Do you find being called "black" offensive?

Mondo Bungle · 03-04-2015, 03:56 PM

Science was around before the honkys hit the scene

**Frownland** · 03-04-2015, 03:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Soulflower

But there are certain aspects about Science that is racist especially old science that did not have a lot of research on diversity and multiculturalism.

Those anthropological terms such as Caucasoid and Negroid were created in the field of anthropology.

The study of human evolution.

And differences between cultures, biologically and culturally.

And how diverse the human race is.

And to see what those differences and similarities are.

The term was not racist for the time, but anything related to the word negro has gained the capacity to be used as a slur because times have changed. It sounds racist to you because of cultural norms that have stigmatized words relating to racial slurs, regardless of their original use and intent.

So please stop bashing science.

FRED HALE SR. · 03-04-2015, 03:57 PM

Science can suck it. Racist son of a bitch.

~~Soulflower~~ · 03-04-2015, 03:57 PM

My point is its important for everyone to be open minded and not be bias. Its easy for someone who is part of the "majority" to say "Oh that is not a racial slur its a scientific term." They wouldn't know because they haven't been called it.

~~Soulflower~~ · 03-04-2015, 03:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mondo Bungle

Science was around before the honkys hit the scene

The Honkeys created the scientific method.

**Frownland** · 03-04-2015, 03:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Soulflower

My point is its important for everyone to be open minded and not be bias. Its easy for someone who is part of the "majority" to say "Oh that is not a racial slur its a scientific term." They wouldn't know because they haven't been called it.

*facepalm*

Did you even read what I said?

~~John Wilkes Booth~~ · 03-04-2015, 03:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frownland

Correct, so they're not different species. There're still great enough differences between various races that they need to be addressed though. That's not really the question though, is it?

well it seemed earlier that there was the mistaken idea that the races are derived from genetics. if you want to say you can categorize humans by skull size into different distinct groups then i wouldn't argue with you, as i don't know all that much about human skulls. but that criteria is not necessarily biologically significant enough to justify the classical notions of race.

i mean even if you go below the level of species, as i said earlier, into sub-species, there aren't distinct human genetic groups that we can classify in this way.

so i don't disagree that you can roughly group people into races based on physical characteristics. but those groups are only significant to us because our tribal instincts latch on to these physical discrepancies as an easy way to categorize other humans.

Quote:

Well not really, we all have an extremely similar genome, but across races the way that it's expressed is quite different. So this is quite similar to having a similar source such as a word processor to result in two entirely different outcomes, like a scifi or a biographical novel. It doesn't apply to your point because I had misinterpreted it, but if you were saying that there's little to no basis for basing race off of due to lack of genetic disimilarity like I thought you were, the way that it's expressed (or used, in the word processor analogy) is enough to dictate a different race.

i guess it seems dumb to me because a book is all about its content where as a human being is not necessarily all about its skin tone etc.

**Frownland** · 03-04-2015, 04:00 PM

My bad, in the past I had only seen analogies where both situations were 100% identical to one another. I should have gone for that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Soulflower

My point is its important for everyone to be open minded and not be bias. Its easy for someone who is part of the "majority" to say "Oh that is not a racial slur its a scientific term." They wouldn't know because they haven't been called it.

I like to thing of myself as very logical. Are you saying that I wouldn't be logical if I was in the minority?

Quit being so damned racist, Soulflower.

~~Soulflower~~ · 03-04-2015, 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frownland

Those anthropological terms such as Caucasoid and Negroid were created in the field of anthropology.

The study of human evolution.

And differences between cultures, biologically and culturally.

And how diverse the human race is.

And to see what those differences and similarities are.

The term was not racist for the time, but anything related to the word negro has gained the capacity to be used as a slur because times have changed. It sounds racist to you because of cultural norms that have stigmatized words relating to racial slurs, regardless of their original use and intent.

So please stop bashing science.

Nice response

But regardless the technical terminology of the word, I still believe science is discriminatory against minorities. I study a social science so I know this.

Also, I am not interpreting the word as "racist"

I have seen it used a racial slur.

Mondo Bungle · 03-04-2015, 04:01 PM

Looks like we owe a lot to muslims though https://explorable.com/who-invented-...entific-method
and even everyone else http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History...entific_method

03-04-2015, 03:57 PM	#273 (permalink)
FRED HALE SR. Neo-Maxi-Zoom-Dweebie Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: So-Cal Posts: 3,752	Science can suck it. Racist son of a bitch. __________________ " I slashed and burned thru my 15 minutes of fame."

03-04-2015, 03:57 PM	#274 (permalink)
~~Soulflower~~ Account Disabled Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 2,304	My point is its important for everyone to be open minded and not be bias. Its easy for someone who is part of the "majority" to say "Oh that is not a racial slur its a scientific term." They wouldn't know because they haven't been called it.