Race & Racism

Yo, everything’s racist

ArgusEyes — Thu, 02 Feb 2012 19:38:30 GMT

Via arch-fool P.Z. Myers:

I’m a fan of Yo, Is This Racist? even if the answer is almost always “YES”. This particular Q&A seemed particularly appropriate.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/01/31/word/

That’s a quote for the ages right there. Who’d have thunk it eh?

Anonymous asked: Is it racist that my science teacher sucks balls?

Yo, science education in the US is a fucking political mess of a tragedy, but it’s worth sticking around and at least trying to learn how to apply evidence and logic, because bastardizations of science are basically the favorite tool of the modern racist.

http://yoisthisracist.com/post/16590542766/is-it-racist-that-my-science-teacher-sucks-balls

I must complain. The stereotypical aggressive attitude and phrases such as “yo” here are so racist! This makes blacks look bad.. Racist!

Also.. my back hurts this morning, I think I slept on it wrong. Racist!

Also.. my boss sucks at his job too. RACIST!

The word “racism” doesn’t mean anything anymore. If you call me racist, then you might as well call me a cloud. I’ve got no idea what you mean when you say it. Good job leftists!

The veil in France & the BBC is biased (shock)

ArgusEyes — Tue, 12 Apr 2011 20:04:16 GMT

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13031397

At least two women have been briefly detained in France while wearing Islamic veils, after a law banning the garment in public came into force.

Police said they were held not because of their veils but for joining an unauthorised protest, and they were later released.

France is the first country in Europe to publicly ban a form of dress some Muslims regard as a religious duty.

Offenders face a fine of 150 euros (£133; $217) and a citizenship course.

People forcing women to wear the veil face a much larger fine and a prison sentence of up to two years.

I was all set to rant about this but then I read the news article for the second time and noticed the bias in it. Notice that the title is “Women in face veils detained as France enforces ban”, the article states that the police say they were charged on other things, not for wearing the veil. Yet the language of the piece subtly associates the fact that they were detained whilst wearing the veils. Most people will walk away with a distorted opinion of what the truth actually is. Let me be clear. I don’t know what the reason was, there is the police BS and then there is the real truth and the two are not necessarily one and the same.

That aside. Here’s my opinion on the veil ban in France. If you were to ask me for a list of countries that didn’t know the difference between personal freedom and their own arsehole, I would probably put France near the top of the list. It’s interesting to see their spasmodic attempts to fight back against the extremes of Islam resulting in draconian impositions on what perfectly fine pieces of clothing the citizenry can wear. Yes I look down on the veil, but I also look down on governments who intrude into the lives of the people and thing that the short-sighted “pass a law” approach is an appropriate reaction to a larger problem.

I take part in an unscrupulous line-up

ArgusEyes — Tue, 12 Apr 2011 19:45:35 GMT

What blog? Yes, sorry. However, I have a number of posts to make today so let’s get started.

A woman on YouTube contacted me asking to use a portion of my “Look not to feminism but to science” video. It is for a documentary promo that she is trying to make:

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/lydiamariehicksfilms/rediscovering-the-scientist-documentary

Now, I seem to be put in a bad light here. I don't mind and I still consent to be used but the video is interesting in the mentality it puts forward. If you click on the link and go the website for the video, you'll see this oft-repeated Charles Darwin quote at the beginning of the text.

“At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace the savage races throughout the world.” –Charles Darwin from, “The Descent of Man” 1871

Not good. I did make a reply back to her and we'll see where this goes.

I hope you don't mind if I make a few comments? The lady about four minutes in, the one who got sick and changed her major; she seems to have a pretty strong entitlement and victim complex. She made numerous statements about how other people should have motivated her and how the course didn't cater to her as a black and a woman. Is this a healthy mentality? The world is never going to be handed to us on a platter and people who expect this, will fail at life and constantly blame others. Will your documentary be a perpetuitous line of people with this mentality? Are you going to critique this mentality and inspect academically achieved black people like John McWorter and Neil deGrasse Tyson to see if they subscribed to this mentality? I suspect that they probably don’t.

Also, the quote from Darwin at the beginning seems to be one in a line-up of white males (of which I appear to be one) who are to be detested. In this instance your agenda aligns with that of creationists and evolution deniers to paint Darwin in a bad light. However, that quote was not the full story. Darwin was racist by our modern standards. However, in the light of the time in which he lived, he was quite progressive on the issue of race. This quote was not support by Darwin for the extermination of races but it is instead a justification for his theory as to why large gaps may appear in the fossil record. It is a fact that some of the earlier hominid species were probably eliminated by the more advanced hominids. May I ask what your purpose is in posting this quote right at the beginning?

Two pieties

ArgusEyes — Wed, 05 Jan 2011 22:22:09 GMT

I am currently reading Theodore Dalrymple’s book ‘Our Culture, What's Left of it: The Mandarins and the Masses’. This section near the end was powerful for me.

In fact the situation of Muslim girls in my city is even worse than Juliet’s. Every Muslim girl in my city has heard of the killing of such as she back in Pakistan, on refusal to marry her first cousin, betrothed to her by her father, all unknown to her, in the earliest years of her childhood. The girl is killed because she has impugned family honour by breaking her father’s word, and any half-hearted official inquiry into the death by the Pakistani authorities is easily and cheaply bought off. And even if she is not killed, she is expelled from the household—O sweet my mother, cast me not away!—and regarded by her ‘community’ as virtually a prostitute, fair game for any man who wants her.

This pattern of betrothal causes suffering as intense as any I know of. It has terrible consequences. One father prevented his daughter, highly intelligent and ambitious to be a journalist, from attending school, precisely to ensure her lack of Westernisation and economic independence. He then took her, aged 16, to Pakistan for the traditional forced marriage (silence, or a lack of open objection, amounts to consent in these circumstances, according to Islamic law) to a first cousin whom she disliked from the first and who forced his attentions on her. Granted a visa to come to Britain, as if the marriage were a bona fide one—the British authorities having turned a cowardly blind eye to the real nature of such marriages in order to avoid the charge of racial discrimination—he was violent toward her.

She had two children in quick succession, both of whom were so severely handicapped that they would be bedridden for the rest of their short lives and would require nursing 24 hours a day. (For fear of giving offence, the press almost never alludes to the extremely high rate of genetic illnesses among the offspring of consanguineous marriages.) Her husband, deciding that the blame for the illnesses was entirely hers, and not wishing to devote himself to looking after such useless creatures, left her, divorcing her after Islamic custom. Her family ostracised her, having concluded that a woman whose husband had left her must have been to blame and was the next thing to a whore. She threw herself off a cliff, but was saved by a ledge.

I’ve heard a hundred variations of her emblematic story. Here, for once, are instances of unadulterated female victimhood, yet the silence of the feminists is deafening. Where two pieties—feminism and multiculturalism—come into conflict, the only way of preserving both is an indecent silence.

The Princess and the Frog. Racist too, apparently

ArgusEyes — Wed, 07 Jul 2010 01:24:30 GMT

You have got to be fucking kidding me.

“THE Princess and the Frog” does not open nationwide until December, but the buzz is already breathless: For the first time in Walt Disney animation history, the fairest of them all is black.

Who cares. Judge me not by the colour of my skin yada yada yada.. I only say that, because I’m a racist though. The modern disease is to judge everything through the lens of race. yeah baby! That’s not racist thought. Paying constant attention to, and deference to race isn't in any way race-ism, do you disagree? Racist. Moving on.

After viewing some photographs of merchandise tied to the movie, which is still unfinished, Black Voices, a Web site on AOL dedicated to African-American culture, faulted the prince’s relatively light skin colour. Prince Naveen hails from the fictional land of Maldonia and is voiced by a Brazilian actor; Disney says that he is not white.

“Disney obviously doesn’t think a black man is worthy of the title of prince,” Angela Bronner Helm wrote March 19 on the site. “His hair and features are decidedly non-black. This has left many in the community shaking their head in befuddlement and even rage.”

Sweet Jebus. This world is filled with insufferable jackasses and busybodies with nothing better to waste their time on (ahem). I swear. The issue is not this victim movement or that victim movement. It’s the mentality of the human victim complex and groupthink. These people are invested in a victim worldview. They are happy in being unhappy.

Of course, armchair critics have also been complaining about the princess. Disney originally called her Maddy (short for Madeleine). Too much like Mammy and thus racist. A rumour surfaced on the Internet that an early script called for her to be a chambermaid to a white woman, a historically correct profession. Too much like slavery.

And wait: We finally get a black princess and she spends the majority of her time on screen as a frog?

Everyone is racist, my chair is racist (actually it’s black so no way), her name is racist, the theme is racist, this is racist, that is racist, her skin isn’t “black” enough, his skin isn’t “black” enough, his hair isn’t “black” enough.

“Because of Disney’s history of stereotyping,” said Michael D. Baran, a cognitive psychologist and anthropologist who teaches at Harvard and specializes in how children learn about race, “people are really excited to see how Disney will handle her language, her culture, her physical attributes.”

Hmmm, let me peer into my crystal ball. Yep! It’ll be deemed to be racist, by a lot of really creative twists of logic that defy the imagination. And I confidently expect Disney to cringe and apologise like a puppy that has just wet the rug. Just like Hallmark did with their “racist” card. Maybe Disney they will pull a Capcom and alter the film somewhat.

Either way, I’ll be sitting back to watch the spiralling of society into a black hole (not black whore) of stupidity. Anyway, I’m off to brush my racist teeth and lie down in my racist bed to ponder, in amazement, the bone-crushing foolishness of the human race.