Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

GreatWyrm of Babylon · Sep 5, 2003, 08:25 pm

Geoff
I do not follow the reasoning of your breakdown. Statisticly any result can be broken down into any number of catagories. But it is not the number of catagories that determines their probability, it is their distribution of weight. So I will continue on the basis of that weight.

Therefore the basis that intelligence adds to racism loses weight because those of greater intelligence are far less likely to follow the groups rationalization, and is is the majority of the group following this train of thought that results in racism.

The basis on the two being co-incidental implies that racism would be in equal evidence in all fields if they are divided by incidence of particapion of the different intellectual groups. This is where my first observation would be classified.

The basis that intelligence reduces racism, is strengthened in my opinion, by the fact that a rational mind will note over time that personal attributes are not mutually exclusive to any paticular race. So therefroe the intelligent individual will seek the attributes in the company he seeks rather than the race that may or may not contain them.

RebelWithanAK · Sep 5, 2003, 08:31 pm

Greatwyrm, did you read beyond the first sentence of my post? My argument is in semantics. The word "race" has biological implications, and while the definition - as shown by Webster's - has blurred in usage, it's still controversial in nature.

A Chinese person born and raised in America is more American than his is Chinese, because the major differences are purely cultural - and as such, if any differentiation can be made, it is along cultural lines, not biological. Political Correctness attempts to communicate this, but is haphazard and ill thought out; but the point is still there: Political Correctness tries to surpress discrimination along visible lines by changing the terminology of the game. You don't hear "negro" any more, even if it only means Black, because it has other implications.

Yes, this is only hiding racism and not killing it, but the only way racism will die is when the racists die.

GreatWyrm of Babylon · Sep 5, 2003, 08:57 pm

I read what you wrote, but I think you miss my point. Political correctness is a waste of resources. It is a feel-good measure, that has zero pratical impact. It is meant solely as window dressing to pretend the problem is being addressed. Maybe it has the slight effect of convincing a few dullards that the problem is being taken care of, and if the problem was being worked on I might even appauld the mis-direction. But since the problem is not being addressed, it is simply causing the situation to boil by making it appear unsolvable, even though America has solved this very problem with past immigration patterns...

Geoff332 · Sep 5, 2003, 09:09 pm

Language is central to cognition. Some argue it is determinist (language determines how we think); some argue it is representative (language mirrors how we think). Language is also central to social interaction (it is one of the richest forms of communication we have) and social interaction definately has some deterministic impact on the way we think and consequently act. The most commonly targeted aspect of political correctness targets the use of language that implies preconceptions (eg gender biased language implies gender structures in society). By addressing language, we address a lot of very complex issues. It brings them to the surface and makes them unacceptable. People who don't find the things political correctness addresses to be a problem, tend to attack it. Yet half of the point is to make them less accepted in society and thereby marginalise certain attitudes. Naturally, this annoys some people and they respond by attacking the concept of political correctness -- becausde they are the ones who will be disadvantaged by it.

GreatWyrm of Babylon · Sep 5, 2003, 09:24 pm

I would agree that language is central to measurable cognition, as well as the second most important tool for learning. Therefore it has a good solid arguement for making a claim to that arguement, but it is not an automatic fact.

Your assumption that changing language will change thinking is not only assuming the first arguement as a fact, but also stating your opinion that the second arguement is true also, as well as the third arguement that you only imply, that is works in both directions.

A mans tools are shaped by his skills, reshaping his tools just makes him make new ones.

RebelWithanAK · Sep 5, 2003, 09:48 pm

People learn languages that are already established, and the evolution of language is a slower one than you imply. When I'm born I don't "make my own tools;" I learn the language that is used around me. In that way, language is determinist. Only when I am old enough to feel constrained by the language do I seek to change it. Anyone who has studied a foreign language can tell you that a different mode of thought is quite evident in the structure of the linguistics.

In any case, if you've grown up hearing, "Hey Jackson, gimme coffee!" or "Dude, that's so gay..." you'll probably emulate it and not even realise that your mind's connections have set themselves up to certain prejudices. Surpressing the language doesn't help those who are already racists - they'll still be racists, but it helps those who haven't yet been influenced by the terminology to see that it is unacceptable. It's a form of enforced progress.

GreatWyrm of Babylon · Sep 5, 2003, 10:01 pm

...but that IMO is another point in favor of my arguement. Only when you reach the limits of your own language do you begin to question it's constraints. With the mapping of the constraints comes the knowledge of the contradictions, including racism. As far as emulating, I have always been the weirdo that points out why a phrase makes no sense, and rejects it.

RebelWithanAK · Sep 5, 2003, 10:23 pm

Then you are the exception, not the rule. Admitting you are immune to the genealogy of your language and that of peer pressure puts you into the minority. Most people, I contend, do not reach the constraints of this language, or if they do it's after having spent the majority of their life with certain hard-wired idiosyncracies established during their own progression through life. To prejudge implies a predisposition to one concept, and as nobody is born in a vacuum, their environment (usually) plays an integral role as such.

GreatWyrm of Babylon · Sep 5, 2003, 10:30 pm

True, maybe I cannot relate to the concept of constant exposure to the same culture. I was raised in three significantly different states, so I never really saw a culture as my own, being an outsider puts a different spin on everything. On the other hand it put me in a good position to watch people and figure out what makes them act a certain way...

RebelWithanAK · Sep 5, 2003, 10:32 pm

What states, pray tell? My experiences have always been in three sides of the same coin - same state, same city, different neighborhoods.

GreatWyrm of Babylon · Sep 5, 2003, 10:41 pm

Southern California, rural Oklahoma, urban Texas.

RebelWithanAK · Sep 5, 2003, 10:53 pm

you were right, there's hardly any overlap there. =p

Capt Lee · May 16, 2004, 08:01 am

But in general you were still within a culture within the boundaries of the United States. The boundry of the United States is being destroyed by political correctness through "diversity" as a desirable social viewpoint. Diversity is the destructor of the culture. Political correctness soon becomes social correctness through repitition in the media. In other words "brainwashing. The neocons have to destroy national boundaries to destroy our own culture to prepare us for one world government. Social and political correctness is the method since the Constitution won't allow it. We can only be shifted from a "Constitutional Republic" to "Democracy" through appealing to our ignorance and fortifying a lie. In years past social correctness was limited to a local interpretation until the media expanded it to national and internaational boundaries. Anyone who ascribes to the media interpretation of events soon become "sheople". If there is ever a revolution in the US to wrest contol back to the people, the first bullet should be aimed into the TV you own.

Capt Lee

Sep 5, 2003, 08:25 pm	#41 (permalink) (top)
GreatWyrm of Babylon Avatar of Tiamut Location: Dallas, Texas (Irving) Posts: 848	Geoff I do not follow the reasoning of your breakdown. Statisticly any result can be broken down into any number of catagories. But it is not the number of catagories that determines their probability, it is their distribution of weight. So I will continue on the basis of that weight. Therefore the basis that intelligence adds to racism loses weight because those of greater intelligence are far less likely to follow the groups rationalization, and is is the majority of the group following this train of thought that results in racism. The basis on the two being co-incidental implies that racism would be in equal evidence in all fields if they are divided by incidence of particapion of the different intellectual groups. This is where my first observation would be classified. The basis that intelligence reduces racism, is strengthened in my opinion, by the fact that a rational mind will note over time that personal attributes are not mutually exclusive to any paticular race. So therefroe the intelligent individual will seek the attributes in the company he seeks rather than the race that may or may not contain them. Logical Fallicies Link

Sep 5, 2003, 08:31 pm	#42 (permalink) (top)
RebelWithanAK Igneous Magma Location: New York City Posts: 739	Greatwyrm, did you read beyond the first sentence of my post? My argument is in semantics. The word "race" has biological implications, and while the definition - as shown by Webster's - has blurred in usage, it's still controversial in nature. A Chinese person born and raised in America is more American than his is Chinese, because the major differences are purely cultural - and as such, if any differentiation can be made, it is along cultural lines, not biological. Political Correctness attempts to communicate this, but is haphazard and ill thought out; but the point is still there: Political Correctness tries to surpress discrimination along visible lines by changing the terminology of the game. You don't hear "negro" any more, even if it only means Black, because it has other implications. Yes, this is only hiding racism and not killing it, but the only way racism will die is when the racists die. . . . whenever any government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such forms as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Sep 5, 2003, 09:48 pm	#46 (permalink) (top)
RebelWithanAK Igneous Magma Location: New York City Posts: 739	People learn languages that are already established, and the evolution of language is a slower one than you imply. When I'm born I don't "make my own tools;" I learn the language that is used around me. In that way, language is determinist. Only when I am old enough to feel constrained by the language do I seek to change it. Anyone who has studied a foreign language can tell you that a different mode of thought is quite evident in the structure of the linguistics. In any case, if you've grown up hearing, "Hey Jackson, gimme coffee!" or "Dude, that's so gay..." you'll probably emulate it and not even realise that your mind's connections have set themselves up to certain prejudices. Surpressing the language doesn't help those who are already racists - they'll still be racists, but it helps those who haven't yet been influenced by the terminology to see that it is unacceptable. It's a form of enforced progress. . . . whenever any government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such forms as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Sep 5, 2003, 10:23 pm	#48 (permalink) (top)
RebelWithanAK Igneous Magma Location: New York City Posts: 739	Then you are the exception, not the rule. Admitting you are immune to the genealogy of your language and that of peer pressure puts you into the minority. Most people, I contend, do not reach the constraints of this language, or if they do it's after having spent the majority of their life with certain hard-wired idiosyncracies established during their own progression through life. To prejudge implies a predisposition to one concept, and as nobody is born in a vacuum, their environment (usually) plays an integral role as such. . . . whenever any government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such forms as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Sep 5, 2003, 10:32 pm	#50 (permalink) (top)
RebelWithanAK Igneous Magma Location: New York City Posts: 739	What states, pray tell? My experiences have always been in three sides of the same coin - same state, same city, different neighborhoods. . . . whenever any government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such forms as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Sep 5, 2003, 08:57 pm	#43 (permalink) (top)
GreatWyrm of Babylon Avatar of Tiamut Location: Dallas, Texas (Irving) Posts: 848	I read what you wrote, but I think you miss my point. Political correctness is a waste of resources. It is a feel-good measure, that has zero pratical impact. It is meant solely as window dressing to pretend the problem is being addressed. Maybe it has the slight effect of convincing a few dullards that the problem is being taken care of, and if the problem was being worked on I might even appauld the mis-direction. But since the problem is not being addressed, it is simply causing the situation to boil by making it appear unsolvable, even though America has solved this very problem with past immigration patterns...

Sep 5, 2003, 09:09 pm	#44 (permalink) (top)
Geoff332 Igneous Magma Location: New Zealand Posts: 309	Language is central to cognition. Some argue it is determinist (language determines how we think); some argue it is representative (language mirrors how we think). Language is also central to social interaction (it is one of the richest forms of communication we have) and social interaction definately has some deterministic impact on the way we think and consequently act. The most commonly targeted aspect of political correctness targets the use of language that implies preconceptions (eg gender biased language implies gender structures in society). By addressing language, we address a lot of very complex issues. It brings them to the surface and makes them unacceptable. People who don't find the things political correctness addresses to be a problem, tend to attack it. Yet half of the point is to make them less accepted in society and thereby marginalise certain attitudes. Naturally, this annoys some people and they respond by attacking the concept of political correctness -- becausde they are the ones who will be disadvantaged by it.

Sep 5, 2003, 09:24 pm	#45 (permalink) (top)
GreatWyrm of Babylon Avatar of Tiamut Location: Dallas, Texas (Irving) Posts: 848	I would agree that language is central to measurable cognition, as well as the second most important tool for learning. Therefore it has a good solid arguement for making a claim to that arguement, but it is not an automatic fact. Your assumption that changing language will change thinking is not only assuming the first arguement as a fact, but also stating your opinion that the second arguement is true also, as well as the third arguement that you only imply, that is works in both directions. A mans tools are shaped by his skills, reshaping his tools just makes him make new ones.

Sep 5, 2003, 10:01 pm	#47 (permalink) (top)
GreatWyrm of Babylon Avatar of Tiamut Location: Dallas, Texas (Irving) Posts: 848	...but that IMO is another point in favor of my arguement. Only when you reach the limits of your own language do you begin to question it's constraints. With the mapping of the constraints comes the knowledge of the contradictions, including racism. As far as emulating, I have always been the weirdo that points out why a phrase makes no sense, and rejects it.

Sep 5, 2003, 10:30 pm	#49 (permalink) (top)
GreatWyrm of Babylon Avatar of Tiamut Location: Dallas, Texas (Irving) Posts: 848	True, maybe I cannot relate to the concept of constant exposure to the same culture. I was raised in three significantly different states, so I never really saw a culture as my own, being an outsider puts a different spin on everything. On the other hand it put me in a good position to watch people and figure out what makes them act a certain way...

Sep 5, 2003, 10:41 pm	#51 (permalink) (top)
GreatWyrm of Babylon Avatar of Tiamut Location: Dallas, Texas (Irving) Posts: 848	Southern California, rural Oklahoma, urban Texas.

Sep 5, 2003, 10:53 pm	#52 (permalink) (top)
RebelWithanAK Igneous Magma Location: New York City Posts: 739	you were right, there's hardly any overlap there. =p . . . whenever any government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such forms as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

May 16, 2004, 08:01 am	#53 (permalink) (top)
Capt Lee Molten Ash Posts: 35	But in general you were still within a culture within the boundaries of the United States. The boundry of the United States is being destroyed by political correctness through "diversity" as a desirable social viewpoint. Diversity is the destructor of the culture. Political correctness soon becomes social correctness through repitition in the media. In other words "brainwashing. The neocons have to destroy national boundaries to destroy our own culture to prepare us for one world government. Social and political correctness is the method since the Constitution won't allow it. We can only be shifted from a "Constitutional Republic" to "Democracy" through appealing to our ignorance and fortifying a lie. In years past social correctness was limited to a local interpretation until the media expanded it to national and internaational boundaries. Anyone who ascribes to the media interpretation of events soon become "sheople". If there is ever a revolution in the US to wrest contol back to the people, the first bullet should be aimed into the TV you own. Capt Lee