First people say you don't want them to treat people different and then it's racist to not treat people different, this make no fucking sense.
First people say you don't want them to treat people different and then it's racist to not treat people different, this make no fucking sense.
Thread will be closed shortly, but yeah, this is the typical absurdity of modern academic language around racism.
Another great example is this article, where the caption on a photo of graffiti that reads, "THE DEVIL IS A WHITE MAN" is referred to as "anti-racist graffiti". Quite Orwellian.
Don't expect the issue of "race" to make sense. It is a deeply personal issue for some and it means different things to different people. There is no way that it can all be summed up in a way that "makes sense."
It is best to just leave the race baiters alone.
Well, I am colorblind.
Utilizing that rhetoric in a negative light is ableist.
Skip to 23:55.
Safe to say that a majority of you in the thread are missing the point.
You know you've reached a new era of anti-intellectualism when acknowledging that all people are the same is considered racist.
The colorblind stuff isn't saying people are the same. It's just trying to treat people as individual human beings, regardless of skin color.
The reverse is trying to always see skin color and how that affects the situation. "well you're a black man so I don't want to call you stupid because that goes back to racism and slavery" mentality.
Never quite how I took that expression - it's typically used in the manner of "I'm not going to treat you differently because you're different, I'm going to discount the obvious difference between you and I (and whoever) and proceed as seems best." That being said race isn't a choice no matter what race you happen to be, and connotations get attached to you because of your race whether you're White, Black, Latino, or whatever.
"We're more of the love, blood, and rhetoric school. Well, we can do you blood and love without the rhetoric, and we can do you blood and rhetoric without the love, and we can do you all three concurrent or consecutive. But we can't give you love and rhetoric without the blood. Blood is compulsory. They're all blood, you see." ― Tom Stoppard, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead
You see the problem is that there are minorities in the first place.
We should capture breeding pairs of every race and then force the appropriate race to breed any time they become a significant minority.
I understand. My point is that treating people differently based on their race alone is anti-intellectual in nature. Not every black person lives a life of adversity. Not every asian person is great at academics.
Intelligence allows use to use context to think and react to every situation differently. To generalize and assume xxxx race = xxxxx and should be treated like xxxxx is the complete opposite of that.
As of a recent update to the GenOT rules, race topics are considered forbidden, so on that note, closing this here.
"El Psy Kongroo!" Hearthstone Moderator