A blog post on the anticipation of a racial war

[Saint Cy of JFC]

If you want to revil me for insulting a group of terrorists with an admittedly racist term go ahead. I'm not sorry I insulted them, how I did it was dumb.

If you think I am intimidated by the threat of getting punched then you are mistaken. IF you tried it you'd have a fight on your hands.

I've said my piece on it and am done with it. You can continue spewing your outrage at my everlasting state of stupidity without me.

fixed.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

If you want to revil me for insulting a group of terrorists with an admittedly racist term go ahead. I'm not sorry I insulted them, how I did it was dumb.

If you think I am intimidated by the threat of getting punched then you are mistaken. IF you tried it you'd have a fight on your hands.

I've said my piece on it and am done with it. You can continue spewing your outrage at my everlasting state of stupidity without me.

fixed.

 

[Bawse Dawg]

Could a normal poster call a group of people 'camel jockeys' without getting fracted? Cuz there's a lot of CJ's around here....

 

[QuinSnydersHair]

Did some reflection on this. Easy One Brow, easy.

I guess what I was trying to do was insult and cause emotional distress to a very specific set of people. I used that term because of their race. English language has provided us with a multitude of words and phrases for such a scenario. But using it was foolish as the specific people I was targeting, even as deserving of ridicule as they are in my opinion, will never read or see that. I don't feel bad for using it but it didn't really accomplish anything and I certainly could have used a better term and explained it better.

So in short, I don't feel bad for insulting the specific targets I had in mind but I did it in a poor, possibly even foolish, way.

Way to perpetuate the racial and cultural lines that divide us.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

Did some reflection on this. Easy One Brow, easy.

I guess what I was trying to do was insult and cause emotional distress to a very specific set of people. I used that term because of their race. English language has provided us with a multitude of words and phrases for such a scenario. But using it was foolish as the specific people I was targeting, even as deserving of ridicule as they are in my opinion, will never read or see that. I don't feel bad for using it but it didn't really accomplish anything and I certainly could have used a better term and explained it better.

So in short, I don't feel bad for insulting the specific targets I had in mind but I did it in a poor, possibly even foolish, way.

Can't wait to see how Stoked's brilliant mind improves on the term "camel jockeys". Here I was thinking that was the limit of his brain power, but now he comes out and says he could have thought of an even better term. Mind blown.

 

[UGLI baby]

"Dude, camel jockey is not the preferred nomenclature."

 

[Hantlers]

You sound like u are compensating for something. Either way, i do not believe that any non-Caucasians call you friend.

 

[LogGrad98]

What if someone really is a camel jockey, as in they professionally ride camels in races?

 

[VINYLONE]

Dude, you used the words "camel jockey" to describe middle easterners.

Oh. That was Stoked? Well, I guess it doesn't surprise me with some of the other posts he has made on this forum. At least we know where he stands. I also wonder if he received an infraction for making that comment...like if the modificationers police themselves.

Cry me a damn river. I am not one single bit sorry that I used "camel jockeys" to describe a set of terrorists.

I wonder if you use the N-word to describe black folks that have committed a crime and if you do, I wonder if you use the same rationalization in using the word. I mean, our mother tongue is so expansive that being able to choose a word to describe an ******* shouldn't be too difficult but yet you fall back to a racialized term.

You're a racist person

Completely disagree. I'll wholly defend Stoked in this respect. I don't think he's a racist, I mean, I guess he could be but I doubt it. That said, he is a plain old bigot and I don't think it bothers him. I don't know if he has children or not but if he does these racial rationalizations he has and his opinion of folks that are not as light in melanin as he is will all be transferred to his kids. The perpetual cycle of bigotry.

 

[VINYLONE]

What if someone really is a camel jockey, as in they professionally ride camels in races?

Then if the conversation is about occupation you bring it up. I mean, if I read some article about someone killing another person, rarely do they bring up the occupation of the alleged assailant unless it's pertinent.

 

[[size/HUGE] boobs [/size]]

Oh. That was Stoked? Well, I guess it doesn't surprise me with some of the other posts he has made on this forum. At least we know where he stands. I also wonder if he received an infraction for making that comment...like if the modificationers police themselves.



I wonder if you use the N-word to describe black folks that have committed a crime and if you do, I wonder if you use the same rationalization in using the word. I mean, our mother tongue is so expansive that being able to choose a word to describe an ******* shouldn't be too difficult but yet you fall back to a racialized term.



Completely disagree. I'll wholly defend Stoked in this respect. I don't think he's a racist, I mean, I guess he could be but I doubt it. That said, he is a plain old bigot and I don't think it bothers him. I don't know if he has children or not but if he does these racial rationalizations he has and his opinion of folks that are not as light in melanin as he is will all be transferred to his kids. The perpetual cycle of bigotry.

Do you normally talk about murderers outside your country?

Bigot is more close to correct but still not accurate word. It is not possible to be racist or bigot toward those outside ur country. Phobic or resent are more accurate terms for describe Stoke'd camel jock comment and this thing is okay. There is nothing wrong with phobia aimed at other country, in fact it is very healthy for survival ur race and safety of whole world.

TBH Stoke never said one bad word aimed at his country brotheren so u guys going ape poo need to shut the **** up and leave this person alone. Serious, dont be ******* this is rule number one my friends.

 

[One Brow]

Reluctantly I read the blog post

1-Helter Skelter? Is he srs?

2-There are racist politicians, cops, and judges. Yep too bad the author choose to spend more time discussing Helter Skelter than focusing on this. He did not bother to go any further than hearsay offering no available statistics or examples. He barely dedicated a paragraph to this of which the last sentence could have been the first of a compelling point.

3-Captain obvious conducts a study "First we identified which whites held racist opinions then we found that they were more likely to see multiracial children as more different from themselves than did whites that don't hold those views, derp."

4-Black Employment/economic segregation. Dead on the money. This bit almost rescued his post.

5-White men and their guns. It's clear the author does have a bias against white men and white men that own firearms in particular. He chooses to paint them all with a brush he has dipped into the lowest common denominator. Then again after reading many of the posts in this thread I can't say I blame him.

1-I'm not sure who you meant by "he". Manson was serious, in that he really saw both the racism and the anger over it, and thought he could use that to ignite a racial war. The Crommunist is serious, in that it is a reflection of what society presents, through the eyes of a mad man.

2-Yes, he spent most of his post writing sabout the subject of his post, as opposed to what you wanted him to write about. That is a curious complaint. He has well over a dozen links in the article supporting his positions. He's written other blog posts on different articles, including how racism affects the criminal justice system.

Most importantly, he does not, to my understanding, take the position that there are racist politicians and non-racist politicians, etc. It's that racism is a cultural phenomenon, one that feeds our cognition and infests everyone (including black people).

3-No, the study did try to determine which whites held racist opinions first. No, the study did not correlate racist opinions to people looking black.

5-Canada seems to have a different sort of gun culture than the US. You don't have to be a black man to see the racism that bubbles in the strongly-pro-gun community.

 

[♪alt13]

1-I'm not sure who you meant by "he". Manson was serious, in that he really saw both the racism and the anger over it, and thought he could use that to ignite a racial war. The Crommunist is serious, in that it is a reflection of what society presents, through the eyes of a mad man.

2-Yes, he spent most of his post writing sabout the subject of his post, as opposed to what you wanted him to write about. That is a curious complaint. He has well over a dozen links in the article supporting his positions. He's written other blog posts on different articles, including how racism affects the criminal justice system.

Most importantly, he does not, to my understanding, take the position that there are racist politicians and non-racist politicians, etc. It's that racism is a cultural phenomenon, one that feeds our cognition and infests everyone (including black people).

3-No, the study did try to determine which whites held racist opinions first. No, the study did not correlate racist opinions to people looking black.

5-Canada seems to have a different sort of gun culture than the US. You don't have to be a black man to see the racism that bubbles in the strongly-pro-gun community.

UH yeah it did

For a study published today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, David Amodio, a psychology professor at New York University and Amy Krosch, a graduate student, performed a series of experiments that showed that their predominantly white study subjects tended to view biracial people as “more black” when they were primed with economic scarcity, and that the subjects were stingier toward darker-complexioned people overall.

First, the researchers asked 70 people to fill out a questionnaire that assessed their concern about economic competition between races. (The statements included things like, “When blacks make economic gains, whites lose out economically.”) They were then asked to identify the races of an array of images of faces, which had been created by fusing different percentages of a picture of a white person with an image of a black person.

The authors found that the more the subjects believed that whites and blacks were locked in a zero-sum rivalry, the likelier they were to see the lighter-complexioned faces as “blacker.”

I should not have said children because the pictures were of adults. It's kinda a duh conclusion. ie ****in dumb

 

[LogGrad98]

Then if the conversation is about occupation you bring it up. I mean, if I read some article about someone killing another person, rarely do they bring up the occupation of the alleged assailant unless it's pertinent.

What if you bring it up and use it derogatorially but mainly because your wife cheated on you with a real-life camel jockey and it destroyed your family, so now you hate camel jockeys in general especially when you found out that many of them are home-wreckers, thus perpetuating stereotypes. Would it be racist then?

 

[One Brow]

UH yeah it did

Wow, you really are committed to ignorance on this, eh?

To avoid backtracking, I'll repeat your claim.

First we identified which whites held racist opinions

Find anything in your quote that said some whites were "identified" as being the particular whites who held racist opinions, or that any of the study participants were treated differently as a result of some response.

Here's a link to the study. Good luck.

https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2014/06/04/1404448111.abstract

I should not have said children because the pictures were of adults. It's kinda a duh conclusion. ie ****in dumb

Yes, your presentation of the study would be a dumb study. However, your presentation of the study is badly flawed, making your straw man argument worthless.

 

[One Brow]

What if you bring it up and use it derogatorially but mainly because your wife cheated on you with a real-life camel jockey and it destroyed your family, so now you hate camel jockeys in general especially when you found out that many of them are home-wreckers, thus perpetuating stereotypes. Would it be racist then?

Well, first of all its sexist to blame the jockey for the free-willed actions of your wife. The jockey took no vows to you.

 

[♪alt13]

Wow, you really are committed to ignorance on this, eh?

To avoid backtracking, I'll repeat your claim.



Find anything in your quote that said some whites were "identified" as being the particular whites who held racist opinions, or that any of the study participants were treated differently as a result of some response.

Here's a link to the study. Good luck.

https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2014/06/04/1404448111.abstract



Yes, your presentation of the study would be a dumb study. However, your presentation of the study is badly flawed, making your straw man argument worthless.

You linked the abstract you dolt.

We could parse throught the full pdf but luckily crommunist has done the work for us.

For a study published today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, David Amodio, a psychology professor at New York University and Amy Krosch, a graduate student, performed a series of experiments that showed that their predominantly white study subjects tended to view biracial people as “more black” when they were primed with economic scarcity, and that the subjects were stingier toward darker-complexioned people overall.

First, the researchers asked 70 people to fill out a questionnaire that assessed their concern about economic competition between races. (The statements included things like, “When blacks make economic gains, whites lose out economically.”) They were then asked to identify the races of an array of images of faces, which had been created by fusing different percentages of a picture of a white person with an image of a black person.

The authors found that the more the subjects believed that whites and blacks were locked in a zero-sum rivalry, the likelier they were to see the lighter-complexioned faces as “blacker.”

They are measuring racial attitudes when they ask questions like “When blacks make economic gains, whites lose out economically.” not economic scarcity as the authors would have you believe.

I have no doubt that there is more than one study out there that makes a compelling case for increased prejudice under economic stress. This one ,however, does not do that.

It's ****in dumb.

 

[♪alt13]

Further the study does not matter. What matters is what crommunist chose to present. His representation of the study was crap.(accuracy I don't really know not gunna read it) His article was crap. Maybe he has better posts but you chose to start a thread by linking this one.

smh

 

[One Brow]

They are measuring racial attitudes when they ask questions like “When blacks make economic gains, whites lose out economically.” not economic scarcity as the authors would have you believe.

You only measure something when you record the results of it. Where in the description does it say that these results of the questionaire are recorded? Where does it say that people were given different treatment afterward, depending on their answers?

Do you even understand the concept of priming?

 

[One Brow]

His representation of the study was crap.(accuracy I don't really know not gunna read it)

Since you're not disputing it's accuracy, what part of it are you objecting to?

His article was crap. Maybe he has better posts but you chose to start a thread by linking this one.

I've linked others in the past.