Simone Biles' withdrawal is more impressive than winning

submitted by [deleted] from self.debatealtright

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

Is there a special KKK committee that determines to whom the word 'negro' applies? It's an old racist term, give its original and current connotations. Your use of it identifies you as someone who hates people who don't look like you.

[–]DragonerneJesus is white 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

Negro is a racial classification used to a subset of subsaharan africans.
You've people from Australia, southern india and africa that are all blacks but they are not all negros, because they belong to different races.
A black indian isn't a negro. I think the term is dravidian but I could be wrong

I don't see any negative connotations to the word. The fact that you do makes only one of us a racist. How is it negative to be a negro? Is it negative to be white? Do you realize how condescending you sound right now? Mocking an entire race of people.

Black is a bad term because it refers to someone skin color instead of their race. You end up generalizing people based on skin color, which gives the wrong impression. Suddenly a black from india is grouped with a black from africa for no other reason than their skin color, despite them being from different races.
Its clearly a bad term and its pretty racist to use the word black. You're essentially identifying them by condensing them to their skin color only, how dehumanizing.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

Thanks for the info, though here's the rub:

Rather than value the opinions of racists about the definition of 'negro', search for the words: 'negro' and 'definition'. What you'll see is:

"OFFENSIVE * DATED"

"Anthropology. (no longer in technical use) a member of the peoples traditionally classified as the Negro race, especially those who originate in sub-Saharan Africa."

"Older Use: Often Offensive. a Black person."

"The term can be construed as offensive, inoffensive, or completely neutral, largely depending on the region or country where it is used. "

"Negro is a word that was used in the past to refer to someone with dark skin who comes from Africa or whose ancestors came from Africa [offensive, old-fashioned]"

"Back in the 1700's and 1800's when a slave master wanted to summon his slave. Negro go pick my cotton."

There are no definitions online that indicate that your definition is acceptable. So, why would you insist on your definition, instead of the general approaches to that definition? Why do you value the word, negro? Is this because you hate these people?

As for India (and some other parts of Asia) and their opinions of darker skin people: there are 100s of millions of there who dislike darker skin, and are often insulting to people with darker skin, especially in central, northern and metropolitan areas. Women often try to lighten their skin. Part of this also related to the caste system. The lowest castes are Dalits, and they tend to have darker skin. But the main reason Dalits are discriminated against is because they work in menial jobs. The Brits called them untouchables. Thus, whereas the color of skin is judged in India, one of the reasons for this - as in the US - is because of the long tradition of their lower incomes, in general. And in both countries, there are many darker skinned people who are highly successful.

[–]DragonerneJesus is white 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

http://atlantablackstar.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/jarawa39_600_landscape.jpg
https://atlantablackstar.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Dalit-qawwal-band-Siddarth-Kala-Jattha-from-Beed-Dikshabhumi-Nagpur-Parivartan-Din-celebration.jpg

These are black people, but only because of their skin color, not their race. They are not from subsaharan africa and they are not negros. They are indians with black skin, thats it.

To use the word black to describe a race is misleading because you start grouping indians together with negros. Two different races.

Look at this picture:
https://cpb-us-w2.wpmucdn.com/portfolio.newschool.edu/dist/f/12282/files/2016/10/NN11478726-2kbh46u.jpg
Then look at this picture:
https://adventurebagging.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/blogger/-9UtcYuQtfYo/Vhj8n_gAmSI/AAAAAAAANv0/2DuMudQB-qM/s640/simon-dad-tufi-papua-new-guinea.jpg

These could both be "blacks" but these two groups are the MOST genetically distant groups on the planet. Do you understand that? You wont find two groups that are more distant to each other than these two and yet people using the word "black" to describe races would easily put these two groups into the same racial category, which makes no sense at all.

On the other hand, using the word negro would properly describe these groups as distinct from each other.

Some person wrote the information that you are quoting and I disagree with what that person wrote. Using "black" is much more racist than using the word negro, which is a proper technical term that describe a known racial group.

I don't really care about your stories of india. They don't matter to the use of the word negro, which is a good word - much better than the word black.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

I've not really discussed 'black' in my comments (I've discussed 'darker' or 'dark').

Groups in different countries have preferred words for this (which I think is confusing to many of us):

In the US - the preferred term is "people of color" or BIPOC

In the UK - the preferred term is "blacks" or BAME

In India - they still use the term Dalit, which is part of the political system (albeit insulting as a term)

There are many examples in other countries.

I don't like any of these terms, especially when they're used by administrators. Better terms, in my view, are: marginalized or under-represented people. This includes all skin colors, sexual preferences, religions, and whatever, while also addressing the main problem: abuses of the minority by other minorities or by the majority.

