or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Official Terrorist Bombing and Other Acts of Inhumanity Thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Official Terrorist Bombing and Other Acts of Inhumanity Thread - Page 37

post #541 of 1314
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

At some point though don't we need generalizations to get our arms around complex topics?

Or to stop us from being blown up at the airport. Generalizations, as horrible as they might seem, end up being a great way to solve a problem that can't otherwise be solved. There are people who believe generalizing is worse than cultural decline, economic decline, increased terrorism, etc.
post #542 of 1314
Quote:
Originally Posted by suited View Post


Generalizations, as horrible as they might seem, end up being a great way to solve a problem that can't otherwise be solved.

 

I've heard arguments like this from someone before... Jeez, who was it? I can't remember for the life of me. 

post #543 of 1314
Quote:
Originally Posted by ethanm View Post

I've heard arguments like this from someone before... Jeez, who was it? I can't remember for the life of me. 

idk either could be any islamic scholar
post #544 of 1314
Quote:
Originally Posted by erictheobscure View Post


If we were to take human genetic particularities & their effects on behavior patterns across regions (taking into account different historical degrees of relative isolation vs. inter-breeding), then we'd have to have a really complex model of populations across time leading to the present. Instead, we rely on four or five fucking colors. Or colors in some combination with continents (with one said continent containing the majority of the world's population, across different shades of the stupid fucking color spectrum). If we were to taxonomize any other species or subspecies--like butterflies--in this way, we'd be rightly accused of being fucking imbeciles who are dazzled by all the pretty colors. But we do this with humans for longstanding historical reasons. And these very same historical reasons partly/largely explain the cultural deformations in how certain populations live in ways that complicate any straightforward genetic answer.

"Nationality" opens up another problem entirely--sometimes partly useful if national boundaries align in some way with genetic/reproductive subgroups, at other times entirely unhelpful since they're political fictions (albeit political fictions with a lot of force).

"Stop being a racist" is shorthand for "Stop reducing complex questions of behavior to any facile claim to genetic difference, because that facile claim takes part in historical patterns of imagining and thinking that has had some incredibly shitty consequences." Maybe that shorthand is used liberally (hurr hurr). Sorry if that hurts your delicate feelings.

I'm not sure what the point of your rambling about color schemes is, because that's not at all what I was talking about. Nigerians and Kenyans are much more genetically different than Swedes and Japanese. And you seem to also ignore any impact that culture would have on evolution of personality traits.

Essentially, your argument boils down to "it's too hard and scary to think about, so let's just keep saying 'everyone's the same'". Which is no better than "climate is complicated, so global warming's a myth".
post #545 of 1314
Not all Japanese people have naturally dark hair.

Not all bears have four paws.

Not all people who jump from the middle of the Golden Gate Bridge die.
post #546 of 1314
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

"If we were to taxonomize any other species or subspecies--like butterflies--in this way [by geographic location, color, various physical features]"

Aren't geographic isolation and morphological differences exactly how subspecies are usually defined -- you know, this tiger from A is usually a little bigger than that tiger from S, and he has more stripes or whatever. With people that's a bit harder because there's so many of us and we've advanced to the point that the historic geographic barriers are gone, and today there's more of a gradient than a sharp line. But in the past there was undoubtedly significant isolation between the major populations, genetic differentiation, and there's still a huge legacy of that today.

Or, to abstract and simplify it a little, just because there are brown people in between doesn't mean black and white people aren't still distinct from each other.


Typical Ataturk disingenuousness. Use fancy words! Then return to the very imbecilic position in question!

Quote:
Originally Posted by FLMountainMan View Post

I'm not sure what the point of your rambling about color schemes is, because that's not at all what I was talking about. Nigerians and Kenyans are much more genetically different than Swedes and Japanese. And you seem to also ignore any impact that culture would have on evolution of personality traits.

Essentially, your argument boils down to "it's too hard and scary to think about, so let's just keep saying 'everyone's the same'". Which is no better than "climate is complicated, so global warming's a myth".

No, my argument doesn't boil down to, "Everyone's the same." My position boils down to, "There are obvious and major differences across populations and groups. It's really difficult to pinpoint the precise degree to which these differences are culture vs. genetic. And I'm suspicious of the motivations behind the desire to pin down differences to genetics--or, not even genetics, but casual generalizations under the guise of knowledge about genetics. My suspicions might not be correct every single time, but they're borne out by the history of racism."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lighthouse View Post

Not all Japanese people have naturally dark hair.

Not all bears have four paws.

Not all people who jump from the middle of the Golden Gate Bridge die.

STFU
post #547 of 1314
Quote:
Originally Posted by erictheobscure View Post

No, my argument doesn't boil down to, "Everyone's the same." My position boils down to, "There are obvious and major differences across populations and groups. It's really difficult to pinpoint the precise degree to which these differences are culture vs. genetic. And I'm suspicious of the motivations behind the desire to pin down differences to genetics--or, not even genetics, but casual generalizations under the guise of knowledge about genetics. My suspicions might not be correct every single time, but they're borne out by the history of racism."

Ghosts of eugenics still scary huh -.-

Idk why we discuss genetics while events of late have very clear foundation in religion/ideology and how easy it is to justify violence with Quran and Hadiths.
post #548 of 1314
Quote:
Originally Posted by suited View Post

Should we stop calling abortion bombers Christian extremists because some of the people they've killed over the years have followed some form of Christianity?

There is a huge difference... A similar analogy would be Catholic Christians attacking Christians in the Vatican for example in a holy time of year.
post #549 of 1314
A similar analogy is non-existant in the present, closest was catholic and protestant conflict 500 years ago which also often ended in bloodshed still we called both christians.
post #550 of 1314
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by wojt View Post

A similar analogy is non-existant in the present, closest was catholic and protestant conflict 500 years ago which also often ended in bloodshed still we called both christians.

So all the fuss in Northern Ireland was 500 years ago?
post #551 of 1314
Northern Ireland was predominately indepedance struggle, British just stole part of the island. There is a component of religion but not as much prominent as in shia-sunni war. Also NI conflict was pretty much contained to UK, wars of religion in Europe and Shia-Sunni war sprawled over many countries and imo share more similarities, but that's just like my opinion man.
post #552 of 1314
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by wojt View Post

Northern Ireland was predominately indepedance struggle, British just stole part of the island. There is a component of religion but not as much prominent as in shia-sunni war. Also NI conflict was pretty much contained to UK, wars of religion in Europe and Shia-Sunni war sprawled over many countries and imo share more similarities, but that's just like my opinion man.

The quote you responded to was an attack in Vatican City, so your metric of "war spawled over many countries" is actually not similar. But that's just like, my opinion, man.
post #553 of 1314
Quote:
Originally Posted by erictheobscure View Post

Typical Ataturk disingenuousness. Use fancy words! Then return to the very imbecilic position in question!

Which words are too fancy for you, professor?

As to the rest, I'm not even sure what it is we're arguing about. I just wanted to chime in to point out that your statements about taxonomy were off base. Though it seems you can't resist turning to straw men ("pinpoint the precise degree to which these differences are culture vs. genetic") and ad hominem ("I'm suspicious of the motivations behind the desire to pin down differences to genetics [because of] the history of racism"). I don't really have a strong opinion one way or the other about genetics influencing behavior (and this not being uniform across populations), but I don't think any suggestion of the possibility should be immediately dismissed or shouted down as "racism!"
post #554 of 1314
Answear to Piob
The Nothern Ireland case is not representative of catholic - protestant relations last 50yrs or so. In most other countries, there is no conflict.
The attack in Saudi Arabia is more indicative of shia-sunni relations and has parrarels in Yemen, Syria, Pakistan and Iraq, in this regard
it is more remeniscent of that time in Europe when protestants where at odds with catholics and often the basis of hatred was faith based.
Just saying this is looks more like religion wars of 16th century than NI case. Would you agree with that?
post #555 of 1314
Quote:
Originally Posted by wojt View Post

Answear to Piob
The Nothern Ireland case is not representative of catholic - protestant relations last 50yrs or so. In most other countries, there is no conflict.
The attack in Saudi Arabia is more indicative of shia-sunni relations and has parrarels in Yemen, Syria, Pakistan and Iraq, in this regard
it is more remeniscent of that time in Europe when protestants where at odds with catholics and often the basis of hatred was faith based.
Just saying this is looks more like religion wars of 16th century than NI case. Would you agree with that?

If you think the attacks in Saudi reflect a sectarian war then you must mean ISIS is a shia org?? Or is Saudi a shia state?

To the rest of your point, it's pretty off base in that the sectarian element is really a superficial reading of power struggles at play, something I've explained in the ME thread.
Edited by the shah - 7/6/16 at 1:47pm
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Events, Power and Money
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Official Terrorist Bombing and Other Acts of Inhumanity Thread