dominant. Get this through your head. I'm saying blacks are generally better at sports than other races. I'm not saying other races suck.

Similarly "Many blacks are poor." is a very different claim from "Many blacks aren't motivated to learn or do a good job." The former is a factual statement - you can cite demographics which show you that blacks are disproportionally poorer. In contrast, the latter attributes motivation and willingness to do a good job to race and ranks blacks lower than other races based on the trait of motivation. This isn't a factual statement, and it is racist (even if you have black friends and even if one of your black friends doesn't conform to this racial stereotype and is one of the best people you know).
"I know what you're thinking. 'Did he fire six shots or only five?' Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement I kinda lost track myself. But being that his is a .44 Magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world and will blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself a question. 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya, punk?"
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2013 3:58:06 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/3/2013 11:47:25 PM, ironmaiden wrote:
At 11/3/2013 11:21:43 PM, Enji wrote:
At 11/3/2013 10:36:51 PM, ironmaiden wrote:

Oh, please, you misquoted me.

I did specify that the quotes weren't exact, and I did note that you didn't say it applied to all blacks.

When you paraphrase someone, you don't leave out key words that could change the whole meaning of the statement.

And I do have black friends. One of them happens to be one of the best people I know.

I could see how--especially in these dark days--a statement like this could be deemed racist by people. People these days have a meltdown when you tell them facts. Maybe it's best I just keep my mouth shut. Like I said before, I've been labeled a racist for complimenting blacks for their amazing athleticism. Let me ask you, would you call me racist for pointing out that most football players are black?

The claim "Most football players are black" is very different from "Blacks are more athletic/better at sports." The former is a factual statement without any racial implications, the latter attributes shared abilities to race and ranks the black race superior to the white race (in sports). That is the definition of racism: the belief that members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race such as intellect or athleticism, esp. so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another.

Jesus friggin christ. I get so tired of this BS, you don't even know. I'm sorry, but it drives me up the wall. This is an exact representation of society. You can't even notice a difference between races, even if they are positive or factual, or both.

Normal person: "Blacks are generally better at sports."

Society: "RACIST!!!"

Normal person: "Many Asians are bad drivers."

Society: "RACIST!!!"

The claim "Most football players are black" is very different from "Blacks are more athletic/better at sports." The former is a factual statement without any racial implications, the latter attributes shared abilities to race and ranks the black race superior to the white race (in sports).

Has it not occurred to you that blacks make up the majority in many sports? Football, basketball. There's Tiger Woods in golf. There are many blacks in baseball. Many athletic runners are black. I've seen so many Kenyan runners. It's all factual. It all points to what I'm saying. Is it an insult to anyone? NO. It's a flipping fact.

That is the definition of racism: the belief that members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race such as intellect or athleticism, esp. so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another.

No, it's not. Racism is the belief that one race is dominant over another, or others.

I'm not saying any race is dominant. Get this through your head. I'm saying blacks are generally better at sports than other races. I'm not saying other races suck.

Similarly "Many blacks are poor." is a very different claim from "Many blacks aren't motivated to learn or do a good job." The former is a factual statement - you can cite demographics which show you that blacks are disproportionally poorer. In contrast, the latter attributes motivation and willingness to do a good job to race and ranks blacks lower than other races based on the trait of motivation. This isn't a factual statement, and it is racist (even if you have black friends and even if one of your black friends doesn't conform to this racial stereotype and is one of the best people you know).

Why don't both of you just define racism so that you can realise you have different definitions, and that you're argument is stupid and pointless.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
Enji
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2013 8:54:41 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/3/2013 11:47:25 PM, ironmaiden wrote:
At 11/3/2013 11:21:43 PM, Enji wrote:

The claim "Most football players are black" is very different from "Blacks are more athletic/better at sports." The former is a factual statement without any racial implications, the latter attributes shared abilities to race and ranks the black race superior to the white race (in sports).

Has it not occurred to you that blacks make up the majority in many sports? Football, basketball. There's Tiger Woods in golf. There are many blacks in baseball. Many athletic runners are black. I've seen so many Kenyan runners. It's all factual. It all points to what I'm saying. Is it an insult to anyone? NO. It's a flipping fact.

Saying "many athletes are black" is a true statement - jumping from this fact to "blacks are athletically superior" is not warranted. While there are many black athletes, most scientists reject the notion of black athletic superiority because it isn't supported by the evidence. Studies of the human genome show that the distinction of race is superficial and that race is not a scientific concept, but a social one. As Dr. Eric Lander says, "There's no scientific evidence to support substantial differences between groups, and the tremendous burden of proof goes to anyone who wants to assert those differences." [http://www.nytimes.com...]

That is the definition of racism: the belief that members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race such as intellect or athleticism, esp. so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another.

No, it's not. Racism is the belief that one race is dominant over another, or others.

I'm not saying any race is dominant. Get this through your head. I'm saying blacks are generally better at sports than other races. I'm not saying other races suck.

Definition of racism:
"the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races" [http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...]

"[the] belief that consider the human species to be divided into races with shared traits, abilities, or qualities, such as personality, intellect, morality, or other cultural behavioral characteristics, and especially the belief that races can be ranked as inherently superior or inferior to others" [http://en.wikipedia.org...]

"the belief that races have distinctive cultural characteristics determined by hereditary factors and that this endows some races with an intrinsic superiority over others" [http://www.collinsdictionary.com...]
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2013 9:48:09 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/3/2013 11:21:43 PM, Enji wrote:
At 11/3/2013 10:36:51 PM, ironmaiden wrote:

Oh, please, you misquoted me.

I did specify that the quotes weren't exact, and I did note that you didn't say it applied to all blacks.

And I do have black friends. One of them happens to be one of the best people I know.

I could see how--especially in these dark days--a statement like this could be deemed racist by people. People these days have a meltdown when you tell them facts. Maybe it's best I just keep my mouth shut. Like I said before, I've been labeled a racist for complimenting blacks for their amazing athleticism. Let me ask you, would you call me racist for pointing out that most football players are black?

The claim "Most football players are black" is very different from "Blacks are more athletic/better at sports." The former is a factual statement without any racial implications, the latter attributes shared abilities to race and ranks the black race superior to the white race (in sports). That is the definition of racism: the belief that members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race such as intellect or athleticism, esp. so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another. [https://www.google.com...]

Similarly "Many blacks are poor." is a very different claim from "Many blacks aren't motivated to learn or do a good job." The former is a factual statement - you can cite demographics which show you that blacks are disproportionally poorer. In contrast, the latter attributes motivation and willingness to do a good job to race and ranks blacks lower than other races based on the trait of motivation. This isn't a factual statement, and it is racist (even if you have black friends and even if one of your black friends doesn't conform to this racial stereotype and is one of the best people you know).

While I generally agree with this comment, I do disagree with the underlined portion. It is possible to survey a population regarding "motivation and willingness to do a good job", figure out the percentages by demographic groups, and make the statement "Many blacks aren't motivated to learn or do a good job" a factual statement.

IF such a statement is true (and it's not something I can corroborate), the question then becomes WHY are they so unwilling and unmotivated? Could it be because inner city culture is discriminated against, and blacks just happen to disproportionally live in inner cities?
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2013 9:52:28 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/3/2013 1:19:32 AM, Cooperroo123 wrote:
I attend a state university and noticed that our sociology courses teach us about the "oppressed". These "oppressed" are women, Hispanics, and blacks. First off, if anyone has noticed that universities teach us Liberal ideals please share. So, our sociology courses teach us that everyone expect white men are victims and oppressed. (Completely negating the fact that white Europeans have been oppressed in this country and the world.) Black people aren't oppressed. They receive extra points on the civil service for being black - as do Hispanics -have a black president and attorney general, and benefit from affirmative action. There is Black Entertainment Television and now White Entertainment Television. Also, a white man could never get on TV and act like Al Sharpton. It'd be racist. Women don't make less than men. That's illegal. Obama signed a bill making unequal pay for equal work illegal. And when women do make less it's because women don't major in engineering or math. Not that anything stops them from doing so. They don't work in dangerous environments, and on average work less hours than man anyway. Think about it, most women don't choose to become a corrections officer or a firefighter. That's this "Male domination" non sense. As for Hispanics they get similar benefits to blacks and are also victims as taught to us in class. This post is by NO means an attack on any community. I am not racist or hateful just observing. Incase you're wondering I date outside my race and am heterosexual for those of you who will cry racism. Has anyone taken these courses and noticed that they teach ethnic groups and women that they're victims, yet it is not so? I am not denying that racism exists either, I am simply stating that this 1960's style movement to equalize blacks and women is ridiculous as it doesn't happen on a massive scale. Has anyone ever noticed this in these courses?

