| Blogs > achristes |
|
trias_e
United States520 Posts
On November 19 2011 04:42 GoTuNk! wrote: If I say black professional 100m runners are faster on average does that make me racist? If you say it has to do with genetics, then some people would say yes. I think those people are very misguided. | ||
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On November 19 2011 03:57 achristes wrote: Sexism == Believing you are superior to other people because of your sex...right? Just like racism == Believing you are superior to X "race" because you are Y "race", or have I missed something here? Yes but it's a matter of perspective. You're predisposed to favor your own perspective or condition, which makes you overlook or be unreceptive towards things that are unfair from another perspective. And it goes both ways obviously. That will never be completey solved but the first step is to admit there are things you can't understand or account for. The best example of this is in the N-Word South Park episode, between Stan and Token. | ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On November 19 2011 04:44 trias_e wrote: for sports it's usually both genetics and environment. I think it would be racist to say white people are incapable of becoming world class sprinters.If you say it has to do with genetics, then some people would say yes. I think those people are very misguided. I've heard some people talk about basketball and say there's no white Michael Jordan. But until there was Jordan, there was no black MJ either. And in his case, people who attribute his greatness to only genetics may be a bit racist. His intelligence and work ethic made him that way. Id imagine it's the same for Usain Bolt as well, but I don't know enough about the sprinting world. In the past, the genetics argument has been used to discredit an athlete's acumen and work effort, and instead attribute their success to luck of being born that way. EDIT: It's the same for Asians being good at math. Sure, once in 500,000,000 people there's someone who can teach themselves Calculus but for the most part they do well because they work and study tremendously hard. | ||
|
Fuhrmaaj
167 Posts
sexism - perceived gender roles based on preconceived notions of behaviour typical to gender Under this definition, not all sexist ideas or necessarily negative or untrue. I prefer this definition because it allows awareness that either gender can be discriminated against equally. It's not fair to force your idea of a gender role on a member of either gender because everyone is different. I think that these sexist behaviours are related to the discrimination against gay people. It's not fair or right. Ever. Period. I would also like to propose a difference between statistical discrimination and sexual/racial discrimination. It is true that young male drivers are the least safe demographic of driver, that is true according to statistics. It is possible to put safety devices into vehicles of young males to make the roads safer. The first example is statistical discrimination and the second is sexual discrimination. I think that a more fair proposal would be to put these safety features into every car, or at least into the cars of young drivers - particularly if the expectation is that the driver pay to have these features installed. How would you feel if it was determined that it was only white people who were reckless drivers, so legislation was passed so that white people had to have these safety features installed in their cars? It sounds pretty shaky. I don't think it's incorrect for members of every race to have the same features installed if it is determined that this will save lives. To continue this line of thought with the sprinting debate, let's say we have statistically determined that the fastest sprinters tend to be black. A country which wants to win olympic gold might scout for talent in countries which have a higher proportion of black people to increase their chances of finding the next gold medallist. It is not guaranteed that the next winner might be black, but the country has determined that it is more likely that the next gold medallist will be black so they are scouting a black runner. This might be racist, but this is only statistical discrimination and not negative racial discrimination if that makes sense. What would be negative racial discrimination is telling your friend that he probably runs really fast because he's black. It's not fair to impose this stereotype on someone regardless of their race, gender or any other factor which is beyond their control. If you tell MMA that he is good at Starcraft because he has good results, this is a conclusion you've reached based on factors in his control. If you tell him he's good because he's Korean, this is a conclusion based on