Hate crime - torture - against white disabled teen
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
06-01-2017, 11:18 AM
RE: Hate crime - torture - against white disabled teen
(05-01-2017 11:10 AM)Gilgamesh Wrote:  Hang yourself you stupid old senile fuck. Please do the world a favor and do it LOL.

[Image: jzxhrc.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 7 users Like Thumpalumpacus's post
06-01-2017, 11:19 AM
RE: Hate crime - torture - against white disabled teen
(06-01-2017 11:07 AM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(06-01-2017 10:49 AM)Metazoa Zeke Wrote:  [Image: 95973412.jpg]

Don't blame me when you find yourself in the Tokyo zoo. I tried to warn you.

I would work at the zoo. But knowing japan, my job would be to get some social outcast females pregnant

[Image: Guilmon-41189.gif] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOW_Ioi2wtuPa88FvBmnBgQ my youtube
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Metazoa Zeke's post
06-01-2017, 11:23 AM
RE: Hate crime - torture - against white disabled teen
(06-01-2017 08:55 AM)Metazoa Zeke Wrote:  Even though it isn't good to shoot people, there comes a point in time were the has to be a necessary evil.

No, not when said evil results in the random murders of citizens under the color of authority, murders which are often unpunished.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Thumpalumpacus's post
06-01-2017, 11:40 AM
RE: Hate crime - torture - against white disabled teen
(06-01-2017 11:23 AM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  
(06-01-2017 08:55 AM)Metazoa Zeke Wrote:  Even though it isn't good to shoot people, there comes a point in time were the has to be a necessary evil.

No, not when said evil results in the random murders of citizens under the color of authority, murders which are often unpunished.

Such is the remorseless progression of human society, shedding lives and souls as it goes on its way. It is an ocean into which men sink who have been cast out by the law and consigned, with help most cruelly withheld, to moral death. The sea is the pitiless social darkness into which the penal system casts those it has condemned, an unfathomable waste of misery. The human soul, lost in those depths, may become a corpse. Who shall revive it?

Victor Hugo

Freedom is servitude to justice and intellectual honesty.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like epronovost's post
06-01-2017, 11:55 AM
RE: Hate crime - torture - against white disabled teen
(06-01-2017 11:23 AM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  
(06-01-2017 08:55 AM)Metazoa Zeke Wrote:  Even though it isn't good to shoot people, there comes a point in time were the has to be a necessary evil.

No, not when said evil results in the random murders of citizens under the color of authority, murders which are often unpunished.

I wasn't talking about police brutality. I was talking about altercations that lead to such gun shots out of self defense. I wouldn't justify police brutality.

[Image: Guilmon-41189.gif] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOW_Ioi2wtuPa88FvBmnBgQ my youtube
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-01-2017, 12:09 PM
RE: Hate crime - torture - against white disabled teen
(06-01-2017 11:55 AM)Metazoa Zeke Wrote:  
(06-01-2017 11:23 AM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  No, not when said evil results in the random murders of citizens under the color of authority, murders which are often unpunished.

I wasn't talking about police brutality. I was talking about altercations that lead to such gun shots out of self defense. I wouldn't justify police brutality.

The problem I see with the specific case of Michael Brown is that the shot was justified (or at least justifiable), but Wilson's decision to attempt to arrest a violent, physically superior, criminal alone and in the middle of the street is baffeling to me. Why would you take such a risk? The guy isn't very smart violent and huge? Why don't you follow him home and arrest him there with three other officers in front of his mother. American police officers kill, compared to Canadian police officers, even after the numbers are adjusted, suspects around 6 times more often. That betrays a fundamental problem in police intervention method. Police methods in America should be questionned and protested in my opinion.

Freedom is servitude to justice and intellectual honesty.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-01-2017, 12:23 PM
RE: Hate crime - torture - against white disabled teen
(06-01-2017 07:24 AM)Metazoa Zeke Wrote:  
(05-01-2017 11:17 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  No. Literally the opposite of that is true. There's even a running joke in sociology about how it takes a white female being kidnapped at the same time a black female is also kidnapped in order for the other one to make the news as an "also".

Leave it to sociologist to get something wrong again. That joke isn't even exactly true. Hell, BLM tries to make it seem as if every black person ever shot was innocent.

I'm a biologist. But one of my very good friends is a professor of sociology.

And the joke is based on real incidents. In fact, it's referred to as

Missing White Woman Syndrome

When did we start talking about BLM, and what do they have to do with sociology?

(06-01-2017 07:24 AM)Metazoa Zeke Wrote:  
(05-01-2017 11:17 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  It strikes me that the story was reported in the usual fashion-- late and badly. The conservatives, however, have tried to attach a partisan "angle" flag to it, to turn it into "us-versus-them" propaganda, and for that I find them despicable.

No they aren't. I have seen enough conservatives talk to know that they are upset that people are trying to dismiss the fact it was a hate crime against a white person. Even things like CNN try to dismiss the racist side of it. Some trying to say it wasn't evil.

Can you link me to CNN trying to dismiss the racist side of it? I find it odd that anyone could do so when they're explicitly saying racist things in the video.

And saying "some say" still doesn't address what I'm talking about. I'm sure you can find a few idiot commentators who will knee-jerk defend whatever partisan position they stake out. Unsurprising in the age of YouTube and too many for-profit news shows tailored to stroke the ideologies of a particular audience.

(06-01-2017 07:24 AM)Metazoa Zeke Wrote:  
(05-01-2017 11:17 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  Of course it's not the first or the last time. That's exactly my point. Re-read my post: I asked why this story was a big deal, compared to all the other stories which are identical except for the racial identity of the particular perpetrators.

What gave you the idea that nobody cares? It's exactly as horrible as any other crime of similar violence.

It is because people believe it is okay to be racist towards white people. In fact many say you can't be racist toward white people. The thing is that when a black person is beaten for his racist by a white person, people get upset and try to stop such violence(and rightfully so). However when such a situation happens, you have public figures trying to push away the race narrative. Right now people are saying they were people attacking someone who is mentally ill, despite them yelling fuck trump, fuck white people while attacking him.

"Many" say? Who says this?

I can certainly see where politicians might try to downplay a racism angle, in an attempt to defuse the racially tense situation... but politicians being idiots doesn't really reflect on the truth of a particular issue. I'd say a good definition of politician is "lies whenever talking".

What I have seen said, in coverage of this that I have read (from liberal sources mainly, mind you), is that this was both a racist attack and a group of perps who picked their victim because he was disabled and therefore more vulnerable.

(06-01-2017 07:24 AM)Metazoa Zeke Wrote:  
(05-01-2017 11:17 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  Not a myth. You can read any number of books on the data and why/how it's interpreted to come to those conclusions, if you want to overcome the propaganda you have clearly swallowed.

Which is ironic. Sociology is a heavliy biased





They interpret conclusions by starting with the idea that white people have an in inherent advantage is wrong. The fact that asians "make" more money than whites, are less likely to be killed, and less asians live in poverty than whites. Does that mean there is an asian privilage? No

Did you just pull the Bill O'Reilley Defense? Laugh out load

Thank you for proving to me that you're absorbing the propaganda I've been warning you about.

(06-01-2017 07:24 AM)Metazoa Zeke Wrote:  
(05-01-2017 11:17 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  The "dumbasses" in sociology "class" are in fact people who scientifically study these concepts, and who publish in peer-reviewed journals. Data and all that.

Well here is the thing, when every one leans towards one ideology, what do expect the peer review to be like? They will let almost anything slide. There is a reason nobody besides sociologist consider sociology to be a science. There is a reasons for that. On top of that when you get data from faulty studies, you have faulty data.

You keep referring to these phantom people: "many", "almost nobody"... what the fuck are you talking about?

How do we know the data from faulty studies is faulty? Peer review. They excoriate bad information and they update it with better arguments.

You really need to back off from your conspiracy theory approach to how sociology works, based on the idea of white-tower academic echo-chambers. That's the exact same argument made against evolutionary biology by people who don't understand evolutionary biology. Everything you have said here so far confirms to me that your notion of how sociology works comes from people like Bill O'Really, and not from neutral sources or an honest appraisal of the state of the industry.

(06-01-2017 07:24 AM)Metazoa Zeke Wrote:  
(05-01-2017 11:17 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  In any other context, like biology for instance, if you said "evolution is just what those dumbasses in biology class are coming up with to justify their atheism", I would look at you the same way I look at you for saying the above.

The problem with that is that evolution is something that has been peer reviewed rigorously, while white privilage hasn't. One has no end goal, evolution is not used to justify atheism, white privilage is used however, to justify racism and discrimination towards white people. It is how you get MTV's new years resolutions for white guys videos. So comparying sociology to biology in any context is like comparing a bootleg movie to a triple A movie.

Do you hear yourself? You really think the purpose of sociologists who talk about this subject, including my (very white) friend, is "to justify racism and discrimination towards white people"??

Or maybe they're just describing a phenomenon you'd rather pretend does not happen (like, say, evolution for a Creationist) because it challenges several social presumptions you've absorbed over the years?

(06-01-2017 07:24 AM)Metazoa Zeke Wrote:  
(05-01-2017 11:17 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  And I have more to fear from white people than black people, because I live in a mostly-white area (most of my immediate neighbors in this particular apartment complex are black, but I don't fear any of them... they're primarily Muslims and one old Army veteran, and we all get along pretty well). Most crimes are perpetrated on those close by, so most crimes are black-on-black, or white-on-white, by simple proximity.

So why would you bring up white people fearing what black people have to fear all the time?

Because a major part of white privilege is being able to walk through life assuming I won't be attacked, killed, or usually not even discriminated against because of the color of my skin. So it's shocking to white people when it happens.

That's the entire point of this narrative.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
06-01-2017, 01:43 PM (This post was last modified: 06-01-2017 01:50 PM by Metazoa Zeke.)
RE: Hate crime - torture - against white disabled teen
(06-01-2017 12:23 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  When did we start talking about BLM, and what do they have to do with sociology?

Where do you think the ideas come from? Thin air

(06-01-2017 12:23 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  Can you link me to CNN trying to dismiss the racist side of it? I find it odd that anyone could do so when they're explicitly saying racist things in the video.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2...ining.html

Here's one

(06-01-2017 12:23 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  And saying "some say" still doesn't address what I'm talking about. I'm sure you can find a few idiot commentators who will knee-jerk defend whatever partisan position they stake out. Unsurprising in the age of YouTube and too many for-profit news shows tailored to stroke the ideologies of a particular audience.

Which is funny because if it was conservatives, you would bunch them all together.


(06-01-2017 12:23 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  I can certainly see where politicians might try to downplay a racism angle, in an attempt to defuse the racially tense situation... but politicians being idiots doesn't really reflect on the truth of a particular issue. I'd say a good definition of politician is "lies whenever talking".

No matter what the situation, racism shouldn't be downplayed. But racism towards whites ruins a narrative.

(06-01-2017 12:23 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  What I have seen said, in coverage of this that I have read (from liberal sources mainly, mind you), is that this was both a racist attack and a group of perps who picked their victim because he was disabled and therefore more vulnerable.

Don't care whether they are liberal or conservative, correct is correct with me. And even if him being disabled is part of it, it ain't the exact reason they attacked him.

(06-01-2017 12:23 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  Did you just pull the Bill O'Reilley Defense? Laugh out load

Thank you for proving to me that you're absorbing the propaganda I've been warning you about.

A) Don't watch fox news

B) Keep in mind the white privilge argument is made to say whites make more than other races, but if asians make more that would make them privilaged

C) And you clearly didn't watch the video and you'll see why I know.

