Racism and Wu

[FriedCFour]

@FriedCFour is perfectly correct: Unless transsexuality is caused by a fundamental biological or spiritual disorder, then it’s indefensible. So transgenderist ideology serves only to discredit the very concept of transitioning and make the whole “Attack Helicopter” identity from a joke into a crushing rejoinder. The idea that someone can have a different “gender identity” absent some kind of inherent, inalterable cause means that identity has no real meaning and no real value.

At that point surgeries become no different than this guy.

You want your body to look a different way than it does so you undertake altering surgeries that can be debilitating just because it’s something you’d like to pursue

 

[Deleted member 88]

I think that part of the problem is a lack of understanding what exactly sociology examines. Ultimately sociology is a study of memeticis. When we are talking about "the institution of racism" we are not speaking about a single organization or a particular group of organizations. This is what makes it so confusing for people. The institution of racism is a memetic structure within a given society that contributes to bigotry upon "racial" lines (race us a vague and nebulous term which changes). Institutional racism is racial bigotry that exists within the fundamental framework of a given institution. It often times exists subtly with the actors within a given institution contributing to and perpetuating the racism as a matter of set implicit or explicit policy and often times not deliberately. These are often caused by problems of cognitive bias and can be difficult to overcome.

So...it only goes away when all white people die?

 

[DirtbagLeft]

Here's something I think is odd about the supposed gender vs sex dichotomy. If gender is just a social construct, then why even link it to sex at all. If it's just about wearing skirts, the color pink, and playing with Barbies, then it doesn't exist at all. The only real thing, then, is biological sex, the organs, the chromosomes. Sure, a man shouldn't cut off a perfectly functional penis because he likes to wear pink, that makes no sense at all.


Well, that's totally true though.

I agree that one should not seek sex reassignment surgery because they like pink which is objectively a horrible color anyway 💪. This is one of the reasons why the process for transitioning is so long and so difficult and requires years of intensive therapy. It is also why HRT is not given to children.
The reason that it is linked to sex is complicated and goes back to Christian theology and the idea that Yahweh created only two genders/sexes (within christian theology the two terms are conflated). Memetically the two are linked within the larger cultural structure even though they are not linked intrinsically.
It's a little more complicated than the chromosomes and the organs. Chromosomes, external organs, internal organs, and hormones all play a part. Within biology there is a discussion about how to talk about sex because genetics has taught us that we are talking about and labeling sexes all wrong. We are preparing to shift from a bimodal to polymodal model but we need to figure out how to talk about it first (linguistic consensus vs conclusion consensus). The conclusion is in and its unanimous within biology. We are talking about sex all wrong.
The link is also why the existing terms are about to change (male and female will be replaced with new terms). They will still contain the same concept but this will stop the conflation that is currently going on. Like within any scientific advancement though it takes time for the larger society to catch up to science. Often times social institutions are dragged kicking and screaming into accepting what science has already demonstrated to be the facts. Just look at the conflict over the heliocentric model of the universe or look at young earth creationism. Being wrong feels EXACTLY like being right. But because people think that being wrong somehow makes them less they will hold onto the wrong view because they hate how discovering that they were wrong feels (shitty).

Also in a vaginoplasty the penis is not cut off. This is actually one reason why I hate terfs as they have deliberately spread this narrative for their own reasons and other reactionaries have latched onto the narrative. This is however a mischaracterization and a complete strawman.

 

[Bear Ribs]

I am not ignoring your criticism I am asking you a question for the purpose of clarification. Are you making the argument that the terms have no connection to one another? Are you saying the words are not stochastically connected?

Of course I'm saying the words aren't stochastically connected. Stochastic literally means "random" and "random process" and "stochastic process" are used interchangeably. You're literally saying there's a connection that's totally random with no reason behind it. In other words, that there's no actual connection except you said it in a way to imply there is.

No doubt you'll next present that you're using the word stochastic to mean something totally different from the dictionary.

