Originally Posted by The Batlord

What? I never said any such thing. I just said that it's a scientific term and wasn't created as a racial slur. I never said that it was never used in a racist context.



Of course I would never just call some random black person a negroid. I'd only use it in a discussion where it was clear that we were talking about science. I'm not an idiot.



You're being biased by reacting to a scientific term based solely on its history of being used as a slur. We're being objective by acknowledging its being created as a scientific term.



Sure, the scientific community has its biases -- though science itself is neutral by definition. Yes, faulty scientific reasoning was once used to justify eugenics by biased white supremacists to justify their racism, but ultimately it was science itself that proved that the "scientific" claims made by the Nazis about their genetic superiority were nonsense. If my memory serves me correctly, the Nazi's own scientific research proved themselves wrong, even if they weren't willing to accept it.

Science might not give us answers right away, but ultimately the scientific method will eventually weed out the bull**** from the facts. Whether the scientific method was developed by any single race, its core nature is colorblind.

Originally Posted by Soulflower

I understand that fields are different but fields such as psychology, sociology, social work, family studies etc have to learn similar social science theories unlike "Communications."

The receipts were given and Communications is a social science however that doesn't mean you learn the same social scientific theories as psychology or even a family students degree. Its very different in that respect.


Also, I never said I was an expert in anything. I said what I was currently studying and learning in a field. However, I am not an expert or claiming to know everything about any particular field but yes diversity,immigration, social issues, etc those are areas that I am passionate about and have real interest in as well as psychology.

Further more, I never said I was an expert in anthropology either. Since anthropology is a type of social science, I posed the question, "Why can't we question scientific ideals or concepts?" Never have I claimed to be an expert in that area.

I like questioning things and I think everybody should do that. I don't think we should accept things as is.

Originally Posted by Soulflower

No you said that it was NOT a slur. You were not open to the idea that it could be a racial slur and insisted it was a scientific term which justified the usage of the word.

THATS being bias.

Originally Posted by Frownland

Yes, the social sciences realm is quite diverse (diverse means that there are several different types of fields under that umbrella term). Just because some do not study the exact same things does not mean that one invalidates the other because of this, that's actually one of the reasons why they're different fields. I know, crazy right? We'll come to a civil disagreement if you're willing though: I'll consider things by their generally agreed upon definitions and you can cherrypick which definitions you use to back up your arguments best.

And you implied that you knew how racist science can be by addressing that you're a social sciences major, as if that gives you insight to the standards for physical sciences (which seems to be the opposite of the case based off of this thread.

Originally Posted by Soulflower

Also, I am not suggesting that since you are learning about Communications that you can not understand certain theories about other social sciences. However, when you learn about certain fields compared to others you do have better insight and understanding about certain themes and issues. For example, if you are not expose to diversity issues, or have to work hands on in clinics in the urban communities you might not understand where I am coming from with some of my arguments. ONCE again, you don't have to learn this in a classroom setting BUT sometimes it does help to get some type of exposure to these issues.

Originally Posted by Soulflower

No you said that it was NOT a slur. You were not open to the idea that it could be a racial slur and insisted it was a scientific term which justified the usage of the word.

THATS being bias.

Originally Posted by J.R.R. Tolkien

There is only one bright spot and that is the growing habit of disgruntled men of dynamiting factories and power-stations; I hope that, encouraged now as ‘patriotism’, may remain a habit! But it won’t do any good, if it is not universal.

Originally Posted by The Batlord

But it's not necessarily a racial slur. I think it's been replaced with "congoid", but I'm pretty sure that's purely a name change just so it doesn't sound offensive, and therefore means the exact same thing. If you want to interpret negroid as racist then I can't do anything about that, but that doesn't mean you get to judge others for not sharing your particular views on language.

Originally Posted by elphenor

I'd vote for Trump

Originally Posted by The Batlord

Show me a quote where I said that. If I did then I'll retract it, but you probably just misinterpreted it and are putting words into my mouth.

Originally Posted by The Batlord

But it's not necessarily a racial slur. I think it's been replaced with "congoid", but I'm pretty sure that's purely a name change just so it doesn't sound offensive, and therefore means the exact same thing. If you want to interpret negroid as racist then I can't do anything about that, but that doesn't mean you get to judge others for not sharing your particular views on language.

Originally Posted by The Batlord

So if it's not racist then it's still potentially a perfectly valid scientific term. So why shouldn't it be usable? Lot's of things about science offend people, but that doesn't mean that it should bow to social pressure.