What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Straight Truth about Society and Civilization (1 Viewer)

Doug B said:
Social concepts of "race" get in the way in these kinds of discussions. What people should be really be discussing is the propensity for reptile-bain us-vs-them categorization -- or tribalism -- in humans.

Skin color and genetic tendencies have nothing to do with tribalism. Human societies will stratify and will find lines of division absent a checking societal force. Peoples who broadly look alike have historically had no problem digging deep and finding divisions over which to go to battle. The Troubles in Ireland. Tensions between Greeks, Turks, and Armenians. Tutsi and Hutu in Botswana. Korea. And on and on it goes, as it has since time immemorial.

The arch-question is "Can we limit the damage tribalism can cause in a modern society? And if so, how?" I have to admit ... it's hard to shake off the notion that the worst effects of tribalism are just the overhead that a diverse and free society must pay.  Akin to how human society will almost certainly never be free of violence, murder, mendacity, and such.
Click to expand...
Good post.  Not sure why there's a need to say "tribalism" in lieu of "culture", but if it helps people get past a knee jerk reaction then I'm all for it.

 
Higgs said:
If the shoe fits...  It has to be said - many of the Liberals in here have become so bigoted (lookup the word in the dictionary)  that it's embarrassing to witness.  This thread is a prime example.  They are being invited to have a reasoned discussion on the pros and cons of multiculturalism and they are fundamentally incapable of doing it - responding with name calling, one liners "Don't even bother"...

If the shoe fits...
Click to expand...
no.  This thread was started to promote a clearly racist agenda.  and by racist, I don't mean culture or tribalism or whatever.  It's very clear in the OP.

If you want a discussion on the merits of multi-culturism, that's fine.  That's not this thread though.

I suspect you have been tilting at fake-racism allegations for so long, you didn't even notice when something clearly is racist and was called out for such.

 
Doug B said:
Looking at your quote ... I think in truth, deep down inside, all human beings label and reject others along some line or another. If it's not along society's prevailing racial constructs, it's along some some other construct. It's what we do as Homo sapiens.

Each individual's outward expression of tribalism (or minimization of same) is what essentially counts in society at large, of course. "Getting past it" in the sense of "not feeling tribalism-based feelings" is asking a heck of a lot of people.
Click to expand...
Perhaps. I really don't see it as asking a lot, actually. I understand you're saying tribalism is practically, or it even is, an ingrained part of human beings, intrinsically. I'm not sure that's true. I think individual humans can choose in 2017 and that we're not so tied to some ancestry in that way.

Higgs said:
Those are some of the positives, which we all know.  The next question, which some of you don't have the emotional stability to even broach, is - what are the negatives, and do they outweigh the positives when it comes to long term stability of a country.
Click to expand...
I don't see any negatives, because I'm not looking at what a group of people are doing and comparing that against some expectation of how it should be. That's not for me to decide. So I deal with individuals, and I don't try to think of it in terms of what "group" they come from.

 
Higgs said:
If the shoe fits...  It has to be said - many of the Liberals in here have become so bigoted (lookup the word in the dictionary)  that it's embarrassing to witness.  This thread is a prime example.  They are being invited to have a reasoned discussion on the pros and cons of multiculturalism and they are fundamentally incapable of doing it - responding with name calling, one liners "Don't even bother"...

If the shoe fits...
Click to expand...
The original post is ridiculous trash. It's not a "reasoned discussion of the pros and cons of multiculturalism."  If you want to have that conversation, there are many here who would be more than happy to have it. If you want to prop up a number of offensive arguments and silly straw men to knock down, you will not get a productive response.  You, Higgs, may have something compelling to say.  Why in the world you would want to piggyback off the claptrap in the OP is beyond me. 

 
Grace Under Pressure said:
Perhaps. I really don't see it as asking a lot, actually. I understand you're saying tribalism is practically, or it even is, an ingrained part of human beings, intrinsically. I'm not sure that's true. I think individual humans can choose in 2017 and that we're not so tied to some ancestry in that way.
Click to expand...
If you're asking me: even so much as loyalty to family over loyalty to strangers is a socially-sanctioned form of tribalism (if not usually a damaging one). All humans group others -- "grouping" doesn't have to be overtly negative ... it can be expressed as more or less benign preferences (e.g. you'd pick up your son from a bar to prevent him from drunk driving, but not do the same for a random caller).

 
Also, Grace Under Pressure ... keep in mind that I said "not feeling feelings". Acting on those feelings in a damaging manner is what is not excusable.

 
I'll try and respond point by point.  The problem is that the OP isn't really saying anything.  Just throwing out a bunch of catch phrases to try and appear smart.  It's silly.  I'll try a couple at a time. 

  • Society is a racial construct.
What does that mean?  Friggen say what you mean.  "Society is a racial construct" has no discernible meaning to me.  Meaning that society is ONLY a racial construct?  Well that clearly is not true.  There are many "societies" that don't have anything to do with "race."  Please say something meaningful here.

  • There is no magic dirt that will transform, say, Somalis and Syrians into lovers, defenders, and disciples of Constitutional republicanism.
Again, what is he trying to say?  That just because a person is sitting on a piece of dirt (or a plot of land) on U.S. soil, that this doesn't automatically make him a "good" believer in the constitution?  Sure, why not.  I would also say that the same argument goes for people like Ted Bundy, Timothy McVeigh, and Terry Nichols.  And the guy who shot up the movie theatre, and the guy who shot up the black church in South Carolina.  

Yes, there is no "magic dirt" that will guarantee that an American citizen, a resident alien, a greencard holder, or anyone else will be a lover of the constitution.

Are you (or OP) trying to say something other than that? 

I can't believe I'm going to go through all these points.  I'm happy to have this valuable discussion, so if you have another suggestion for having it, feel free to let me know.

 
  • Race matters.
  • Once more…..RACE MATTERS.


These are related, so I'm going hit them together

First of all, what do you even mean by "race"?  Human race?  As in humanity?  Or "race" in terms of some sort of scientific categorization? Because if you are talking about the latter, I'm going to ask you to show your work?  What "races" do you think humans can separate yourselves into?  Am I a different "race" than my brother because we have different fathers but the same mother?  Does it matter if my father is of English/Irish descent and his is of Portuguese/African/Carribean/Irish/Italian descent?  Does it matter if he looks European?  I have two siblings who are both "mixed" race (same mother/father) and one has more of a "black" appearance than the other who looks more European.  Are they the same race even though they look different races?

What in the world are you trying to get at by shouting "race matters"?  It really just comes across as juvenile trolling.  Race "matters" for what?  If you are saying that "humans have a tribalistic way of interacting with one another, and the way they form into social groups, and study shows us that all humans form social groups around shared social norms, cultures, values, and also appearances, including physical appearance, so that humans will self select into dark skinned and light skinned groups," than sure, I guess race matters.

We can talk for hours about how insipid these two bullet points are.  Please, please, if you think they have something important to say, I'm happy to eh

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sweet J said:
  • Society is a racial construct.
What does that mean?  Friggen say what you mean.  "Society is a racial construct" has no discernible meaning to me.  Meaning that society is ONLY a racial construct?  Well that clearly is not true.  There are many "societies" that don't have anything to do with "race."  Please say something meaningful here

  •  
  •  
Click to expand...
Sounds like a dim contraversion of the idea that race is a social construct (as opposed to a biological one).

 
  • In fact, race is the primary source pool of civilization and culture; all other variables are commentary in comparison.
"Race is the primary source pool of civilization and culture."  Again: just because you string big words together in an effort to sound smart, that doesn't make it so.  What in the world does this mean?  If you ACTUALLY think of it for a second, doesn't it look glaringly meaningless?  First, you don't define "race," which is problematic.  Then you don't define "civilization" and "culture."  Again, problematic.  Race is the "source" of civilization?  That doesn't make sense.  The Incas had civilization.  The Navajo had civilization.  The Ming Dynasty had civiliation.  So did the ancient Celts.  Was there civilization dependent on "race"?  

Do I really have to write anymore about this stupid bullet? 

 
Grace Under Pressure said:
Perhaps. I really don't see it as asking a lot, actually. I understand you're saying tribalism is practically, or it even is, an ingrained part of human beings, intrinsically. I'm not sure that's true. I think individual humans can choose in 2017 and that we're not so tied to some ancestry in that way.
Click to expand...
Tribalism is 100% ingrained in us. People will always have an us vs. them mentality. How we define us and them can change - it may be race, religion, nationality, political views, sports teams, or just general world view - but we will always divide them into sides and pick one. Even when we're trying to be inclusive and accepting, we reject and exclude those who don't think the same way and call them stuff like "intolerant segment of cretins."

 
Doug B said:
Sounds like a dim contraversion of the idea that race is a social construct (as opposed to a biological one).
Click to expand...
I'd LOVE to have the conversation about whether "race" is a social construct, as opposed to a biological one.  I think we'd all probably end up saying it was a social construct, but maybe some would say otherwise and we could have a hearty discussion.l 

Unfortunately, phrasing it the way you did isn't nearly "hot takey" enough, and kinda dull.  Which is why he probably avoided putting it in those terms.

 
Spartans Rule said:
Tribalism is 100% ingrained in us. People will always have an us vs. them mentality. How we define us and them can change - it may be race, religion, nationality, political views, sports teams, or just general world view - but we will always divide them into sides and pick one. Even when we're trying to be inclusive and accepting, we reject and exclude those who don't think the same way and call them stuff like "intolerant segment of cretins."
Click to expand...
True. Although I try not to be cretinist, per se. I would give my shirt to a cretin, or drive one to vote, and view the cretin as an individual. I will try harder to avoid lumping the cretins.

 
  • Culture isn’t a costume. It can’t be worn like a Turinic shroud with the expectation that it will reverse-imbue the intrinsic character of any people who happen to hop the border and adopt its most superficial trappings.


Whoa now.  FINALLY we are getting to something that could appear like a meaningful discussion.  If what the writer is saying is that "culture" (again with the lack of any sort of definition of this term) doesn't automatically imbue onto another person just because he "hopped the border" and began living here.

Sounds a little racisty, with a pretty clear reference to Mexicans, but let's go with it.  You (he) are saying that just because a person lives in America and "takes on its trappings" that this won't automatically "transform" that person into a good believer in American values?

I think, if that is what you are saying, it is worth a discussion, I guess.  But again -- there is a TON of research that has been done about just this very issue, including research into how many generations after the initial immigrant it takes before the descendants become fully entrenched into "American" culture.  If you (he) want to have that discussion, maybe, just maybe, he should look into that research to bring something to the table besides blanket statements of what you believe to be true.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Clear that folks don't want a real conversation about race/culture.  I'm not going to bother with the rest of the bullets unless someone really wants to discuss. 

 
I think culture is determined by location/geography/weather/natural resources, food and art. If a group of people in a specific location share these common elements, race/color variance would barely affect that society.

 
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
Does race exist?

Thus, given current scientific data, biological races do not exist among modern humans today, and they have never existed in the past. ... Thus, the concept of human races is real. It is not a biological reality, however, but a cultural one. Race is not a part of our biology, but it is definitely a part of our culture.  Nov 8, 2014
Click to expand...
It depends on what you mean by "biological." It's true that what people commonly consider to be races don't align perfectly with biolgists' concept of cladistics. But that's not the only definition of "biological." It is also true that there are plenty of associations between various DNA markers and ancestral geographical locations that do seem to map pretty well onto what people commonly mean by race. Just by looking at a person's DNA, it can be possible to predict with extremely high confidence that others will, upon seeing him, regard him as Asian rather than African, for example. I'd say that predictions based strictly on DNA would count as biological rather than cultural.

 
NCCommish said:
And you also know that no matter who you are standing next to, no matter what color they are or where they come from if you go back far enough you are related to them right?
Click to expand...
That's not a persuasive argument against the existence of races. If you go back far enough, you are related to rabbits and ferns as well. That's not an argument against the existence of different species or different kingdoms.

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
That's not a persuasive argument against the existence of races. If you go back far enough, you are related to rabbits and ferns as well. That's not an argument against the existence of different species or different kingdoms.
Click to expand...
Please give me the scientific name for the different human race represented by dark skin humans. And if we go.back far enough we are all related to sea sponges the first multi-cellular animal. I love my brother and sister sponges.

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
"Scientific name"? "Represented by dark-skinned humans"? Ask whomever you got those concepts from. It wasn't from me.
Click to expand...
We'll see my point was that race is a made up difference. That we are all human beings. Skin color is not speciation. My point on us all being related was to say to those who think there is some real difference that they were essentially excluding a  family member and perhaps they should consider that.

 
Sweet J said:
Clear that folks don't want a real conversation about race/culture.  I'm not going to bother with the rest of the bullets unless someone really wants to discuss. 
Click to expand...
Sorry dude.  Got sidetracked in the Trimp thread.  Thanks for your posts.  Good stuff.  Will comment on them tomorrow when I have more time.

 
Sweet J said:
  • In fact, race is the primary source pool of civilization and culture; all other variables are commentary in comparison.
.  Race is the "source" of civilization?  That doesn't make sense.  The Incas had civilization.  The Navajo had civilization.  The Ming Dynasty had civiliation.  So did the ancient Celts.  Was there civilization dependent on "race"?  
Click to expand...
yes.  I would be a terrible Navajo

 
Sweet J said:
  • Culture isn’t a costume. It can’t be worn like a Turinic shroud with the expectation that it will reverse-imbue the intrinsic character of any people who happen to hop the border and adopt its most superficial trappings.


Whoa now.  FINALLY we are getting to something that could appear like a meaningful discussion.  If what the writer is saying is that "culture" (again with the lack of any sort of definition of this term) doesn't automatically imbue onto another person just because he "hopped the border" and began living here.

Sounds a little racisty, with a pretty clear reference to Mexicans, but let's go with it.  You (he) are saying that just because a person lives in America and "takes on its trappings" that this won't automatically "transform" that person into a good believer in American values?
Click to expand...
Strange, when I read that I didn't think of Mexicans at all.  Are you sure that you're not the racist?

 
Captain Quinoa said:
yes.  I would be a terrible Navajo
Click to expand...
This really gets at the crux of our disagreement.  I'm extremely confident that I could assimilate into Navajo culture if I was inclined to do so.  Obviously this is sort of hypothetical, but the fact that lots of people do actually immigrate to countries with cultures wildly different from their home country and do actually assimilate suggests that I'm probably not too far off.

 
Sweet J said:
  • Culture isn’t a costume. It can’t be worn like a Turinic shroud with the expectation that it will reverse-imbue the intrinsic character of any people who happen to hop the border and adopt its most superficial trappings.
I think, if that is what you are saying, it is worth a discussion, I guess.  But again -- there is a TON of research that has been done about just this very issue, including research into how many generations after the initial immigrant it takes before the descendants become fully entrenched into "American" culture. 
Click to expand...
A:  Never

Happy St Paddy's Day!

 
IvanKaramazov said:
This really gets at the crux of our disagreement.  I'm extremely confident that I could assimilate into Navajo culture if I was inclined to do so.  Obviously this is sort of hypothetical, but the fact that lots of people do actually immigrate to countries with cultures wildly different from their home country and do actually assimilate suggests that I'm probably not too far off.
Click to expand...
well I don't mean that "not one single person anywhere could possibly ever assimilate into another culture," but if your entire neighborhood moved into Navajoland, the gravity of your group would irreparably bend the Navajo society no matter how much you think or feel that you are assimilating.

 
IvanKaramazov said:
This really gets at the crux of our disagreement.  I'm extremely confident that I could assimilate into Navajo culture if I was inclined to do so.  Obviously this is sort of hypothetical, but the fact that lots of people do actually immigrate to countries with cultures wildly different from their home country and do actually assimilate suggests that I'm probably not too far off.
Click to expand...
Also we are way too generous in our definition of 'assimilate'. 

 
I'm not sure what to make of all this.   Reading the OP, I honestly thought first: what is true is that people innately don't want to change, and asking them to do so is racist.  

Then I read all the posts accusing OP of being racist.  Huh.  Maybe I read this wrong. Then I read a ton of one sided posts pointing fingers at one another.  Here's the catch-22 for me.

1. Are we assuming the race/religion in question: blacks, chinese, Muslim, whatever SHOULD assimilate?

2. Or the converse...that they shouldn't be expected to.

If 1, is that racist?  If 2, does that make them racist?   They seem to be conflicted regardless of how you look at it.   If you WANT to be part of the place you are moving to, assimilate.  If you don't want to, what is your purpose of choosing to move there?

 
Sweet J said:
Hmmmm. So you are being intentionally obtuse. Trolling I guess. I had mistakingly thought you wanted a real conversation. 
Click to expand...
Very few people truly assimilate without changing the host culture or society in some (sometimes nearly imperceptible) way.

Racist Ben Franklin didn't want Germans being admitted to the US in any meaningful numbers for this reason.  

Learn some history.

 
Captain Quinoa said:
Very few people truly assimilate without changing the host culture or society in some (sometimes nearly imperceptible) way.

Racist Ben Franklin didn't want Germans being admitted to the US in any meaningful numbers for this reason.  

Learn some history.
Click to expand...
And yet, somehow the republic survived (thrived, even) with Krauts changing the host culture.  Perhaps Mr Franklin was wrong?

 
Captain Quinoa said:
A:  Never
Click to expand...
It's pretty common that the grandkids of immigrants are pretty much assimilated into the culture of the area they are living in. The initial immigrant may know little to none of the common language but their children learn English in school and, hopefully, by middle school, if not earlier are fluent in two languages (that is if the child is born in America vs. being 5 or 10 years old at time of entry. However, kids pick up stuff pretty quick versus an adult). By the time the grandkids are teenagers, they have the culture of where they grew up on the grand scale versus their grandparents. 

Im pretty sure this is widely accepted and "proven" with case studies dating back and involving different cultures, not just America. 

 
MarvinTScamper said:
what is your purpose of choosing to move there?
Click to expand...
Freedom. I don't think either example you listed is "racist" from the persons point of view who is moving into a different culture. Maybe they just want to live within the opportunity in that culture/area. If they choose not to assimilate, who are we to say they are "racist" just because they "are not one of us?" On the flip side, if the person does choose to, maybe they see that as a more comfortable way to live their life. The "racist" term gets used from an outsider (the person viewing the new person). It's up to all of us to live cohesively together. That doesn't mean I need to be friends with the new person nor should I assume anything about them if they choose not to be friends with me. 

 
Captain Quinoa said:
well I don't mean that "not one single person anywhere could possibly ever assimilate into another culture," but if your entire neighborhood moved into Navajoland, the gravity of your group would irreparably bend the Navajo society no matter how much you think or feel that you are assimilating.
Click to expand...
That's an interaction between cultural ideas and values, not races.  If race truly determined culture, there would be no mechanism for anyone anywhere to assimilate into a different culture.  There is correlation between race and culture, but not causation.  

Think this through, man.  You're saying that race determines culture.  Then you're saying that your culture is superior.  It follows that all other races (along with their causally determined cultures) are inferior.  How is that not racist? 

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

whoknew
DOJ and 30 States File Suit to Break up LiveNation
Replies
10
Views
651
the moops
the moops
STEADYMOBBIN 22
First time listening - Where are we on Dire Straits?
2
Replies
57
Views
1K
General Malaise
General Malaise
timschochet
The current state of retail
2
Replies
50
Views
2K
Phil Elliott
Phil Elliott

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top