So you can do two things:

Address the point and try to prove white privilage exist or being arrogant while being wrong. Both work for me.


(06-01-2017 12:23 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  How do we know the data from faulty studies is faulty? Peer review. They excoriate bad information and they update it with better arguments.

And if you watched the video you would have seen my point. If a person who writes a paper with a bias, and the person who peer reviews it shares that same bias, what do you think happens? That's right, the bias paper gets peer reviewed because both people agree. No different than if creationist were to peer review each other.

(06-01-2017 12:23 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  You really need to back off from your conspiracy theory approach to how sociology works, based on the idea of white-tower academic echo-chambers. That's the exact same argument made against evolutionary biology by people who don't understand evolutionary biology.

No, as I said before sociology has an end goal, and not eviolutionary biology. One just has to look at how they teach in universities. I could simply say gender studies for example and end it their, but that wouldn't drive the point home.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/10/opinio...ampus.html

http://www.technicianonline.com/opinion/...0cb16.html

and here is an example:

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article...ne.0131613

is this a good example of peer review in sociology?



(06-01-2017 12:23 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  Everything you have said here so far confirms to me that your notion of how sociology works comes from people like Bill O'Really, and not from neutral sources or an honest appraisal of the state of the industry.

First off, I don't watch fox. Second I have looked into everything. I didn't say sociology is always wrong, but it is called the softest "science" for a reason


(06-01-2017 12:23 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  Do you hear yourself? You really think the purpose of sociologists who talk about this subject, including my (very white) friend, is "to justify racism and discrimination towards white people"??

Yeah. And just because your friend is white doesn't mean they ain't contributing. Hell I wouldn't even say people are intentionally doing it(after all the road to hell is paved with good intentions) The issue I see is that teaching the myth of white privilege which is hyped up in sociology leads up to shit like this. It makes people think they can discriminate against white people willy nilly and get away with it. It is why you get shit like this:

http://sociologyinfocus.com/2014/01/the-...y-edition/

You might say, but bro that is just one article. Now before you try to dismiss this and say I watch bill o' rielly read this

Quote:I still remember sitting in my first sociology course in college – Race and Ethnic Relations – and hearing the professor introduce the discussion of racism. Immediately, my mind flew to an experience I had as a child where I had felt attacked for being White while staying with my grandmother in a neighborhood composed predominantly of families from minority racial backgrounds. As I shared my story with the class, the professor interjected that, even though I had felt discriminated against, I hadn’t been the victim of racism since I was White. A look of confusion crossed my face moments before I realized I was incredibly offended. How in the world could this person be telling me I couldn’t have experienced being the victim of racism?!

Notice how they teach this. I didn't make this shit up, they teach things that aren't true and spread them around as if they are. This doesn't help anybody.

(06-01-2017 12:23 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  Or maybe they're just describing a phenomenon you'd rather pretend does not happen (like, say, evolution for a Creationist) because it challenges several social presumptions you've absorbed over the years?

Social presumpitons. I listen to various podcast across both the left and the right, I follow pages that are both liberal and conservative, and as I said before I am a centrist. If white privilage was true than it is, but so far the evidence shows that it isn't. Every study that shows "institutional racism" either lack nuance, comes from a heavily biased source, or is just wrong. And if you watched the video I showed you, you would see where my problem with sociology lies. I don't hate sociology because I can, I hate it because it is flawed and no one wants to fix it.


(06-01-2017 12:23 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  Because a major part of white privilege is being able to walk through life assuming I won't be attacked, killed, or usually not even discriminated against because of the color of my skin. So it's shocking to white people when it happens.

That's the entire point of this narrative.

So do hispanics and asians, in fact they are less likely to face hate crimes toward them than white people. So is there a hispanic and asian privilege now, or that more than race plays a part in this?

[Image: Guilmon-41189.gif] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOW_Ioi2wtuPa88FvBmnBgQ my youtube
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Metazoa Zeke's post
06-01-2017, 02:19 PM
RE: Hate crime - torture - against white disabled teen
In the example you quoted, they didn't say specifically how they were attacked.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-01-2017, 05:16 PM (This post was last modified: 06-01-2017 05:35 PM by RocketSurgeon76.)
RE: Hate crime - torture - against white disabled teen
(06-01-2017 01:43 PM)Metazoa Zeke Wrote:  
(06-01-2017 12:23 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  When did we start talking about BLM, and what do they have to do with sociology?

Where do you think the ideas come from? Thin air

No. I already explained where the ideas come from: data. How people misuse that data is not the fault of the people generating and analyzing the data.

I'll explain more about that in a minute.

(06-01-2017 01:43 PM)Metazoa Zeke Wrote:  
(06-01-2017 12:23 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  Can you link me to CNN trying to dismiss the racist side of it? I find it odd that anyone could do so when they're explicitly saying racist things in the video.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2...ining.html

Here's one

Yeah. Don Lemon is a dipshit doing an opinion piece on Facebook. So? I thought we were talking about news.

[Edit to Add: By the way, that link is broken.]

(06-01-2017 01:43 PM)Metazoa Zeke Wrote:  
(06-01-2017 12:23 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  And saying "some say" still doesn't address what I'm talking about. I'm sure you can find a few idiot commentators who will knee-jerk defend whatever partisan position they stake out. Unsurprising in the age of YouTube and too many for-profit news shows tailored to stroke the ideologies of a particular audience.

Which is funny because if it was conservatives, you would bunch them all together.

You know damned well that the GOP is known for doing a single-voice "talking points" narrative, where every one of them says the same thing in the same words. Jon Stewart was known for mocking them when they did it, by playing a dozen clips of them all using the same phrase in the same conversation-- almost literally every night on The Daily Show.

(06-01-2017 01:43 PM)Metazoa Zeke Wrote:  
(06-01-2017 12:23 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  I can certainly see where politicians might try to downplay a racism angle, in an attempt to defuse the racially tense situation... but politicians being idiots doesn't really reflect on the truth of a particular issue. I'd say a good definition of politician is "lies whenever talking".

No matter what the situation, racism shouldn't be downplayed. But racism towards whites ruins a narrative.

This has nothing to do with sociology.

Yes, there are "partisan hacks" (as Kyle on Secular Talk calls such folks) who promote a particular narrative in which the "poor oppressed black people" (or whatever) can do no wrong, just as there are people who apologize for Islam no matter how many heads are being chopped off--- but that is not what the majority of intellectuals in the field do, by a long, long shot.

(06-01-2017 01:43 PM)Metazoa Zeke Wrote:  
(06-01-2017 12:23 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  What I have seen said, in coverage of this that I have read (from liberal sources mainly, mind you), is that this was both a racist attack and a group of perps who picked their victim because he was disabled and therefore more vulnerable.

Don't care whether they are liberal or conservative, correct is correct with me. And even if him being disabled is part of it, it ain't the exact reason they attacked him.

Did you even read what I wrote? I said they attacked him because he was white and they wanted to vent their anger at white people (which is why they are being charged with Hate Crime laws), but that they likely chose a disabled person because he was easier for them to victimize. They are morons and cowards, and it's typical for such types to choose the easiest target. It's why, in the example I provided, you see Klan-brainwashed white kids choosing a guy alone in a parking lot and taking him down literally 10-on-1, then running him over with a truck.

(06-01-2017 01:43 PM)Metazoa Zeke Wrote:  
(06-01-2017 12:23 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  Did you just pull the Bill O'Reilley Defense? Laugh out load

Thank you for proving to me that you're absorbing the propaganda I've been warning you about.

A) Don't watch fox news

B) Keep in mind the white privilge argument is made to say whites make more than other races, but if asians make more that would make them privilaged

C) And you clearly didn't watch the video and you'll see why I know.

So you can do two things:

Address the point and try to prove white privilage exist or being arrogant while being wrong. Both work for me.

No, white privilege is not about making more money. The money angle is a red herring, and I'm not taking the bait.

But since you seem to keep insisting on it, I'll explain what you should have known from the beginning, if you weren't just soaking in the conservative narrative.

White privilege is about the number of subtle ways in which whites have an advantage in society, given otherwise equal backgrounds/situations. Money is only a small part of that, usually expressed in terms of inherited wealth and/or openly racist government programs from the first half of the 20th century that favored building a white middle class (home loans, GI Bill, neighborhood improvements and infrastructure for white areas, and other types of blatant discrimination) that have left a disparity in their wake.

(06-01-2017 01:43 PM)Metazoa Zeke Wrote:  
(06-01-2017 12:23 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  How do we know the data from faulty studies is faulty? Peer review. They excoriate bad information and they update it with better arguments.

And if you watched the video you would have seen my point. If a person who writes a paper with a bias, and the person who peer reviews it shares that same bias, what do you think happens? That's right, the bias paper gets peer reviewed because both people agree. No different than if creationist were to peer review each other.

I know the point they were making... I had to stop watching the video because it got ridiculous.

I'm sorry you think that's how peer review works. But it's really not. As I so frequently have to point out to Creationists who make the same argument, it's based on competition among ideas and competition between researchers, not cooperation and certainly not ideological uniformity.

(06-01-2017 01:43 PM)Metazoa Zeke Wrote:  
(06-01-2017 12:23 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  You really need to back off from your conspiracy theory approach to how sociology works, based on the idea of white-tower academic echo-chambers. That's the exact same argument made against evolutionary biology by people who don't understand evolutionary biology.

No, as I said before sociology has an end goal, and not eviolutionary biology. One just has to look at how they teach in universities. I could simply say gender studies for example and end it their, but that wouldn't drive the point home.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/10/opinio...ampus.html

http://www.technicianonline.com/opinion/...0cb16.html

and here is an example:

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article...ne.0131613

is this a good example of peer review in sociology?

So, two opinion pieces (which I read and with which I agree, by the way) about increasing issue of "safe spaces" and suppression of free speech on campuses in the classrooms of some types of professor. What does it have to do with the field of sociology?

Well, the last one seems to be a good example of sociology as a science, but I don't know why you say it's a good example of peer review in sociology. It is a paper that has been cited twice (not a good sign), but I don't see a particular problem with the methodology. They ran an experiment to see if there really was a bias in video gaming, as alleged by several prominent female gamers and a number of feminist writers. What's your beef with that article?

(06-01-2017 01:43 PM)Metazoa Zeke Wrote:  
(06-01-2017 12:23 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  Everything you have said here so far confirms to me that your notion of how sociology works comes from people like Bill O'Really, and not from neutral sources or an honest appraisal of the state of the industry.

First off, I don't watch fox. Second I have looked into everything. I didn't say sociology is always wrong, but it is called the softest "science" for a reason

I said "people like Bill O'Really". (Note the sarcasm in how I spelled his name.)

But it's why I said you're absorbing the propaganda narrative. It's bombarding you from a number of sources, and you're accepting it a little bit uncritically. You think you're examining it critically, and I'm trying to show you that it's not so.

(06-01-2017 01:43 PM)Metazoa Zeke Wrote:  
(06-01-2017 12:23 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  Do you hear yourself? You really think the purpose of sociologists who talk about this subject, including my (very white) friend, is "to justify racism and discrimination towards white people"??

Yeah. And just because your friend is white doesn't mean they ain't contributing.

My friend is white and among the brightest people I know... and that's saying something. I pointed out his race because I know he has no inherent reason to promote the narrative you suggest is common among sociologists, and yet he argues strenuously that this is indeed what the data suggests.

