Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Back on the bumpersticker:

Some people are donkey-caves. This one decided to broadcast that fact.

That is all.

Grakmar wrote:

Manchu wrote:There is clearly such a thing as race. Whether it has anything to do with biology is a separate matter.

Manchu wrote:Why would you consider "science" more relevant than "culture"?

Manchu wrote:

Polonius wrote:I think he's saying that culture, not science, defines race.

Spot on.

Manchu wrote:Race is not the same thing as culture.

I'm sorry, but I don't understand your position. I thought you were saying culture is race, but then you said it isn't.

Manchu wrote:

Polonius wrote:I think he's saying that culture, not science, defines race.

Spot on.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lint wrote:

Manchu wrote:Race is not the same thing as culture.

Correct. And it has been/is being proven that seperate races do not exist in humanity.

And we're back to square one.

There is no discernible genetic difference between the races. Of course, there isn't a genetic difference between a polar bear and a grizzly bear either, so I'm not as impressed by genetic homogeniety as most.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_bear#cite_note-18

Polonius wrote:

Manchu wrote:

Polonius wrote:I think he's saying that culture, not science, defines race.

Spot on.

But, that seems to directly contradict his statement that a person's culture is not their race.

Grakmar wrote:I thought you were saying culture is race, but then you said it isn't.

That's right. Race is a cultural construct.

Lint wrote:

Manchu wrote:Race is not the same thing as culture.

Correct. And it has been/is being proven that seperate races do not exist in humanity.

Context is your friend, in this case.

Science has no bearing on perception, and words can, and generally do, mean more than one thing.

Taxonomy isn't the ultimate arbiter of meaning.

Grakmar wrote:

Polonius wrote:

Manchu wrote:

Polonius wrote:I think he's saying that culture, not science, defines race.

Spot on.

But, that seems to directly contradict his statement that a person's culture is not their race.

Every culture defines race in different ways. Meaning, Victorian England defined race differently from aparthied south africa, Modern Mexico, or the late 19th century California.

Cultures define what race means.

I can see that it can be misread that a perosn's culture defines their race, but that's not what we're saying.

Rather, race is a cultural construct.

I'm sure most Americans know that if porn-man or Romney or w/e gets in, they'll just be in a worst state then if Obama is to be elected for a second term. To be quite honest, he really saved your guy's behinds. If Mcain got in... well jesus, I'm just not going to go there.

McCain would've been far from terrible. And he'd have the same opposition from the current Congress, TBH. It's amazing how severely the political rhetoric has shifted since even that election.

Poppabear wrote:I'm sure most Americans know that if porn-man or Romney or w/e gets in, they'll just be in a worst state then if Obama is to be elected for a second term. To be quite honest, he really saved your guy's behinds. If Mcain got in... well jesus, I'm just not going to go there.

Saved our behinds from what, exactly?

Perhaps you shouldn't have gone there at all, then.

Polonius wrote:And we're back to square one.

There is no discernible genetic difference between the races.

LOL. Then how do you define "race?" Is it just a loosey goosey word that can mean many different things depending on what culture you are? I prefer to define it the same way that scientists and anthropologists do, that is to say simply: substantial genetic differences. Of which there are none between the different cultures of humanity.


edit: should probably give this thread back to the OP, perhaps we can continue the debate in it's own thread later...

Lint wrote:
LOL. Then how do you define "race?" Is it just a loosey goosey word that can mean many different things depending on what culture you are?

Yes.

I prefer to define it the same way that scientists and anthropologists do, that is to say simply: substantial genetic differences. Of which there are none between the different cultures of humanity.

"substantial differences" is, itself, a pretty loosey goosey concecpt. As is species.

When you're looking for genetic races, and dont' find them, you stop caring. But.. if you're looking at cultures, you see them defining themselves racially, especially in the last few hundred years.

Polonius wrote:Every culture defines race in different ways. Meaning, Victorian England defined race differently from aparthied south africa, Modern Mexico, or the late 19th century California.

Cultures define what race means.

I can see that it can be misread that a perosn's culture defines their race, but that's not what we're saying.

Rather, race is a cultural construct.

Ah, okay. I get what you're both saying. Thanks for clearing that up.

Polonius wrote: But.. if you're looking at cultures, you see them defining themselves racially, especially in the last few hundred years.

But my "race" as you define it, does not match the culture I come from. What now?

Lint wrote:

Polonius wrote: But.. if you're looking at cultures, you see them defining themselves racially, especially in the last few hundred years.

But my "race" as you define it, does not match the culture I come from. What now?

He's not saying your "culture" defines your "race". He's saying culture in general defines what the races are.

Yes, it's totally arbitrary and has no basis in biology. But, it's a social construct, so it's as real as things like "Democracy" or "War".

Lint wrote:

Polonius wrote: But.. if you're looking at cultures, you see them defining themselves racially, especially in the last few hundred years.

But my "race" as you define it, does not match the culture I come from. What now?

That's your problem.

I'm not trying to be difficult, but because you don't see a great value in connecting race to culture, doesn't mean everybody agrees.

Race is one of many, many things that people use to categorize and judge people. We all do it, and we all do it in different ways.

Race is easy to spot, at least for most people.

knowing how other people will view you, based on your apparent race, can help you deal with them.

Polonius wrote:That's your problem.

Serious LOL there. I have to admit, the OT Board has its moments.

I find the bumper sticker situation humorous. I imagine it was meant to get a rise out of people, regardless of if the wielder is a racist or not. After skimming the past 3 pages I think it's safe to say it accomplished what it set out to do and then some.

Don't understand why people can't look at it and simply not care.

That's your problem

It was a rhetorical question...

I think we're arguing semantics here, which is probably a waste of time on the interwebz. Good debate though, I won't say I didn't learn anything and won't remember a lot of this the next time I talk about this topic.

Because certain people apparently like to believe that is impossible to vote against Obama for political reasons. If you voted or vote against him in the upcoming election you are racist.

I find it funny how some conservative blacks voted for Obama simply because he is partially black. Fething Cosby.

Amaya wrote:
I find it funny how some conservative blacks voted for Obama simply because he is partially black. Fething Cosby.

I find it funny how some conservatives refuse to vote for Romney because he's Mormon.

People make...questionable choices when voting.

That's not as funny, because there are a fair amount of conservatives who would refuse to vote for anyone that wasn't Protestant.

dogma wrote:

Amaya wrote:
I find it funny how some conservative blacks voted for Obama simply because he is partially black. Fething Cosby.

I find it funny how some conservatives refuse to vote for Romney because he's Mormon.

People make...questionable choices when voting.

A Mormon created the twilight series. It's perfectly logical to not support such things.

Don't forget the funny underwear they use.

I'm against any religion that forbids its women to wear thongs.

Amaya wrote:That's not as funny, because there are a fair amount of conservatives who would refuse to vote for anyone that wasn't Protestant.

It's still quite amusing.

Just cause it involves religion doesn't mean I cannot openly mock it. It just means more people will be offended by it.

CptJake wrote:So, I guess you cannot show that many people who are against Pres Obama's re-election are against him for racist reasons, nor can you show that the bumper sticker is one of the hottest selling items right now, which give a lot of credence to my statement in my first post on the topic. I am guessing you WANT to believe your opening post and topic title because it makes it easier for you to dismiss legitimate issues.

No, you want to pretend people are saying the only reason people oppose Obama is racism, because that's obviously wrong and therefore easy to dismiss. And this allows you to ignore the plain and obvious fact that there is an undercurrent of racism in the Republican party, in addition to a heavy dose of just plain flying rodent gak crazy paranoia, and that the party plays on this, and has done since they first decided on the Southern Strategy.

Isn't this just casual election banter? I mean c'mon people, lighten up.

"Why so serious?"

CptJake wrote:So, as part of the public record, show me where your statement about the sticker being a hot seller is accurate.

And now you're making a big deal over one hyperbolic claim about sales numbers, so you can ignore the issue of racism within the Republican Party.

"I mean seriously, who cares if a major political party plays racebaiting games, when someone on the internet claimed a product was selling well without having access to the sales figures?"

sebster wrote:

CptJake wrote:So, as part of the public record, show me where your statement about the sticker being a hot seller is accurate.

And now you're making a big deal over one hyperbolic claim about sales numbers, so you can ignore the issue of racism within the Republican Party.

"I mean seriously, who cares if a major political party plays racebaiting games, when someone on the internet claimed a product was selling well without having access to the sales figures?"

I am going to go back and remove that line so that cptjake can hopefully get his blood pressure back to normal levels.

Polonius wrote:Lots of people are going to change their minds about Obama for lots of reasons, both good and bad. There's plenty of racial undertones to the opposition to Obama, but I just don't see it being useful in changing any individual minds.

Though I could see it somehow motivating apolitical racsists to get out to vote, I suppose.

I think the big thing that seperates skillful politicians and their staff from yokels who make their own bumper stickers is the ability to play on underlying motivations in a subtle way, as opposed to just shouting about the obvious thing that you're not really supposed to admit.

So the thing about Obama being the foodstamp president likely worked on some level with some people, despite not really meaning anything coherent, because ultimately he's black and to a lot of people that means scrounging food stamps off of government. Reagan's welfare queens is probably the classic example, and that one worked so well because it probably worked on people who wouldn't even consider themselves racist.

I guess what I'm saying is that the bumper sticker in the OP isn't going to work, but that campaigns playing on racism and other bigotry do, when they're put together well.

sebster wrote:

I guess what I'm saying is that the bumper sticker in the OP isn't going to work, but that campaigns playing on racism and other bigotry do, when they're put together well.

Not to mention it is the cumulative effect of one campaign after another.

If you hear things said enough times and from enough sources you just might start to think it must be true.