Why the word "ni33er$" is appropriate and the inherent racism of this site

Author: Singularity

Posts

Total: 55
Topic's author
#31
Singularity
Singularity's avatar
Debates: 11
Posts: 1,013
2
3
8
Singularity's avatar
Singularity
2
3
8
-->
@Marko
No, oromagi is definitely racist. He is pro on voter registration laws because he thinks blacks don't have IDs, and are not smart enough to know where the dmv is to get them
#32
Marko
Marko's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 93
0
0
2
Marko's avatar
Marko
0
0
2
-->
@Singularity
I can’ t see how being pro voter registration laws would automatically make him racist. Many democratic countries have mandatory registration systems...Mexico, Germany, Australia, the United Kingdom, etc...and have relatively high voting outcomes for minority groups. 
I could come up with a number of reasons (completely separate from the notion of race) why some people would be for it. If anything it might help to politicise certain apolitical groups. 
So there has to be more than just that if you are to tarnish someone with the race card. 

Topic's author
#33
Singularity
Singularity's avatar
Debates: 11
Posts: 1,013
2
3
8
Singularity's avatar
Singularity
2
3
8
-->
@Marko
I clearly meant voter ID laws. How about this. Ge is pro abortion which kills 50% of black kids before they are born. I think his pro genocide views here should be good evidence of his racism
Topic's author
#34
Singularity
Singularity's avatar
Debates: 11
Posts: 1,013
2
3
8
Singularity's avatar
Singularity
2
3
8
Funny how you think high voting outcomes from mandatory registration is good though, most people are not qualified to make policy decisions
#35
Marko
Marko's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 93
0
0
2
Marko's avatar
Marko
0
0
2
-->
@Singularity
Regardless. It is a given that countries that practice voter registration law will also require you to possess photo ID on the day of election. It goes without saying. Being pro abortion means nothing with regards to whether or not you are racist. Being a democrat is a better indicator that you will be pro abortion (while republicans are largely against pro-abortion policy). So are democrats racist? 
Topic's author
#36
Singularity
Singularity's avatar
Debates: 11
Posts: 1,013
2
3
8
Singularity's avatar
Singularity
2
3
8
-->
@Marko
Yes, Democrats are predominantly racist. They view blacks as children who are beneath them. A study by yale shows democrats in conversations with blacks often talk at a lower competence level than they do whites, while conservatives avoid talking down to african americans. The voter ID laws are justified with racist talk like insinuating it is for the benefit of blacks because they are too low IQ to know how to get to the dmv. The pro choice stance is part of a eugenics program to keep populations of blacks down and they have set up racial quotas because they think blacks are unqualified and cannot get good jobs without a quota in place
#37
Marko
Marko's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 93
0
0
2
Marko's avatar
Marko
0
0
2
-->
@Singularity
Singularity: Funny how you think high voting outcomes from mandatory registration is good though, most people are not qualified to make policy decisions.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

So how would you have it?
Voters are not involved in making policy decisions. They vote for them. But anyway, omitting that for one moment, what would make a person ‘qualified’ to vote on policy decisions? 
Topic's author
#38
Singularity
Singularity's avatar
Debates: 11
Posts: 1,013
2
3
8
Singularity's avatar
Singularity
2
3
8
-->
@Marko
A person who is qualified is one who has atleast an IQ of 135, and a good background in philosophy, economics and political science
#39
Marko
Marko's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 93
0
0
2
Marko's avatar
Marko
0
0
2
-->
@Singularity
I can partially agree with your position regarding democrats. 
#40
Marko
Marko's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 93
0
0
2
Marko's avatar
Marko
0
0
2
-->
@Singularity

singularity: A person who is qualified is one who has atleast an IQ of 135, and a good background in philosophy, economics and political science
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
So in essence, you re not afraid that some groups will be over-represented compared to other groups, and that the self-interests of those groups will have no detrimental effects on the country as a whole. Why do you think this would work? 
Topic's author
#41
Singularity
Singularity's avatar
Debates: 11
Posts: 1,013
2
3
8
Singularity's avatar
Singularity
2
3
8
-->
@Marko
Well, I am black and I'm not racist. I think a lot of the racism of my brothers may just be simple player hating of whites that are successful.  I even seen blacks player hate other blacks for being successful and calling them sell outs or trying to disown them as black. You can see it with how many blacks call colin Powell a cracker. It is as simple as being player haters. 

Why would I worry about some groups being under represented. If the theory that we are all created equal is true than no group should have any IQ advantages, and in the current set up, we still have the same problem. There are more of some groups than of other groups, so those groups  an have more power behind their votes

#42
Vaarka
Vaarka's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 696
2
1
5
Vaarka's avatar
Vaarka
2
1
5
AFAIK, if a word is banned, then it doesn't matter who says it. If you say it, you get punished for using it. 
#43
Vader
Vader's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 14,984
5
8
11
Vader's avatar
Vader
5
8
11
-->
@Vaarka
This will now be added in the Code of Conduct since the holy Vaarka hath proclaimed it
#44
Vader
Vader's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 14,984
5
8
11
Vader's avatar
Vader
5
8
11
-->
@Vaarka
Too bad you don't play mafia >:C
#45
Vaarka
Vaarka's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 696
2
1
5
Vaarka's avatar
Vaarka
2
1
5
-->
@Vader
lol soz
Topic's author
#46
Singularity
Singularity's avatar
Debates: 11
Posts: 1,013
2
3
8
Singularity's avatar
Singularity
2
3
8
-->
@Vaarka
The word is not banned
#47
Vaarka
Vaarka's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 696
2
1
5
Vaarka's avatar
Vaarka
2
1
5
-->
@Singularity
Why not lmao, and if it's not banned, then why is someone being banned for using it. 
Topic's author
#48
Singularity
Singularity's avatar
Debates: 11
Posts: 1,013
2
3
8
Singularity's avatar
Singularity
2
3
8
-->
@Vaarka
why would it be banned? why should we subject one race to more rules than other races on here? blacks such as myself use the n word as part of our normal vocabulary and it is inherently racist to ban us from using the N word, but not crackers from using the c word
#49
Vader
Vader's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 14,984
5
8
11
Vader's avatar
Vader
5
8
11
-->
@Vaarka
Lolski
#50
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,472
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
We should legalize the n word, the c word, and I'm basically a free speech absolutist.  Eventually being pro life for instance would be viewed as hate speech towards women.  People who believe that hate speech should be banned are trying to set a very dangerous precedent that they don't suffer from.
#51
Marko
Marko's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 93
0
0
2
Marko's avatar
Marko
0
0
2
-->
@Singularity
Singularity: Well, I am black and I'm not racist. I think a lot of the racism of my brothers may just be simple player hating of whites that are successful.  I even seen blacks player hate other blacks for being successful and calling them sell outs or trying to disown them as black. You can see it with how many blacks call colin Powell a cracker. It is as simple as being player haters. 
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
I didn’t literally ask whether blacks were racist towards whites. I meant that, given that the numbers tell us that the majority of blacks are favourable towards a pro-abortion stance, but that you also make the claim that pro-abortion is against the self-interest of blacks as a whole, are you suggesting that blacks are in majority favourable to a policy that runs against their self-interest? Could it be that the issue is more complicated than you think, and that strange, historic party affiliation or social norms and practices might be a play here? 
Additionally, many whites are also for pro-abortion policy, for themselves and others. These whites condone the death of white babies too. 

But in summary, democrats are largely pro-abortion, and blacks are largely democrats. Republicans are on the majority white, and republicans are largely against pro-abortion policy. If you were right and if this was as one dimensional as you suggested (with abortion being largely a race issue), you could also argue that blacks are in fact racist towards themselves and that whites are largely not racist. I wouldn’t necessarily agree with that outcome. So something else (other than race) is visibly at play here. 
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Singularity:  Why would I worry about some groups being under represented. If the theory that we are all created equal is true than no group should have any IQ advantages, and in the current set up, we still have the same problem. There are more of some groups than of other groups, so those groups  an have more power behind their votes
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

You are conflating the ‘All men are created equal’ written in the Constitution to the realities of nature and biology. Of course, in reality, no man is created equal, and we all have different abilities and IQ levels. Not only do our genetics dictate our abilities, and therefore increase the potential for inequality, but environmental variation will also do the same. 
Society can adopt certain measures to regulate innate inequality using strategies like the ‘all men are created equal’ in the eyes of the constitution and the justice system (but it isn’t perfectly successful) and the truth is the exact opposite of course. 

Yes, a variation in the population of certain political factions will also contribute to more self-interest scenarios, that is, if they vote. 

Topic's author
#52
Singularity
Singularity's avatar
Debates: 11
Posts: 1,013
2
3
8
Singularity's avatar
Singularity
2
3
8
-->
@Marko

That is a decently high number. still Below 50%. Whites I think are pro life in similar numbers but reversed. 

e, are you suggesting that blacks are in majority favourable to a policy that runs against their self-interest?
Yes, they unfortunately are pandered to, and respond in a way typical of people pandered to. They vote against their own self interests. 

you could also argue that blacks are in fact racist towards themselves and that whites are largely not racist. I wouldn’t necessarily agree with that outcome. 


#53
Marko
Marko's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 93
0
0
2
Marko's avatar
Marko
0
0
2
-->
@Singularity
Singularity: Yes, they unfortunately are pandered to, and respond in a way typical of people pandered to. They vote against their own self interests. 
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

That is a voting pattern not exclusive to blacks. You might agree with me that whites are as likely as blacks to vote against their self-interests.

My entire point was that, voters, when they think about something as complicated and multi-factorial as abortion, are probably thinking more about things like over-population, religion and morality, climate change, the cost of a child to the parent and society, the rights of women to decide, etc.....than race. But because you are purely thinking in terms of race here, you naturally come to the conclusion that blacks are in favour of a policy that runs against their personal interests. That assumption is hard to claim without understanding the sum of their interests. Other interests like, a black women’s right to decide what she does with her body might run contrary to another self-interest(or may also add up to another hypothetical self-interest). 
The ‘self’ is more than just your self-affiliation to a racial group. 
Topic's author
#54
Singularity
Singularity's avatar
Debates: 11
Posts: 1,013
2
3
8
Singularity's avatar
Singularity
2
3
8
-->
@Marko
That is a voting pattern not exclusive to blacks. You might agree with me that whites are as likely as blacks to vote against their self-interests.
Yes, no shit sherlock. I don't think anybody called it exclusive to blacks.

My entire point was that, voters, when they think about something as complicated and multi-factorial as abortion, are probably thinking more about things like over-population, religion and morality, climate change, the cost of a child to the parent and society, the rights of women to decide, etc.....than race.
What you are listing can be partially credited to the fact that a lot of racism exists at an unconscious level, like the studied I cited in my last post showed. What happens is that decisions are typically made on a subconscious level and later on rationalized on the conscious level. Several studies actually show this to be true. https://www.nature.com/news/2008/080411/full/news.2008.751.html , I think it is silly to say that black people just can't be racist against blacks. You have to understand that a lot of the hate we see towards us gets internalized and typically the hateful internalization begins at an early age. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internalized_racism

Let's imagine for a second subconscious factors and internalized hate play no factor in somebody's decision making process, though I proved they do. I don't think it matters whether the harm to the black community is intentional or not. It still does the same amount of damage. I heard Anthony Robbins talk about this concept before. Here is the quote

“Do you realize how powerful your mind is?” Rohn asked Robbins.
“I think so,” he said, hesitating.
“Well, tell me something,” Rohn said. “What if you let anybody put anything you want in your coffee? What if your worst enemy put sugar in your coffee? What’s going to happen?”
“I’ll have sweet coffee,” Robbins replied.
“What if a family member, a friend or somebody by accident dropped strychnine in your coffee?” Rohn then asked
“I’m dead,” Robbins said.

So whether the harm is intentional or not it still occurs. which is the problem

That assumption is hard to claim without understanding the sum of their interests. Other interests like, a black women’s right to decide what she does with her body might run contrary to another self-interest(or may also add up to another hypothetical self-interest). 
Maybe we are using the word self interest in different ways. some people are interested in killing themselves. That is something you might call a self interest, but when I say self interest, what I mean is what is best for the individual. 

Let me start with pointing out how stupid it is to claim that abortion is "doing what you want with your body". Maybe I want to rape people with my body. I am a woman, so are you going to infringe on my right to do what I want with my body? WHich is to rape?

What is okay to do with your body changes when your actions directly cause harm to another person. It is wrong to genocide black babies, even if black women want to participate in genociding their own race. Just a reminder, genocide is what Hitler was made famous for. 

Seriously take a look at my points closer. When I cited sources for things in my last post you kinda ignored my premises.
#55
Marko
Marko's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 93
0
0
2
Marko's avatar
Marko
0
0
2
-->
@Singularity
Singularity: Yes, no shit sherlock. I don't think anybody called it exclusive to blacks.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Why should I assume your position? Why should you assume a regular user on here is racist because he is pro-abortion? 

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Singularity:  What you are listing can be partially credited to the fact that a lot of racism exists at an unconscious level, like the studied I cited in my last post showed. What happens is that decisions are typically made on a subconscious level and later on rationalized on the conscious level.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Yes, so don’t assume a regular user on here is racist because he is pro-abortion. 

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Singularity:  I think it is silly to say that black people just can't be racist against blacks. You have to understand that a lot of the hate we see towards us gets internalized and typically the hateful internalization begins at an early age. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internalized_racism
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I think it even more silly to say that black people can be racist against blacks. You are far more likely to be in favour of a group you personally affiliate yourself to than not. The numbers will always be in my favour.
But you’re attempting to muddy the waters by including blacks that no longer affiliate themselves to the racial category ‘blacks’, not because of racial reasons but cultural ones. 
Finally, I find your links and references extremely dubious and sourced from methodologically flawed fields (apart from the ‘Brain makes decisions before you even know it’ link). 
Sociological surveys and bias data collection systems can not measure the subject matter, and have no instruments to measure most things, much less abstract concepts like ‘internalized racism’. Which is why sociology is never considered a science. 
Anthony Robbins is an equally dubious source, even if it was to explain a completely disconnected point to the initial discussion. 
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Singularity:.....That is something you might call a self interest, but when I say self interest, what I mean is what is best for the individual....... Let me start with pointing out how stupid it is to claim that abortion is "doing what you want with your body". Maybe I want to rape people with my body. I am a woman, so are you going to infringe on my right to do what I want with my body? WHich is to rape?
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

You’re being disingenuous. We all know what we’re talking about when we say....’the rights of woman to decide what she does with her body’. Stop pretending you don’t know what the context of that sentence is. 

So does thinking in terms of—and I’ll quote you—’what is best for the individual’ also include something like....’I’m a single black female. I’m perfectly aware that, within my black community, there are many struggling single black females with children. I do not want to struggle like they are, and therefore I will be supporting a policy that allows me to abort if the circumstances require it, regardless of whether it increases the black population or not’.?
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Singularity: What is okay to do with your body changes when your actions directly cause harm to another person. It is wrong to genocide black babies, even if black women want to participate in genociding their own race. Just a reminder, genocide is what Hitler was made famous for. 
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Make up your mind. You are endlessly jumping from ‘what is best for the individual’ to what is best for the black community. What is best for the black community isn’t necessarily what is best for the black individual, and vice versa. Which of those two are you choosing (because on this topic, you clearly can’t have both).
How did you manage to smuggle in the name ‘Hitler’ in this conversation? Stick to the topic.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Singularity: Seriously take a look at my points closer. When I cited sources for things in my last post you kinda ignored my premises.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Don’t assume I didn’t. See my sentence above on what I think about your sources.