You have to realize that blacks have been living in this nation for a long, long time, and the developments you cite (black president, black attorney general, affirmative action, and black entertainment TV) are all recent developments that span less than 10% of the time they've lived here as a group. And, there's absolutely no question that for hundreds of years, they were discriminated as a group, and in a grotesque, dehumanizing manner, which affirmative action does not come close to ameliorating or rectifying.

Now, if there were a proportional number of black presidents to their percentage of the US population (around 10% I believe), then you may have a point. That would require that we elect 4 more black presidents before your statement has IMHO any validity.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Enji
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2013 10:13:40 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/4/2013 9:48:09 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 11/3/2013 11:21:43 PM, Enji wrote:
At 11/3/2013 10:36:51 PM, ironmaiden wrote:

Oh, please, you misquoted me.

I did specify that the quotes weren't exact, and I did note that you didn't say it applied to all blacks.

And I do have black friends. One of them happens to be one of the best people I know.

I could see how--especially in these dark days--a statement like this could be deemed racist by people. People these days have a meltdown when you tell them facts. Maybe it's best I just keep my mouth shut. Like I said before, I've been labeled a racist for complimenting blacks for their amazing athleticism. Let me ask you, would you call me racist for pointing out that most football players are black?

The claim "Most football players are black" is very different from "Blacks are more athletic/better at sports." The former is a factual statement without any racial implications, the latter attributes shared abilities to race and ranks the black race superior to the white race (in sports). That is the definition of racism: the belief that members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race such as intellect or athleticism, esp. so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another. [https://www.google.com...]

Similarly "Many blacks are poor." is a very different claim from "Many blacks aren't motivated to learn or do a good job." The former is a factual statement - you can cite demographics which show you that blacks are disproportionally poorer. In contrast, the latter attributes motivation and willingness to do a good job to race and ranks blacks lower than other races based on the trait of motivation. This isn't a factual statement, and it is racist (even if you have black friends and even if one of your black friends doesn't conform to this racial stereotype and is one of the best people you know).

While I generally agree with this comment, I do disagree with the underlined portion. It is possible to survey a population regarding "motivation and willingness to do a good job", figure out the percentages by demographic groups, and make the statement "Many blacks aren't motivated to learn or do a good job" a factual statement.

IF such a statement is true (and it's not something I can corroborate), the question then becomes WHY are they so unwilling and unmotivated? Could it be because inner city culture is discriminated against, and blacks just happen to disproportionally live in inner cities?

I'm not particularly convinced that self-reported motivation would be the best measure of how motivated someone is any more than anonymous self-reported weight isn't the best measure of how overweight a population is. People tend to underreport their weight, and the disparity between overweightness and reported overweightness varies with sociocultural emphasis on being fit. Unlike with weight, however, there isn't a direct measure of motivation - and so even if a survey of self-reported motivation revealed that whites claim to be more motivated than blacks, the results would reflect also differences in sociocultural emphasis on motivation rather than actual motivation. Furthermore, as you note, any differences in motivation are likely on account of factors other than race - I suspect that controlling for poverty would eliminate any self-reported motivation gap.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2013 11:14:24 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/4/2013 10:13:40 AM, Enji wrote:
At 11/4/2013 9:48:09 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 11/3/2013 11:21:43 PM, Enji wrote:
At 11/3/2013 10:36:51 PM, ironmaiden wrote:

Oh, please, you misquoted me.

I did specify that the quotes weren't exact, and I did note that you didn't say it applied to all blacks.

And I do have black friends. One of them happens to be one of the best people I know.

I could see how--especially in these dark days--a statement like this could be deemed racist by people. People these days have a meltdown when you tell them facts. Maybe it's best I just keep my mouth shut. Like I said before, I've been labeled a racist for complimenting blacks for their amazing athleticism. Let me ask you, would you call me racist for pointing out that most football players are black?

The claim "Most football players are black" is very different from "Blacks are more athletic/better at sports." The former is a factual statement without any racial implications, the latter attributes shared abilities to race and ranks the black race superior to the white race (in sports). That is the definition of racism: the belief that members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race such as intellect or athleticism, esp. so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another. [https://www.google.com...]

Similarly "Many blacks are poor." is a very different claim from "Many blacks aren't motivated to learn or do a good job." The former is a factual statement - you can cite demographics which show you that blacks are disproportionally poorer. In contrast, the latter attributes motivation and willingness to do a good job to race and ranks blacks lower than other races based on the trait of motivation. This isn't a factual statement, and it is racist (even if you have black friends and even if one of your black friends doesn't conform to this racial stereotype and is one of the best people you know).

While I generally agree with this comment, I do disagree with the underlined portion. It is possible to survey a population regarding "motivation and willingness to do a good job", figure out the percentages by demographic groups, and make the statement "Many blacks aren't motivated to learn or do a good job" a factual statement.

IF such a statement is true (and it's not something I can corroborate), the question then becomes WHY are they so unwilling and unmotivated? Could it be because inner city culture is discriminated against, and blacks just happen to disproportionally live in inner cities?

I'm not particularly convinced that self-reported motivation would be the best measure of how motivated someone is any more than anonymous self-reported weight isn't the best measure of how overweight a population is. People tend to underreport their weight, and the disparity between overweightness and reported overweightness varies with sociocultural emphasis on being fit. Unlike with weight, however, there isn't a direct measure of motivation - and so even if a survey of self-reported motivation revealed that whites claim to be more motivated than blacks, the results would reflect also differences in sociocultural emphasis on motivation rather than actual motivation. Furthermore, as you note, any differences in motivation are likely on account of factors other than race - I suspect that controlling for poverty would eliminate any self-reported motivation gap.

Your argument here would suggest that the real problem is not with the "racist" nature of questioning someone's motivation, but of questioning the usefulness of motivation as a viable measurement in the first place. That's a fair criticism, as motivation is indeed subjective, but it doesn't address my argument.

Again, I would assert that if you consider motivation a viable measurement, then it can easily be measured in a non-racist manner. There's no inherent racism in measuring motivation.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
YYW
Posts: 36,282
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2013 11:38:03 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/3/2013 1:19:32 AM, Cooperroo123 wrote:
I attend a state university and noticed that our sociology courses teach us about the "oppressed". These "oppressed" are women, Hispanics, and blacks. First off, if anyone has noticed that universities teach us Liberal ideals please share. So, our sociology courses teach us that everyone expect white men are victims and oppressed. (Completely negating the fact that white Europeans have been oppressed in this country and the world.) Black people aren't oppressed. They receive extra points on the civil service for being black - as do Hispanics -have a black president and attorney general, and benefit from affirmative action. There is Black Entertainment Television and now White Entertainment Television. Also, a white man could never get on TV and act like Al Sharpton. It'd be racist. Women don't make less than men. That's illegal. Obama signed a bill making unequal pay for equal work illegal. And when women do make less it's because women don't major in engineering or math. Not that anything stops them from doing so. They don't work in dangerous environments, and on average work less hours than man anyway. Think about it, most women don't choose to become a corrections officer or a firefighter. That's this "Male domination" non sense. As for Hispanics they get similar benefits to blacks and are also victims as taught to us in class. This post is by NO means an attack on any community. I am not racist or hateful just observing. Incase you're wondering I date outside my race and am heterosexual for those of you who will cry racism. Has anyone taken these courses and noticed that they teach ethnic groups and women that they're victims, yet it is not so? I am not denying that racism exists either, I am simply stating that this 1960's style movement to equalize blacks and women is ridiculous as it doesn't happen on a massive scale. Has anyone ever noticed this in these courses?

Race, Class and Gender are the big three in the social sciences right now, and have been for some time. The idea behind it is that there are certain past social crimes which have lasting impact on how the world works today. As such, to rectify that harm that was inherited by today's generation of all those who are not white, heterosexual males of the middle or upper class. I think that the function is meant as sort of an incultureation process whereby postmodern Liberal values are meant to be assimilated into students' world views. But, I don't think that means that courses which focus on race, class and gender either teach or perpetuate victimhood if students actually understand what's going on.

The problem is that most students are averse to reading, and only pay attention at best half of the time so they only pick up on a fragmented perspective of what's being advocated. That established, the point is to explain what has happened, what the impact of those past actions was so that as a society we can collectively understand what we need to do in the present to pave a way to a better -and, implicitly more egalitarian- future. The problem is that "egalitarianism" in the postmodern Liberal context isn't just about equal rights and responsibilities -it's about rectifying material inequality which most often stems from a generous but less than precise reading of John Rawls' political philosophy.

I agree that the effect of those classes (I say this, not only having endured more than a few of them and taught one in which these "big three" were a significant component) may to the intellectually disengaged have the causal effect of not only "teaching" but de facto perpetuating victimhood insofar as people tend to believe that as a result of past social crimes (and I use that term loosely) they are "due" some form of restitution from those who were themselves not the agent's of that "oppression" if by "oppression" you mean "perpetuation of sociopolitical and or material inequality." But, that's the risk in people not paying attention. The fundamental purpose is to advocate the use of government to mitigate the damage inherited from previous generation's mistakes -and to more or less advance the "justice" of government doing so.

But, as even as a white liberal, I have mixed feelings about that message because (1) of how nuanced it is -more on this in a bit- and therefore (2) how many people misunderstand the point. To me, it's astoundingly simple. To others, there are individuals who don't have the educational grounding to even have a basic understanding of what's going on so they react rather than try to understand. It's frustrating, and evidence only that the problem is with those who fail to grasp basic concepts, but does tend to render suspect the message itself in that the question becomes "why not emphasize only duty rather than posit a message that hopes that people would figure out their social responsibility for themselves?" Essentially, the problem that the postmodern liberal makes in talking about race, class and gender is that those who hear their message will be so overcome by the message itself that they cannot help but agree that a change as suggested by the postmodern Liberal must come. It's, amusingly enough, the exact same mistake the Bush Administration made going into Iraq about Democracy in a non-democratic country.

My point is that at the intersection of human nature and intellectuals' ideals, there are some problems that follow which complicate the picture. I hope that this has sort of explained to you what's going on...
Tsar of DDO
Enji
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2013 1:34:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/4/2013 11:14:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 11/4/2013 10:13:40 AM, Enji wrote:
At 11/4/2013 9:48:09 AM, wrichcirw wrote:\

While I generally agree with this comment, I do disagree with the underlined portion. It is possible to survey a population regarding "motivation and willingness to do a good job", figure out the percentages by demographic groups, and make the statement "Many blacks aren't motivated to learn or do a good job" a factual statement.

I'm not particularly convinced that self-reported motivation would be the best measure of how motivated someone is any more than anonymous self-reported weight isn't the best measure of how overweight a population is. People tend to underreport their weight, and the disparity between overweightness and reported overweightness varies with sociocultural emphasis on being fit. Unlike with weight, however, there isn't a direct measure of motivation - and so even if a survey of self-reported motivation revealed that whites claim to be more motivated than blacks, the results would reflect also differences in sociocultural emphasis on motivation rather than actual motivation. Furthermore, as you note, any differences in motivation are likely on account of factors other than race - I suspect that controlling for poverty would eliminate any self-reported motivation gap.

Your argument here would suggest that the real problem is not with the "racist" nature of questioning someone's motivation, but of questioning the usefulness of motivation as a viable measurement in the first place. That's a fair criticism, as motivation is indeed subjective, but it doesn't address my argument.

Again, I would assert that if you consider motivation a viable measurement, then it can easily be measured in a non-racist manner. There's no inherent racism in measuring motivation.

I'm not saying there's inherent racism in measuring motivation, although I would probably agree that motivation is not empirically measurable and so isn't a viable measurement in the first place. Since it isn't measurable, you can't measure it to conclude that "whites are generally more motivated than blacks" is a factual statement.

Even if whites self-report themselves to be more motivated than blacks report themselves to be, this difference is as indicative of a difference in perception of motivation as it is of an actual difference in motivation - and since motivation can't be empirically measured you can't determine whether any discrepancy is an actual difference in motivation or simply a difference in reported motivation. As an actual example of this, if you asked people to self-report their weight and height, you would find that the world is filled with taller men and skinnier women than the world is actually filled with, but you can compare reported heights and weights and attempt to infer sociocultural reasons for the discrepancies and how the discrepancy changes between geography or whatever else you want - and you find that although mid-western Americans are the most overweight, Americans from the south are more honest about their weight and are self-reported to be the most overweight. [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...]
Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2013 2:12:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/3/2013 1:19:32 AM, Cooperroo123 wrote:
I attend a state university and noticed that our sociology courses teach us about the "oppressed". These "oppressed" are women, Hispanics, and blacks. First off, if anyone has noticed that universities teach us Liberal ideals please share. So, our sociology courses teach us that everyone expect white men are victims and oppressed. (Completely negating the fact that white Europeans have been oppressed in this country and the world.) Black people aren't oppressed. They receive extra points on the civil service for being black - as do Hispanics -have a black president and attorney general, and benefit from affirmative action. There is Black Entertainment Television and now White Entertainment Television. Also, a white man could never get on TV and act like Al Sharpton. It'd be racist. Women don't make less than men. That's illegal. Obama signed a bill making unequal pay for equal work illegal. And when women do make less it's because women don't major in engineering or math. Not that anything stops them from doing so. They don't work in dangerous environments, and on average work less hours than man anyway. Think about it, most women don't choose to become a corrections officer or a firefighter. That's this "Male domination" non sense. As for Hispanics they get similar benefits to blacks and are also victims as taught to us in class. This post is by NO means an attack on any community. I am not racist or hateful just observing. Incase you're wondering I date outside my race and am heterosexual for those of you who will cry racism. Has anyone taken these courses and noticed that they teach ethnic groups and women that they're victims, yet it is not so? I am not denying that racism exists either, I am simply stating that this 1960's style movement to equalize blacks and women is ridiculous as it doesn't happen on a massive scale. Has anyone ever noticed this in these courses?

I understand your frustration. I think that in some of these classes these social problems are being exaggerated. However these problems do exist.

http://www.cbsnews.com...

In the link above, a recent study, dummy resumes were sent out, some with black names, and others with white names. On average, the ones with white names took 10 tries to get a response back. However, the ones with black names took 15 tries. So racism is still very much alive.
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2013 2:54:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/4/2013 2:12:44 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
In the link above, a recent study, dummy resumes were sent out, some with black names, and others with white names. On average, the ones with white names took 10 tries to get a response back. However, the ones with black names took 15 tries. So racism is still very much alive.

Racism due to economic inequality from concentrated racial demographics in impoverished areas creating the view that such people are generally uneducated which is reinforced by national graduation rates.
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2013 3:50:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
All these threads make me do is wish even more fervently that minorities will vastly outnumber white people like Ironmaiden as soon as possible.

Just because they deserve to squirm under the weight of their own prejudices.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2013 4:05:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/4/2013 1:34:57 PM, Enji wrote:
At 11/4/2013 11:14:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 11/4/2013 10:13:40 AM, Enji wrote:
At 11/4/2013 9:48:09 AM, wrichcirw wrote:\

While I generally agree with this comment, I do disagree with the underlined portion. It is possible to survey a population regarding "motivation and willingness to do a good job", figure out the percentages by demographic groups, and make the statement "Many blacks aren't motivated to learn or do a good job" a factual statement.

I'm not particularly convinced that self-reported motivation would be the best measure of how motivated someone is any more than anonymous self-reported weight isn't the best measure of how overweight a population is. People tend to underreport their weight, and the disparity between overweightness and reported overweightness varies with sociocultural emphasis on being fit. Unlike with weight, however, there isn't a direct measure of motivation - and so even if a survey of self-reported motivation revealed that whites claim to be more motivated than blacks, the results would reflect also differences in sociocultural emphasis on motivation rather than actual motivation. Furthermore, as you note, any differences in motivation are likely on account of factors other than race - I suspect that controlling for poverty would eliminate any self-reported motivation gap.

Your argument here would suggest that the real problem is not with the "racist" nature of questioning someone's motivation, but of questioning the usefulness of motivation as a viable measurement in the first place. That's a fair criticism, as motivation is indeed subjective, but it doesn't address my argument.

Again, I would assert that if you consider motivation a viable measurement, then it can easily be measured in a non-racist manner. There's no inherent racism in measuring motivation.

I'm not saying there's inherent racism in measuring motivation, although I would probably agree that motivation is not empirically measurable and so isn't a viable measurement in the first place. Since it isn't measurable, you can't measure it to conclude that "whites are generally more motivated than blacks" is a factual statement.

Perhaps I misunderstood you when you stated:
...the latter attributes motivation and willingness to do a good job to race and ranks blacks lower than other races based on the trait of motivation.

Even if whites self-report themselves to be more motivated than blacks report themselves to be, this difference is as indicative of a difference in perception of motivation as it is of an actual difference in motivation - and since motivation can't be empirically measured you can't determine whether any discrepancy is an actual difference in motivation or simply a difference in reported motivation.

Motivation is entirely perception, either self-perception or otherwise.

As an actual example of this, if you asked people to self-report their weight and height, you would find that the world is filled with taller men and skinnier women than the world is actually filled with, but you can compare reported heights and weights and attempt to infer sociocultural reasons for the discrepancies and how the discrepancy changes between geography or whatever else you want - and you find that although mid-western Americans are the most overweight, Americans from the south are more honest about their weight and are self-reported to be the most overweight. [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...]

Weight and height are more than just perception.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?