He is the first to call out bias and to critically examine the questions from every possible angle. He also criticizes the "echo chamber" effect, and in fact is the guy who first pointed me to an article I quoted on this forum about how professors are being terrified into silence by the demands of the students who think they deserve safe spaces and don't need to challenge their assumptions with disliked speech.

http://www.vox.com/2015/6/3/8706323/coll...sor-afraid


(06-01-2017 01:43 PM)Metazoa Zeke Wrote:  Hell I wouldn't even say people are intentionally doing it(after all the road to hell is paved with good intentions) The issue I see is that teaching the myth of white privilege which is hyped up in sociology leads up to shit like this. It makes people think they can discriminate against white people willy nilly and get away with it. It is why you get shit like this:

http://sociologyinfocus.com/2014/01/the-...y-edition/

You might say, but bro that is just one article. Now before you try to dismiss this and say I watch bill o' rielly read this


Quote:I still remember sitting in my first sociology course in college – Race and Ethnic Relations – and hearing the professor introduce the discussion of racism. Immediately, my mind flew to an experience I had as a child where I had felt attacked for being White while staying with my grandmother in a neighborhood composed predominantly of families from minority racial backgrounds. As I shared my story with the class, the professor interjected that, even though I had felt discriminated against, I hadn’t been the victim of racism since I was White. A look of confusion crossed my face moments before I realized I was incredibly offended. How in the world could this person be telling me I couldn’t have experienced being the victim of racism?!

Notice how they teach this. I didn't make this shit up, they teach things that aren't true and spread them around as if they are. This doesn't help anybody.

You know... it's funny. You apparently didn't read the article. She talks about how personal experience isn't a good way to analyze whether or not there's an issue... but all you've focused on is where she writes something that confirms your bias, missing that (about a paragraph after the first one you cited) she immediately goes on to write an entire piece about how it is a real phenomenon.

So she had a bad professor who did a stupid thing. She was right to be offended by the professor's idiocy. That does not mean the entire field of sociology is bunk.

(06-01-2017 01:43 PM)Metazoa Zeke Wrote:  
(06-01-2017 12:23 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  Or maybe they're just describing a phenomenon you'd rather pretend does not happen (like, say, evolution for a Creationist) because it challenges several social presumptions you've absorbed over the years?

Social presumpitons. I listen to various podcast across both the left and the right, I follow pages that are both liberal and conservative, and as I said before I am a centrist. If white privilage was true than it is, but so far the evidence shows that it isn't. Every study that shows "institutional racism" either lack nuance, comes from a heavily biased source, or is just wrong. And if you watched the video I showed you, you would see where my problem with sociology lies. I don't hate sociology because I can, I hate it because it is flawed and no one wants to fix it.

The evidence certainly shows that it is. Decades of research have said the same thing, time and again. The thing you apparently think is the definition of white privilege just isn't it, as I wrote, above. What you have done is built up a strawman (or accepted someone else's strawman as real), and then gone on to give it a good kicking.

(06-01-2017 01:43 PM)Metazoa Zeke Wrote:  
(06-01-2017 12:23 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  Because a major part of white privilege is being able to walk through life assuming I won't be attacked, killed, or usually not even discriminated against because of the color of my skin. So it's shocking to white people when it happens.

That's the entire point of this narrative.

So do hispanics and asians, in fact they are less likely to face hate crimes toward them than white people. So is there a hispanic and asian privilege now, or that more than race plays a part in this?

Hispanics are hugely discriminated against, as are asians, in a number of ways. I don't understand the sudden shift to the use of the "how many hate crimes do they suffer" metric. Most Asian-Amerians live in California, where hate crimes aren't as rampant, for one thing. And as the article below points out, many of the types of violence/intimidation against the Latinx community are badly reported (they use the term "muddled", which I like) because it's conflated with issues of immigration and the drug war.

https://www.quora.com/Why-arent-Asians-H...-as-blacks

Got any more red herrings or strawmen to throw out? Wink

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: