Thoughts?

[Wakeup]

Originally Posted by dearhunter

I bet sarunga even thincks that you stepped over the line belittling gays; by comparing Wakeup and I to them.

Win...

[oilfieldscum]

Originally Posted by Wakeuр

That's strange, you said "my work is done here". Unless you do work for no reason, then you had a reason, a purpose, for doing what you've done in this thread. I wasn't asking if you had multiple purposes, some ulterior, some explicit. I was simply expounding on your comment that you had a purpose here, and that now it was done. I was inquiring what that purpose was, and now you're telling me there was no reason for the work you did here in this thread. It just seemed like a strange dichotomy is all.


I believe I answered this back in post #32. I'll reprint it for your benefit since you missed it the first time.

"P.S.-The point of this thread wasn't to "apologize" for my comment. It wasn't to make people angry. It wasn't to stir a racism debate. It was a social experiment to see how other people would interpret the comment, and hence, how they would react here. Explaining it may cause someone to think about it, and possibly analyze how they react to others here on the Internet, where it's virtually (no pun intended) impossible to know the true intent of any typed comment."


Ah, I begin to see a bit more of the picture. Most people would apologize right now and say "Oh, I apologize OFS. You interpreted my 'I AM superior to people here on the board' to mean that I'm superior to you as an individual. That's not the case, and I'm sorry you took it that way." I'm not going to do any such thing. I will never apologize for someone misinterpreting my comments, that's their fault, not mine. I will say that you're also making an incorrect correlation. First of all, I think you meant to use "e.g.' instead of "i.e." When you mean “for example,” use e.g. It is an abbreviation for the Latin phrase exempli gratia. When you mean “that is,” use “i.e.” It is an abbreviation for the Latin phrase id est. Either can be used to clarify a preceding statement, the first by example, the second by restating the idea more clearly or expanding upon it. Since you weren't clarifying or expanding on the words "less educated" we assume you should have used i.e., meaning an example of "less educated" is "lower class." That point aside, less educated does not equate to lower class, again, that's simply a stereotype.


Again OFS, I'm not responsible for any ulterior motives you assign to this thread, or how you react to your opinions of those fabricated motives. I've explained exactly what this thread was about, anything else, and your reactions to that, is your issue, not mine.


You'll have to connect the dots for me here OFS. Can you please lead me through the line of reasoning that connects me putting my name in for moderator almost a year ago, to me being upset about not being picked, to me starting this thread? I don't think I can fully answer your question until I see where you're coming from.


It is stereotyping, but this thread wasn't about whether stereotyping is bad or good, wrong or right, so feel free to stereotype all you want. Very rarely will anyone else but you know your true intent behind stating the stereotype.


Interesting reads, I'll focus only on your quote:

"Stereotypes reflect misunderstanding, but also anchor social representations of a hierarchy of group positions (ethnic hierarchy)"
Which of course can lead to racism."

This is quoted from the abstract of Ethnic and Racial Studies, not the text of the article, but nowhere does Dr. Hagendoorn make a connection between ethnic heirarchies and racism. The part in black is what you added on your own. Ethnic heirarchies are about privilege, rights, and comparison of social standing, perceived or real. Further, these heirarchies are defined not by the people at the top of the heirarchies, but by the people who perceive themselves to be below the top level. That's not racism, that's anti-racism. It's not the people at the top saying "WE'RE superior" it's the people at the bottom saying "THEY'RE superior". Massive difference, not only from a linguistic, but also a social psychological standpoint. For the people at the top, race plays almost no role in their lives. For the people who think of themselves as below that, it can not only shape wealth and prestige, but the very fabric of their lives.

Wow that's one of the longest posts I have seen you make in a while...hmm

Originally Posted by dearhunter

Did ofs just take a swipe at gay people?

So ofs........how long have you despised gay people?

I bet sarunga even thincks that you stepped over the line belittling gays; by comparing Wakeup and I to them.

I didn't said anything against gay people unless you think me comparing you and Wakeup to them somehow makes them look bad. I just think a man taking up for other men is well. Let me put it this way. I don't think a man should take up for another man unless their related like father and son or brothers....hmmm.

[Wakeup]

Yeah...because I absolutely never took up for any of my soldiers or defended them when they were under my command...that'd be gay right?

[oilfieldscum]

Originally Posted by Wakeuр

Yeah...because I absolutely never took up for any of my soldiers or defended them when they were under my command...that'd be gay right?

No a leader should defend his subordinates. That's part of being a leader...well a good leader anyway. But we're all just wee members here... except for the mods, admins, and owners of course.

[dearhunter]

Don't get me wrong ofs.....I'll take up for your right to belittle gay people.....ijs.

It does seem kind of mean spirited though.

[Sarunga]

Originally Posted by Wakeuр

Of course not, that's ludicrous.

Thanks for the clarification WU.

So, this would mean that with regards to certain members, you consider yourself to be equal....and with regards to some others, inferior.

Is this correct?

[Jackie S]

Channeling "Jimmy the Greek".

[Jusanotherdude]

Originally Posted by Sarunga

So, this would mean that with regards to certain members, you consider yourself to be inferior.

Is this correct?

Only in regards to me..... I'm pretty fantastic....... He has been asking for a picture of my rack for months now to replace the one he's got in his avatar now...... ijs....


JaD

[Wakeup]

Yep... You got those Meatloaf man titties goin' on...flash me baby...

[Jusanotherdude]

See what I mean?

JaD

[essence]

The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

I must be bored. I googled and found a couple of stimulating discussions. I am sick and tired of all the 'speaking from the hip' around these issues on eccie - why not read somebody who has something useful to say?

http://archive.uua.org/ga/ga99/238thandeka.html


http://www.wetasphalt.com/content/wh...roblems-racism


http://www.sagepub.com/upm-data/11556_Chapter_1.pdf

[deanna_bell69]

i thought i was a provider

dirty little who r e

im supposed to think too?

[Sarunga]

Originally Posted by Jusanotherdude

See what I mean?

JaD

Oh....Hi JaD.....welcome to the "social experiment".

For a moment there....I was wondering whether WU was hiding from his own thread.

Well, it's certainly very honorable of WU to start a thread and carry out a "social experiment" to educate us and to demonstrate how naively some of us tend to perceive his eloquent comments. We should thank him for that.

Well, after all, the way we interact with each other...here on this SHMB....and in real life....is fundamentally governed by human nature....and the more we comprehend it...the better we would fare in life....of course.

However, when you see comments like, "I AM superior than other members...", one begins to wonder....whether WU is even minimally qualified to carry out such an experiment.

So, anyway, after considerable thought....I have come to the following conclusion....please correct me if I'm wrong.

When WU said he's superior.....perhaps, he meant, superior in certain characteristics/traits. Say, for example....for the sake of this "experiment"......with his permission...let's try to compare WU.....to the person who maintains his garden...his gardener.

Now, WU may very well have superior language skills, math/science skills, and athletic skills, etc., compared to those of his gardener. Then again, his gardener....may have superior artistic skills and musical skills, etc., compared to those of WU.

So, they can be superior and also inferior in respective skills....when comparing the characteristics/traits of each other. And this would indeed be very logical, reasonable, and agreeable...and perhaps is what he meant by his comment.

Well...the thing is.....at the very crux of it....claiming one human being (as a whole).....is superior or inferior to another human being would be quite....[what's the right word?].....inhuman.

[Wakeup]

Originally Posted by Sarunga

For a moment there....I was wondering whether WU was hiding from his own thread.

Heh, nope. When I realized that you were leading me down a path by trying to get me to say something I didn't really want to, I quit following you, knowing that you'd eventually spit out your grand design.

Originally Posted by Sarunga

Well, it's certainly very honorable of WU to start a thread and carry out a "social experiment" to educate us and to demonstrate how naively some of us tend to perceive his eloquent comments. We should thank him for that.

But "should thank him" doesn't mean that you will? Is there a reason you won't?

Originally Posted by Sarunga

Well, after all, the way we interact with each other...here on this SHMB....and in real life....is fundamentally governed by human nature....and the more we comprehend it...the better we would fare in life....of course.

Wrong, completely, utterly, without recourse incorrect. "Human nature" doesn't exist as a standardized concept simply because we're an intelligent, language using species. We can comprehend what others perceive to be "human nature" and we can choose to act the same or differently depending on our motives, beliefs and feelings. Anyone who is even passingly familiar with any school of philosophy will immediately see that there is no set "human nature", and that in fact, the very concept of human nature can be viewed as either benefiting, or acting as an obstacle to, a "better life", and philosophers have debated it endlessly since the beginning of recorded human history. A defined human nature is a myth. If you'd have said "the way we interact with each other is fundamentally governed by our own individual natures" I'd have agreed with you.

I'm not even going to begin to give credence to your assertion that actions on this board are governed by human nature, mother nature, or by anything else in outside life. That's ludicrous...

Originally Posted by Sarunga

However, when you see comments like, "I AM superior than other members...", one begins to wonder....whether WU is even minimally qualified to carry out such an experiment.

Do you even realize how ludicrous you sound, wondering if I have professional qualifications that qualify me to carry out an experiment on a hooker board? First of all, you do realize that no one has to be "qualified" in any way to conduct an experiment right? Are children "qualified" to test the temperature of a burner before they put their hand on it for the first time? "Qualifications" (and I'm not going to debate the concept of that word) only come into play when evaluating the validity of any stated results.

Originally Posted by Sarunga

When WU said he's superior.....perhaps, he meant, superior in certain characteristics/traits. Say, for example....for the sake of this "experiment"......with his permission...let's try to compare WU.....to the person who maintains his garden...his gardener.

Now, WU may very well have superior language skills, math/science skills, and athletic skills, etc., compared to those of his gardener. Then again, his gardener....may have superior artistic skills and musical skills, etc., compared to those of WU.

So, they can be superior and also inferior in respective skills....when comparing the characteristics/traits of each other. And this would indeed be very logical, reasonable, and agreeable...and perhaps is what he meant by his comment.

I commend your analysis, and I completely agree that no single person is ever going to have the most superior set of every quality that has ever existed. You have, however, entirely missed the point of your very own argument.

I said, "I AM superior to other members here...not because of my race though"

One, I'm agreeing with you. By saying "not because of my race though" I'm admitting that I'm not superior to others because of my racial quality. I'm admittedly open to the concept that I have other qualities that I am not superior to others in.

Two, by saying "members here" I could be referring to only members of this board, or only members of this of this conversation, or only members who have read this thread, or some other group. Again, you're assuming that I mean "I Am superior to other members of this board", which may or may not be correct.

Three, you're assuming that I mean "I AM superior to other members here outside of this board". Nowhere in my statement did I refer to people, or the qualities thereof, outside this board, thread, conversation, or other limiting factor implied in number two above. Your comparison of skills between myself and my gardener is inherently false. Is my gardener here on this board, in this thread, in this conversation? Do I even have a gardner? How do you do gardening on an Internet board? You're specifically comparing qualities that have no reference here. How can we accurately compare our skills in playing a musical instrument here? How can we do the same for drawing a picture? Most qualities have no bearing here whatsoever.

All we can do is measure ourselves against the specific qualities that can be quantified, catagorized, analyzed and certified as part of participation through comments posted here.

Originally Posted by Sarunga

Well...the thing is.....at the very crux of it....claiming one human being (as a whole).....is superior or inferior to another human being would be quite....[what's the right word?].....inhuman.

Interesting summation. I agree and disagree with various parts of it.

First, anyone can "claim" anything they want. I can claim that I can walk on the sun. Debate about whether I am right or wrong can continue for a long time, trust me, I've done it. So, attributing the quality of "inhuman" (and we'll analyze that word in a second) to anyone who makes a claim you don't agree with is fairly narrow minded of you. But again, that's your choice to make.

Second, I tentatively and with reservations, agree that when comparing individual persons as a complete and total entity, it is fairly fruitless to label one "superior" to another. That's a much longer discussion though.

Three, the word "inhuman" is irrelevant when describing anything. Again, you're assuming that the qualities of being human, or referring back to your "human nature", are set in stone, or all have a common frame of reference or definition. Every human defines what it means to be human in their own way, and therefore must define what it means to NOT be human in their own way. Hence there is no standard definition to support the conclusion for your argument.

I hope this clarifies things for you.

[dearhunter]

Originally Posted by Wakeuр

I hope this clarifies things for you.

Somehow, I doubt it....heh