Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Only 8% of Mexicans are direct Spanish descendents. 30% are pure native americans, and 60% mulatto. The vast majority of the latter population is primarily indigenous, which means ethnic physical features would put them in the nebulous realm of PoC. This is true for most of Central America also, but further south it's more complicated, though in many ways similar, except for Argentina and Chile.

To really go to the root of all this I recommend Race and Human Evolution, by paleontologist Milford Wolpoff. Interesting to note most Mexicans and other immigrants from the south that I know, and having worked for the LA school district that is a very large number, do not consider themselves to be 'white' but hispanic. I knew the head of the language department at Garfield High in LA, and he wrote a paper on what a confusing misnomer 'hispanic' was. It literally means out of Spain, which of course as the numbers indicate is hardly the case. :boggled:

Ok. How does that apply to Ricardo Montalban, the son of Spanish parents who emigrated to Mexico? And what colour is 'hispanic', that he's called a Person of Colour? (I do know what it means, and I've pointed out how ridiculous it is here before now.)
 
Come on Zoot. You know I'm not defending the A+ world view here. I was just trying to provide some background. I'm afraid we're stuck with hispanic at any rate due to it's common usage. That book I mentioned above really lays out how the terminology evolved over the years, after being founded on unabashedly racists assumptions.

And fwiw I never watched much Star Trek, so I don't recall any of the characters except Spock. He looks like he could have some native blood. Would that make him a Alien of Colour at A+? lol
 
Surely Spanish people are under the heading of 'Europe' even if they happen to be born in Mexico?

Yup, but the thing is they are a very small minority there as I pointed out. Thus the ethnic confusion and embrace of the term hispanic even though the big majority-mulattos at 60%-have mostly only remote, long dead Spanish ancestors from back in the days of the conquistadors. From an ethnic DNA reference frame about 80% of Mexican are native Americans.

So Spock is Jewish? No wonder he was the smartest guy on the Enterprise. :D
 
Yup, but the thing is they are a very small minority there as I pointed out. Thus the ethnic confusion and embrace of the term hispanic even though the big majority-mulattos at 60%-have mostly only remote, long dead Spanish ancestors from back in the days of the conquistadors. From an ethnic DNA reference frame about 80% of Mexican are native Americans.

So Spock is Jewish? No wonder he was the smartest guy on the Enterprise. :D

Captain Kirk is also Jewish. Come on, haven't you ever heard that Adam Sandler song?
 
Surely Spanish people are under the heading of 'Europe' even if they happen to be born in Mexico?

The ones from Spain, yes but the ones from south of the Rio Grande qualify under the oppressed PoC definition ( in SJWspeak ) because they're not the dominant culture in the English speaking western society that SJWs love to hate.

Latins can get a rough ride for being colonials when it comes to issues that affect indigenous populations, say a mine encroaching on traditional land uses however those conversations quickly turn to the evil western capitalist investors who finance the construction and operation of those mines.

So Ricardo Montalban is a PoC by virtue of his name and accent being "other" just as I'm a racist for exoticising the other when I used to refer to that Chrysler Cordoba I used to drive using the same accent Montalban used in the TV commercial.
 
Oh dear. I don't know how to deal sufficiently with this information. :(

Oh wait, yes I do. I'll renew my subscription to Skeptical Inquirer early. :) Yay.

Excellent..and I'll take one out.:)

Watson is out too.

ETA Amanda Marcotte is out too and with a MASSIVE SJ fail to boot.

Pandering to sexists means picking the side with way fewer and frankly stupider people on it.

Link
 
Last edited:
So a while ago there was a kerfuffle between Michelle Obama and a heckler. A+ analysis:

Kassiane said:
I have no idea what happened, but whenever anyone criticizes Michelle Obama, who I've never seen be anything but polite in the face of a whole lot of ********, I ask...

What if 10 years ago (was it 10 years ago?) Hillary Clinton had done the same thing? She's white so the standard for Behaving Acceptably she's held to is actually a lot lower.

Just. saying.

ischemgeek said:
Bill, it can't not be about skin color when you're dealing with a situation involving someone of a visible minority in a racist society. Just like it can't not be about gender when you're dealing with a person of a disadvantaged gender in a sexist society. That Obama is black matters, and that she's a woman matters. Don't snark at Kassiane for pointing it out.

EllieMurasaki said:
Ah, but you see, Congress is white and male. (Not entirely, but close enough for government work.)

Kassiane said:
Yes, it is about skin color. Have you been under a rock for the past 5 years? Have you not seen the level of racial hatred thrown at the Obamas?

Refusing to acknowledge that racism, as well as sexism, plays into this is racist and denialist.

EllieMurasaki said:
Which is exactly what we've been saying about the heckler. Who's a white woman, so she's held to a less stringent standard than Michelle Obama is.

BillHamp wrote:
regardless of what you see other people do in terms of critizing white men versus black women that is NOT the case with this post

I bet you're a white guy. It's generally white guys who see people go 'this situation is racist and sexist' and answer with 'no, it's neither'.

EllieMurasaki said:
Racist undertones my eye. You are being racist and sexist, full stop, in insisting that Michelle Obama be accommodating to someone interrupting her speech, when white people and male people are not expected to be accommodating to people interrupting their speeches and white male people are not expected to tolerate such nonsense at all. That is on topic for this thread.

DO NOT *********** USE THE *********** TONE ARGUMENT ON US. NOT AT *********** ALL.




And then it ended in complaining about "tone policing".

Linky.

So you see, everything really is about race and sex. It never isn't. Never, you privileged white male!
 
So a while ago there was a kerfuffle between Michelle Obama and a heckler. A+ analysis:

And then it ended in complaining about "tone policing".

Linky.

So you see, everything really is about race and sex. It never isn't. Never, you privileged white male!

Um, Michelle Obama's heckler was a lesbian woman arguing for gay rights. The Aplussers got the minority wrong and the privilege calculus backwards.
 
I think PoC trumps LGBT. If you squint and tip your head to the right. On alternate days starting with T's.

Or whenever ceepolk and Setar say so.
 
Um, Michelle Obama's heckler was a lesbian woman arguing for gay rights. The Aplussers got the minority wrong and the privilege calculus backwards.

I think PoC trumps LGBT. If you squint and tip your head to the right. On alternate days starting with T's.

Or whenever ceepolk and Setar say so.
Such is the idiocy of applying social science to individuals. Privilege is a legitimate concept in social science. It's a statistical concept and has no basis in reality when it comes to individuals. Though, I think at times it is beneficial to remind someone that they could be biased. I would not care if people brought up privilege in discussions. I don't mind if someone points out my potential bias due to my privilege (and my being male). So long as it isn't used for rhetorical advantage the way folks at A+ do and the way RW did against Richard Dawkins.

It's the notion that one is right or wrong simply for the sake of being part of a class of people. It's fallacious in the extreme. It's attacking the arguer and not the argument. It's presuppositional and impossible to falsify when applied to individuals.
 
Oh dear. I don't know how to deal sufficiently with this information. :(

Oh wait, yes I do. I'll renew my subscription to Skeptical Inquirer early. :) Yay.
I have just subscribed. Over the years I have read many Skeptical Inquirer articles, and I appreciate it that the CFI has not given in to the irrational campaign against Ron Lindsay. It's been about time that I show some support.
 
Excellent..and I'll take one out.:)

Watson is out too.

ETA Amanda Marcotte is out too and with a MASSIVE SJ fail to boot.


Reading that has solidified one of the bits of SJW jargon that just causes me to glaze over instantly: using the word "other" as a verb. Talk about how someone "othered" you, or about how "othering" is a problem, and you have just dealt a severe, probably fatal blow to my ability to take you seriously as a human being. Even more so than xe/xim/xoo/xot/xizzle (the latter being the preferred SJW term for a gender-unspecified Snoop Dog fan).
 
Reading that has solidified one of the bits of SJW jargon that just causes me to glaze over instantly: using the word "other" as a verb. Talk about how someone "othered" you, or about how "othering" is a problem, and you have just dealt a severe, probably fatal blow to my ability to take you seriously as a human being. Even more so than xe/xim/xoo/xot/xizzle (the latter being the preferred SJW term for a gender-unspecified Snoop Dog fan).

I can't nominate that for pith, but can I steal Xizzle?

As usual, when the actual known people in the SJW camp stir up ****, A+ Forums ratchet up the posting level to 5+ posts per hour. They were hovering around 2 to 3 per hour, max. But give 'em someone to attaboy, or a good long-distance dogpile and they're out in force. All fifteen of them. :D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom