View Poll Results: Is it OK for Blacks to Bash Whites for Comedy Purposes?

Voters
126. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    59 46.83%
  • No

    67 53.17%
Page 37 of 37 FirstFirst ... 27353637
Results 361 to 370 of 370

Thread: Is it Ok for Black Comedians to Bash Whites?

  1. #361
    Sage
    RiverDad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    04-20-14 @ 02:16 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    5,039

    Re: Is it Ok for Black Comedians to Bash Whites?

    Quote Originally Posted by theplaydrive View Post
    Okay, none of this has any effect on the point that I've been making: race is not a biologically concrete grouping.
    The SUN is also not a big ball of boiling spaghetti. Who is arguing that races are biologically concrete groupings?

  2. #362
    Sage
    RiverDad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    04-20-14 @ 02:16 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    5,039

    Re: Is it Ok for Black Comedians to Bash Whites?

    Quote Originally Posted by theplaydrive View Post
    You're talking about ethnicity and ancestry; I'm talking about race.

    Race is not a "solid concept". Nobody is denying that people's ancestry can be traced with their genes. I am denying that race is a clear cut concept. It isn't. Moreover, NG doesn't use "indigenous populations" in order to be PC, it uses that term because it's a specific term to denote a particular reality - populations indigenous to a particular place. Some people may call them races, others wouldn't - such is the SOCIALLY CONSTRUCTED nature of race.
    No, mbig is correct. You're just tilting at a strawman - he isn't arguing that race is a clear cut concept. When Wells refers to indigenous populations that is the equivalent of saying race or population group. Native Americans have had admixture from other racial groups. There is nothing particularly indigenous about them other than their group's history, but if that was really the standard then we should be referring to Swedish people in Sweden as indigenous people, etc.

  3. #363
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Last Seen
    11-17-17 @ 12:48 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    19,610

    Re: Is it Ok for Black Comedians to Bash Whites?

    Quote Originally Posted by RiverDad View Post
    The SUN is also not a big ball of boiling spaghetti. Who is arguing that races are biologically concrete groupings?
    Let me rephrase: Race is a social construct, nothing more.

  4. #364
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Last Seen
    11-17-17 @ 12:48 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    19,610

    Re: Is it Ok for Black Comedians to Bash Whites?

    Quote Originally Posted by RiverDad View Post
    No, mbig is correct. You're just tilting at a strawman - he isn't arguing that race is a clear cut concept. When Wells refers to indigenous populations that is the equivalent of saying race or population group. Native Americans have had admixture from other racial groups. There is nothing particularly indigenous about them other than their group's history, but if that was really the standard then we should be referring to Swedish people in Sweden as indigenous people, etc.
    Actually, mbig was wrong when he started talking about ethnicity and ancestry in response to my post about RACE. He was also wrong when he said that race was a "solid concept".

    Moreover, indigenous populations are not the equivalent of saying "race" because race is a social construct. If it was equivalent to race then the "one drop rule" wouldn't exist since a man who is 7/8 European ancestry would still be considered a member of the "black race" by much of society. Some people may call such populations "races", other people don't. That's why race is a social construct.

  5. #365
    Sage
    Enola's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Last Seen
    07-30-16 @ 02:38 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    5,326
    Blog Entries
    3

    Re: Is it Ok for Black Comedians to Bash Whites?

    Quote Originally Posted by TDZ View Post
    We see it on TV and in the movies everyday. A black comedian or a black sitcom or a black movie. They move directly into bashing on whites, calling them honkies, crackers and other derogatory terms. Often times they'll have whites appear to be ignorant about the world around them and so on.

    They're are even stations, BET, that tailor a large segment of their broadcasts are directed right at this type of comedy.

    So, should this be allowed or is this another type of racism? Should whites be allowed to launch all white networks, such as WET, that target their jokes towards blacks?

    Keep in mind, blacks use the term "cracker" and "honkie" (recently heard Kid Rock use Honkie) all the time, when's the last time you heard a modern movie where a white used the "N" word?
    No. I'm weary of the double standards.

  6. #366
    Sage
    RiverDad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    04-20-14 @ 02:16 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    5,039

    Re: Is it Ok for Black Comedians to Bash Whites?

    Quote Originally Posted by nonpareil View Post
    In scientific term no. Scientists study wavelength of light.
    Just because you can answer, doesn't mean that you should. This answer adds nothing to the conversation because you've moved the goalposts in order to wriggle free from addressing the point I challenged you on. That's a cowardly tactic.

    nonpareil: Just a very illuminating question that shows how arbitrary the whole definition of "race" is.
    RiverDad:The boundaries between colors are also arbitrarily defined. Does that mean that the color yellow doesn't convey information when referenced?

    You made a specific assertion that the definition of race suffers from arbitrariness. I took the time to directly address your question and asked you a question built on an identical logical structure and you respond by telling me about what scientists do. I know what scientists do, thank you very much, but your answer has nothing to do with your original point and my question to you based on the logic of your original point.

    Again, is there any information conveyed to you when I tell you that a banana is yellow? Does the fact that you cannot precisely define what the color yellow is mean that the concept of yellow color conveys no information?

    Depending on the correlation between the "black" and "white" group to the "liberal" and "conservative" group.
    Well if the correlation is strong then we're moving away from definitions being solely socially constructed and moving into territory where the definition have both social meaning and probabilistic meaning.

    If BiDil, a heart medication for black patients suffering from heart disease, is just targeting a group of people who are socially clumped together in an arbitrary fashion and with no genetic commonality, then we should expect the efficacy of the medicine to be no more effective than if it was randomly distributed to all people with heart disease. That's not the case though and this tells us that there is a genetic basis to race. The fact that there is a social layer over top of the genetic layer doesn't invalidate the genetic layer when the meanings of the social layer are modified.

    The only true relationship that won't change is the causal relationship between the genetic mutation and the cancer growth as a result. If I could transfer this genetic mutation from the black population without changing other other genes in that population, into the white population, the relationship between the mutation and the cancer will remain the same even though the relationship between the cancer and the "race" proxy has changed.
    Yeah, so what? The issue here is information. The best information to be had is that which is developed on each individual. The problem is that it takes time and money and resources to develop individual information and so group level information, which is less precise, is used because it provides value that outweighs the costs.


    I Am a Racially Profiling Doctor


    In practicing medicine, I am not colorblind. I always take note of my patient's race. So do many of my colleagues. We do it because certain diseases and treatment responses cluster by ethnicity. Recognizing these patterns can help us diagnose disease more efficiently and prescribe medications more effectively. When it comes to practicing medicine, stereotyping often works.

    But to a growing number of critics, this statement is viewed as a shocking admission of prejudice. After all, shouldn't all patients be treated equally, regardless of the color of their skin? The controversy came to a boil last May in The New England Journal of Medicine. The journal published a study revealing that enalapril, a standard treatment for chronic heart failure, was less helpful to blacks than to whites. Researchers found that significantly more black patients treated with enalapril ended up hospitalized. A companion study examined carvedilol, a beta blocker; the results indicated that the drug was equally beneficial to both races.


    So right here is an example of "cheap information." The physician doesn't have to get the patient's genome sequenced in order to understand the patient as an individual (the best kind of information.) All he has to do is ask the patient his race. Knowing the patient's self-identified race the physician can prescribe Carvedilol instead of Enalapril and minimize the risk to the patient.

    If race was solely a social construction, then this exercise would be useless. Here's another example:


    Almost every day at the Washington drug clinic where I work as a psychiatrist, race plays a useful diagnostic role. When I prescribe Prozac to a patient who is African-American, I start at a lower dose, 5 or 10 milligrams instead of the usual 10-to-20 milligram dose. I do this in part because clinical experience and pharmacological research show that blacks metabolize antidepressants more slowly than Caucasians and Asians. As a result, levels of the medication can build up and make side effects more likely. To be sure, not every African-American is a slow metabolizer of antidepressants; only 40 percent are. But the risk of provoking side effects like nausea, insomnia or fuzzy-headedness in a depressed person -- someone already terribly demoralized who may have been reluctant to take medication in the first place -- is to worsen the patient's distress and increase the chances that he will flush the pills down the toilet. So I start all black patients with a lower dose, then take it from there.

  7. #367
    onomatopoeic
    mbig's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Last Seen
    04-20-17 @ 08:59 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,350

    Re: Is it Ok for Black Comedians to Bash Whites?

    Quote Originally Posted by theplaydrive View Post
    Actually, mbig was wrong when he started talking about ethnicity and ancestry in response to my post about RACE. He was also wrong when he said that race was a "solid concept".

    Moreover, indigenous populations are not the equivalent of saying "race" because race is a social construct. If it was equivalent to race then the "one drop rule" wouldn't exist since a man who is 7/8 European ancestry would still be considered a member of the "black race" by much of society. Some people may call such populations "races", other people don't. That's why race is a social construct.
    I said you could call them what you like.
    But efforts are made in IQ data to test pure indigenuous peoples (again 'races' "if you like").
    Finding a 7/8 European may be easy, but finding a 7/8 Bushmen (or aboriginal) wouldn't be common, nor would a 7/8 Chinese. And a few 7/8 Europeans in a larger more homogenous population would not significantly skew the IQ data. Researchers would also be careful about testing if they could.

    You'll note in the other string I cited Richard Lynn who does use "Indigenous populations". As NatGeo, he also has 11 groups. (though I highly doubt they're the same)

    Richard Lynn, "Race Differences in Intelligence: An Evolutionary Analysis" 2006 Table 16.2 (indigenous populations) Estimated average IQ

    Arctic Peoples - - - - - - - -- -- - - - - - 91
    East Asians - - - - - - - - ---- -- -- --- - 105
    Europeans - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - -100
    Native Americans (north & south) -- -- 86
    Southern Asian & Northern Africans - - 84
    Bushmen (southern Africa) - - - - - - - -54
    Africans (subsaharan) - - - - - - - - - - 67
    Native Australians (aboriginals) --- --- 62
    Southeast Asians - - - - - - - - - -- - - -87
    Pacific Islanders - - - - - - - - - - - - - -85
    Again, "Blank slate liberals" would Still scream about this data whether or not you call these groups 'races', as it's implications for some populations would be the same.
    Last edited by mbig; 09-17-11 at 02:52 AM.
    I'm personally sick of not being able to dunk a basketball because of racism.
    anon

  8. #368
    American Infidel
    stsburns's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Pergatory
    Last Seen
    05-21-12 @ 03:42 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    1,297

    Re: Is it Ok for Black Comedians to Bash Whites?

    Its a joke! If you take it seriously I really feel sorry for you!
    CENTRIST - I AM AN EQUAL OFFENDING DEBATOR
    [{Presented in Brain Control Where Available}]|[{Not Y2k Complient or EPA Approved}]
    C-Span:Created by Cable, Offered as a Public Service. http://www.cspan.org

  9. #369
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Last Seen
    11-17-17 @ 12:48 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    19,610

    Re: Is it Ok for Black Comedians to Bash Whites?

    Quote Originally Posted by mbig View Post
    I said you could call them what you like.
    But efforts are made in IQ data to test pure indigenuous peoples (again 'races' "if you like").
    Finding a 7/8 European may be easy, but finding a 7/8 Bushmen (or aboriginal) wouldn't be common, nor would a 7/8 Chinese. And a few 7/8 Europeans in a larger more homogenous population would not significantly skew the IQ data. Researchers would also be careful about testing if they could.

    You'll note in the other string I cited Richard Lynn who does use "Indigenous populations". As NatGeo, he also has 11 groups. (though I highly doubt they're the same)

    Again, "Blank slate liberals" would Still scream about this data whether or not you call these groups 'races', as it's implications for some populations would be the same.
    Great, none of this has any effect on my original point: race is a social construct.

  10. #370
    Guru
    nonpareil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    07-04-15 @ 10:36 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    3,108

    Re: Is it Ok for Black Comedians to Bash Whites?

    Quote Originally Posted by RiverDad View Post
    Just because you can answer, doesn't mean that you should. This answer adds nothing to the conversation because you've moved the goalposts in order to wriggle free from addressing the point I challenged you on. That's a cowardly tactic.

    nonpareil: Just a very illuminating question that shows how arbitrary the whole definition of "race" is.
    RiverDad:The boundaries between colors are also arbitrarily defined. Does that mean that the color yellow doesn't convey information when referenced?

    You made a specific assertion that the definition of race suffers from arbitrariness. I took the time to directly address your question and asked you a question built on an identical logical structure and you respond by telling me about what scientists do. I know what scientists do, thank you very much, but your answer has nothing to do with your original point and my question to you based on the logic of your original point.

    Again, is there any information conveyed to you when I tell you that a banana is yellow? Does the fact that you cannot precisely define what the color yellow is mean that the concept of yellow color conveys no information?
    My response answers the question just fine if you understand what "arbitrariness" means. Just because something conveys information doesn't mean it's not arbitrary. One "yellow" banana could be different from another "yellow" banana in the wavelength it reflects. Which "yellow" banana is the real "yellow" banana? Further, people perceive colour differently, affected by their physical characteristics and social conditioning - when someone says "yellow", the visual colour in their head could very well be different from mine. When one of them claim the banana is "yellow", I can only approximate the colour they have in their head, I never truly know the colour perceive and is refering to. This thread is about race and genetic or "color and wavelength" if you want. Scientists study genetic, not race - because race is arbitrary like 'colour' and doesn't mean anything concrete scientifically.


    Well if the correlation is strong then we're moving away from definitions being solely socially constructed and moving into territory where the definition have both social meaning and probabilistic meaning.

    If BiDil, a heart medication for black patients suffering from heart disease, is just targeting a group of people who are socially clumped together in an arbitrary fashion and with no genetic commonality, then we should expect the efficacy of the medicine to be no more effective than if it was randomly distributed to all people with heart disease. That's not the case though and this tells us that there is a genetic basis to race. The fact that there is a social layer over top of the genetic layer doesn't invalidate the genetic layer when the meanings of the social layer are modified.
    Or we could expect the drugs to work just as well in whites with the same genetic mutation that the black patients have. It doesn't say anything about genetic bases for race - as I've explained in my original and subsequent posts.

    Yeah, so what?
    So the causal relationship is not base on the arbitrarily defined concept of "race".

    The issue here is information. The best information to be had is that which is developed on each individual. The problem is that it takes time and money and resources to develop individual information and so group level information, which is less precise, is used because it provides value that outweighs the costs.
    And what has cost effectiveness to do with the arguement that "race" is arbitrarily defined and a proxy? That you have no evidence that Blacks are less intelligent than white because of their genetic make up?

    I Am a Racially Profiling Doctor
    In practicing medicine, I am not colorblind. I always take note of my patient's race. So do many of my colleagues. We do it because certain diseases and treatment responses cluster by ethnicity. Recognizing these patterns can help us diagnose disease more efficiently and prescribe medications more effectively. When it comes to practicing medicine, stereotyping often works.

    But to a growing number of critics, this statement is viewed as a shocking admission of prejudice. After all, shouldn't all patients be treated equally, regardless of the color of their skin? The controversy came to a boil last May in The New England Journal of Medicine. The journal published a study revealing that enalapril, a standard treatment for chronic heart failure, was less helpful to blacks than to whites. Researchers found that significantly more black patients treated with enalapril ended up hospitalized. A companion study examined carvedilol, a beta blocker; the results indicated that the drug was equally beneficial to both races.


    So right here is an example of "cheap information." The physician doesn't have to get the patient's genome sequenced in order to understand the patient as an individual (the best kind of information.) All he has to do is ask the patient his race. Knowing the patient's self-identified race the physician can prescribe Carvedilol instead of Enalapril and minimize the risk to the patient.

    If race was solely a social construction, then this exercise would be useless. Here's another example:
    Almost every day at the Washington drug clinic where I work as a psychiatrist, race plays a useful diagnostic role. When I prescribe Prozac to a patient who is African-American, I start at a lower dose, 5 or 10 milligrams instead of the usual 10-to-20 milligram dose. I do this in part because clinical experience and pharmacological research show that blacks metabolize antidepressants more slowly than Caucasians and Asians. As a result, levels of the medication can build up and make side effects more likely. To be sure, not every African-American is a slow metabolizer of antidepressants; only 40 percent are. But the risk of provoking side effects like nausea, insomnia or fuzzy-headedness in a depressed person -- someone already terribly demoralized who may have been reluctant to take medication in the first place -- is to worsen the patient's distress and increase the chances that he will flush the pills down the toilet. So I start all black patients with a lower dose, then take it from there.

    Wrong. "Social construct" doesn't equate to being useless. We human make these short-cuts to make it easier to make snap judgement. It costs more to test for genetic mutation, so the doctor approximate race to the genetic mutation, but a true scientific understanding is that the genetic mutation is the cause of the disease, not the fact that the patient was classified as black by the doctor (like you claim with intelligence). If the patient was white with that same genetic mutation, the doctor would be wrong to say the patient's less likely to get that disease because he's not black. Anyway, the question's not about whether it's cost effective to generalise to race, but whether or not blacks are less intelligent than other races because of their genetic make-up.
    Last edited by nonpareil; 09-21-11 at 02:10 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Free_Radical View Post

    And I wasn't making an appeal to authority, I was making an appeal to the philosophical body of work of the founders, the worth and content of which should be well-known to anyone with a cursory understanding of basic history and philosophy.

    Brian

Page 37 of 37 FirstFirst ... 27353637

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •