PDA

View Full Version : Science of Bigotry



Codename Section
04-05-2014, 07:26 AM
I hear this word thrown around all the time on here and "bigots" are like the worst people in the world or something.

Bigotry is evolutionary and according to most scientists is a natural survival technique. People seek their own tribes because their own tribes equal safety. Even in children, when asked to identify good or bad, they will choose the image that looks like themselves as "good", showing that this is innate, not learned.

However in certain autistic children who have what's called "Williams syndrome" this is not the case. They look at individuals over groups in all these experiments. I found that interesting. If you have a brain disruption you are capable of not being bigoted.

They did a study on vets who had brain injuries and found the same. When a certain part of the brain is injured you no longer process stereotypes and profiling.

http://www.cell.com/current-biology/retrieve/pii/S0960982210001442

http://bigthink.com/Mind-Matters/new-study-finds-a-brain-that-cant-do-bigotry

http://www.jneurosci.org/content/21/12/RC150.full

http://www.mass.gov/eopss/docs/eops/faip/buried-prejudice.pdf


So anyway these psychologists have said that bigotry must be unlearned and that unlearning requires positive experiences in order for the brain to override its fear-based mechanisms.

It's like prior to joining the marines I could see someone with tan or brown skin and not think shit about it. Now, I see someone with dark hair and tan skin and I distrust them immediately. I don't know when/if that will change because I'm not sure I will have enough positive influences to override the natural reaction.

You'll note in some of these articles it says that we naturally manifest these even if we don't admit to them and that if we learn something is scary or hateful we'll profile.

So that also explains the people who don't like RWNJs or LWNJs. You've been told they are _____________ so you believe that they are ____________ and you have an immediate bias that would require the same amount of time to correct.

Paperback Writer
04-05-2014, 07:37 AM
Anyone who claims they have no prejudice is lying. We all do. Most of us don't let them show, but we all have them.

Peter1469
04-05-2014, 08:53 AM
I think bigotry, or not trusting others outside of your group, is hard wired into humans. In early human history, it was very risky to welcome travelers with open arms. I read a while back, I think in The Landmark Thucydides (http://www.amazon.com/The-Landmark-Thucydides-Comprehensive-Peloponnesian/dp/0684827905), that the ancient Greeks didn't have a word for ally. Enemy was the default.

Paperback Writer
04-05-2014, 08:54 AM
I think it's interesting that you have to either hit your head or be born with a defect to be unprejudiced.

Refugee
04-05-2014, 09:08 AM
I think it's interesting that you have to either hit your head or be born with a defect to be unprejudiced.

The progressives are trying very hard to socially engineer an unprejudiced society. The North Koreans have largely done it, except for the few who manage to escape and if they're caught they go for 're-education'. Prejudice is simply an opinion and as there is someone somewhere who will disagree, it's natural to be prejudiced. The only way to not be prejudiced would be not to have an opinion and just keep repeating 'yes' to anything that is said.

Green Arrow
04-05-2014, 09:41 AM
People who know me don't consider me bigoted at all, but I'll be the first to admit that I am. It's not intentional, it just is. *shrug*

The Xl
04-05-2014, 11:19 AM
Many people inherently have some sort of prejudice, but many forms that dominate our society currently are learned behaviors.

Codename Section
04-05-2014, 11:21 AM
Many people inherently have some sort of prejudice, but many forms that dominate our society currently are learned behaviors.

The inherent part is the brain's leaning towards people who look like them/their parents. It's evolution and makes sense. Trust those you know over those you don't.

The Xl
04-05-2014, 11:24 AM
The inherent part is the brain's leaning towards people who look like them/their parents. It's evolution and makes sense. Trust those you know over those you don't.

Put a bunch of kids that don't look alike in the same room and they get along fine, usually.

What you stated is a learned behavior.

Codename Section
04-05-2014, 11:26 AM
Put a bunch of kids that don't look alike in the same room and they get along fine, usually.

What you stated is a learned behavior.

The studies showed that very young children will point to people like themselves as "good" and others as "bad", that doesn't mean they won't play with each other.

Their brains also react to images of people who look like them in ways different than those that don't.

It doesn't mean humans don't overcome it and learn not to fear others. Young children who don't fear other kids lived in a safe environment and that's a good thing.

The Xl
04-05-2014, 11:32 AM
The studies showed that very young children will point to people like themselves as "good" and others as "bad", that doesn't mean they won't play with each other.

Their brains also react to images of people who look like them in ways different than those that don't.

It doesn't mean humans don't overcome it and learn not to fear others. Young children who don't fear other kids lived in a safe environment and that's a good thing.

I'd like to know the extent of the study and the amount of kids tested. I understood that kids looked different than me, but didn't understand the social ramifications of race until at least 9 or 10, and that was a learned behavior from my observations and truthfully, from some douchy racist family members who I wasn't and still am not particularly fond of.

The most vicious younger(10 or under) racists I've ever been around have certainly been taught that behavior. I knew some younger white people in my building/some younger family members that weren't fond of black people because of the shit their parents said, and I myself was the subject of vicious verbal attacks from black children when I was in bad neighborhoods and such as a child while visiting friends and whatnot.

Their are unquestionably many variables at play, and while bigotry by race, religion, culture, etc, may have been a quickly learned natural behavior at some point in time in the past, I think in todays day and age, it's mostly learned.

Paperback Writer
04-05-2014, 11:33 AM
I'd like to know the extent of the study and the amount of kids tested. I understood that kids looked different than me, but didn't understand the social ramifications of race until at least 9 or 10, and that was a learned behavior from my observations and truthfully, from some douchy racist family members who I wasn't and still am not particularly fond of.

The most vicious younger(10 or under) racists I've ever been around have certainly been taught that behavior. I knew some younger white people in my building/some younger family members that weren't fond of black people because of the shit their parents said, and I myself was the subject of vicious verbal attacks from black children when I was in bad neighborhoods and such as a child while visiting friends and whatnot.

Their are unquestionable many variables at play, and while bigotry by race, religion, culture, etc, may have been a quickly learned natural behavior at some point in time in the past, I think in todays day and age, it's mostly learned.


You remember being 3?

The Xl
04-05-2014, 11:34 AM
You remember being 3?

My memory starts as early as 4, and is crystal by around 5.

Archer0915
04-05-2014, 11:34 AM
I hear this word thrown around all the time on here and "bigots" are like the worst people in the world or something.

Bigotry is evolutionary and according to most scientists is a natural survival technique. People seek their own tribes because their own tribes equal safety. Even in children, when asked to identify good or bad, they will choose the image that looks like themselves as "good", showing that this is innate, not learned.

However in certain autistic children who have what's called "Williams syndrome" this is not the case. They look at individuals over groups in all these experiments. I found that interesting. If you have a brain disruption you are capable of not being bigoted.

They did a study on vets who had brain injuries and found the same. When a certain part of the brain is injured you no longer process stereotypes and profiling.

http://www.cell.com/current-biology/retrieve/pii/S0960982210001442

http://bigthink.com/Mind-Matters/new-study-finds-a-brain-that-cant-do-bigotry

http://www.jneurosci.org/content/21/12/RC150.full

http://www.mass.gov/eopss/docs/eops/faip/buried-prejudice.pdf


So anyway these psychologists have said that bigotry must be unlearned and that unlearning requires positive experiences in order for the brain to override its fear-based mechanisms.

It's like prior to joining the marines I could see someone with tan or brown skin and not think shit about it. Now, I see someone with dark hair and tan skin and I distrust them immediately. I don't know when/if that will change because I'm not sure I will have enough positive influences to override the natural reaction.

You'll note in some of these articles it says that we naturally manifest these even if we don't admit to them and that if we learn something is scary or hateful we'll profile.

So that also explains the people who don't like RWNJs or LWNJs. You've been told they are _____________ so you believe that they are ____________ and you have an immediate bias that would require the same amount of time to correct.

Bigot is an overused word! Many people think that it means if you disagree with the progressive left.

Chris
04-05-2014, 11:37 AM
Many people inherently have some sort of prejudice, but many forms that dominate our society currently are learned behaviors.


The inherent part is the brain's leaning towards people who look like them/their parents. It's evolution and makes sense. Trust those you know over those you don't.


And social selection, via traditions and morns and such, can drive that evolution.

The Xl
04-05-2014, 11:39 AM
And social selection, via traditions and morns and such, can drive that evolution.

Sometimes society in general just creates it out of thin air. I didn't even think about the stuff as a young kid until I started hearing about it on the news and seeing it at play from ignorant adults and the kids they brainwashed.

Paperback Writer
04-05-2014, 11:44 AM
My memory starts as early as 4, and is crystal by around 5.

Your cerebrum is not fully developed and therefore cannot "store" memories as the hippocampus only has so much space. If you think of your brain as a computer, the RAM is just not there at 2. Instead of having a 10 GIG you have MBs still.

http://www.livescience.com/32798-how-are-memories-stored-in-the-brain.html
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/ist/?next=/science-nature/how-our-brains-make-memories-14466850/http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-is-the-memory-capacity/
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-is-the-memory-capacity/
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=7253668
http://bodyodd.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08/24/13439658-how-far-back-can-you-remember-when-earliest-memories-occur?lite


You believe you remember, may have patches, but you cannot remember the exact feelings of being placed in a childcare facility or whatnot other than perhaps a single image.

There are two types of bigotry, ideological (learned) and pathological (evolutionary). You can have both or one or grow into none, but the human animal is born with survival skills. A child knows its parents are trustworthy and therefore if you look like mum or dad you are prolly safe.

Profiling is not racism because the child does not believe one superior to the other, it is looking for safety.

The Xl
04-05-2014, 11:47 AM
Your cerebrum is not fully developed and therefore cannot "store" memories as the hippocampus only has so much space. If you think of your brain as a computer, the RAM is just not there at 2. Instead of having a 10 GIG you have MBs still.

http://www.livescience.com/32798-how-are-memories-stored-in-the-brain.html
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/ist/?next=/science-nature/how-our-brains-make-memories-14466850/http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-is-the-memory-capacity/
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-is-the-memory-capacity/
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=7253668
http://bodyodd.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08/24/13439658-how-far-back-can-you-remember-when-earliest-memories-occur?lite


You believe you remember, may have patches, but you cannot remember the exact feelings of being placed in a childcare facility or whatnot other than perhaps a single image.

There are two types of bigotry, ideological (learned) and pathological (evolutionary). You can have both or one or grow into none, but the human animal is born with survival skills. A child knows its parents are trustworthy and therefore if you look like mum or dad you are prolly safe.

Profiling is not racism because the child does not believe one superior to the other, it is looking for safety.

I remember many things to the detail, and if I have a decent amount of memories regarding my feelings on the matter throughout those years, the logical conclusion would most likely be that I felt that way the entire time, yes?

Chris
04-05-2014, 11:51 AM
Sometimes society in general just creates it out of thin air. I didn't even think about the stuff as a young kid until I started hearing about it on the news and seeing it at play from ignorant adults and the kids they brainwashed.


Yes, some conventions are constructed, and they need not be rational, could be emotional, and these too can be selective in an evolutionary sense.

Paperback Writer
04-05-2014, 11:54 AM
I remember many things to the detail, and if I have a decent amount of memories regarding my feelings on the matter throughout those years, the logical conclusion would most likely be that I felt that way the entire time, yes?

Go submit to a study then for you are a freak of nature tantamount to Superman.

The Xl
04-05-2014, 12:09 PM
Go submit to a study then for you are a freak of nature tantamount to Superman.

Because I remember stuff from an early age? Is it really that uncommon?

Peter1469
04-05-2014, 12:18 PM
Because I remember stuff from an early age? Is it really that uncommon?

I remember bits and pieces, even much younger than 3. I asked my mom about certain things and she verified it.

The Xl
04-05-2014, 12:19 PM
I remember bits and pieces, even much younger than 3. I asked my mom about certain things and she verified it.

I'm not the only one then.

Chris
04-05-2014, 12:20 PM
I remember stuff from when I was 3, 4 ,5. Like Blacky, the English Setter my grandmother had, running about the farm, playing with him, hunting with my uncle and him in the cornfields. I remember holding the chickens as my uncle lopped off their heads, holding tight so they would so they wouldn't run about the yard headless, and taking them up to the house and watching my grandmother pluck them. We lived upstair the farm house. I remember my grandmother buying the first TV, and how I played with all the buttons and knobs, and how when everyone sat down to watch it first time, there was sound but no picture! I remember my brother coming home. And playing around the foundation and framing as my Dad built our house in town. And as I remember these things I remember more.

Paperback Writer
04-05-2014, 12:22 PM
Peter1469 and The Xl

we all remember a few things from an early age. I didn't say that you wouldn't remember anything. I said your brain is not formed with enough space until you are slightly older and presented the evidence.

I have a memory from 3 and my mum confirmed it. It was my first pet. It doesn't mean I remember the ages of 3-5 like I do 5-7 or even 16-25.

I produced the links of how the brain forms and how memories are collected.

Peter1469
04-05-2014, 12:24 PM
I wasn't disagreeing with you. My early memories were of very specific events.


@Peter1469 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=10) and @The Xl (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=865)

we all remember a few things from an early age. I didn't say that you wouldn't remember anything. I said your brain is not formed with enough space until you are slightly older and presented the evidence.

I have a memory from 3 and my mum confirmed it. It was my first pet. It doesn't mean I remember the ages of 3-5 like I do 5-7 or even 16-25.

I produced the links of how the brain forms and how memories are collected.

The Xl
04-05-2014, 12:24 PM
@Peter1469 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=10) and @The Xl (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=865)

we all remember a few things from an early age. I didn't say that you wouldn't remember anything. I said your brain is not formed with enough space until you are slightly older and presented the evidence.

I have a memory from 3 and my mum confirmed it. It was my first pet. It doesn't mean I remember the ages of 3-5 like I do 5-7 or even 16-25.

I produced the links of how the brain forms and how memories are collected.

Well, yes, obviously you'll remember things after you're 12/13 or so, because your brain is mostly formed and because the events in question are more recent. That doesn't mean you can't remember stuff from an early age, including what you were thinking and the emotion you felt during those events.

Which is why I stated that what I remember at those ages should suffice, because if I felt the same way on this matter in every memory, what are the odds that it is was different from the things I don't remember?

Chris
04-05-2014, 12:31 PM
Peter1469 and The Xl

we all remember a few things from an early age. I didn't say that you wouldn't remember anything. I said your brain is not formed with enough space until you are slightly older and presented the evidence.

I have a memory from 3 and my mum confirmed it. It was my first pet. It doesn't mean I remember the ages of 3-5 like I do 5-7 or even 16-25.

I produced the links of how the brain forms and how memories are collected.


Definitely.

And it gets worse again when you get older! :mblah05::mblah05::mblah05::thinking::dang:

Paperback Writer
04-05-2014, 12:49 PM
Well, yes, obviously you'll remember things after you're 12/13 or so, because your brain is mostly formed and because the events in question are more recent. That doesn't mean you can't remember stuff from an early age, including what you were thinking and the emotion you felt during those events.

Which is why I stated that what I remember at those ages should suffice, because if I felt the same way on this matter in every memory, what are the odds that it is was different from the things I don't remember?

It won't suffice for scientific purposes, but if you wish to be anecdotal that's noted.

Dr. Who
04-05-2014, 02:10 PM
Go submit to a study then for you are a freak of nature tantamount to Superman.
My earliest memory is from the age of 2 - of course it was something that frightened me. We were staying with my aunt temporarily. My aunt was a seamstress and she kept a dressmakers form in the closet which was dressed in whatever project she was working on. I opened the closet one day and saw what appeared to be a headless person and freaked out. My mother remembers the incident well, since I was inconsolable, and everyone had a good laugh about it. She confirmed that I was two at the time. I have far more memories from age 3 and remember being 4 very well.

Codename Section
04-05-2014, 02:20 PM
Yeh back on point, we have natural profiling abilities that we are born with but we learn to be more inclusive.

The Xl
04-05-2014, 02:22 PM
It won't suffice for scientific purposes, but if you wish to be anecdotal that's noted.

Why wouldn't it suffice for scientific purposes? You admitted yourself that people remember a few memories from their youth.

The Xl
04-05-2014, 02:27 PM
My earliest memory is from the age of 2 - of course it was something that frightened me. We were staying with my aunt temporarily. My aunt was a seamstress and she kept a dressmakers form in the closet which was dressed in whatever project she was working on. I opened the closet one day and saw what appeared to be a headless person and freaked out. My mother remembers the incident well, since I was inconsolable, and everyone had a good laugh about it. She confirmed that I was two at the time. I have far more memories from age 3 and remember being 4 very well.

Here's a memory, a recollection of thought during said memory and the emotion behind it. Like me, you also remember things from 4 years old.

Far too often, things that are passed as "science," are based on a small sample size, conjecture, the attempt to fit many into a one size fits all box, etc, etc.

The Xl
04-05-2014, 02:28 PM
Yeh back on point, we have natural profiling abilities that we are born with but we learn to be more inclusive.

Maybe. It could be the exact opposite as well, depending on the person and situation.

Newpublius
04-05-2014, 02:31 PM
Because I remember stuff from an early age? Is it really that uncommon?

No, its not uncommon to remember things, I have a one or two very vague memories from 3 or 4 and frankly I am not sure which, memories fill in thereafter of course, but the problem is that its not uncommon to think you have crystal clear memories but which in fact aren't.

I can give you an excellent example even. When I was in grade school I have a specific recollection of going to the Statue of Liberty with 'Day Camp' a summer camp and there's no question we went by the way, but its the SPECIFICS....I remember going into the statue, going up this spiral staircase and then eventually emerging into the crown and then going up an even narrower set of stairs to the torch.

Shortly thereafter the Statue of Liberty went into renovation and I remember collecting coins and doing minor fundraisers at school to help pay for the renovation, since Lady Liberty was copper clad the scheme was to bring pennies since they were 'copper' (they had just been turned over to zinc in 1982)....and we'd bring our pennies and other schools did the same and pennies added up to dollars.

Of course after I remember going again and sadly the torch was closed and I remember thinking, "Gee, I'm glad I went on that field trip since I'll never get to go to the torch ever again"

Fast forward now to 2013 and I take a Circle Line Tour. I live in the area but I actually DO the tourist things occasionally because I like to do them.

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-W3-ZWq5ja-k/UjYR0oRRQsI/AAAAAAAAGKU/lQiym0wVTKY/w958-h637-no/DSC_0001.JPG

On that cruise the Circle Line operator says over the loudspeaker that nobody has been allowed in the torch since 1916. I'm half listening and there are certain cackles on the speaker, but disembarking, I asked and said, "Did you mean 1986? Because I thought you said 1916 and I could swear I had been up there"

He said, "No, you weren't"

Turns out the Germans sabotaged a train with munitions during WWI which was disembarking from Jersey City. MASSIVE explosion, probably worse in intensity than 9/11 actually in terms of the amount of power behind the explosion and it damaged the statue. They repaired it but NOBODY from the public is allowed up into the torch.

The memory of me going to the torch as a kid is FALSE, its a real memory, it just isn't true.....

Paperback Writer
04-05-2014, 02:31 PM
Here's a memory, a recollection of thought during said memory and the emotion behind it. Like me, you also remember things from 4 years old.

Far too often, things that are passed as "science," are based on a small sample size, conjecture, the attempt to fit many into a one size fits all box, etc, etc.

No one said you remember nothing. Show me where if I did? You have memories or claim to that are complicated, involving remember how you felt. Look up where the brain stores feelings and you'll see its not developed yet. You are appropriating current feelings to then.

I've said I have memories, too, but they are "scenes" and few and far between.

You can't possibly remember being put in a day care, for example, at 3 and knowing you had no race perceptions. You can remember being in day care and playing but not your initial impressions, etcetera.

Newpublius
04-05-2014, 02:35 PM
You can't possibly remember being put in a day care, for example, at 3 and knowing you had no race perceptions. You can remember being in day care and playing but not your initial impressions, etcetera.

My parents left NYC in 1973, I was born in 1972, cities were rough places. My parents would of course bring me to NYC to visit my grandparents and my mom recounts a story of the first time I noted somebody being black. She knew from the get go by the reaction on my face and the way I was raising my hand that I might say something and she tells me how she just said, "Shhh, don't say it, just don't say it"

The second instance was racial faux pas when I made the Asian-American kid the "Jap" in kindergarten. Where did I get that from:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baa_Baa_Black_Sheep_%28TV_series%29

My dad watched it.....

Dr. Who
04-05-2014, 02:36 PM
Here's a memory, a recollection of thought during said memory and the emotion behind it. Like me, you also remember things from 4 years old.

Far too often, things that are passed as "science," are based on a small sample size, conjecture, the attempt to fit many into a one size fits all box, etc, etc.

I think that when it comes to each individual's capacity for memory, no two people are exactly alike and while science can generally state that certain facets of the brain develop at specific rates, there is no way to know whether there isn't a range of development that is normal, with some developing capacity earlier than others. It's just like fetal development. Some babies mature, in utero, faster than others. Some children walk and talk sooner than others and also toilet train sooner.

The Xl
04-05-2014, 02:37 PM
No one said you remember nothing. Show me where if I did? You have memories or claim to that are complicated, involving remember how you felt. Look up where the brain stores feelings and you'll see its not developed yet. You are appropriating current feelings to then.

I've said I have memories, too, but they are "scenes" and few and far between.

You can't possibly remember being put in a day care, for example, at 3 and knowing you had no race perceptions. You can remember being in day care and playing but not your initial impressions, etcetera.

I distinctly remember feelings in regards to certain events. These have stuck with me for years, decades, and these aren't my current reflections on them. Maybe I'm a freak then, I don't know.

I remember being 4 in Pre-K. My best friends were Jamaican twins. Not only did I not see them as "bad" or anything of the sort, I didn't recognize the implications of race, they were just people to me, people that looked somewhat different. But their were white kids that looked different than me as well, be it height, weight, etc.

All the negative things that I heard and faced later in regards to race and any other form of bigotry were imposed on me by people who learned said behaviors.

The Xl
04-05-2014, 02:38 PM
I think that when it comes to each individual's capacity for memory, no two people are exactly alike and while science can generally state that certain facets of the brain develop at specific rates, there is no way to know whether there isn't a range of development that is normal, with some developing capacity earlier than others. It's just like fetal development. Some babies mature, in utero, faster than others. Some children walk and talk sooner than others and also toilet train sooner.

This. That's not even accounting for the small sample size of many studies, agendas, and conjectural conclusions in general that people draw from science.

It's a weak cop out argument in many cases.

The Sage of Main Street
04-05-2014, 02:39 PM
The fallacy in this discussion is that everyone talks about "the other," rather than the "threat." That's how limited our minds have become. Who put these limitations on us? Group inferiority has never been disproved, so, for no reason at all except for the decision of self-appointed authorities, we have to call our rational fears "just wanting to be with our own kind," as in "White Separatist."

"Racism" is a loaded term. If central mind-control can create that insulting term, I can invent "fittestism." And say it with pride.

Guerilla
04-05-2014, 02:42 PM
Yeh back on point, we have natural profiling abilities that we are born with but we learn to be more inclusive.

And we should be more inclusive. The natural profiling ability is becoming more of a bad thing. If someone used to look like you, that probably meant they were like you in culture, and thought process too, because everyone was in close-knit groups back then. Nowadays, looking like you doesn't account for much unless your still from some close-knit tribe or community.

For communities in America, our natural profiling ability is either a negative thing or just useless.

Captain Obvious
04-05-2014, 02:47 PM
The risk of bigotry is being socially ostracized especially if you're in the minority.

I'm on record for stating that there is no law or immorality about being bigoted, nor should it be formally punished. I do believe it for the most part is a disorder based in fear and ignorance.

Guerilla
04-05-2014, 02:47 PM
My earliest memory is from the age of 2 - of course it was something that frightened me. We were staying with my aunt temporarily. My aunt was a seamstress and she kept a dressmakers form in the closet which was dressed in whatever project she was working on. I opened the closet one day and saw what appeared to be a headless person and freaked out. My mother remembers the incident well, since I was inconsolable, and everyone had a good laugh about it. She confirmed that I was two at the time. I have far more memories from age 3 and remember being 4 very well.

^^^
That basically fits my memory development too.

Paperback Writer
04-05-2014, 02:49 PM
This. That's not even accounting for the small sample size of many studies, agendas, and conjectural conclusions in general that people draw from science.

It's a weak cop out argument in many cases.


Show some links to examples of these small sample sizes.

Archer0915
04-05-2014, 02:54 PM
The risk of bigotry is being socially ostracized especially if you're in the minority.

I'm on record for stating that there is no law or immorality about being bigoted, nor should it be formally punished. I do believe it for the most part is a disorder based in fear and ignorance.

Bigotry is a word that is overused as a tool for the progressives.

The Xl
04-05-2014, 02:57 PM
Show some links to examples of these small sample sizes.

You're the one citing studies as an argument, the burden of proof is on you.

The Xl
04-05-2014, 02:59 PM
The fallacy in this discussion is that everyone talks about "the other," rather than the "threat." That's how limited our minds have become. Who put these limitations on us? Group inferiority has never been disproved, so, for no reason at all except for the decision of self-appointed authorities, we have to call our rational fears "just wanting to be with our own kind," as in "White Separatist."

"Racism" is a loaded term. If central mind-control can create that insulting term, I can invent "fittestism." And say it with pride.

Yep, white people are conspiring against white people, so let's hate the inferior blacks, while being a white man who wants to steal wealth from others because you're a no count that never made anything of yourself. Makes sense. If you're batshit insane.

That's you in a nutshell, really.

Chris
04-05-2014, 03:06 PM
Yeh back on point, we have natural profiling abilities that we are born with but we learn to be more inclusive.



To me bigotry becomes a problem when it is institutionalized in the laws of the land. Your personal bigotry cannot really harm me, but made law certainly can. One shop not wanting to bake gays a wedding cake leave gays to go to other shops that will, not so if that bigotry is enforced by government.

The Xl
04-05-2014, 03:08 PM
To me bigotry becomes a problem when it is institutionalized in the laws of the land. Your personal bigotry cannot really harm me, but made law certainly can. One shop not wanting to bake gays a wedding cake leave gays to go to other shops that will, not so if that bigotry is enforced by government.

I agree with this.

I believe bigotry to be an irrational learned behavior, but people have the right to exercise it if they wish.

Captain Obvious
04-05-2014, 03:12 PM
Bigotry is a word that is overused as a tool for the progressives.

Kinda like "religious freedom" for the wingnut.

Dr. Who
04-05-2014, 03:13 PM
Childhood amnesia is the inability of adults to retrieve episodic memories before the age of 2–4 years. It appears that the memories are not actually lost, but because they are formed when a child is pre-verbal, they may not be stored the same way as post-verbal memories. I would liken it to non-indexed data in a database, with words forming part of the indices the memory uses to retrieve the memories. While these memories are readily available to children up until a certain age, they tend not to be able to remember them over time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Childhood_amnesia

Codename Section
04-05-2014, 03:18 PM
Kinda like "religious freedom" for the wingnut.

Ten years ago, I'd be with you. They complained way too much back then about losing their rights but now I can see they kinda are.

Captain Obvious
04-05-2014, 03:24 PM
Ten years ago, I'd be with you. They complained way too much back then about losing their rights but now I can see they kinda are.

It's awful how people are being forced to worship other gods they don't believe in.

:rollseyes:

Paperback Writer
04-05-2014, 03:32 PM
It's awful how people are being forced to worship other gods they don't believe in.

:rollseyes:


What?

Captain Obvious
04-05-2014, 04:19 PM
What?

http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view5/2552692/lil-jon-o.gif

Archer0915
04-05-2014, 04:50 PM
Kinda like "religious freedom" for the wingnut.

That works all the way around. There are leftist churches.

Archer0915
04-05-2014, 04:52 PM
It's awful how people are being forced to worship other gods they don't believe in.

:rollseyes:

Nope not that but children are being taught that there is no God which is just as bad. They are programmed!

Max Rockatansky
04-05-2014, 06:53 PM
Nope not that but children are being taught that there is no God which is just as bad. They are programmed!

All kids are "programmed" because those who are not grow up to be obnoxious self-involved assholes.

The worst thing to ever happen to child rearing was the Dr. Spock attitude of "every child is special".

Captain Obvious
04-05-2014, 07:15 PM
Nope not that but children are being taught that there is no God which is just as bad. They are programmed!

Are you fucking kidding me?

Like Christians and Muslims don't indoctrinate children from birth?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWv72L4wgCc

Archer0915
04-05-2014, 07:25 PM
Are you fucking kidding me?

Like Christians and Muslims don't indoctrinate children from birth?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWv72L4wgCc

Santa is secular... Most holidays have become that way.

Captain Obvious
04-05-2014, 07:30 PM
Santa is secular... Most holidays have become that way.

Regardless.

If indoctrinating kids on atheism is bad, then why is indoctrinating kids on a particular faith ok?

Is it because it's ok for you as the parent or for the child?

Be honest.

Archer0915
04-05-2014, 07:56 PM
Regardless.

If indoctrinating kids on atheism is bad, then why is indoctrinating kids on a particular faith ok?

Is it because it's ok for you as the parent or for the child?

Be honest.

It is wrong for the government to indoctrinate children in any way. In teaching neutrality should be the rule. Teach science as it is; pure and unpolluted with opinion. In cases of unproved science it should be noted that it is unproven, though accepted.

We have laws and theories. Both should be covered but nothing that is on the fringes (such as string theory) should be taught in any real detail because these may be easily disproven given time. Theories like evolution and the big bang are a bit different because they are generally accepted and there are no competing "Scientific" theories.

When the line is crossed and teachers tell christian children that prayer is bad while Muslims are given prayer time there is a big issue and this is PC indoctrination.

Captain Obvious
04-05-2014, 08:00 PM
It is wrong for the government to indoctrinate children in any way. In teaching neutrality should be the rule. Teach science as it is; pure and unpolluted with opinion. In cases of unproved science it should be noted that it is unproven, though accepted.

We have laws and theories. Both should be covered but nothing that is on the fringes (such as string theory) should be taught in any real detail because these may be easily disproven given time. Theories like evolution and the big bang are a bit different because they are generally accepted and there are no competing "Scientific" theories.

When the line is crossed and teachers tell christian children that prayer is bad while Muslims are given prayer time there is a big issue and this is PC indoctrination.

My experience is that this is all fringe stuff.

My kids - all of them had very little indoctrination in school. I suspect FauxNews and the like is the source for all of this elaboration.

Either way it's still up to the parents to teach their children all things regardless of what's taught in school, that applies to political, religious, morals, ethics, all that. School is what it is - an introduction to life, not the be-all-end-all. If you as a parent are confident and intellectually strong, you won't struggle with this.

If you are insecure and in fear then yeah, I get it.

Archer0915
04-05-2014, 08:10 PM
My experience is that this is all fringe stuff.

My kids - all of them had very little indoctrination in school. I suspect FauxNews and the like is the source for all of this elaboration.

Either way it's still up to the parents to teach their children all things regardless of what's taught in school, that applies to political, religious, morals, ethics, all that. School is what it is - an introduction to life, not the be-all-end-all. If you as a parent are confident and intellectually strong, you won't struggle with this.

If you are insecure and in fear then yeah, I get it.

I am sorry but there are teachers out there teaching things that are not in the scope of of education. Many try to indoctrinate.

Captain Obvious
04-05-2014, 08:13 PM
I am sorry but there are teachers out there teaching things that are not in the scope of of education. Many try to indoctrinate.

Sure, it's a big world out there.

But you have to pick your battles. If that was going on in my neighborhood then yeah, I'd get active. The fact that the bell curve shows that it's going to happen somewhere, somehow doesn't really get me excited until it starts to move away from zero.

Just because FauxNews creates and thrives on it doesn't mean I'm going to react to it.

And besides, if some kid somewhere out there is indoctrinated by the government, honestly - why should I care? As far as I'm concerned that's a failure on the parents part to guide that child.

I can't be everything to everybody nor do I want to be. It's not my business as far as I'm concerned. I worry about my own in this respect.

If more people did just this, imagine what might happen.

Archer0915
04-05-2014, 08:16 PM
Sure, it's a big world out there.

But you have to pick your battles. If that was going on in my neighborhood then yeah, I'd get active. The fact that the bell curve shows that it's going to happen somewhere, somehow doesn't really get me excited until it starts to move away from zero.

Just because FauxNews creates and thrives on it doesn't mean I'm going to react to it.

You know you bring up Fox a bit but we got an issue here... I dont know shit about fox or any other news... I do not have cable or sat. I get my information from reading!

Captain Obvious
04-05-2014, 08:21 PM
You know you bring up Fox a bit but we got an issue here... I dont know shit about fox or any other news... I do not have cable or sat. I get my information from reading!

That's good, if you're being genuine.

Weeding through the noise and making your own personal opinions is important and sadly too infrequent in our society.

Terminal Lance
04-05-2014, 08:29 PM
I don't know of anyone who watches the news anymore. I read a million websites, but mostly because I hate commercials.

Captain Obvious
04-05-2014, 08:34 PM
I don't know of anyone who watches the news anymore. I read a million websites, but mostly because I hate commercials.

http://www.npr.org/

Probably the most unbiased mainstream news source around.

Relatively speaking that is.

Chris
04-05-2014, 08:40 PM
http://www.npr.org/

Probably the most unbiased mainstream news source around.

Relatively speaking that is.


Way to liberal.

Captain Obvious
04-05-2014, 08:41 PM
Way to liberal.

More tossed popcorn from the peanut gallery.

... yay

Captain Obvious
04-05-2014, 08:43 PM
NPR has this reputation with the RWNJ crowd because they run liberal shows.

Anything left of FauxNews is liberal in this respect, but I've made this challenge before. Take out the liberal programming and focus on the news reporting and talk to me.

Give me examples and we'll go from there.

I expect nothing but crickets and ignorant rhetoric.

Chris
04-05-2014, 08:45 PM
More tossed popcorn from the peanut gallery.

... yay

And more idiotic nonsense from you.

NOR is liberal, sorry you don't recognize it.

Captain Obvious
04-05-2014, 08:45 PM
And more idiotic nonsense from you.

NOR is liberal, sorry you don't recognize it.

You can't even spell NPR.

... dismissed!

Terminal Lance
04-05-2014, 08:45 PM
C-SPAN is probably the only unbiased newsource because it's just live cameras on Congress. You get to see your Senator's empty chair because he or she didn't show up.

Chris
04-05-2014, 08:47 PM
NPR has this reputation with the RWNJ crowd because they run liberal shows.

Anything left of FauxNews is liberal in this respect, but I've made this challenge before. Take out the liberal programming and focus on the news reporting and talk to me.

Give me examples and we'll go from there.

I expect nothing but crickets and ignorant rhetoric.



Nice well poisoning, cap. But you made the claim, you back it up--meet your own challenge.

NPR is as liberal as Fox is conservative. I don't know why anyone would listen to either.

Captain Obvious
04-05-2014, 08:47 PM
C-SPAN is probably the only unbiased newsource because it's just live cameras on Congress. You get to see your Senator's empty chair because he or she didn't show up.

Reuters - for basically just reported news.

Many/most mainstream media I think is based on Reuters, it's the after the filtering process that gives it it's delicious, chocolaty spin.

Captain Obvious
04-05-2014, 08:49 PM
Nice well poisoning, cap. But you made the claim, you back it up--meet your own challenge.

NPR is as liberal as Fox is conservative. I don't know why anyone would listen to either.

Now that you have the spelling right, take the challenge.

Or just blather on, your choice.

Archer0915
04-05-2014, 08:53 PM
http://www.npr.org/

Probably the most unbiased mainstream news source around.

Relatively speaking that is.

NPR does a pretty good job with the news and they are pretty level offering just the facts. Some of their programs are left leaning but their news is pretty good.

Archer0915
04-05-2014, 08:56 PM
Reuters - for basically just reported news.

Many/most mainstream media I think is based on Reuters, it's the after the filtering process that gives it it's delicious, chocolaty spin.

Them and that other one... AP

Captain Obvious
04-05-2014, 08:59 PM
NPR does a pretty good job with the news and they are pretty level offering just the facts. Some of their programs are left leaning but their news is pretty good.

Yeah, they do a nice job reporting news unbiasedly and yeah, they run programs like Democracy Now that screams Marxist Communism pathetically unbiased but those are just programs you would never see on FauxNews. I take that all in stride and just focus on the reporting part which I think is fairly unbiased. A lot of folks just write NPR off as liberal who don't really listen to it and that's a shame.

They run a pretty good counter-counter segment during the afternoons with these two dudes, can't remember their names from the liberal and conservative side of the aisle that is pretty interesting IMO.

Captain Obvious
04-05-2014, 09:03 PM
There's a difference between programming and reporting and while I like to scapegoat FauxNews as biased, their reporting isn't all that bad for the most part except they target reporting in a biased way if that makes sense.

NPR programs what they program and I think their reporting is a little more objective than most mainstream sources, but that's just my opinion.

Archer0915
04-05-2014, 09:25 PM
Yeah, they do a nice job reporting news unbiasedly and yeah, they run programs like Democracy Now that screams Marxist Communism pathetically unbiased but those are just programs you would never see on FauxNews. I take that all in stride and just focus on the reporting part which I think is fairly unbiased. A lot of folks just write NPR off as liberal who don't really listen to it and that's a shame.

They run a pretty good counter-counter segment during the afternoons with these two dudes, can't remember their names from the liberal and conservative side of the aisle that is pretty interesting IMO.

Well I think something went wrong recently because I have heard may of the shows trashing Obama and the left.

Peter1469
04-05-2014, 09:54 PM
Fox is good in the sense that they show America that what the other channels show is not entirely correct. And yes, Fox goes too far the other way.

Akula
04-05-2014, 11:41 PM
The progressives are trying very hard to socially engineer an unprejudiced society. The North Koreans have largely done it, except for the few who manage to escape and if they're caught they go for 're-education'. Prejudice is simply an opinion and as there is someone somewhere who will disagree, it's natural to be prejudiced. The only way to not be prejudiced would be not to have an opinion and just keep repeating 'yes' to anything that is said.

North Korea is a pretty homogenous society in regards to language, history, culture and shared national goals.
They don't have random third worlders wandering back and forth across their border "enriching" their society...They don't seem to be big on "diversity" or "multi culturalism" and "social engineering".

Refugee
04-06-2014, 03:32 AM
North Korea is a pretty homogenous society in regards to language, history, culture and shared national goals.
They don't have random third worlders wandering back and forth across their border "enriching" their society...They don't seem to be big on "diversity" or "multi culturalism" and "social engineering".

All dictatorships are, they don’t naturally evolve from something, they’re produced. Those who have been to N. Korea will know why they don’t have a problem with immigration. They’ve already been socially engineered decades ago, their problem now is keeping it that way. N. Korea is 1984.

Akula
04-06-2014, 09:32 AM
All dictatorships are, they don’t naturally evolve from something, they’re produced. Those who have been to N. Korea will know why they don’t have a problem with immigration. They’ve already been socially engineered decades ago, their problem now is keeping it that way. N. Korea is 1984.


There's no need to attempt "social engineering" on a homogenous society.
Like I said they already share a common culture, language and history.
Japan is also like that..Japan is something like 94% Japanese. They value their traditions and culture and protect them.

Israel is the same way and they are unified. The tribe doesn't like members to marry outside their religion/culture and illegal immigrants in israel are rounded up, placed in concentration camps and held there until they are deported.

Protecting, honoring and nurturing your culture and heritage is TRUE "diversity".

Chris
04-06-2014, 09:37 AM
One thing some need to realize is that even in the selection of stories told on the news there is bias, not just in what facts are presented, but how they are presented. Anyone who ever read Bernard Goldberg's book Bias knows these tricks.

NPR Admits It's Packed With Liberals (http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/03/16/earth-tax-dollars-npr/):


...But it’s not just me saying that NPR lacks political diversity—it’s now coming from NPR itself! And this time it wasn’t the result of a sting video, either. The admission came on NPR’s air this past Sunday.

Just look at this the exchange last Sunday between Bob Garfield, host of the NPR show “On the Media,” and Ira Glass, host of “This American Life.” Mr. Glass had challenged Mr. Garfield to conduct an internal audit of liberal bias at NPR and report on it in a week. Mr. Glass added he was sure none would be found (that makes two of us, but I digress). Then the conversation turned to what metrics would be used. Could the absence of conservatives at NPR be a metric?



Bob Garfield: … you and I both know that if you were to somehow poll the political orientation of everybody in the NPR news organization and at all of the member stations, you would find an overwhelmingly progressive, liberal crowd, not uniformly, but overwhelmingly.

Ira Glass: Journalism, in general, reporters tend to be Democrats and tend to be more liberal than the public as a whole, sure. But that doesn't change what is going out over the air. And I feel like, well, let's measure the product.


Sorry, Ira, but you’re wrong. It does change what’s going out over the air. You stuff a newsroom with a bunch of progressives and nary a conservative and you will definitely get a product that at least tilts left. Liberals will not understand, they just won’t “get” at a gut level, what offends conservatives, not just in news selection and reporting but even in cultural programming....

Bernard Goldberg comments, No Liberal Bias at NPR — Just Ask NPR (http://www.bernardgoldberg.com/no-liberal-bias-at-npr-just-ask-npr/):


...But let’s look it this way: Let’s say, if you were to somehow poll the political orientation of everybody in the NPR news organization and all of the member stations, let’s say you’d find an overwhelmingly conservative, right-wing crowd — does anyone at NPR think that would be just fine; that such one-sidedness wouldn’t present journalistic problems; that such a news organization would present the news without filtering it through a conservative lens?

I don’t.

But somehow liberals at NPR think that it doesn’t matter if just about everybody in the newsroom is liberal. After all, the argument goes, they’re professionals. They can keep their biases to themselves. To which I have just two words: Juan. Williams....

Max Rockatansky
04-06-2014, 09:38 AM
All dictatorships are, they don’t naturally evolve from something, they’re produced. Those who have been to N. Korea will know why they don’t have a problem with immigration. They’ve already been socially engineered decades ago, their problem now is keeping it that way. N. Korea is 1984.


Agreed. The dictatorship has eliminated anything "undesirable" long ago leaving a homogeneous society. Others want to do this to the US and I disagree with them. If they try to impose it, I'll treat them as a domestic enemy of the Constitution.

Akula
04-06-2014, 10:15 AM
see ya in the field.

The Sage of Main Street
04-06-2014, 11:05 AM
Well I think something went wrong recently because I have heard may of the shows trashing Obama and the left.

Both "sides" copycat the same faddish ungrammatical monstrosities. What if they all spoke with a Boston accent? Wouldn't you care more about that instead of picking sides?

Archer0915
04-06-2014, 11:17 AM
Both "sides" copycat the same faddish ungrammatical monstrosities. What if they all spoke with a Boston accent? Wouldn't you care more about that instead of picking sides?

Sage all I really care about is the future for my children. I do not care who, from what party or what race they are, we need leaders not children.

Max Rockatansky
04-06-2014, 07:19 PM
see ya in the field.

No you won't. You'll never see it coming.

The Sage of Main Street
04-07-2014, 10:31 AM
Sage all I really care about is the future for my children. I do not care who, from what party or what race they are, we need leaders not children. Only if 47% of those born in the 1% wind up in the 47% will your children have quality leaders instead of spoiled, sheltered Heirhead snobs commanding the economy and government. Of course, if we outlaw birth privileges, there won't be a 47% desperately dependent on the government as a last resort.

Their bloviating bootlickers even admit that 20% of those born in the 1% wind up in the 1%, as if that signifies they are only a minority instead of being outrageously over-represented. What if 20% of our Senators and CEOs had been born in the Boston Metropolitan Area, or some other concentration that is 1% of our population? Wouldn't you fear for your children's future, if the future is so exclusivist?