But, since you're not ignoring my criticism, just apparently not commenting on it at all, how about you actually answer whether the use of the phrase "admit it's racist" implies that yes, it's racist, and some people just won't admit it?

I ask this because depending on how you answer the question depends on how I address the objection you are raising. In other words should I assume in my next response that we are speaking from a common base level of reality that yes there is a connection and that the connection is meaningful. Or should I assume that your objection is intended as concern trolling. In one case I will continue to act in good faith and civil. In the latter case I will probe a little harder to see if you just don't understand that there is a meaningful connection and if it turns out you are concern trolling I will act in good faith and come at you hard.

Well first I have to note that, again, you haven't answered anything regarding the survey's use of the loaded term "admit." Do you think saying "admit it's racist" is using prejudicial words compared with "think it's racist?" If not why not?

As for your twitter claims, let's look at a different scenario. I'm not going to bother doing an actual search because I don't want such things in my search history, but how hard do you think it'd be for me to pull up a tweet, reddit post, forum post, or the like where some rando calls somebody a "slut," a "bitch," and a "woman" in various parts of their writing? And from that, using your reasoning, we'd have to decide that Slut, Bitch, and Woman are all equally misogynist and any person who calls someone a "woman" is being sexist. A millisecond's actual thought reveals that's nonsense of course but that's the exact reasoning you're using, only extended by many flowery words with multiple complex definitions to obfuscate the reasoning.

 

[FriedCFour]

This is one of the reasons why the process for transitioning is so long and so difficult and requires years of intensive therapy. It is also why HRT is not given to children.

But if there is no dysphoria what’s the point of all that? Why can’t I just take steroids and make myself jacked like they can do what they do? Why is there dysphoria if there is nothing inherent to being a man or a woman? Shouldn’t we just indoctrinate and socialize people to be more okay with how they were born? Isn’t that the most cost effective and efficient treatment if there is nothing inherent?

Also in a vaginoplasty the penis is not cut off. This is actually one reason why I hate terfs as they have deliberately spread this narrative for their own reasons and other reactionaries have latched onto the narrative. This is however a mischaracterization and a complete strawman.

No, it involves being castrated and mutilated which is the only way to describe it if there is no medical legitimacy to it.

 

[Deleted member 88]

So can I have cat genes implanted to grow whiskers and see at night?

Does that make me the Cat Lord?

Its warring against nature itself.

And based upon a bitter rejection of "essentialism". The notion of things...genders, species, nations, have some inbuilt or pre existing form or being that can not be changed. In other words...reality.

All of this gender transition ideology-is a bitter rebellion against the hard fact that men and women are innately and eternally different.

 

[Senor Hortler]

Also in a vaginoplasty the penis is not cut off. This is actually one reason why I hate terfs as they have deliberately spread this narrative for their own reasons and other reactionaries have latched onto the narrative. This is however a mischaracterization and a complete strawman.

The penis is not completely removed no. It is slit from base to tip and then inserted through the scrotal incision generally following an orchiectomy. The penis and testicles are not left in tact. It is in effect if not in direct surgical terms a complete removal of the male genitals as the result of the surgery is that they no longer function as such. In the same way that surgically removing your entire length from the glans down to the root but leaving the orchids would not technically be a removal of the genitals in surgical terms.

TERF's have 'latched onto' this idea that the penis is cut off because for all intents and purposes the penis is cut off. It's a gruesome, brutal experimentation of a surgery that I've witnessed during an in hospital course prep (some of us do real degrees) that people like you hate being mentioned or have attention drawn to because it is a mockery of good surgical practice and more closely resembles a form of genital clipping used to geld animals than it does something that should ever be done to a human.

 

[DirtbagLeft]

The modern use of the term 'racism' is not at all nebulous. It essentially boils down to 'A system where the whites rule over the balcks'. It's a very simple anti white term that people like dirtbagleftist will throw up in front of eight paragraphs of waffle to distract from the fact that his position is essentially 'fuck you whitey'. Sociology is essentially a study of marxism pretending to be about a study of society.

