• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

If Humans where not the only race, would you be a Human supremacist?

Would you support Human supremacy?

  • Total voters
    26
StillBallin75 said:
Ha nice poster. I was being facetious, wondering why a dude would choose a female Shepard but I guess it's not as uncommon as I probably think it is, cuz she's not even all that hot. No joke though, I had a moron friend who chose to be a FemShep because he thought female characters are inherently more powerful in RPGs. That or it was a piss-poor excuse for wanting tits.
Click to expand...

Someone has gender issues ;)

But anyways this is awesome

42316.jpg
 
Self preservation, or in this instance species preservation, is a basic tenet of evolution. While species do form mutually beneficial or symbiotic systems, this exists only where the involved species are not in direct competition for resources. Humans would necessarily protect and seek to propagate humans. Any other species would necessarily do the same. It is as natural as breathing, air in our case. It may be something else for another extraterrestrial species.
 
I don't even like to see animals treated poorly let alone another sentient species. If they were peaceful I would have no problem at all.
 
Tucker Case said:
But what if they were a really tasty sentient species?
Click to expand...

Are you stalking me? I think you and Spud are just stalkers trying to hold me down. :shock:
 
kaya'08 said:
Weirdest poll i've made on this forum but i can't stop thinking about it. Basically im playing this game set in the future, where human development takes them beyond our solar system, into different nebula's and galaxies. There are many different types of intelligent life forms from different evolutionary backgrounds and planets that humans inevitably cross paths with. They mingle in our cities and we in theirs, imagine; they can talk like you, learn your language, adapt to your culture, share the same interests as you, have a collective sense on what is right or wrong. They have big cultural differences, different ways of doing or understanding things, the way people did before the days of planes, ships and globalization, before the days of integration right here on Earth.

Yet, although all these races live together, prejudices exist, historic hatred and stereotyping still alive, just like in today's society. Naturally, inter-human race supremacy ideals would shift slowly to human race supremacy in such an event. And even though this galactic society has its tensions, they collectively agree racism is wrong, should be combated and equality promoted, again, like today's world.

But in-game exists an organization called Cerberus. It promotes pro-Human agenda's, sometimes even resulting in violence against other races to ensure its dominance and genetic pool is maintained. It emphasizes on inter-human breeding, human only colonies, independent human political system, military intervention to save human lives only and promotes the importance of the human culture, history and identity over others.

In such a hypothetical world, as a citizen of the galaxy in the world 2100, would you be in favor of lifting racial prejudices of human vs alien, or would you support the Cerberus cause?

Every time i think about what my answer would be, i cant help but think "well, would i be a white supremacist against other human races?". But its different....or did people see it in a similar light back then? Me vs this foreigner who looks nothing like me, who has a different background as me? Will that be the next big step towards a discriminant free society in the distant future? All hypothetically speaking, of course.
Click to expand...

I voted "Other."

I would not be a human supremacist. However, I would be pro-humanity. It is suicidal for individuals and groups to not look out for their own interests. So that's what I would do - look out for humanity's interests over the interests of others.

But then again if I were of a different species I would also feel the same way about my species, whatever it is. That's only natural.
 
People should look at this issue the way we currently approach ethnic issues on Earth.

Imagine that 2,000 years from now rather than being nationals we hold citizenships for Planets. So Goshin might be an Earthling but Kaya is a Martian. You share your planet, daily life and relationships with other fellow citizens of your planet (even though your Planet consists of different species, the way you share the same nation but with different ethnic groups today). An "Earthling" would represent a citizen of Earth regardless of "species". In todays world, are you pro-white, or pro-hispanic, or pro-black, or are you pro-American? Do you seek to advance the interests of fellow Americans or fellow Whites only?

So apply this modern day "dilemma" to a futuristic world. Would you support the agenda and interests of your Planet (nation) or your species instead (black, white)?

Wouldn't being pro-human in the future be the equivalent of being pro-white in today's world (and thus frowned upon as "racist" in tomorrows world)?

Thats ideally the way i hoped people approached this topic. So with that in mind, would you be a Human supremacist?
 
Last edited:
kaya'08 said:
Wouldn't being pro-human in the future be the equivalent of being pro-white in today's world (and thus frowned upon as "racist" in tomorrows world)?
Click to expand...

Well, what makes you so sure that humans will be in "the majority"?

If you remember, in ME1, there were only 3 "Council races": the Asari, the Salarians, and the Turians. Those 3 races were the major players and sat on the Citadel Council making policies for it. The other races affiliated with the Citadel, the "Citadel races" - the Hanar and the Drell, the Elcor, and the Volus along with Humanity - did not make policy but rather influenced policy. They were not major players at all.

So I know you want to consider those whose stance is "pro-human" in an intergalactic setting to be looked at as "pro-white" in our current global setting.

But you can only do that in comparison to Humanity's level of power compared to the other intergalactic species it's competing with.

If Humanity is the species who is ascendant and dominating, then you could possibly compare it to the KKK. But if Humanity is only influential on the galactic stage then why can't such a pro-humanity group could be considered akin to the NAACP instead?
 
kaya'08 said:
People should look at this issue the way we currently approach ethnic issues on Earth.

Imagine that 2,000 years from now rather than being nationals we hold citizenships for Planets. So Goshin might be an Earthling but Kaya is a Martian. You share your planet, daily life and relationships with other fellow citizens of your planet (even though your Planet consists of different species, the way you share the same nation but with different ethnic groups today). An "Earthling" would represent a citizen of Earth regardless of "species". In todays world, are you pro-white, or pro-hispanic, or pro-black, or are you pro-American? Do you seek to advance the interests of fellow Americans or fellow Whites only?

So apply this modern day "dilemma" to a futuristic world. Would you support the agenda and interests of your Planet (nation) or your species instead (black, white)?

Wouldn't being pro-human in the future be the equivalent of being pro-white in today's world (and thus frowned upon as "racist" in tomorrows world)?

Thats ideally the way i hoped people approached this topic. So with that in mind, would you be a Human supremacist?
Click to expand...


Yup. This is exactly the sort of thing I was thinking about when I answered the question.

My position is much the same about the current national/cultural/ethnic situation as the position I put forward about aliens.

As an American, I share certain intrests with all Americans, regardless of their ethnicity, regional location or cultural differences (presumably...hopefully.) Presumably/hopefully all Americans are with me in desiring that America prosper and remain secure and free, even though we differ on the details of how best to go about this.
Secondarily, I support those nations who are American allies. How much I support them depends on how good an ally they are, and how much we share in terms of national-level values. The US and the UK, Canada and Australia have, for instance, been very close allies for a very long time. We share many similarities of culture, and our differences seem minor when compared to the national values of Iran, NK, Uganda or Somalia.
...Not to say that I have no sympathy for individual persons in Iran, NK, Uganda or Somalia... they are human beings after all. But we have little in common and our nations are hardly allies in most cases; near-enemies in the case of Iran and NK. The potential for major conflicts of intrest put a damper on how much concern I have for those nations. After all, I have to look out for America and our allies first.

Within the borders of the USA, however, I do make certain distinctions. I look out for my family and close friends moreso than others, naturally. My community and my home State are more important to me than, say, California or New York, which are far away and differ a good bit in culture and law. Those who most closely share my values (moral, political, cultural) are going to gain a larger share of my empathy and concern than those whose value systems differ dramatically, or which are actually diametrically opposed.

I care very little about race, really. Most of my concern about race stems from when others make an issue of distinguishing themselves from "my kind" due to their own racial identity, especially if they paint "my kind" as an enemy to their "race". Louis Farrakhan is an American, in name at least, but frankly I don't give a fig about him; ditto Fred Phelps for other but similar reasons (both distinguish "his people" from "my people" and willfully create an enmity over the differences). If someone chooses to make me their enemy because I appear to be caucasian (which I'm not entirely)... well they've drawn their own line. Ditto other distinctions, whether religious (Fred Phelps), political or otherwise. I prefer to live in peace but when someone arbitrarily declares me their enemy they're kinda asking for it. :mrgreen:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom