Should discussion about The Poem be ... censored?

[BruceVC]

I'd have to say I'm quite surprised with Obsidian. The latest stronghold entry that popped up raised an eyebrow.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't get it, what is the surprise? I haven't played the game yet so maybe that's why?

[PrimeJunta]

Please, do not compare sociology with physics. I am STEM graduate and it insults my STEM-graduate feelings. Just kidding. Actually I have a wide educational background.

I am not asking the impossible, I don't expect you to prove sociology right. It would be dumb. All I want is a single article from a peer-reviewed source that contains evidence of existing nation-wide institutionalized oppression based on race (or even sex, I am not picky) in any of the Western-world countries.

 

I mean, if the problem is so widespread and grave there must be tons of evidence (and scientific studies) out there to prove its existence. Don't you agree?

 

Jeebus. This is so elementary it's in introductory textbooks. It's like you're asking me to link to a peer-reviewed article demonstrating that the Earth goes around the Sun. 

 

But here you go, about 800,000 references: [ https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=racism&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp= ]

Edited April 15, 2015 by PrimeJunta

[Hiro Protagonist II]

I don't get it, what is the surprise? I haven't played the game yet so maybe that's why?

 

A guy was dressed up as a noblewoman. Perhaps transgender?

[Gfted1]

Christians were systematically oppressed by the Roman government and fed to lions. FED TO LIONS!!!! No doubt that gives them utter carte blanche to discriminate against all other religions. Hey, they are plucky fighters just trying to get by and the only way to combat discrimination it to discriminate! Genius! *nods* Sometimes I feel bad for you guys that these posts are going to be recorded forever.

[BruceVC]

 

Funny enough I don't think it is, as I mentioned in South Africa as a white person we are subjected to hate speech from some groups. Things like "whites will driven to the sea and back to England ( its always England we come from remember ) and " one settler, one bullet " but I don't get hurt by it. Its more annoying because it comes from a silly and irrelevant  perspective

Well, you're just shrugging it off (as one really should - they are just words the majority of the time) but the behaviour is the same - just spouting hateful things based on the race of some people.

 

Sure, I get I am shrugging it off but the reality is the racism that black people have been subjected to historically is really hurtful and dehumanizing  for them. It is generational in some cases, I mean African Americans were once slaves...your self-worth can't be much worse than a slave ?

 

Its like if I said to you " Canadians are the scum of the world because you guys are....." I can't even think of way I could insult Canadians that would be meaningful ? But I can think of many hurtful ways to insult black people 

[Amentep]

 

 

I see we still have white dudes here trying to act like black on white racism is on the same level as white on black racism.

 

Lololololol.

When you say level do you mean rates of occurrence or just in terms of how bad it is ? If it's the latter, I'd hope hateful speech would be seen the same regardless of who's saying it.

 

Funny enough I don't think it is, as I mentioned in South Africa as a white person we are subjected to hate speech from some groups. Things like "whites will driven to the sea and back to England ( its always England we come from remember ) and " one settler, one bullet " but I don't get hurt by it. Its more annoying because it comes from a silly and irrelevant  perspective

 

Just because its understandible doesn't make it excusable.  Sure its easy to shrug off for the majority powerbase, but...

 

...IMO the reason why "reverse -ism" is a thing (it crops up everytime racism, sexism or similar get debated) is because there is a perception - right or wrong - that the people who talk about ending racism don't really care about solving the problem of racism, they only care about moving their group out of the oppressed position.  And in its way, that's fair - no one wants to be on the short end of the stick.  But doing that doesn't really solve the problem.

 

The worry I have is that fixing a symptom here and there doesn't address the root cause.  If you've grown up being taught to hate Group X, odds are you're going to teach your kids to hate Group X.  And it doesn't matter if you have power in the society or not; what it means is that when you have the power though, you have an opportunity to exercise something you've been taught to be right all your life - that Group X isn't worthy of the same human rights as you.

 

Edit: Fixed a missplaced "T".