[–]DragonerneJesus is white 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Your claim was that negro was a bad word, but I have demonstrated to you that it isn't. It is a scientific word to describe a racial group that differ genetically from other races that some would wrongly classify as the same race if we used misleading words like "black" to describe these genetically distinct groups.

Whites are underrepresented in the US government. Whitest are marginalized by the majority in power (jews) in the US through various legislation that discriminates against white people on the basis of their race.

People of color are not marginalized by the 80% people of color Biden US government adminstration, but whites are, despite being the majority in the US, because whites are marginalized and underrepresented and discriminated against on the basis of their race.

I think terms like marginalized and under-represented people are wrong words to use because they do not describe the racial problems intersecting our communities. Without an intersectional analysis of our society, we cannot understand how it works properly.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Not to drag out the discussion, but I'd like to respond to a couple of major issues:

Your claim was that negro was a bad word, but I have demonstrated to you that it isn't.

I did not see a reliable demonstration of this, whereas I offered a number of quotations from a search for 'negro' & 'definition', demonstrating that the word, negro, is indeed offensive in all definitions, given its previous use, and it's apparent that those who use the word, negro, hate blacks and/or people of color. (I'd be surprised if you claimed that you genuinely don't hate or dislike blacks.).

Whites are underrepresented in the US government. Whitest are marginalized by the majority in power (jews).

This is very difficult to discuss because the Jewish US politicians list themselves as 'white'. Moreover, there are pro-Israel US politicians who are 'white'. An impressive project at DAR, or which could be arranged by /u/Jesus would be a study of the number of Jewish and partialy Jewish members in the US government, while also studying pro-Israel politicians. A 'free speech' website like Saidit can do this rather well.

But technically, your comment is not correct for the US Congress:

https://www.statista.com/chart/18905/us-congress-by-race-ethnicity/

Or for the US population, which is 60.3% 'non-hispanic white'.

Interestingly, those most outspoken against Israel tend to me non-white.

[–]DragonerneJesus is white 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I did not see a reliable demonstration of this, whereas I offered a number of quotations from a search for 'negro' & 'definition', demonstrating that the word, negro, is indeed offensive in all definitions, given its previous use, and it's apparent that those who use the word, negro, hate blacks and/or people of color. (I'd be surprised if you claimed that you genuinely don't hate or dislike blacks.).

As I said in the very next sentence it is a scientific term to describe a racial group of people. This can by itself not be an offensive word. I reject any of your definitions or quotes. I care about what I think and what you think, not what someone else might think or do.
You are literally on the most far right debate space that I've been able to find, so if we are not using the word in an offensive manner, then I really wonder which group it is you mean that is using negro as a negative term.
It is like saying you shouldn't call a dog a dog, because someone might use it in a negative context. It doesn't make the word dog negative... It is simply what a dog is; a dog.
A negro is simply a negro. Is it really negative to be negro!? Do you claim this? Can you not see how insanely racist it is to say that the term negro is a negative term? It is their fucking racial identity for gods sake, sorry for the language but I tend to get heated.

I don't hate or dislike "blacks". Others in the alt right might, but I think they are misguided. I unironically love diversity but I completely reject and hate LIES and DECEPTION; political correctness - fake politeness.
Black is a misleading word, which is why I don't like that word. It has poor scientific utility. It is used by liars to deceive the low IQ masses, because it makes them think of races as skin color, which is simply not true. You can literally have white skin and be "black".

This is very difficult to discuss because the Jewish US politicians list themselves as 'white'.

Yes, this is another way for them to marginalize whites. This allows them to take up white spots so that it looks like whites are well-represented, while they aren't.
Take the Biden administration. Out of the 25 mentioned on wikipedia, 5 are whites and 7 are jews. It looks like 12 are "whites" which is around half, so from the naive look whites don't look to be particularly underrepresented, but a closer inspection shows that they are only 5 out of 25, while they ought to be many many more with a fair representation.

[–]Jesus 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

/u/Dragonerne

Zionist owned wikipedia:

Negroid (less commonly called Congoid) is an obsolete racial grouping of various people indigenous to Africa south of the area which stretched from the southern Sahara desert in the west to the African Great Lakes in the southeast,[1] but also to isolated parts of South and Southeast Asia (Negritos).[2] The term is derived from a now-disproven theory of biological race.[3]

Follow-up archive of a anon who disagrees:

People when I studied in high school, in the biological textbook were counted Europeoid, Mongoloid, Negroid and Australoid races. If the term is obsolete in your country due to polit-correctness, please do not expand these feeling on other countries.--MathFacts (talk) 09:35, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Also it seems that the source that claims the term is obsolete aslo claims that there are no human races at all: a system for classifying people based on the false assumption that humans can be unambiguously placed into "races" on the basis of selected traits such as skin color, hair form, and body shape. Advocates of this approach incorrectly believe that there are more or less distinct populations of people from different geographic regions. Negroid, Mongoloid, and Caucasoid are examples of typological groupings. I think this is a very biased approach, if not fringe.

...the citation at the start DOES NOT suggest Negroid as an obsolete term, The opposite in fact: It's a list of terms that ARE used when describing human variation. Anyway, there is NO citation on the page that suggests the terms are obsolete, and in fact, the penultimate paragraph actually states the term IS still used, and merely suggests the PC brigade are against it. (I've also seen a recent programme in which Negroid and Caucasoid were used concerning Craniometry.) The page also states Mongoloid and Caucasoid are obsolete, their own pages don't even state such a thing. Seems suspect to me.

I think I detected bias against whites in the article Caucasian Race. Whereas in the articles about the mongoloid race, the negroid race and the australoid race the words "IS A GROUPING OF HUMANS", in the article about the caucasian race "IS" is substituted by "was": "was a grouping of humans".

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

the Negroid/Caucasoid/Mongoloid paradigm has fallen into near-total disfavor

The terms are OBSOLETE

Modern scholarship views racial categories as socially constructed [NOT scientific], that is, race is not intrinsic to human beings but rather an identity created, often by socially dominant groups, to establish meaning in a social context. Different cultures define different racial groups, often focused on the largest groups of social relevance, and these definitions can change over time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_categorization)

[–]Jesus 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I disagree.

Race is defined by proportions of ancestry (admixture) from specific genetic populations (races or ethnic groups), either ancient or modern, i.e., race = cumulative shared phenotypic characteristics.

For example, white people simply means descended almost (>95%, on average) from Western Hunter-Gatherers and Proto-Indo-Europeans. Compared to other races, the phenotypic characteristics of a white person such as Europid Caucasoid consist of skeletal morphology, pale skin, a greater propensity for lighter eye and hair pigmentation, etc.

https://thuletide.wordpress.com/2021/07/04/leading-harvard-geneticist-david-reich-confirms-the-biological-existence-of-race/

Quote:

“I have deep sympathy for the concern that genetic discoveries could be misused to justify racism. But as a geneticist I also know that it is simply no longer possible to ignore average genetic differences among “races.”

“Groundbreaking advances in DNA sequencing technology have been made over the last two decades. These advances enable us to measure with exquisite accuracy what fraction of an individual’s genetic ancestry traces back to, say, West Africa 500 years ago — before the mixing in the Americas of the West African and European gene pools that were almost completely isolated for the last 70,000 years. With the help of these tools, we are learning that while race may be a social construct, differences in genetic ancestry that happen to correlate to many of today’s racial constructs are real.

“Recent genetic studies have demonstrated differences across populations not just in the genetic determinants of simple traits such as skin color, but also in more complex traits like bodily dimensions and susceptibility to diseases. For example, we now know that genetic factors help explain why northern Europeans are taller on average than southern Europeans, why multiple sclerosis is more common in European-Americans than in African-Americans, and why the reverse is true for end-stage kidney disease.

“I am worried that well-meaning people who deny the possibility of substantial biological differences among human populations are digging themselves into an indefensible position, one that will not survive the onslaught of science. I am also worried that whatever discoveries are made — and we truly have no idea yet what they will be — will be cited as “scientific proof” that racist prejudices and agendas have been correct all along, and that those well-meaning people will not understand the science well enough to push back against these claims.

“You will sometimes hear that any biological differences among populations are likely to be small, because humans have diverged too recently from common ancestors for substantial differences to have arisen under the pressure of natural selection. This is not true. The ancestors of East Asians, Europeans, West Africans and Australians were, until recently, almost completely isolated from one another for 40,000 years or longer, which is more than sufficient time for the forces of evolution to work. Indeed, the study led by Dr. Kong showed that in Iceland, there has been measurable genetic selection against the genetic variations that predict more years of education in that population just within the last century.”

[–]DragonerneJesus is white 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Its just propaganda. Anyone who says biological race is a disproven theory is a moron

[–]Jesus 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Indeed, and I have no hatred for races, seems like those who want to deny race want to deny identity of others even if they do not care about race. Someone obviously cares about race and wants to make it obsolete for others. hence, they might be using reverse psycology to racilise races under racial Zionism. Cannot help but see those who deny race are 'Jews' and those who racilise caucasians are Zionists.