factors out of his control and I don't regard this as a fair way to stereotype him. If you say that IdrA is bad at Starcraft because he has poor results, then this is a conclusion you've reached based on factors in his control. If you tell him he's bad because he's white, this is a conclusion based on factors out of his control and it is not fair to stereotype him this way. In either case, the skill of these players are based only on your opinion and the results are debatable. The difference is that people will discuss the games each player has played if you use the first approach (the results-based approach), but there will be much vitriol in any discussion which focuses on the second approach (the racial approach). Hope that makes sense. | ||
|
ProjectVirtue
Canada360 Posts
On November 19 2011 04:44 trias_e wrote: If you say it has to do with genetics, then some people would say yes. I think those people are very misguided. Yet at the same time, you can't deny the presence of genetics in these sort of situations. Given the african environment that the homo genus spawned from (Assuming recent african origins hypothesis), you can't say genetics aren't involved. Simply based on evolution, individuals populating the african continent possess longer forelimbs, wired hair, amidst a couple other features to help cope with the heat. By extension, due to the type of game down there, speed became an important aspect. Other phenotypic traits can be found around the world. The scandanavian populace has the highest percentage of grey iris's, thought to have become prevalent not as a response to, but as a environmental advantage to counter snow blindness and reflect excess light away from the light. Am i considered misguided in this sense? I'm not going so far to say that genetics is the sole reason why a large number of individuals with african descent perform well physically, but there is a factor. Natural variation dictates a growth pattern in the muscle tissue; some are born with a tendency for slow twitch endurance muscle whilst others have more fast twitch power muscle. How about neurogenesis? The ability for the brain to send X quantity of signals simoultaneously plays a large role in contractile strength of muscle units. Neuron firing too, can be trained, but select individuals have a natural advantage over others. with respect to the sprinter comment, no i wouldn't think that makes you racist, you merely pointed out a statistical observation, where's the fault in that. | ||
|
Fuhrmaaj
167 Posts
On November 19 2011 05:31 ProjectVirtue wrote: Yet at the same time, you can't deny the presence of genetics in these sort of situations. Given the african environment that the homo genus spawned from (Assuming recent african origins hypothesis), you can't say genetics aren't involved. Simply based on evolution, individuals populating the african continent possess longer forelimbs, wired hair, amidst a couple other features to help cope with the heat. By extension, due to the type of game down there, speed became an important aspect. Other phenotypic traits can be found around the world. The scandanavian populace has the highest percentage of grey iris's, thought to have become prevalent not as a response to, but as a environmental advantage to counter snow blindness and reflect excess light away from the light. Am i considered misguided in this sense? I'm not going so far to say that genetics is the sole reason why a large number of individuals with african descent perform well physically, but there is a factor. Natural variation dictates a growth pattern in the muscle tissue; some are born with a tendency for slow twitch endurance muscle whilst others have more fast twitch power muscle. How about neurogenesis? The ability for the brain to send X quantity of signals simoultaneously plays a large role in contractile strength of muscle units. Neuron firing too, can be trained, but select individuals have a natural advantage over others. with respect to the sprinter comment, no i wouldn't think that makes you racist, you merely pointed out a statistical observation, where's the fault in that. Spawned? Really? I know it wasn't your intent to make it sound like africans are roaches or something, but you could have chosen a better word for such a touchy subject. The fault in the sprinter comment is that it sounds like you attribute the success of the black runner to his race. A professional runner must train for many hours each day and all year round in order to get where they are. By saying only that black runners are usually faster than other runners, you omit the training that these runners had to undertake to get there. Regardless of whether or not the point is correct, it's very narrow and irrelevant. I don't understand why the observation needs to be made at all. | ||
|
jalstar
United States8198 Posts
On November 19 2011 04:42 GoTuNk! wrote: If I say black professional 100m runners are faster on average does that make me racist? Not automatically but I'd question your motives for bringing it up. Lots of people who bring up stuff like that are in the "black people are only good at sports and they can't be scientists" camp. | ||
|
ProjectVirtue
Canada360 Posts
On November 19 2011 05:48 Fuhrmaaj wrote: Spawned? Really? I know it wasn't your intent to make it sound like africans are roaches or something, but you could have chosen a better word for such a touchy subject. The fault in the sprinter comment is that it sounds like you attribute the success of the black runner to his race. A professional runner must train for many hours each day and all year round in order to get where they are. By saying only that black runners are usually faster than other runners, you omit the training that these runners had to undertake to get there. Regardless of whether or not the point is correct, it's very narrow and irrelevant. I don't understand why the observation needs to be made at all. is that the only point you can take from that paragraph? Do i make africans sound like roaches? Take note that I incorporated the entire genus Homo, this includes us sapiens, our ancestors neandertalis, homo erectus to the east, and others as well. By extension, this includes whites, asians, east indians, and any other race as well. Spawn as a standalone verb, can also be regarded as production in large quantity. Recall also that the genus homo is believed to have descended from a previous lineage as well, the oldest being austrilopithecus afarensis (discovery of lucy). It's only touchy, if you make it touchy. Keep an open mind. The phrase itself, "black professional atheletes run 100m faster on average", has no insinuation about his success. If you read my previous post, you can deduce that genetic advantage is only one factor, and hard work provides the rest of the result. He also didn't say "only black runners", i don't know where that came from. It wasn't the observation that was made, but an example to comment on racial stigma and interpretations. Obviously it did produce such an effect, at least in you. Considering the posts before it discussed the neutrality of racism vs sexism as a function of statistical evidence vs subjective opinion, then it is relevant. | ||
|
Fuhrmaaj
167 Posts
On November 19 2011 07:14 ProjectVirtue wrote: The phrase itself, "black professional atheletes run 100m faster on average", has no insinuation about his success. It infers that black professional athletes typically run 100m faster than something. You could say that it's faster than non-athletes or amateurs but I think most people would conclude that the intent was that black professional athletes sprint 100m in a shorter time than 100m athletes of other ethnic backgrounds. The goal of the 100m dash is to run in the shortest time possible so the author has definitely insinuated that black athletes are more successful than not black athletes. On November 19 2011 07:14 ProjectVirtue wrote: If you read my previous post, you can deduce that genetic advantage is only one factor, and hard work provides the rest of the result. My objection is just that it should be a topic of conversation at all. My comment was based on the original one line statement about the sprinter, and not your digression. On November 19 2011 07:14 ProjectVirtue wrote: He also didn't say "only black runners", i don't know where that came from. You just said it right now, that's where it came from. What I said is that if you only say that "black runners" are faster than other runners, you omit the other factors. I deem the other factors to be the most important part of the conversation. If the conversation is about how black people run faster than other people then we shouldn't be having this conversation. Word order is important here. On November 19 2011 07:14 ProjectVirtue wrote: It wasn't the observation that was made, but an example to comment on racial stigma and interpretations. Obviously it did produce such an effect, at least in you. Considering the posts before it discussed the neutrality of racism vs sexism as a function of statistical evidence vs subjective opinion, then it is relevant. I'm one of those posters. Yes this type of conversation causes people to interpret because the inferences are easy to make. The data is being presented in an incomplete manner and the lay man may conclude that races are fundamentally different. That's not fair. People are different, and humans have great potential to do whatever they want. By choosing to use simple statements, people draw simple conclusions based on the evidence presented. If you want to make a statistical statement, then provide a link to the evidence or say where you're getting the data from. Regardless of the predominance of the type of skeleted striated muscle fiber, this can be retrained so genetic predominance of slow twitch/fast twitch muscle fibers may not actually have a strong effect on athletic performance. Research into the issue is ongoing. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK57140/ Again, I think that the main factor is preference but I don't know for sure. The type of language you have chosen to use is limiting to aspiring sprinters who happen to have a genetic predisposition to less melanin because the statement is very simple. | ||
|
Impervious
Canada4217 Posts
On November 19 2011 00:25 Jibba wrote: Young men are the least safe demographic of driver. But no, I'm sure it's just because the world is out to get your non-sexist self. I'm glad your non-sexist self doesn't mind attributing an attitude to all women, because of one unseen male or female driver's bumper sticker. You've really thought this blog through, you non-sexist, you. What that doesn't take into account is how much the average male drives in comparison to the average female. Throw 100 bucks on red 27 and you may win it, but it's unlikely. Throw 1 buck on it a hundred times, and you're likely to get it at least once. Statistics can be manipulated so easily. | ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
Male Age 16-19 Crash Involvements: 4,257 Miles: 46,427,394,010 Rate: 9.2 Female Age 16-19 Crash Involvements: 1,852 Miles: 35,264,476,105 Rate: 5.3 Male Age 20-29 Crash Involvements: 8,949 Miles: 225,999,581,860 Rate: 4.0 Female Age 20-29 Crash Involvements: 3,172 Miles: 156,283,683,955 Rate: 2.0 From the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. | ||
|
djbhINDI
United States372 Posts
On November 19 2011 00:47 mrafaeldie12 wrote: ??? Do you have any proof of this? 0/5 lol, fail. If you're accused of rape and it's your word vs hers, who do you think everyone is going to believe? | ||
|
Fuhrmaaj
167 Posts
On November 19 2011 11:18 Jibba wrote: Fatal passenger vehicle crash involvements per 100 million miles traveled, by driver age and gender, April 2001–March 2002: Male Age 16-19 Crash Involvements: 4,257 Miles: 46,427,394,010 Rate: 9.2 Female Age 16-19 Crash Involvements: 1,852 Miles: 35,264,476,105 Rate: 5.3 Male Age 20-29 Crash Involvements: 8,949 Miles: 225,999,581,860 Rate: 4.0 Female Age 20-29 Crash Involvements: 3,172 Miles: 156,283,683,955 Rate: 2.0 From the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. Do you have numbers for alcohol-related incidents? I'm just curious because I can basically draw nothing from these data. There is no information on how to prevent these at all. It is useful for insurance purposes which is completely different imo. Insurance is a legal form of gambling. | ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
| ||
|
TruthIsCold
51 Posts
Society is about trying to pressure and coerce people into behaving and thinking a certain way, about killing independent thought or action. People will always be slow to accept the truth, because the truth is cold, it is harsh and inconvenient and unwelcoming. We aren't really rational beings, we are emotional beings, and one thing that gets the modern socialized humans' emotions going is the conditioned sensitivities toward race/gender/etc. | ||
|
Fuhrmaaj
167 Posts
On November 19 2011 12:08 Jibba wrote: No. :/ Insurance companies are the people who pay the most attention, which is probably why they have the data. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has a database, but I couldn't find a reference for miles driven, so it only came back with overall male/female numbers. Okay, well insurance is different because the insurance companies are taking a risk on you. The concept of statistical discrimination is the foundation of insurance. They have to charge low enough that you're willing to buy the insurance, but high enough to justify the risk. If you get in an accident with someone, then whoever caused the damage needs to compensate the other party. Imagine a scenario where somebody lost their life in a car accident to a drunk driver, but the drunk driver was unable to afford to compensate the family of the deceased. An insurance policy is important in this scenario because they will compensate the victim's family (which can be in the order of millions of dollars). If insurance companies weren't able to discriminate against certain people (younger people; people who have previously caused an accident; or people who are driving unsafe vehicles), then they would have to universally raise the price of insurance in order to offset the risk. Competition would be a dangerous game of reducing the fixed cost of insurance while trying to ensure that you are receiving enough money to compensate claimees. There is also the possibility that people will be less careful about being in accidents if they can not be punished with higher insurance premiums. Basically, the reason insurance companies collect this data is that they have to know what kind of risk they are able to accept when they take you on as a client (a liability). If they charge too much, you'll choose a different company which took on a greater risk; if they charge too little, they might be caught in a position where they can't afford to pay out a claim. The difference between insurance and policy is that it is not politically correct to create a policy which discriminates against a particular race or gender. If the government wishes to pass a law which reduces the risk of young men causing an accident, I think they should pass it unilaterally against all genders and possibly against all ages. | ||
|
djbhINDI
United States372 Posts
Before everyone sets phasers to kill, think about it. Computers? Apart from Ada Lovelace, (who was NOT the first computer programmer, Charles Babbage made an infinitely superior contribution), EVERYTHING has been done by men. Gates, Torvaldis, Knuth, Jobs. C, Windows, Unix, Linux, Mac OS, the mouse, the keyboard, the USB drive, the monitor, the LCD screen, the speaker. Technology in general, btw. Electricity, light bulbs, rockets, calculators, phones, microphones, glasses, CD's, DVD's. Refrigerators, washing machines, toilets. Math? Gravity, physics, derivation, integration, summation, trigonometry, etc. was ALL developed by men. Newton, Galileo, etc. Astrophysics? Einstein, Chandrashekar, Eddington, Susskind, Penzias...the list goes on. Art? DaVinci, Michelangelo, Manet, Monet, Gaudi, Raphael, Van Gogh. Literature? Milton, Emerson, Thoreau, Bradbury, Steinbeck, Clark, Asimov, Tolstoy, Salinger, Poe, Hawthorne, Miller. Out of ALL of the course texts I've read in 3 years of high school, only ONE has been written by a woman. Music? lol, perhaps even more than science: Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, Vivaldi, Rachmanianoff, Liszt, Tchiakovsky, Gershwin, Schubert, Mendelev, Debussy, Schumann, Shostakovich...I've studied music theory for 11 years and out of ALL of the famous composers I've had to remember/have seen on tests, not ONE was a woman. Not ONE. What is freaking left? Psychology? Freud, Jung, Hall, Wundt. Philosophy? Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Gandhi, Buddha, Camus, Nietzsche. TL DR; Everything, pretty much ever, has been done by men. BUT WAIT I know what you're going to say: "Women only failed to accomplish anything because of patriarchal society yo!" So, men dominate women. We make the do the unpleasant stuff, like not pay for dates and get everything in divorces and stuff! In all seriousness, however, why do we (men) go to war? If we just made women do the unpleasant shit, then why do MEN go to war, the most unpleasant thing, ever? BUT WAIT I know what you're thinking. "Men are stronger than women - making women go to war would be stupid!" To which I agree. But why not: "Women are less adept at mathematics than men - having women do math would be stupid!" Suddenly, a shitstorm. I mean, any female and any feminist would be absolutely willing to say that men are stronger. Why can't they admit that men are smarter? Much evidence points to the fact that brain development is related to the size of the brain; the ratio among smarter creatures increases empirically (save for the Homo Erectus). Strength is a physical characteristic; intelligence is as well. If you deny this, explain how those hit over the head as children grow up mentally deficient. People will bring up bullshit lab experiments "proving" the relative intelligence of the female. Here's a lab experiment for you: the last ten thousand years of human history. Whiteknights will try to point out the few female scientists, etc. that have contributed. I'm not saying that NO female will EVER contribute, just that sexism has empirical backing. Men built the pyramids, the great wall, the Eiffel tower, the Taj Mahal, and Chichen Itza. They are the soldiers, scholars, artists, and leaders. + Show Spoiler + To mods: I respect your decisions so far in the bans/warnings I have received. I feel strongly, though, that there is no warrant for banning me in this post. I don't swear, I state only empirical fact, and I'm not flaming or trolling anyone. This isn't martyring, this is just pre-empting. | ||
|
TruthIsCold
51 Posts
On November 19 2011 13:00 djbhINDI wrote: + Show Spoiler + Also, sexism is a natural consequence of an empirical and extended failure of women to do anything much. Before everyone sets phasers to kill, think about it. Computers? Apart from Ada Lovelace, (who was NOT the first computer programmer, Charles Babbage made an infinitely superior contribution), EVERYTHING has been done by men. Gates, Torvaldis, Knuth, Jobs. C, Windows, Unix, Linux, Mac OS, the mouse, the keyboard, the USB drive, the monitor, the LCD screen, the speaker. Technology in general, btw. Electricity, light bulbs, rockets, calculators, phones, microphones, glasses, CD's, DVD's. Refrigerators, washing machines, toilets. Math? Gravity, physics, derivation, integration, summation, trigonometry, etc. was ALL developed by men. Newton, Galileo, etc. Astrophysics? Einstein, Chandrashekar, Eddington, Susskind, Penzias...the list goes on. Art? DaVinci, Michelangelo, Manet, Monet, Gaudi, Raphael, Van Gogh. Literature? Milton, Emerson, Thoreau, Bradbury, Steinbeck, Clark, Asimov, Tolstoy, Salinger, Poe, Hawthorne, Miller. Out of ALL of the course texts I've read in 3 years of high school, only ONE has been written by a woman. Music? lol, perhaps even more than science: Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, Vivaldi, Rachmanianoff, Liszt, Tchiakovsky, Gershwin, Schubert, Mendelev, Debussy, Schumann, Shostakovich...I've studied music theory for 11 years and out of ALL of the famous composers I've had to remember/have seen on tests, not ONE was a woman. Not ONE. What is freaking left? Psychology? Freud, Jung, Hall, Wundt. Philosophy? Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Gandhi, Buddha, Camus, Nietzsche. TL DR; Everything, pretty much ever, has been done by men. BUT WAIT I know what you're going to say: "Women only failed to accomplish anything because of patriarchal society yo!" So, men dominate women. We make the do the unpleasant stuff, like not pay for dates and get everything in divorces and stuff! In all seriousness, however, why do we (men) go to war? If we just made women do the unpleasant shit, then why do MEN go to war, the most unpleasant thing, ever? BUT WAIT I know what you're thinking. "Men are stronger than women - making women go to war would be stupid!" To which I agree. But why not: "Women are less adept at mathematics than men - having women do math would be stupid!" Suddenly, a shitstorm. I mean, any female and any feminist would be absolutely willing to say that men are stronger. Why can't they admit that men are smarter? Much evidence points to the fact that brain development is related to the size of the brain; the ratio among smarter creatures increases empirically (save for the Homo Erectus). Strength is a physical characteristic; intelligence is as well. If you deny this, explain how those hit over the head as children grow up mentally deficient. People will bring up bullshit lab experiments "proving" the relative intelligence of the female. Here's a lab experiment for you: the last ten thousand years of human history. Whiteknights will try to point out the few female scientists, etc. that have contributed. I'm not saying that NO female will EVER contribute, just that sexism has empirical backing. Men built the pyramids, the great wall, the Eiffel tower, the Taj Mahal, and Chichen Itza. They are the soldiers, scholars, artists, and leaders. + Show Spoiler + To mods: I respect your decisions so far in the bans/warnings I have received. I feel strongly, though, that there is no warrant for banning me in this post. I don't swear, I state only empirical fact, and I'm not flaming or trolling anyone. This isn't martyring, this is just pre-empting. lol... Your post was in bad taste, but it really gave me a good laugh, thank you! As an aside... It's possible the mods will warn or ban you for this post. You might want to edit fast  Edit: Nevermind, I just saw the spoiler you made. You are doomed, my friend. Doomed. | ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
| ||
|
djbhINDI
United States372 Posts
On November 19 2011 13:06 TruthIsCold wrote: lol... Your post was in bad taste, but it really gave me a good laugh, thank you! As an aside... I hope you are ready to get banned for your beliefs. Otherwise you might want to edit fast Edit: Nevermind, I just saw the spoiler you made. You are doomed, my friend. Doomed. Why? What part of my post broke the guidelines? | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Britney Dota 2  62790Calm  6838Sea  3431Jaedong 2694Horang2 1671Mini 541Soma 433Hyuk 381Stork 381BeSt 340[ Show more ] Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Other Games singsing1840 B2W.Neo749 hiko421 Mlord281 DeMusliM210 XaKoH  181Pyrionflax177 KnowMe131 Trikslyr129 Liquid`VortiX60 RotterdaM58 QueenE55 Liquid`LucifroN54 NotJumperer2 |
|
Replay Cast
The PondCast
KCM Race Survival
WardiTV Map Contest Tou…
Gerald vs herO
Clem vs Cure
ByuN vs Solar
Rogue vs MaxPax
ShoWTimE vs TBD
OSC
CranKy Ducklings
Escore
RSL Revival
Replay Cast
WardiTV Map Contest Tou…
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