Hell his entire sperggasm up thread can be boiled down to:
1) Racism is not the actions of people, but the term used to describe the systems of power wielded by institutions to suppress non whites.
2) Peoples actions can support the institution and therefore those systems of power.
3) Therefore people are racist when they support the system that is mean to non whites.

But that's an honest way of putting it that removes the 'blah, blah, blah' self pomp that people doing a sociology degree always put in their work to show that that nine grand was well spent (fucking wasn't). Dirtbag doesn't actually give a fuck what you're going to say, or do. He hates white people, and so he'll justify that hatred with as much wordsalad as he can until you stop responding.

Amazing strawman and completely wrong in every way even remotely plausible. If that were true then Japan would not be a racist country. Which it is. So lets actually look at a steelman version of what I said rather than your strawman.

1) Racism is not the actions of people, but the term used to describe the systems of power wielded by institutions to suppress non whites.
Actually: Racism is examined not with regards to the action of a single individual, but instead used to describe a system of power and the differential between those who have it and those who do not along racial lines.
2) Peoples actions can support the institution and therefore those systems of power.
true
3) Therefore people are racist when they support the system that is mean to non whites.
Actually: Therefore people support racism by preforming racist/bigoted actions that support the system which favors one arbitrary group over another arbitrary group.

I do understand that being a reactionary means that it is natural to lie and distort others positions in order to perpetuate your own self delusion but do try for honesty.

 

[Deleted member 88]

Amazing strawman and completely wrong in every way even remotely plausible. If that were true then Japan would not be a racist country. Which it is. So lets actually look at a steelman version of what I said rather than your strawman.

1) Racism is not the actions of people, but the term used to describe the systems of power wielded by institutions to suppress non whites.
Actually: Racism is examined not with regards to the action of a single individual, but instead used to describe a system of power and the differential between those who have it and those who do not along racial lines.
2) Peoples actions can support the institution and therefore those systems of power.
true
3) Therefore people are racist when they support the system that is mean to non whites.
Actually: Therefore people support racism by preforming racist/bigoted actions that support the system which favors one arbitrary group over another arbitrary group.

I do understand that being a reactionary means that it is natural to lie and distort others positions in order to perpetuate your own self delusion but do try for honesty.

Nothing you said, discredited a single breath of his post.

"Actually: Therefore people support racism by preforming racist/bigoted actions that support the system which favors one arbitrary group over another arbitrary group."

This can be anything from lynching a black man to I dunno-eating watermelon. Or making an Uncle Remus reference. Or fucking anything. It is meaningless.

 

[DirtbagLeft]

So...it only goes away when all white people die?

Okay so I am going to grant you most of your assumptions (including that whites are the only ones that can be racist) because to do otherwise would be a distraction from the conversation.

If you mean genocide then no. If you mean the abolition of pale skin then no. The way racism goes away is by redressing the imbalances in the system such that no "race" is systemically favored or granted preference over another.

The myth of whiteness is not a thing. White does not exist in any ontic sense as is demonstrated by the shift in who is and is not considered white has changed over time. "Whites" unlike "blacks" share no common culture. Blacks are culturally distinct from Africans. There is no single monolithic white culture as much as WASP's love that lie.

 

[Senor Hortler]

Amazing strawman and completely wrong in every way even remotely plausible. If that were true then Japan would not be a racist country. Which it is.

Good on the japanese for being sensible. Lower crime, less Muslim rape gangs and fewer trucks of peace.

So lets actually look at a steelman version of what I said rather than your strawman.

...I've never actually heard the phrase 'steelman' before. Not really a point but just that I've never heard it. Do you hear it often?

