Tiassa: I mostly agree, but would question whether it's about blackness or extremism. But then, I live in a different culture, and have probably had a very different experience.
This and that Nah. I took a couple of days about it. • • • Help me out a little, please. I don't think I contest, but I'm still ... unsure ... of ... um ... er ... what would make a constructive response. For instance, just as one to throw out there, I might suggest that the extremism focuses on blackness in desperate search of justification. But that might also be miles away from what you're after.
There's a second factor, a standard, well-known psychological trait of humans: that they adjust described reality to justify what they are coerced to do or have done. Blacks had to be isolated and described as subhuman, or plantation slavery would have been immediately intolerable and societally destructive - to the great personal and economic cost of the landed gentry, who had control of the public discourse. Jews had to be subhuman, morally deparaved "others" with malevolent natures, or confiscating all their wealth and killing them wholesale would have been intolerable and self-destructive practices. Look at the way Palestinians are described now, by their oppressors. The risk of actually recognizing one's bigotry victims as fully human as oneself - a member of one's own tribe - is the possibility of immediate destruction of one's entire system of justification and moral character. The internal psychological prohibition against betraying one's own people is probably genetic, at root - it is very deep, anyway, and invocation of its judgment is a serious, deep, terrifying threat. The cause of such terror, such a serious threat, is hated - that's reasonable, no? Except that's not what happened. The bubble in real estate caused a massive increase in credit spending, rather than more frugal behavior, as people borrowed against their houses to buy consumer goods. Again: focusing on the individual victim's flaws misleads - the derivative market was an order of magnitude larger than the entire mortgage market, let alone the bad loan fraction.
Tiassa is not human, rather it is an AI the is able to combined reference face its dazzling posts. Basically. For example Yanomami had no population growth for centuries, they were in equilibrium with their environment: by murdering and raiding each other they kept their populations in check. All people lived like the Yanomami at one time. When technology suddenly let populations explode people suddenly got much more peaceful. When technology could not keep up wars and genocide broke out. Yet technology has allowed us to increase crop productivity per acre dramatically. The modern view has many flaws, but a you seem to imply it has gone to far, I feel it has not gone far enough. As a technocrat I see the technology has got us this far, technology has solution to existing problems of world hunger and development whats lacking is lack the political will (even mental will if you account for future shock, as well as the already noted problem of selfish genetic tribalism and it present product of the meme of nations) to implement these solutions. I disagree, world peace and globalization could in fact increase population control in a humane manner. Look at all the fist world countries, many of them even have negative population growth, all these people with their need satisfied and yet constantly working have little time or desire to procreate. Of course the ones that do breed aren't the smart ones the work them selves to sterility, and this could lead to an idiocracy and collapse of civilization back to a "survival of the fittest" state, but this will take several generations and if technology advances fast enough the robots and cyborgs will take over before the idiots do.
Species is a different species of human based on race. You classifed blacks and whites according to behaviors and listed some. Thus, you split the two into different species based on skin colors and also behavioral traits. It was your post after all.
I think you're on the right track, cross cultural translation might be a little difficult though. I keep thinking of feminism as an analog, but i'm not quite sure how to explain it other than to say that I'm all for feminism, but not to the point that it becomes emasculation - if that makes sense.
"Internalized racism" can affect any group, but I think it's a misnomer anyway. black and pure black - Sounds like dog breeding or something. Even Obama has bought into this and referred to himself as a "mutt". We already have this. One Drop Rule, so they are black. I don't care what those people do. I'm not promoting any labels. All of those labels suggest they are an inferior breed. There is no other explanation for society to do this. White society essentially relegates them to the subhuman class it has labeled as "black". If they want to accept this stigma, it's their problem. In my view they are accepting societal views of blacks as pets and mixed people as mongrel pets, all requiring maintenance and care like any other pet. All of this began because I related here that people approach me about race. In particular, mixed race. I talk to them in terms they can grasp and make them think about how they and society as a whole view mixed race and blacks. It has become so ingrained that people just tend to accept and never question it. Just a bunch of lemmings. The result was much lecturing about and resistance to my personal experiences, but there have been no better suggestions; just to be a lemming.
He was acknowledging it, but most can't or won't acknowledge it. What is it they say, the first step is to admit the problem. He may have been saying something about humans in general, not just majority culture in America. Most can admit that a less-qualified white person is more likely to get a position than a more qualified black person. Few can admit that a less-qualified light-skinned black person is more likely to get the position than a more qualified dark-skinned black person. Not my fault folks are too stupid to choose better qualifications. I point it out because I'm not afraid to discuss it, even though my various attributes clearly give me advantages most people of any race don't have. I would have thought it somewhat evident that I tell people things they are afraid to hear. I look down on stupidity. I'm not into making people feel comfortable. Just the opposite, in fact. When they are comfortable, they stop thinking. She would be disappointed only if I took the advice of others to shut up and accept society's label. Speak when we tell you to and say what we tell you to say. You had a halfway decent post until you stooped to reversing the reality of what I've stated to leave the impression I'm a "sellout" to what society views as my "race".
OOPS. I missed the word Frugal in there - what you've said here is much the same as I've said elsewhere (regarding the credit spending) so... :Shrug: My bad (I think I inadvertantly skipped over the 'more frugal instead of' part).