Edited April 15, 2015 by Amentep

[BruceVC]

 

I don't get it, what is the surprise? I haven't played the game yet so maybe that's why?

 

A guy was dressed up as a noblewoman. Perhaps transgender?

 

Okay I see, good observation. I missed that completely...its at the end. Noblewomen arrived, " he " was set upon by brigands. Maybe a typo..is that possible ?

[Heresiarch]

 

 

Please, do not compare sociology with physics. I am STEM graduate and it insults my STEM-graduate feelings. Just kidding. Actually I have a wide educational background.

I am not asking the impossible, I don't expect you to prove sociology right. It would be dumb. All I want is a single article from a peer-reviewed source that contains evidence of existing nation-wide institutionalized oppression based on race (or even sex, I am not picky) in any of the Western-world countries.

 

I mean, if the problem is so widespread and grave there must be tons of evidence (and scientific studies) out there to prove its existence. Don't you agree?

Jeebus. This is so elementary it's in introductory textbooks. It's like you're asking me to link to a peer-reviewed article demonstrating that the Earth goes around the Sun.

 

But here you go, about 800,000 references: [ https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=racism&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp= ]

First, let me fix that link for you:

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_ylo=2011&q=racism&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5

See a pattern there now?

 

Secondly, I see you have blatantly left out my point about hard evidence and facts and absense of baseless assumptions and logical fallacies. Well played, mate, well played!

Thirdly, I find it hilarious that at first you quote a book on me and than, when asked to be more specific, you quote google search (sic!). Next time if you want to troll someone you should include an additional step - a reference to a national archive! That's bound to give folks a hearty laugh.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

So, I'll make an alternative proposal: in situations where both definitions of racism are in use and there's a risk of confusion, how about we add a qualifier to one or both usages? Say, "racism (sociological)" or "racism (s)" for the definition I linked to, and "racism (ideological)" or "racism (i)" for the one you linked to?

I'd say that "ideological racism" and "sociological racism" would be better in terms of clarity. But yes, I find that acceptable.

 

 

 

 

It is funny - not to mention somewhat offensive - that you would think me a straight male. "Undoubtedly", even, based solely on your bigoted and biased opinion - stereotyped, even, at the very least. The fact that you think that this somehow disqualifies me belies your disregard for argument rather than ad hominems. It matters more to you who said it, than what is said; somehow, one person's argument weighs more than someone elses, just because they're not part of a particular social, racial or economical clique.

 

That a person, whether "trans indivudal" or not, found it offensive does in no way clearly refute the point. The point being that it doesn't matter whether they're trans-, bi-, black-, white-, heli-, manoid-, proto-, germo-, whatever-whatever.  Your offence taken does not dictate policy. Anyone can be offended by anything. Christians are offended by gays. Blacks are offended by whites. Communists are offended by fascists. Retards are offended by jokes. Offended people are offended by other offended people.It doesn't matter. "I'm offended"; well so bloody what?

 

Of course I would think such of you, based on your posts denying systemic sexism and generally downplaying the sexist shirt worn by the Nasa scientist, while repeatedly claiming that SJWs have "demolished" him and "bullied him into crying," without a shred of irony when you constantly tell SJWs to stop being such insensitive babies. This is while you're simultaneously hurl invectives towards SJWs as being "ignorant, pathethic, soulless, vindictive, delusional and violent little ****lords by choice." Your bias clearly shows.

 

So yes, I would be EXTREMELY surprised if you were not a heterosexual male, but that's not what disqualifies your points as moot to me -- it's your complete lack of awareness of your privilege.

 

I'm sorry that you are somewhat offended by whatever I may think of your views, but know that I don't actually think you're a bad person. On the contrary, I believe you are a better person than most in the gaming community, as I genuinely believe you mean well towards oppressed groups. It's just that I believe you to be an apologist for a discriminatory culture, and that you maintain the status quo as a result.

Assuming one's gender, orientation, or race by their political opinions is reaching. You may not like Luckman's opinions, but assuming anything about the individual other than they like Eldoth is reaching. In fact Luckman's opinions resemble Christina Hoff Summers, who while I am sure you disagree with is certainly not a male.

 

Also take note of Luckman's signature: "This signature goes out to Osvir, who is the sole and only reason I can actually play Pillars of Eternity anywhere near release by a factor of months, or most likely years. In my poverty, he gifted me the game. I may still be destitute and nearing homelessness, but at least I'll have Pillars of Eternity. "

 

I'm sure someone destitute to being close to homelessness is a very privileged individual, more so than the black lesbian business major who was in the same economics class as me a few semesters back despite her coming from an upper middle-class family and not having to take a loan out or work to pay for classes at any rate.

 

Please educate yourself on class issues before telling someone living in poverty(even the western kind) that they are privileged. Start with Parenti and then try some Zizek.

 

http://youtu.be/jKyX7GNHYkQ

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

I see we still have white dudes here trying to act like black on white racism is on the same level as white on black racism.

 

Lololololol.

When you say level do you mean rates of occurrence or just in terms of how bad it is ? If it's the latter, I'd hope hateful speech would be seen the same regardless of who's saying it.

 

Funny enough I don't think it is, as I mentioned in South Africa as a white person we are subjected to hate speech from some groups. Things like "whites will driven to the sea and back to England ( its always England we come from remember ) and " one settler, one bullet " but I don't get hurt by it. Its more annoying because it comes from a silly and irrelevant  perspective

 

Just because its understandible doesn't make it excusable.  Sure its easy to shrug off for the majority powerbase, but...

 

...IMO the reason why "reverse -ism" is a thing (it crops up everytime racism, sexism or similar get debated) is because there is a perception - right or wrong - that the people who talk about ending racism don't really care about solving the problem of racism, they only care about moving their group out of the oppressed position.  And in its way, that's fair - no one wants to be on the short end of the stick.  But doing that doesn't really solve the problem.

 

The worry I have is that fixing a symptom here and there doesn't address the root cause.  If you've grown up being taught to hate Group X, odds are you're going to teach your kids to hate Group X.  And it doesn't matter if you have power in the society or not; what it means is that when you have the power though, you have an opportunity to exercise something you've been taught to be right all your life - that Group X isn't worthy of the same human rights as you.

 

Edit: Fixed a missplaced "T".

 

I'm not saying its right, in fact some white South Africans get really worried and angry and phone in on that radio station I am active on and then are racist themselves

 

But I think its more a knee-jerk reaction...I don't think its as serious as some South Africans make it out to be because of the context 

 

Ad yes you right, it would be different story if people were raised to hate or dislike white people 

[Amentep]

I'm not saying its right, in fact some white South Africans get really worried and angry and phone in on that radio station I am active on and then are racist themselves

 

But I think its more a knee-jerk reaction...I don't think its as serious as some South Africans make it out to be because of the context 

 

Ad yes you right, it would be different story if people were raised to hate or dislike white people

But that's the thing; racism is taught. While oppression (in general) can lead to a class system that class system isn't inherently racist (it is inherently "otherist", making marginalising people by race, gender or anything obviously observable very easy though, hence why it goes hand-in-hand so often).

[Malcador]

Sure, I get I am shrugging it off but the reality is the racism that black people have been subjected to historically is really hurtful and dehumanizing  for them. It is generational in some cases, I mean African Americans were once slaves...your self-worth can't be much worse than a slave ?

 

Its like if I said to you " Canadians are the scum of the world because you guys are....." I can't even think of way I could insult Canadians that would be meaningful ? But I can think of many hurtful ways to insult black people

Yep, but what your race has been subjected to doesn't permit you to be racist to whites, even if you are lacking a catchy word for it, and not deserve the same judgement as a white person being racist to you. Also Canadians aren't a race, insulting nationalities is a good thing

[Luckmann]

 

Am I up or down? Is there a way to tell? Is there a spreadsheet on when it's OK to target people? Insult them? Beat on them? Is it by relative income, or by population percentage? Education? Or maybe relative ownership or social positions based on ethnicity? What about jews, are they considered "up" because of their positions in media, banking and politics, or "down" because of their relative population in relation to the host nation?

Inquiring minds.

 

It's all about figuring out where you stand in the social structure, usually by picking up on cues from other people; how they relate to you, how you relate to them. Most children start out by imagining they're the center of the universe, then eventually realize that they're not: that what they say impacts different people in different ways, and what different people say impacts them in different ways, and then they learn to modulate their behavior accordingly. What's perfectly cool between very close friends might be entirely unacceptable between strangers, even if the individuals in question belong to the same general social grouping.

 

The shorthand for this is "growing up."

 

Specifically in your case? I understand that Scania has a pretty nasty history of racism towards a whole bunch of groups, so if I was a Scanian I would be extra-careful not to play into the stereotype of Scanians as ignorant bumpkins who only beat up Arabs because they think they're Jews.

 

 

... Scania has a pretty nasty history of racism towards a whole bunch of groups? Do you mean when the Swedish king rode over the border, to kill Danes at his leisure? Or do you mean when the scanian language was weeded out and, when recognized by SIL, resulted in a strong informal protest from Sweden? I realize that you're just trying to be antagonistic and paint everyone with the same brush, but to be clear, if scanians are anything, it's victims of racism.

 

To say that we have a history of racism towards a whole bunch of groups isn't just ridiculous or childish, it's false. Or, at least, no more than anywhere else; likely much less.

 

As for the rest, it's basically just gibberish. You can't pin me as to whether I'm up or down, and you can't reasonably explain what up or down even is. You talk about finding your place in the world and growing up, but what you're really saying is that it's entirely subjective and based on either your or the subject's opinion of themselves and others. That is to say, complete nonsense.

 

Anyone can apparently clearly be anywhere on this imaginary scale of up vs. down and the scale can mean anything. If I as white is discriminated against, and I retaliate, up, or down? And what about vice versa? Why is one legitimate, but the other isn't? Because punching up isn't the same thing as punching down? You haven't even been able to explain what that means, or why punching in any direction would be permissible.

 

 

I'm not saying its right, in fact some white South Africans get really worried and angry and phone in on that radio station I am active on and then are racist themselves

 

But I think its more a knee-jerk reaction...I don't think its as serious as some South Africans make it out to be because of the context

 

Ad yes you right, it would be different story if people were raised to hate or dislike white people

But that's the thing; racism is taught. While oppression (in general) can lead to a class system that class system isn't inherently racist (it is inherently "otherist", making marginalising people by race, gender or anything obviously observable very easy though, hence why it goes hand-in-hand so often).

 

Racism itself isn't taught. It's inherent. Even the youngest of children can differentiate between races and react differently towards those that they recognize as "not like me", even before realizing what they are.

Edited April 15, 2015 by Luckmann

[Legbiter]

Christians were systematically oppressed by the Roman government and fed to lions. FED TO LIONS!!!! No doubt that gives them utter carte blanche to discriminate against all other religions. Hey, they are plucky fighters just trying to get by and the only way to combat discrimination it to discriminate! Genius! *nods* Sometimes I feel bad for you guys that these posts are going to be recorded forever.

 

 

[Psychevore]

Excellent then that we have a solid Gutmensch like yourself to keep the whites here in line.

I am white. But in these discussions my skin brothers always try to beat around the bush by saying some black guy has been mean to them too, as if by some magical means that would validate the systemic racism suffered by people of other colours, or make it less worse or something equally bizarre.

 

It's absolutely hilarious. Bringing it up serves no purpose. Except of course trying to get rid of that nasty feeling that they themselves are part of a racist culture, which they vehemently deny because they aren't convinced racists. Which again, I stress, is not necessary at all to do racist things, or perpepuate racist culture.

 

Christians were systematically oppressed by the Roman government and fed to lions. FED TO LIONS!!!! No doubt that gives them utter carte blanche to discriminate against all other religions. Hey, they are plucky fighters just trying to get by and the only way to combat discrimination it to discriminate! Genius! *nods* Sometimes I feel bad for you guys that these posts are going to be recorded forever.

I dunno if you're trying to be funny, but that is exactly what Christianity has done for centuries.

 

Racism itself isn't taught. It's inherent. Even the youngest of children can differentiate between races and react differently towards those that they recognize as "not like me", even before realizing what they are.

Point? Or is this some silly attempt to whitewash (heh) racism into something unavoidable.

 

We are human beings, we can rise above our nature.

[masters66]

 

 

I personally don't think it ever is permissible, but if you've got to work to remove some 'punching' then I think it makes sense to work on the stuff that causes the most harm. To me, that would be that which is against people who are generally more discriminated against than others.

 

As for who is 'up' or 'down' in a given situation, I think it depends on the context of the joke. EDIT: See below for an explanation of why the context matters.

Edited April 15, 2015 by masters66

[PrimeJunta]

As for the rest, it's basically just gibberish. You can't pin me as to whether I'm up or down, and you can't reasonably explain what up or down even is. You talk about finding your place in the world and growing up, but what you're really saying is that it's entirely subjective and based on either your or the subject's opinion of themselves and others. That is to say, complete nonsense.

 

Anyone can apparently clearly be anywhere on this imaginary scale of up vs. down and the scale can mean anything. If I as white is discriminated against, and I retaliate, up, or down? And what about vice versa? Why is one legitimate, but the other isn't? Because punching up isn't the same thing as punching down? You haven't even been able to explain what that means, or why punching in any direction would be permissible.

 

Actually yes, your degree of privilege can be quantified, if you're so inclined. It's a multi-factor equation for sure. Your nationality, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, class, native language, and many other things go into it. It's also entirely possible to be privileged in some respects (e.g. race) and disadvantaged in other respects (e.g. class or wealth). And groups definitely can be privileged or disadvantaged relative to each other. Whites are privileged relative to blacks. Individuals with inherited wealth are privileged relative to individuals with no inherited wealth. Straights relative to gays.

 

So for example a white gay male enjoys white and male privilege, but is disadvantaged from homophobia. A black woman with inherited wealth is privileged from class but disadvantaged from race and sex. Which one of these privileges or disadvantages is relevant is situational of course. If a cop stops and searches her car because he thinks she must've stolen it (being black and driving an expensive car), she's suffering from racism. When she successfully lobbies for a change in regulations that gives her business an advantage, that's class privilege in action.

 

Substitute "Jew" for "black" if you like: a rich Jew with inherited wealth will enjoy class privilege and suffer from anti-Semitism. The one does not preclude the other. As to the "punching" question, satirizing said rich Jew for class privilege would be punching up, but doing it by employing anti-Semitic tropes would be punching down.

 

Seriously, it's nowhere near as obscure or complicated as you're trying to make it out to be. You as a Scanian may suffer from (probably pretty mild) disadvantage from Svealanders, while enjoying (probably pretty major) privilege relative to the recent Lebanese immigrants to Malmö.

[Legbiter]

 

Excellent then that we have a solid Gutmensch like yourself to keep the whites here in line.

I am white. 

 

 

 

Doubly excellent then. All of us then can be grateful for your pearls of wisdom, black and white and play our appropriate parts in your morality play, to better demonstrate what an enlightened Gutmensch you are. Thank you for this opportunity. 

[Luckmann]

 

Racism itself isn't taught. It's inherent. Even the youngest of children can differentiate between races and react differently towards those that they recognize as "not like me", even before realizing what they are.

Point? Or is this some silly attempt to whitewash (heh) racism into something unavoidable.

 

We are human beings, we can rise above our nature.

 

The point being, of course, to correct Amentep. You trying to ascribe it a wealth of meaning just looks silly in context, since I directly quoted him (her, whatever).

 

Also, to say that we can rise above our nature because we are human beings... heh. That's incredibly arrogant and anthropocentric. Humans are no less animals than.. animals. Such beliefs are founded in the same abrahamitic and deist beliefs you no doubt criticize in Christianity.

Edited April 15, 2015 by Luckmann

[Psychevore]

The point being, of course, to correct Amentep. You trying to ascribe it a wealth of meaning just looks silly in context, since I directly quoted him (her, whatever).

 

Also, to say that we can rise above our nature because we are human beings... heh. That's incredibly arrogant and anthropocentric. Humans are no less animals than.. animals.

I never said we weren't animals.

 

But if we weren't able to rise above our nature, we'd never be able to live in cities, we'd still kill every stranger we met. Every fertile female would still give birth to her first child at age 17. And numerous other ancestral behaviours none of us partake in anymore, except hunter-gather societies

 

 

 

Excellent then that we have a solid Gutmensch like yourself to keep the whites here in line.

I am white.

 

 

 

Doubly excellent then. All of us then can be grateful for your pearls of wisdom, black and white and play our appropriate parts in your morality play, to better demonstrate what an enlightened Gutmensch you are. Thank you for this opportunity.

 

Yes, give me tithe.

[Amentep]

Racism itself isn't taught. It's inherent. Even the youngest of children can differentiate between races and react differently towards those that they recognize as "not like me", even before realizing what they are.

Being able to recognize a physical difference (skin color, eye color and type, hair type) is not logically followed by hating/oppressing those things that are other to yourself by necessity.  There has to be an intervention to create the idea that that which is other to me is inferior/hated/evil/whatever. 

Edited April 15, 2015 by Amentep

[Monte Carlo]

http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-reasons-being-offended-doesnt-matter-anymore/

 

Turns out being offended is a hobby for Millennials, but now they're getting bored of it.

[Gfted1]

 

Christians were systematically oppressed by the Roman government and fed to lions. FED TO LIONS!!!! No doubt that gives them utter carte blanche to discriminate against all other religions. Hey, they are plucky fighters just trying to get by and the only way to combat discrimination it to discriminate! Genius! *nods* Sometimes I feel bad for you guys that these posts are going to be recorded forever.

I dunno if you're trying to be funny, but that is exactly what Christianity has done for centuries.

 

Exactly my point! And theres absolutely nothing wrong with that as they were once themselves discriminated against. Its so simple.

[masters66]

 

 

Christians were systematically oppressed by the Roman government and fed to lions. FED TO LIONS!!!! No doubt that gives them utter carte blanche to discriminate against all other religions. Hey, they are plucky fighters just trying to get by and the only way to combat discrimination it to discriminate! Genius! *nods* Sometimes I feel bad for you guys that these posts are going to be recorded forever.

I dunno if you're trying to be funny, but that is exactly what Christianity has done for centuries.

 

Exactly my point! And theres absolutely nothing wrong with that as they were once themselves discriminated against. Its so simple.

 

I don't think anyone has argued that being discriminated against at one point in human history means you have a free license to discriminate against others.

[Heresiarch]

 

 

Christians were systematically oppressed by the Roman government and fed to lions. FED TO LIONS!!!! No doubt that gives them utter carte blanche to discriminate against all other religions. Hey, they are plucky fighters just trying to get by and the only way to combat discrimination it to discriminate! Genius! *nods* Sometimes I feel bad for you guys that these posts are going to be recorded forever.

I dunno if you're trying to be funny, but that is exactly what Christianity has done for centuries.

Exactly my point! And theres absolutely nothing wrong with that as they were once themselves discriminated against. Its so simple.

I am sorry to tell you that, but the irony of your words is lost on some folks.

 

They believe that if you call your own way of discrimination "affirmative action", it suddenly stops being bad. All hail the allmighty doublethink!