1) Racism is not the actions of people, but the term used to describe the systems of power wielded by institutions to suppress non whites.
Actually: Racism is examined not with regards to the action of a single individual, but instead used to describe a system of power and the differential between those who have it and those who do not along racial lines.

That is exactly what I said yes. Writing my own words back to me is not an argument. You've just dropped the explicit anti white bias which is implicit in your writing. You know, and I know that when you say 'power' you never mean on the individual level and always mean on a societal level, so that you can dismiss the homeless white population and the overwhelmingly ethnic nature of the rape gangs in the UK, while at the same time show off individuals taking action as evidence of a systemic bias.

This has been old hat from you people for years now.

2) Peoples actions can support the institution and therefore those systems of power.
true

I'm glad we have found common ground between us. This rock shall be the founding of our glorious friendship.

3) Therefore people are racist when they support the system that is mean to non whites.
Actually: Therefore people support racism by preforming racist/bigoted actions that support the system which favors one arbitrary group over another arbitrary group.

Would giving money to the KKK be a racist or neutral action? Giving money is itself a neutral action, the KKK is not a neutral group? Would giving money to the republican party be a racist action? Would working in a charity for the police be a racist action?

You can say that it's different from what I've said by adding 'racist actions' if you want, but you know, and I know what you mean when you say 'racist and bigoted' actions. You don't mean out and out racism, you mean things that have 'subtle' racism which is a carte blanche to just say whatever you want is racist.

I do understand that being a reactionary means that it is natural to lie and distort others positions in order to perpetuate your own self delusion but do try for honesty.

Coming from a commie that's hilarious. Especially as you just went through, quoted what I wrote back word for word but just added 'but racism' to it.

 

[Deleted member 88]

Okay so I am going to grant you most of your assumptions (including that whites are the only ones that can be racist) because to do otherwise would be a distraction from the conversation.

If you mean genocide then no. If you mean the abolition of pale skin then no. The way racism goes away is by redressing the imbalances in the system such that no "race" is systemically favored or granted preference over another.

The myth of whiteness is not a thing. White does not exist in any ontic sense as is demonstrated by the shift in who is and is not considered white has changed over time. "Whites" unlike "blacks" share no common culture. Blacks are culturally distinct from Africans. There is no single monolithic white culture as much as WASP's love that lie.

Many of your colleagues are far less circumspect. You know the ones talking about we won't achieve racial reconciliation until all the white people are dead.

Actually being white was seen as distinct-even in America, where white skin was contrasted with blacks, Asians, and native americans. The idea of a pan white identity is present in the original birth of a nation. And in the works of race theorists in the early 20th and late 19th centuries.

Even in the early 20th century-white people were themselves in a hierarchy-Nordics/anglo Saxons the best, French and eastern Europeans in the middle, Latins and emotional southern Europeans at the bottom.

Even so-the idea of a pan European identity has existed for at least 200 years. And arguably since early modern if not medieval times.

And yes there is a common "white" culture. It just so happened to be tagged as Anglo Saxon. In America. Irish and Italians were seen as distinct as late as the mid 20th century in some circles.

So the idea of white people having no distinct identity is just fucking nonsensical. It was just a complex identity with lots of variation.

 

[DirtbagLeft]

So can I have cat genes implanted to grow whiskers and see at night?

Does that make me the Cat Lord?

Its warring against nature itself.

And based upon a bitter rejection of "essentialism". The notion of things...genders, species, nations, have some inbuilt or pre existing form or being that can not be changed. In other words...reality.

All of this gender transition ideology-is a bitter rebellion against the hard fact that men and women are innately and eternally different.

I absolutely fucking hate the American public education system. What you said is Kent Hovind vs Aron Ra "Pinophant"(pine-tree elephant) level. This is not only an abuse of taxonomy beyond any reasonable degree but demonstrates a complete lack of understanding on the topic. Let's say that you get those genetic modifications. You would still be homo sapiens. Your children would be homo sap. You and they could never not be homo sap no matter how much genetic modification you underwent. No matter how much your genes were altered to give you cat features you would never belong to the feline genus. Contrary to what you just said the concept of species require essentialism.

Gender, nations, and other such concepts however are not the same as species. They have no ontological existence but rather only phenomenological existence. In other words species exist in realty (ie in an objectively verifiable manner). Nations on the other hand do not exist ontologically (ie if all thinking minds died nations and genders would no longer exist). Nations do not have some built in pre-existent form that exist in some sort of platonic realm. Be very careful with where you want to take this argument next and pause to consider how I might respond. I left you an opening with a very obvious answer.

 

[DirtbagLeft]

Nothing you said, discredited a single breath of his post.

"Actually: Therefore people support racism by preforming racist/bigoted actions that support the system which favors one arbitrary group over another arbitrary group."

This can be anything from lynching a black man to I dunno-eating watermelon. Or making an Uncle Remus reference. Or fucking anything. It is meaningless.

Yes. Eating a watermelon can in fact be racist. Just like saying the word nigger isn't always racist contrary to popular myth. When saying the N-word isn't racist

 

[Bear Ribs]

I think I'm going to bow out of this discussion. It feels like it's becoming a dogpile with DirtbagLeft having to answer too many people, and I don't want to be contributing to that kind of behavior.

 

[Deleted member 88]

Let's say that you get those genetic modifications. You would still be homo sapiens. Your children would be homo sap. You and they could never not be homo sap no matter how much genetic modification you underwent. No matter how much your genes were altered to give you cat features you would never belong to the feline genus.

Why not? Eventually surely cat me will be able to interbreed with actual cats. Which in theory is possible if I had my genes modified enough. And thus I might be a new species or a hybrid but the particulars wouldn't matter.

Gender, nations, and other such concepts however are not the same as species. They have no ontological existence but rather only phenomenological existence. In other words species exist in realty (ie in an objectively verifiable manner).

Gender is ontological. As in it exists apart from the perception or mind. It exists in nature. As for nations and races-they exist ontologically so long as their parts consciously perceive them as doing so. When the nation or race changes or goes away in men's minds, then it no longer exists. No one calls himself a Roman or subject of the Kushite empire today-when they existed they possessed a reality as a result of human conceptualization. The mirror reflected back on the face if you will. Nations hold in international law a permanent existence-in fact nations can not even die technically. Which is a far more ontological understanding of nation and people than I have. If everyone of a particular nation ceases to believe they are that nation-or they fade away, then the nation itself no longer exists. If the US absorbs Canada-then Canada ceases to be as an ontological object-a reflection of

Yes. Eating a watermelon can in fact be racist. Just like saying the word nigger isn't always racist contrary to popular myth. When saying the N-word isn't racist

I like bananas, in fact they are the only fruit I can eat without getting sores in my mouth(acid intolerance). Does that make me racist? I am guessing according to you it does.

 

[FriedCFour]

I just don’t get this obsession with words and their definition. All I want to talk about is observed reality, not about how you’ve invented some definition of how things are or for words therefore I am correct because the definition I made up matches what I am saying.

 

[Deleted member 88]

People like @DirtbagLeft believe that words are the way in which reality is constructed. Therefore if you somehow change the words, what they mean, or what people think they mean, you change reality itself. Its a magical view of the world.

 

[FriedCFour]

People like @DirtbagLeft believe that words are the way in which reality is constructed. Therefore if you somehow change the words, what they mean, or what people think they mean, you change reality itself. Its a near magical view of the world.

Yeah I can’t recall that exact views name but I know that I absolutely hated it when I had to study it. I’ve always thought Shakespeare put it best, that a rose by any other name would smell just as sweet.

 

[Deleted member 88]

Basically it comes down to a belief that external reality is just some phantasms we can change by our will. If I want to say the deer is a horse, it is. If I believe the sun is green, then it becomes green.