Hate is hate no matter your politics.

[swansont]

14 hours ago, Endercreeper01 said:

Offense to a simple off handed comment is simply taking things too far. It's the general attitude that is being taken too far in general and causing things like this to happen.

Not simple, not off-hand. Roseanne has a history.

14 hours ago, Endercreeper01 said:

The idea that prejudice at all or the adherence to stereotypes is wrong is really being based on emotional opposition to racism rather than an adherence to truth. Stereotypes tend to be true a lot of the time or at least have some sort of accuracy. A desire to prevent racism, however well it may be, should not be held in higher esteem than an adherence to truth, no matter what that truth may be.

There's a bit to unpack here, eh? What racism is truth? Other than people with a certain color of skin has that color of skin? (i.e. a tautology)

What truth is contained in comparing people of color to apes? What truth is there in repeating a lie about a Jewish person?

 

[StringJunky]

7 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

There is genetic diversity even within immediate family members. All Ethiopian's are not long distance runners nor are all born with a higher than average potential to be. One shouldn't treat such things as absolutes because they are not. 

How is he talking about absolutes? He specifically said "general". Not all Ethiopians need to be runners for the best runners to be Ethiopian.

Edited June 4, 2018 by StringJunky

[Ten oz]

2 minutes ago, YaDinghus said:

It's also true that the Irish are the best at producing Vitamin D via their skin because they are genetically inclined to be the whitest people on earth. I'm not saying there aren't adaptations to life style and environment, just that it doesn't make any group systematically inferior or superior.

 

Quote

 

One in eight Irish people has a vitamin D deficiency, according to research conducted by UCC scientists.

Across Europe, the prevalence of vitamin D deficiency is 13 per cent, the study published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition finds.

Up to 40 per cent of people in the countries surveyed have vitamin D levels which are not sufficient to support good bone health, according to Prof Kevin Cashman and Prof Mairead Kiely of UCC’s centre for nutrition research.

The information provided in the study of almost 56,000 people in 18 countries is critically important for public health authorities across Europe, they say.

Severe vitamin D deficiency causes rickets in children and osteomalacia, or softening of the bones, in adults. It may also increase the risk of many other chronic non-bone related diseases.

The study shows up to a range of 18 to 65 per cent of dark-skinned people in the UK, Norway and Finland were vitamin D deficient - much higher than for the white populations in those three countries.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/one-in-eight-irish-people-have-vitamin-d-deficiency-study-1.2545659

 

 

[dimreepr]

37 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

I think stereotypes centered around hatred are the easiest to identify 

 

Because they're the only ones that matter.

37 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

and knock down.

nope, if my stereotype is, all Nepalese are capable of climbing Everest and you introduce me to a Nepalese quadriplegic I'd say "of course, sorry I'm an idiot", try that with a white supremacist who thinks it was Hillary who dragged them up there, they'd say "see, told you they couldn't."  

Edited June 4, 2018 by dimreepr

[StringJunky]

3 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

One in eight Irish people has a vitamin D deficiency....

That doesn't contradict what Yadingus said. It just means that they are not exposed to enough sunlight. That's a problem of environment not innate ability. It rains a lot in Ireland and cloudy.

[Scott of the Antares]

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

There is genetic diversity even within immediate family members. All Ethiopian's are not long distance runners nor are all born with a higher than average potential to be. One shouldn't treat such things as absolutes because they are not. 

Yes you are correct, that is why I used the word ‘generally’ three times in my post, so that those reading could understand that I am not dealing in absolutes. Of course all Ethiopians are not great long distance runners but Ethiopia produces more world class long distance runners than the average country. I am glad we are on the same page.

1 hour ago, YaDinghus said:

It's also true that the Irish are the best at producing Vitamin D via their skin because they are genetically inclined to be the whitest people on earth. I'm not saying there aren't adaptations to life style and environment, just that it doesn't make any group systematically inferior or superior.

You are correct here, but I do not think Endercreeper01 made any reference to superiority; I think he simply said that one can’t override a racial truth in case it offends somebody as racist. Obviously racism is not acceptable, but perceiving racism where honest impartial truths between genetics/racial differences is not acceptable either.

A power sprinter would recognise that his frame is not as well suited to long distance running, unless he is deluded and not confronting manifest truths.

Edited June 4, 2018 by Scott of the Antares
Clarity

[YaDinghus]

1 minute ago, Scott of the Antares said:

but I do think Endercreeper01 made any reference to superiority

It makes more sense to read that you don't think he made any references to superiority. That is very magnanimous of you. When it comes to @Endercreeper01, my good will is nearly depleted

[Ten oz]

1 minute ago, StringJunky said:

How is he talking about absolutes? He specifically said "general". Not all all Ethiopians need to be runners for the best runners to be Ethiopian.

Like wise one doesn't need to be Ethiopian to be an elite runner. The generalization paints with too broad a brush and isn't as good at determining things about individuals as it seems. For example many people have speculated that Jamaicans are such good sprinters because of their genetics. The ACTN3 gene has even been identified. All humans have it though the difference is possible in mutation:

Quote

 

A mutation (rs1815739; R577X) has been identified in the ACTN3 gene which results in a deficiency of alpha-actinin 3 in a significant proportion of the population.^[5][6] Based on ethnicity the deficiency is found in 20-50% of people. Generally, Africans have the lowest incidence of the mutation while Asians have the highest. Scientists speculate that variations in this gene evolved to accommodate the energy expenditure requirements of people in various parts of the world.^{[5]:155–156}

Studies have linked the fiber twitch type with ACTN3, i.e. fast twitch fiber abundant individuals carry the non-mutant gene version. Also, studies in elite athletes have shown that the ACTN3 gene may influence athletic performance. While the non-mutant version of the gene is associated with sprint performance, the mutant version is associated with endurance

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actinin_alpha_3

 

People of African decent generally have the lowest incidence. What does that really tells, lowest is none and highest isn't all. Which is to say a there are portions of every population which could have the same genetic potential for fast twitch performance.  I my opinion when a large enough participation pool is applied the advantages even out. Soccer/Futbal is the most popular sport on earth and has the most number of people training and competing in it. In international play whites, blacks, Latinos, etc play side by side. In 2014 it was the German team with won the world's cup. In past year Spain, Italy, Brazil, Argentina, and etc have all won. No race appears to have genetic dominance in Futbal and in my opinion that is because everyone plays so we get the best of the best from all groups and at the most elite levels all groups are evenly matched basically.

In smaller more niche sports with regional popularity we end up with more regional ethnic dominance. Is that because those specific races are the best genetically or is it that the best athletes in those regional hyper focus on that regional sport? If Usain Bolt were from Germany rather than Jamaica he probably would have played Futbal and today would hold zero world sprinting records.  

[CharonY]

3 hours ago, Scott of the Antares said:

Obviously racism is not acceptable, but perceiving racism where honest impartial truths between genetics/racial differences is not acceptable either.

Here is the thing, though. a) we do not know (yet) the genetic basis that makes many Ethiopians great long-distance runners; b) as such, we do not know how frequent the respective alleles are in different populations, should they exist; and c) we also do not know the contribution of the environment.

See, for example Wilber and Pitsiladis (2012):

Quote

The purpose of this article is to present the current data relative to factors that potentially contribute to the unprecedented success of Kenyan and Ethiopian distance runners, including recent studies that examined potential links between Kenyan and Ethiopian genotype characteristics and elite running performance. In general, it appears that Kenyan and Ethiopian distance-running success is not based on a unique genetic or physiological characteristic. Rather, it appears to be the result of favorable somatotypical characteristics lending to exceptional biomechanical and metabolic economy/efficiency; chronic exposure to altitude in combination with moderate-volume, high-intensity training (live high + train high), and a strong psychological motivation to succeed athletically for the purpose of economic and social advancement.

 

As such, it can make sense to state that Ethiopia has a high number of excellent long-distance runners, but it is difficult to state that it is entirely or even mostly due to genetics. Also, the secondary claim is often that these characteristics are unique to Ethiopians (or Kenyans). But rather obviously, even if we assume that there are such genes, it is very likely to find them also in other populations, albeit perhaps in different frequencies. In other words, one big objections it that such claims as "truths" is usually a strong overstatement of our knowledge. The motivation for that can vary and is often due to ignorance of the scientific literature. Those that actually reject those, however, may have other reasons.

Edit: as an interesting side note, there is quite a bit of lit out there focusing on elite runner but relatively recent papers have criticized those. One of the arguments being that looking at the extremes does not inform on population effects.

Edited June 4, 2018 by CharonY

[Ten oz]

34 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

nope, if my stereotype is, all Nepalese are capable of climbing Everest and you introduce me to a Nepalese quadriplegic I'd say "of course, sorry I'm an idiot", try that with a white supremacist who thinks it was Hillary who dragged them up there, they'd say "see, told you they couldn't."  

I think all that would happen is a revision of the initial stereotype. The though would become all Nepalese people of standard health without disability can claim Everest. The mention of the quadriplegic being viewed as a formality. Stereotypes are deeply ingrained things and aren't easily shaken off by pesky things like evidence and facts. 

3 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Here is the thing, though. a) we do not know (yet) the genetic basis that makes many Ethiopians great long-distance runners; b) as such, we do not know how frequent the respective alleles are in different populations; and c) we also do not know the contribution of the environment.

See, for example Wilber and Pitsiladis (2012):

 

As such, it can make sense to state that Ethiopia has a high amount of excellent long-distance runners, but it is difficult to state that it is entirely or even mostly due to genetics. Also, the secondary claim is often that these characteristics are unique to Ethiopians (or Kenyans). But rather obviously, even if we assume that there are such genes, it is very likely to find them also in other populations, albeit perhaps in different frequencies. In other words, one big objections it that such claims as "truths" is usually a strong overstatement of our knowledge.

+1, You did a much better job than I did in response.

[dimreepr]

14 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

I think all that would happen is a revision of the initial stereotype. The though would become all Nepalese people of standard health without disability can claim Everest. The mention of the quadriplegic being viewed as a formality. Stereotypes are deeply ingrained things and aren't easily shaken off by pesky things like evidence and facts. 

Well, getting back to the topic "hate is hate no matter your politics", so unless you're suggesting a white supremacist is easily swayed by a logical argument while the doubtful remains adamant, I'm going to call BS. 

[Scott of the Antares]

2 hours ago, YaDinghus said:

It makes more sense to read that you don't think he made any references to superiority. That is very magnanimous of you. When it comes to @Endercreeper01, my good will is nearly depleted

Thank you, my proof reading skills need sharpening up!

[Ten oz]

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Well, getting back to the topic "hate is hate no matter your politics", so unless you're suggesting a white supremacist is easily swayed by a logical argument while the doubtful remains adamant, I'm going to call BS. 

A white Supremacist is an extreme example. Logic won't impress them. That said do you feel White Supremacist cause anymore damage or pain to minorities in 2018 as do average apathetic people? Brexit was partly rooted in a bigoted anti immigrant message white supremacist advocated but at the end of the day there isn't enough white supremacist in the U.K. to have gotten past. So what happened?  Likewise here in the U.S. Donald Trump pushed racist positions white supremacist cheered and got 63 million votes. There isn't 63 million white supremacist in the U.S.. Rather there are large pockets who are apathetic to racism and as a result unwittingly align themselves with bigots. Not speaking out against even casual bigotry and just tolerating or even believing some stereotypes is the sort of apathetic behavior which enables some of the most discriminatory behavior in the Western World today. 

[Endercreeper01]

6 hours ago, Phi for All said:

I don't really see the point of discussing anything with you when you argue this way. Even you can't possibly believe "a simple off handed comment" caused all this reaction. You don't use reason very well.

9 hours ago, swansont said:

I don't see it as oversensitivity prevailing over common sense, and I wasn't "blaming" the company.

What should people do? Say "Oh, Roseanne, what a bigot, bless her heart!" and go on with their day? Or should they recognize that such an attitude is unacceptable, and it demands a proportional response?

It's an example the attitude against racism or bigotry that is being taken too far. Someone says something bigoted ans all of a sudden they are treated like some sort of bad person. So what if she was a little racist in her comment? Her intention was to insult a specific person, not a whole race, and it should be OK to be racist in this context if someone is trying to say something racist towards something else like using it as an insult to somebody.

Edited June 4, 2018 by Endercreeper01

[YaDinghus]

7 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said:

It's an example the attitude against racism or bigotry that is being taken too far. Someone says something bigoted ans all of a sudden they are treated like some sort of bad person. So what if she was a little racist in her comment? Her intention was to insult a specific community, not a whole race, and it should be OK to be racist in this context if someone is trying to say something racist towards something else like using it as an insult to somebody.

No.

[Ten oz]

9 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said:

It's an example the attitude against racism or bigotry that is being taken too far. Someone says something bigoted ans all of a sudden they are treated like some sort of bad person.

I know it wasn't your intention but this made me laugh out loud, thanks for that. 

11 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said:

Her intention was to insult a specific community, not a whole race, and it should be OK to be racist in this context if someone is trying to say something racist towards something else like using it as an insult to somebody.

I think you are making a freedom speech argument? Barr is free to say whatever she wants but ABC (parent company Disney) doesn't have to employ her. ABC want the business of that specific community Barr insulted. 

[Phi for All]

21 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said:

It's an example the attitude against racism or bigotry that is being taken too far. Someone says something bigoted ans all of a sudden they are treated like some sort of bad person.

OK, this tells me you've mistaken an attack on poor behavior for an attack against a person. Reason is a good tool here, and can show that the two are completely different.

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Endercreeper01 said:

It's an example the attitude against racism or bigotry that is being taken too far. Someone says something bigoted ans all of a sudden they are treated like some sort of bad person. So what if she was a little racist in her comment? Her intention was to insult a specific person, not a whole race, and it should be OK to be racist in this context if someone is trying to say something racist towards something else like using it as an insult to somebody.

It's not an isolated incident, it's a pattern, and it's not OK to be racist towards someone.

[iNow]

https://wokesloth.com/jon-stewart-sam-bee-ivanka-diss/mariam/

Quote

During a Q&A at San Francisco’s Clusterfest comedy festival on Sunday, Stewart rejected Republican fury at Bee’s choice of words as anything but engineered mendacity and malicious bad faith politics.

“Please understand that a lot of what the right does, and it’s maybe their greatest genius, is they’ve created a code of conduct that they police, that they themselves don’t have to, in any way, abide,” Stewart said. “It’s a game, it’s a strategy, and it’s working.”

(...)

“Don’t get caught in a trap of thinking you can live up to a code of integrity that will be enough for the propagandist right. There isn’t,” Steward continued. “And so, create your own moral code to live by, but don’t be fooled into trying to make concessions that you think will mollify them.”

“They don’t give a sh*t about the word ‘c*nt,'” Stewart said of the Trump administration. “That is probably—he says that instead of ‘please,’ I’m guessing.”

 

[Endercreeper01]

8 hours ago, swansont said:

It's not an isolated incident, it's a pattern, and it's not OK to be racist towards someone.

The racism is only being used to insult someone, and it's okay to insult someone in a certain context.

 

[YaDinghus]

11 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said:

The racism is only being used to insult someone, and it's okay to insult someone in a certain context

Well this 'certain context' was not given in Barr's case

[iNow]

18 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said:

The racism is only being used to insult someone, and it's okay to insult someone in a certain context.

I’m trying to see things from your perspective in this thread and several others, but it seems my head won’t fit that far up my ass. 

Is that the context you mean?

[Endercreeper01]

2 minutes ago, iNow said:

I’m trying to see things from your perspective in this thread and several others, but it seems my head won’t fit that far up my ass. 

Is that the context you mean?

That's somewhat of the right context to be in.

 

[Ten oz]

6 hours ago, Endercreeper01 said:

The racism is only being used to insult someone, and it's okay to insult someone in a certain context.

 

...and it is okay for a business to fire an employee who is hurting their bottom line.

[dimreepr]

6 hours ago, Endercreeper01 said:

The racism is only being used to insult someone, and it's okay to insult someone in a certain context. 

 

If the context is, in private to rib a friend (who is capable of giving as good as he/she gets) then, for me, that's okay.

OTH

If the context is, in public to humiliate an innocent party in the most degrading way you can think of, that's deplorable and deserving of punishment.

Racism is by definition hateful, so let me fix your post "The racism is only being used to insult someone and is never acceptable in a civil society".